Irving Kristol could famously muster but "two cheers for capitalism." Russell Kirk praised private property and freedom and condemned economic levelling and state meddlers, but saw socialism and capitalism as "two sides of a coin." But in F.A. Hayek we find a man of the Right who defends capitalism as aggressively as Marx attacks it. "If we ask what men most owe to the moral practices of those who are called capitalists," Hayek asserts in The Fatal Conceit, "the answer is: their very lives." (p. 130)

Rather than damning the poor, the free market, according to Hayek, alleviates the suffering of the poor. The Fatal Conceit holds: "Capitalism created the possibility of employment. It created the conditions wherein people who have not been endowed by their parents with the tools and land needed to maintain themselves and their offspring could be so equipped by others, to their mutual benefit. For the process enabled people to live poorly, and to have children, who otherwise, without the opportunity for productive work, could hardly even have grown to maturity and multiplied: it brought into being and kept millions alive who otherwise would not have lived at all and who, if they had lived for a time, could not have afforded to procreate. In this way the poor benefited more from the process. Karl Marx was thus right to claim that 'capitalism' created the proletariat: it gave and gives them life." (pp. 123-124)

Regarding capitalism, Marx doth protest too much. But does Hayek protest too little? Does the tempered enthusiasm of Kirk and Kristol hit the mark? Or is Hayek's unabashed celebration of capitalism in The Fatal Conceit about right?

I think it's about right. Capitalism works. It works because it allows the individual to imagine, to create, and to realize the betterment that all of us aspire to. In the process, and in the presence of a guiding social framework, it provides opportunities exponentially outward. Socialism by contrast, with its arbitrary division of wealth, stifles incentive in those most productive of men, and encourages sloth in those so inclined. The result is to allow society to sink to its lowest common denominator of productivity. Capitalism is not perfect, but the alternatives have proven wanting in comparison, over and again. What can we do but embrace mankind's best and only hope.

As a Neoconservative disciple of Kristol I come quite clearly to the conclusion that it is Hayek, not Kristol, who is in the right about Capitalism. Historical trends show us quite clearly that Capitalism leads to the improvement in the life of all. The rich get richer, and the poor get richer as well.

The problem of Kirk and Kristol is that they were both overly concerned with implementing a largely arbitrary ideological bent on our everyday lives, and the freedom provided by capitalism hinders that ideology.

Ben T: the free market does hinder ideology in that it's the anti-system system. In other words, you run your own affairs and not some overarching ideology. Kirk called conservatism the negation of ideology. The theme of all of his work was the rejection of ideology and one-size-fits-all schemes. What book of Kirk's did you read that led you to this conclusion?

A right to access a free market allows anyone to try. This is not: Capital uses all power until others stops it. A Rule of Law functions in ways that a Rule of Man by monied devices does not. A free market may function to allow benefit to all, if all may function in the market. (See Hernando de Soto's The Other Path.)

Economics that studies and accounts behavior needs to understand behavior.
Both voluntary and hierarchical perceptions have value.
Prevent either from acting, and both ideology and/or praxis will fail.
Improve effective action by both, and persons of diverse views can mutually improve their lives.

As Intellectuals, our own capacity to readily abstract rules by dynamic self-persuasion, from correcting novelty, weakens us. We live in our continuing exchange of better ideas for worse, a Gresham's anti-law of the intellect. Yet, like Aladin's wife and his lamp, when we imagine this valid and extensible to others, we miscalculate.

Ben T: the free market does hinder ideology in that it's the anti-system system. In other words, you run your own affairs and not some overarching ideology. Kirk called conservatism the negation of ideology. The theme of all of his work was the rejection of ideology and one-size-fits-all schemes. What book of Kirk's did you read that led you to this conclusion?
Posted by Dan Flynn at June 29, 2005 04:46 PM

Kirk seems to have a certain fondness for the aristocratic society that capitalism in many ways directly assaults. It is of course possible that I am wrong, Kirk is hardly my field.

Hayek is absolutely right.

There's a great Walter Williams quote regarding the moral superiority of capitalism:

Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.

