November 29, 2007
After a trip to Seattle for Thanksgiving, I can say that this is true:
Mark Silk of Trinity College in Connecticut argues that there are in fact eight regions of American religion, varying from California’s new-age spirituality to Southern protestantism. The pagan Pacific north-west’s unofficial religion, says Mr Silk, is environmentalism.
November 29, 2007
“Perhaps what I am about to say may seem strange to you, who are socialists, and vaunt humanity and your duty to your neighbor, but I never seek to protect a society which does not protect me, and which I will even say, generally occupies itself about me only to injure me; and thus by giving them a low place in my esteem, and preserving a neutrality towards them, it is society and my neighbor who are indebted to me.”
November 29, 2007
This Red State post criticizes Paul for not being a Goldwater Republican. Unfortunately, it concludes:
Barry Goldwater, like Ronald Reagan and like George W. Bush, saw America as having the unique ability and opportunity to be the champion of freedom worldwide. Ron Paul, when he whitewashes the horrors of Communism or Jihad, is nothing like them, and has no legitimate claim to being the heir of conservatism in our party or our country.
While I agree that Dr. Paul is not necessarily a Goldwater Republican, Presidents Reagan and especially Bush are not either. I’ll ignore the cheap shot about Communism and Jihadism. (Goldwater likely wouldn’t have invaded Communist countries, and Reagan didn’t – yet Bush did, so what’s the obvious connection)?
Here is what I like about Goldwater – he was uncomfortable with expanding government to achieve his goals. Reagan was more comfortable using government and Bush seems to be confused why anyone would care that the expands government to achieve his goals. Paul, like Goldwater, seems to have an innate feeling of discomfort with using government. We need more politicians with that same sense.
November 28, 2007
From The Economist:
“THE forecaster is like an entrepreneur,” says Roman Frydman. “He uses quantitative methods, but he also studies history, and relies on intuition and judgment. He is not a scientist.” According to the New York University economist, this fact has been lost on contemporary economists, who continue to pursue the perfect economic forecast despite abundant evidence that it does not, and cannot, exist. They dismiss their repeated failures in much the same way that self-styled reformers in Mr Frydman’s native Poland once insisted that socialism was great, but just needed to be carried out better.
In the economics profession the leading inheritors of this communistic mindset, says Mr Frydman, are the proponents of rational-expectations theory, which assumes that the economy and the individuals within it act with perfect foresight. Yet he is equally critical of the more fashionable school of behavioural economics, or at least those of its practitioners who claim that although people are irrational, their irrationality can be modelled so precisely that the future can be forecast with great precision.
First, I strongly agree that we place too much emphasis on forecasts and models, which we all know aren’t right. It always seems odd to me that economists who explained eloquently why socialism could not work because of informational problems also believe that economies can be accurately forecast. If we have enough information to make accurate forecasts, wouldn’t we have information to make communism work?
Second, I wonder if informational inadequacies are the result of trying to model human behavior, or if they are the result of trying to model such complex phenomenon. If the latter is the cause of the failures, then doubt should also be cast on climate models. If the former is the cause and if climate is highly influenced by human behavior, then climate models again should be highly discounted. Why doesn’t anyone discuss the possible overlapping problems of economic and climate models?
November 27, 2007
Some interesting (and sad) statistics, along with Mr. Douthat’s take, on black families and downward social mobility.
November 27, 2007
This is an interesting discussion on whether people should be allowed to sell votes. Professor Cowen compares political votes to shareholder votes. He says:
Now let’s go back to the corporate case. When it comes to policy,
shareholders might not agree on means but everyone favors the same end of profit
maximization. A winning coalition of shareholders can’t do much to extract
rents from other shareholders, unless of course they are exploiting those other
shareholders in their other roles as consumers or input suppliers.
My first choice would be to live in a political system in which a winning political coalition couldn’t extract rents from other voters – in that case, it wouldn’t really matter if votes were sold.
November 27, 2007
This is a great question. Here are Professor Caplan’s possible answers:
1. Libertarian commitment to non-interventionism was always much weaker
than it appeared. Rothbardians (and ex-Rothbardians who didn’t want to seem like
sell-outs) had key positions in the Libertarian Party, think tanks, etc., and
falsely claimed to speak for all libertarians. In fact, many libertarians held
the diametrically opposed Rand/Goldwater view that the U.S. should take off the
kid gloves and start “really” fighting the Soviets.
2. The movement away from natural rights and toward consequentialism
made libertarians more open to using government for good causes. Indeed, the
very fact that Islamic fundamentalism is a lot weaker than the USSR makes it a
more attractive target.
3. The movement away from philosophy and toward economics made
libertarians vulnerable to the simple-minded view that “getting tough” is a free lunch.
4. The rise of the “Establishment libertarian” led to moderation. In
the 70’s and 80’s, libertarianism was an alienated outsider movement. Over time,
however, many libertarian thinkers have been accepted into polite intellectual
society. The cost is that they had to distance themselves from “impolite”
5. The end of the Cold War revived the libertarian/conservative
alliance, making libertarians more receptive to conservative positions on
everything from foreign policy to immigration.
I think 3) is a bit of cheap shot, coming from a Libertarian who opposed the war – and one who loves to explain everything through biases. Historically, its reasonably easy to suggest that the true foreign policy bias (among English speaing peoples) is to ignore threats until they are extremely threatening. The book that I linked to mentions Prussian militarism, Nazism and Communism in addition to Islamic extremism. One could also add French Exapansionism under Louis XIV and French Nationalism during their Revolution to the list. Perhaps if we had “gotten tough” sooner we wouldn’t have been attacked, and hostilities never would have gotten as far along as they have (I haven’t heard anyone suggest that anything is free about acting in this manner). Nobody knows though – and that’s my main point.
I think 1) is the most plausible answer. I hope 2) is wrong (but I fear it is probably partly correct). I think 4) is a great point and operates on many levels. I wish Cato had stayed on the west coast. Everytime I see the weekly commentaries on the presidential elections on their blog, I cringe.
I wish 5) were correct but I think the opposite is true. I think one could ask not just about Libertarians, but also about Conseratives supporting the war. They went from believing nation building was bad and opposing Clinton’s tendency to intervene everywhere (all be it half-assedly) to supporting massive intervention and not just nation-building but complete state reconstruction. Similarly, Liberals went from believing that America should be helping people internationally and stopping genocide to promoting aggressive isolationism and arguing for maintaining the rule of a genocidal dictator. It seems like everyone’s foreign policy has gone 180 degrees in the last 7 years.