(I got a bit carried away so bare with me)

Two Cheers for capitalism seems to be one of those books where many people think that the title seems to be enough for people to rely on
without actually knowing anything about the book (Richard Weaver's "Ideas Have Consequences" is another example.) The reason for his two
cheers I think is important, and is very telling about Kristol. He claimed that capitalism supposedly is supposed to deliver 3 promises-
freedom, material gain, and some sort of transcendent values for American society. He believed it delivered on the first two, but
failed on the third, hence his two cheers. Furthermore he felt that some sort of government intervention was necessary to ensure the
third. What exactly he meant by transcendent values is not exactly clear and I assume he meant some sort of neoconservative pseudo patriotic "civic virtues." Getting to Hayek, he claimed that Hayek refused to defend capitalism as its self--that is he felt that Hayek would only be willing to defend some of the fruits of
capitalism, but not the system itself.

Hayek Responded (I believe in Law legislation and liberty) that capitalism was worthy of defense in and of itself because it was the only just system based on typical libertarian views that it is where you are free to choose. So at that time, I think he argued that the free market was all you needed. He even gave Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable, which hailed loan sharks, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes as capitalist heroes his unqualified praise.

Inn the Fatal Conceit, Hayek was much more reserved about the ability of the free market to exist in a vacuum, and saw many cultural preconditions—most of which were rooted in conservative western norms, for its existence. This is a departure from his earlier work, and If I’m not mistaken, some people believe that Hayek did not write the Fatal Conceit.

This, I believe is what Russell Kirk thought as well, and if you look at his criticisms of libertarians, he uses Hayek as someone who would agree with him, and I see his criticism as reserved to criticizing certain things individual capitalists did, but not the institution in and of itself. It's worth pointing out that while he agreed with Kristol that capitalism was not the be all and end all of the good life, he never to the best of my knowledge called for redistributive welfare or government intervention in the economy (Both of which Kristol did in 2 cheers for capitalism) Kirk saw the free market as a means rather than the end.

I think that Kirk and Hayek are right. Capitalismis the most efficient economic system, the most conducive to human freedom, and the most just in that it does not rely on the state to coerce people. However, it does not exist in a vaccuum, and to suggest that we can go into any third world country and by guns or the
IMF can suddenly turn it into a democratic capitalist paradise is
absurd.

While, Kristol is right that capitalism does not create any transcendental virtues, it does not hinder them. People within a capitalist society are free to choose things in good taste and morals, and things that are not. For this reason, I don’t think capitalism is sufficient to create a just and proper society, but its necessary.

I just wanted to make sure that no one took my statement statement about 2 cheers for capitalism and ideas have consequences as a jab against Dan flynn, as that was not my intention.

"I assume he meant some sort of neoconservative pseudo patriotic 'civic virtues.'"

-Marcus Epstein

Personally I am strictly opposed to the government enforcing "civic virtue" of any kind, save in the most basic sense (Don't murder, et cetera.)

But why exactly is Kristol's vision of civic virtue any less eligable than the kinds of civic virtue many here would similarly advocate imposing? It is a cult-like mantra of the followers of this blog, it seems, that nothing neoconservatives say or do can be good.

Many of you shouldn't be so hard on us, after all, many of you are also neocons. We are neoconservatives, whereas you are neoconfederates.

This is a very tricky issue imo and I apologize if I ramble below.

I don't think one can just put to the side, or rather assume agreement, on the definition of capitalism. That is, what exactly is being defended as "capitalism" and as a "free market"?

Given that "capital" refers to land, money, and people (employees), as well as other assets, then "capitalism" can exist on even as local and small a scale as the neighborhood lemonade stand as well as at the level of giant limited-liability corporations. Ditto the "free market." I find much to be critical of as regards corporate capitalism, as did Kirk but certainly condemning capitalism or free markets per se would be ridiculous.

I think there are two basic issues which cause Hayek and Kirk's disagreements. One is their respective understandings of "freedom." Economics is a practical science, therefore, it is grounded in philosophical anthropology, or a particular understanding of human nature and rationality, which in turn needs to be (or so I think I think, some speculation on all this here) grounded in metaphysics. This actually relates back to the first question Dan asked about Fatal Conceit.

Anyway, what I am getting at is all the talk in the comments above about capitalism allowing "freedom" begs the question of the nature of human freedom and whether or not our freedom is tied to a normative moral order (what Plato called the "Good" for example). If so, then one can quickly see why any economic system must be treated critically and not turned into some idyll of wondrous self-maintaining mechanical structure. Simply saying "capitalism is great" makes little sense when we reflect on the fact that any number of particular "capitalists" are not in fact great. The slave trader is not great, nor is the drug dealer, or Ebenezer Scrooge (for a fictional standard bearer for the cruel and inhuman capitalist).

The second issue dividing Kirk and Hayek, which might fall under the category of a metaphysical difference rather than one of philosophical anthropology, is that of the human End, the purpose for which we exist, our ultimate destination or state of being or goal. For a Christian like Kirk the human end is beatitude, the soul coming to rest in God, after death, for eternity. This is not a matter of material importance (putting aside for now how bodily resurrection fits in here) in that a basic aspect of Christian understanding of the world and material comforts can be summed up in Mark 8:36, "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?"

Defenders of capitalism, as amply illustrated in posts above, couch their arguments in strictly utilitarian, material considerations. "Capitalism works because people live longer, are healthier, have more comforts and leisure, etc." But the moral realist recognizes that all of these good fruits of capitalism (and they are undeniably good) are in the same predicament QUA goods as they always have been under any economic system. Wealth is a good but not THE Good (w/ a capital "G") and thus is not self-sufficient for achieving the human end as well as capable of being misused. Same goes for health, leisure, and the other goods.

As partly an aside but in conclusion the above considerations lead to why I think Austrian libertarian economists go overboard. They are willing to defend unethical practices like price-gouging and seem to consistently confuse the category of human action which is "voluntary" with that which can be properly called "free."

Simply saying "capitalism is great" makes little sense when we reflect on the fact that any number of particular "capitalists" are not in fact great.

Actually -- this very phenomenon is what makes capitalism great. Most of the prominent free-market advocates throughout history have had a low opinion of businessmen in general. (To illustrate this, Thomas Sowell used to challenge his students to cite but one example where Adam Smith praised businessmen in "The Wealth of Nations", offering an A to any who could. No one ever did.)

This is, of course, the issue of the invisible hand serving the common good even though those involved are simply concerned with their own. Slavery is obviously an indefensible institution (funny how it is brought up in a discussion of capitalism, yet in the innumerable Confederate apologist ramblings it receives scant mention). In fact slavery is antithetical to capitalism because it involves coerced and not voluntary labor. (On other unjust matters -- segregation and racism -- capitalism actually works in favor of minorities because the desire of most people to have the best product or the best service tends to override their ignorant desire to shun or hurt whatever people might be offering these. In South Africa, under the apartheid regime, there would be areas marked "white-only" in law, but where many blacks would live. Money was clearly more attractive to the white sellers than arbitrary notions of inferiority.)

Defenders of capitalism, as amply illustrated in posts above, couch their arguments in strictly utilitarian, material considerations.

Apparently you missed my post. Let me paste the Walter Williams quote again:

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."

Furthermore, capitalism is morally superior because, in order for a market to function properly, there are certain requirements, ranging from firm legalistic aspects such as property rights to abstract moralistic aspects such as trust.

-Ben

I think Brian is basically right here, and Ben L is ignoring all questions of the good human life. Economic freedom may be great, but it still doesn't make having stuff the point of our lives. Hayek, in the Fatal Conceit, constantly begs off the questions of the human good--and then condemns anybody who thinks the human good is more than survival, or survival in style.

Ben L: By saying that slavery is antithetical to capitalism, you are assuming that "capitalism" will enforce moralistic restrictions on economic behavior. After all, "captalists" often don't mind slavery if they can get it. There are lots of zealots for capitalism who don't want silly moral restrictions of the market. I read an article last year about some 2d-gen austrian-school people, who said that a market in HUMAN BABIES would actually be better than what we have now for the babies, the parents, and for overall utility. Now is that "capitalism"?

But why exactly is Kristol's vision of civic virtue any less eligable than the kinds of civic virtue many here would similarly advocate imposing? It is a cult-like mantra of the followers of this blog, it seems, that nothing neoconservatives say or do can be good.

Point well taken, I'll admit that my criticism of Kristol's "pseudo patriotism" was a bit over the top, especially given that I don't really remember the specifics in the book. While I don't see how I'm for imposing "neoconfederate civic virtues" I'll acknowledge that Pat Buchanan's criticism of the Free Market creating the two income no children households in Death of the West is probably reasonably similar to Kristol's arguments. I do think the early neoconservatives like Kristol the Elder, Moyniham, Glazer, James Wilson, and Charles Murray had many good things to say.
Most of the prominent free-market advocates throughout history have had a low opinion of businessmen in general.

I agree with a big qualification. There is a difference between state capitalism designed to manipulate the market to help certain intreests and the free market in general. However, in practice when we have capitalism and democracy, I think it's simply inevitable that you are going to have to accept a certain level of Godfater II type corporate corruption, just as a defender of socialism needs to accept that the nomencletura is going to be living better off than the proletariat. I can deal with that. What I can't deal with is when Big Business tries to completely undermine a nation through pushing it into wars or inundating it with cheap labor.

On other unjust matters -- segregation and racism -- capitalism actually works in favor of minorities because the desire of most people to have the best product or the best service tends to override their ignorant desire to shun or hurt whatever people might be offering these.

Yes, it occasionally does not make sense to irrationally discriminate, however let's look at several cases. In the pre civil rights south, the majority of whites there probably preferred not to eat at the same restaraunts or stay at the same hotels as blacks. Whatever business the restaraunts lost from excluding blacks would have been far less than the whites who they would not have done.

If you accept there are group dynamics, then in hiring it may also make sense to discriminate. For the sake of argument, let's say that Redheads have average production and blondes produce on average two standard deviations below the mean, and for your job you need someone who is one standard deviations above the mean. This would mean that approximately one in 7 redheads would be qualified and less than 1 in 1000 blondes would be. While some blondes may be qualified it may make sense for the employer not to waste his time looking at their applications.

Now I don't see anything wrong with either case. If whites preferred not associate with blacks, you can criticize that; but then the segregation in the restaraunts should be blamed on the preference of society independent of its economic system (i.e. that the customers didn't care for blacks) not the economic system itself. Again in the latter case, capitalism does not create the group differences (assuming they exist), but simply it deals with them.

[Austrian economists] are willing to defend unethical practices like price-gouging and seem to consistently confuse the category of human action which is "voluntary" with that which can be properly called "free." What is the difference between voluntary and free?

What is unethical about price gouging. In times of scarcity prices either will reflect the market value or they will be shortages. Take the most infamous case, when people charged hundreds of dollars for bottles of water after 9-11. I will admit that it unsettled me, but what would have happened if they hadn't done that. People still would have lacked water and they would have sold out in minutes. If anyhting, it made people use their resources more cautiously.

Economic freedom may be great, but it still doesn't make having stuff the point of our lives.

No one suggested that. As I've said numerous times, capitalism, more than other economic systems, is conducive to good values such as honesty. Charity too -- last year, the US set a new record for philanthropy.

There are lots of zealots for capitalism who don't want silly moral restrictions of the market. I read an article last year about some 2d-gen austrian-school people, who said that a market in HUMAN BABIES would actually be better than what we have now for the babies, the parents, and for overall utility. Now is that "capitalism"?

You are taking an extreme minority -- the kook fringe -- and acting as though "lots" of people would support such insanity. When most free-market supporters talk about eliminating moral restrictions, it's almost always about legalizing abhorrent but voluntary practices like prostitution and drug use.

the segregation in the restaraunts should be blamed on the preference of society independent of its economic system (i.e. that the customers didn't care for blacks) not the economic system itself.

Of course, the society is to blame for such hatred, and I understand your point about group dynamics in hiring. But my point and the example of South Africa still stands; however imperfect it may be, capitalism offers the most opportunity to groups like blacks and Jews who've been historically treated with contempt by the surrounding population.

Marcus: Generally, you seem brilliant, but... hmmm... what is unethical about price gouging? I agree that generally naturally occuring high prices "force people to use their resources more carefully". But the amount of money people have affects how much they are willing to spend. Sometimes some people need stuff and can't afford it, while other people who don't really need it can afford it and push the prices up. To the extent that is true, the price does not reflect the value because one of the parties simply can't express with purchase power the amount of value something has to him. This is just to say that prices are an imperfect indicator of value when some people practically don't have limits to their purchase power and they are in the same market with persons who have reached the margins of their pocket book.

In addition, we are people in addition to being economic actors, and the distribution of scarce resources in an emergency should not necessarily following the generally more efficient rules of distribution of scarce resources in non-emergencies--because we have responsibilities to each other qua persons.

This is the problem with "capitalism." Hayek rightly complains that socialists etc want the dynamics of family and community life to govern huge expanses of people. Equally of concern is when the dynamics of business life creep in upon all interpersonal relations.

Ben L: What's involuntary about a baby market? Or, rather, what makes a baby market more involuntary than birth and reering by two biologically related people? Both the natural parents and the purchasing parents are involuntary from the point of view of the baby.

Besides, you are missing the point. Brian was talking about the good life, and trying to point out that questions about the value of capitalism must be discussed in the context of the human end/good. You answered him as though you could completely ignore that issue. For you the issues seem to be: does capitalism conduce to the best material condition of men, to their freedom to do stuff they want, and to general utilitarian 'virtues'--like a moderate degree of thrift and honesty? We agree basically on all that.

The next question is: does it encourage a view of the good life that prevents people from the real good life and its real goal in the after-life? I think this was Brian's angle.

Generally, you seem brilliant, but... hmmm... what is unethical about price gouging?
Let me rephrase my point about price gouging. Whenever it occurs its because there is great scarcity for a good caused by some sort of (relatively) unexpected disaster. It’s unfortunate that not everyone will be able to have water/batteries etc. But I don’t see how the government intervening to prevent will make it any better. They have two options, they can set a price ceiling, in which whoever happens to get there first will get it could easily cause a riot; or they can confiscate all of the good and decide how best to use it. I can’t see anyway how the first scenario is anymore advantageous than having price gouging. In the second nature, you are assuming that the government, rather than the market, knows how to properly allocate scarce resources, so if believe that you may as well let them allocate all scarce resources and you’re back at socialism. So no, price gouging may not be a particularly virtuous act, but I can’t see any better thing to do in those types of situations. What would you suggest the government do in those times?

Hayek rightly complains that socialists etc want the dynamics of family and community life to govern huge expanses of people. Equally of concern is when the dynamics of business life creep in upon all interpersonal relations.

What do you mean by all interpersonal relations? If a friend is in trouble, I will loan him money even without interest knowing it may take awhile to get paid back. My parents give me plenty of money, education, clothing etc. without expecting any direct benefit to themselves. These are obviously not capitalist calculations.

I cannot think of any serious libertarian or promoter of capitalism who sees anything wrong with this. Yes you can treat a small number of people in that way. However, beyond friends and family, the vast majority of people who I interact with are people who are providing goods and services, and you can’t treat all of them like they’re your friends, or society would fall apart.

What would you have instead of capitalism. It seems that the conservatives who critique capitalism tend to make an abstract aesthetic judgement about it, say they also oppose socialism; but fail to say what market interventions (other than perhaps a protective tariff) that they would support.

Ropke’s Humane Economy seems to just combine Kirk’s general nostalgia and sentiments about what a nice community would look like (I agree it does look nice) and then laissez faire Austrian economists, but allowing for a minimal amount of state intervention so long as it doesn’t destroy the system. I really do not see this as a real alternative, as he does not really go against any tenets of Austrian methodology, but is simply less of a purist.

I have yet to meet anyone who gave me an economic defense of Distributism. All I’ve heard is how nice it would be if everyone got to tend their own garden, and buy homemade crafts at the general market. The same goes for the Southern Agrarians (who for the most part became New Dealers.) Other than very vague phrases such as “promote small land ownership” and “prevent large accumulation of wealth,” I don’t think the Distributists ever really explained how their system would work.

The only other thing I can think of is the “reactionary modernists.” Those who didn’t become Nazis, didn’t really seem to argue that any particular economic system, but rather that the mixed economy/managerial state was here to stay and that they may as well use it for conservative/nationalist ends. Regardless of what you think of that, it doesn’t seem to be a very principled alternative to capitalism.

Now I think its interesting that I can’t think of any “Conservative” non capitalist economists except Ropke and the late John Attarian. Both of them do not really seem to put any real constructive alternative to capitalism, but simply repeat the standard traditionalist aesthetic critique of capitalism, while still producing pro market economic work. So I would ask you if not capitalism, then what?

(My last paper in college is due tomorrow, so I’m trying to find any excuse not to do work, hence all these posts. I'll try to get back to work and off this after this post, hopefully.)

But my point and the example of South Africa still stands; however imperfect it may be, capitalism offers the most opportunity to groups like blacks and Jews who've been historically treated with contempt by the surrounding population.

I didn’t bring up the apartheid example, but I still think it applies. Now, given that most “anti-racists” do not tend to care if it’s a private or public discriminating, in the free market, people are more than willing to make restrictive covenants stipulating who the members can sell their houses to. Before this was outlawed in America, many neighborhoods, north and south, had covenants barring the owners from selling to blacks, Jews etc. That the government did it, rather than private groups I think is a big difference, but most people do not see it that way, but I’m guessing that in lieu of apartheid many Afrikaners would have made such covenants.

I don't see anything wrong with that as such, but I would wager that blacks have the most oppurtunities now in South Africa, and in America where not only does the government not discriminate against them, but it also prevents private organizations from discriminating against them, and forcing many to discriminate in favor of them. If you ask me, that seems like a pretty good deal.

Also, I would make a huge distinction b/w blacks and jews, and discrimination. I would strongly reccomend reading Amy Chau's World on Fire that deals with Market Dominant Minorities--i.e. ethnic minorities that tend to outperform the rest of the population the free market and this naturally leads to ethnic tension and anti-capitalist rhetoric. She sees jews almost everywhere they go (including when they were shopkeepers in black ghettos), while blacks are never a market dominant group anywhere. In fact she sees the whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe as an example of Market Dominant Minorities. The whites economic dominance is what leads to the black majority to nationalize farmland and do plenty of other uncapitalist activity.

I didn't explicitly say that baby markets (this is turning into a very weird conversation) are "involuntary." I implied that they were not voluntary. It is a small but important distinction. As you said, babies don't really volunteer for anything. My point was twofold: 1) an infinitesmal number of insane, amoral people are in favor of selling babies, and 2) 99.99% of free-market zealots want moral restrictions removed only if they concern consenting adults doing to themselves as they wish.

I've noticed this is a common tactic among right-wing critics of capitalism: Create an anarcho-capitalist strawman who can be easily demolished. Aside from a handful of loons, no one is suggesting that the market exists in a vaccuum, that there should be no concern for human rights and no government involvement whatsoever.

The next question is: does it encourage a view of the good life that prevents people from the real good life and its real goal in the after-life?

Eternity does not concern me, nor should it concern any government or economic system. I care about what the real-life alternatives are; when assessing its merits and demerits, capitalism ought to be compared to other systems, and not a flowery ideal that would satisfy saints and angels. Capitalism -- and freedom in general -- has proven to be the only way for people to be able to live both "the good life, and the life that is good" as D'Souza would say.

One last point. I think there are two great articles that discuss what the relationship b/w libertarianism, capitalism, and conservatism.

This one (pro culturally conservative libertarian) is by Ed Fessr http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/feser2.html

And this one that criticizes libertarianism, austrian economics, and capitalism from a traditionalist point of view is from Tom Fleming http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/January2002/0102Fleming.htm I'd just add on a personal note, that while I don't agree with his critique of the market (pretty much what I said in the previous posts applies to him as well.) This did push me away from being a Rothbardian natural rights libertarian.

Now, given that most “anti-racists” do not tend to care if it’s a private or public discriminating, in the free market, people are more than willing to make restrictive covenants stipulating who the members can sell their houses to.

There's no reason to put scare quotes around anti-racists. Regarding your point, I agree that people ought to have the right to set whatever conditions they want when engaging in a transcation, however ridiculous, asinine, and repulsive I may find those conditions to be.

She sees jews almost everywhere they go (including when they were shopkeepers in black ghettos), while blacks are never a market dominant group anywhere.

Different groups of blacks have had varying degrees of prominence in the market. People from the West Indies, for instance, tend to be very successful. And tensions stemming from economic fallacies often arise even when people are of the same race (Thomas Sowell discusses this in his new book, in the essay "Are Jews Generic?").

"I think Brian is basically right here, and Ben L is ignoring all questions of the good human life. Economic freedom may be great, but it still doesn't make having stuff the point of our lives. Hayek, in the Fatal Conceit, constantly begs off the questions of the human good--and then condemns anybody who thinks the human good is more than survival, or survival in style."

-Short

In short (har har) the system is failing, or it has a failing, if people, given freedom of choice, don't make the choices you want them to.

Capitalism does not condemn anybody who thinks that human good is more than survival, it advocates that everyone be able to pursue their own vision of what is the good life FOR THEM, as long as that vision does not infringe on the rights of others.

What would in my mind constitute the good life is most likely very different from what in your mind would constitute the good life. Capitalism allows us each to individually and seperately pursue our individual visions of the good life so long as we do not infringe on the rights of each other.

Marcus, I agree with you basically. I didn't advocate making price gouging illegal, I was arguing that it was unethical. I'm not the purist you are, but I don't disagree too profoundly with the economic amalysis. My disagreements will come when noneconomic goods might trump questions of maximizing utility. That brings us to the Bens' ignoring all questions of the human good.

Referring to the human good as you have defined it. in short, curbing the freedoms of our citizens so they will live more like you want them to.

Bens: if the human good/end/good life is THE measure of a good economic system, then religious and philosophical accounts of the good life would be relevant to our discussion, and maximizing individual choices may not be conducive to the best way of life. Right?

Wrong. Why do you continue to say that I'm ignoring the question of the human good when, from the outset, I've addressed it?

I really encourage you to read "What's So Great About America" by Dinesh D'Souza, since this argument we're having is at the center of the book. He says that while Muslim governments try to instill "virtue" among their citizens by curtailing their liberty to do non-virtuous things, this is inherently flawed because if an action is coerced, it is not virtuous -- only if someone opts for the right path of his own volition can it truly be considered good. So, while he grants that the degree of moral degeneracy in American society troubles him, and that virtue is indeed more important than prosperity, his argument is essentially that there can be no virtue in a society where no one is free to choose.

So, while he grants that the degree of moral degeneracy in American society troubles him, and that virtue is indeed more important than prosperity, his argument is essentially that there can be no virtue in a society where no one is free to choose.

It's worth noting that, the above argument that D'Souza made (vis a vis muslims) was made by Murray Rothbard 40 years ago. I explain why I think D'souza's arguments are wrong at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein4.html

Anyway, I disagree w/ Rothbard and Meyer on this case. Look it is fair to say that while coercing someone from say being a prostitute does not make them any more virtuous b/c their is no choice. This I agree with. But are we saying that in order for someone to be virtuous, you must put the temptation to sin in front of them. Hence, perhaps banning prostitution doesn't make the prostitute any less more virtuous. However if someone has to walk by a red light district to get to work everyday, they will be tempted to sin. So while the whores may continue to be whores without work, I would say that it increases virtue in the society by removing the temptation to sin. If not, then the only premise is not that people have to choose, but you may as well go out of their way to give them the option of sin, because if they are not given that, then they are not virtuous. I'm not for morality laws like that, but I'm saying it is possible to promote virtue in that sense.

Different groups of blacks have had varying degrees of prominence in the market. People from the West Indies, for instance, tend to be very successful. And tensions stemming from economic fallacies often arise even when people are of the same race (Thomas Sowell discusses this in his new book, in the essay "Are Jews Generic?").

My point is that people tend to discriminate against blacks not because they resent their success in the market. The only time people resent blacks for their success is because they feel (usually correctly) that many of those who are successful got their because of affirmative action.

I have not seen the statistics, but from my own experience I’d be willing to believe that most west Indians are hard working and more successful than native born blacks, but my guess is they are not more successful than whites, east Asians, and probably Hispanics. If my memory serves me correctly, Chua did see West Indian immigrants within Black ghettos as MDMs, and she definitely saw Chinese in Jamaica as an example. So to emphasize my point, I cannot think of a single place in the World where Jews are not more successful than the rest of the population (less Israel where they’re the majority. Chua sees Jews in Israel as MDM within the Mideast, but I think that’s stretching it), and I can’t think of single place where black are seen as Market Dominant Minorities except where one sub-ethnicity of African is more successful than another. Now I think Chua tends to oversimplify things a bit, but the fact that Jews have tended to prosper in capitalistic societies despite discrimination.

I have not read Sowell’s book, but I read an interview with him when he discussed his Jews chapter and my impression of it was (correct if I’m wrong) that he thought Jews are especially discriminated against not only because they are successful, but because they came from nowhere, and hence it hurts the ego of those who they are more successful than. He also thinks that people particularly hate the middlemen, and Jews tended to take those roles.

I see many problems with this. The first is that when WASPs were the ruling class and much more prosperous than Jews they had their prejudice against them even though they were more successful than them. As Jews have become more and more successful, it seems that if anything, WASP elites tend to like them more, as they are now much more culturally similar. Anecdotally you can look at many intermarriages between Rockerfellers and other families with rich Jews.

Furthermore, if you look at the general populace, when you look at who is demonized more for being rich, it is not the entrepreneurs who had a rags to riches story, it’s the FFVs and Mayflower society preppies with silver spoons in their mouth, who aren’t seen as very intelligent or hard working people and got everything handed to them, and wouldn’t let the Jews into their country club. In contrast, the Horatio Algers generally give hope to the poor people, and are admired, or at least more than people who inherited their position. So I would then see more of the class resentment driven towards Old Money WASPs rather than Jews.

Finally, if you look at the most successful immigrant group in America it’s Koreans and Chinese. If Sowell’s thesis is correct, then these people would be hated. But this is certainly not the case. I don’t know if there has been a survey done of what people think of people of various races, but if there was one, I would bet the bank that whites regardless of income levels would say they liked Asians better than blacks and any other immigrant group.

The only group that I would guess may be more resentful towards Jews or Asians than rich WASPs is probably blacks, and this is because Jews (in the past) and Asians (today) often set up shop in Black neighborhoods, which feeds back into the MDM thesis.

Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that Sowell pretty much saw the reason for anti-Semitism as them being successful and other people less successful, given that other than Israel they are a minority, that would make them MDM.

Another problem is he seems to think people dislike Jews b/c they were “middle men” minorities. One point which I think cannot be stressed enough is to look at how Jews became middlemen. It is commonly said that the reason Jews were moneylenders is that the Christians found usury immoral and figured why not let the Jews lose at all. What this fails to account for is the fact that the Jews felt that usury was immoral, but only when applied to fellow Jews, not the goy. I think these sorts of double standards probably made many think unfavorably of the Jews.

If not, then the only premise is not that people have to choose, but you may as well go out of their way to give them the option of sin, because if they are not given that, then they are not virtuous. I'm not for morality laws like that, but I'm saying it is possible to promote virtue in that sense.

The government need not create Red Light districts in each state for the option of sin to exist. Like it or not, in a free society, it will always exist; the tempation of sin is in front of all of us. Because we're talking about Earth and not Heaven, D'Souza's (or Rothbard's) argument stands. The government cannot make us more virtuous as human beings by restricting our ability to engage in immoral, consenting activities. If I'm not soliciting sex from a hooker because I'm scared of going to jail, is that virtue?

I’d be willing to believe that most west Indians are hard working and more successful than native born blacks, but my guess is they are not more successful than whites, east Asians, and probably Hispanics.

Actually, I can't remember where I read it, but the average West Indian makes almost as much as the average white, and they're a relatively new immigrant group which means that they'll probably surpass whites in the coming years.

the fact [is] that Jews have tended to prosper in capitalistic societies despite discrimination

I agree with you.

I have not read Sowell’s book, but I read an interview with him when he discussed his Jews chapter and my impression of it was (correct if I’m wrong) that he thought Jews are especially discriminated against not only because they are successful, but because they came from nowhere, and hence it hurts the ego of those who they are more successful than. He also thinks that people particularly hate the middlemen, and Jews tended to take those roles.

You got it right on the last sentence. He says that Jews are a good example of middle-man minorities in general, whose initial poverty lends itself to the position they often take in the economy as merchants, lenders, etc. He goes through numerous historical examples where middleman minorities are hated, more so because of the resentment that stems from economic misunderstanding than from anything unique to that specific minority.

Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that Sowell pretty much saw the reason for anti-Semitism as them being successful and other people less successful, given that other than Israel they are a minority, that would make them MDM.

Incorrect. Read the essay.

I think these sorts of double standards probably made many think unfavorably of the Jews.

Every religious group has double standards like that, so your argument doesn't really hold up. Most people just don't understand the economy, and they often think of it in zero-sum terms. So when they see a group making money without doing hard physical labor, they tend to be suspect.

Hi Ben L: "There can be no virtue in a society where no one is free to choose."

L. Brent Bozell handled this brilliantly more than 40 years ago in NR when Frank Meyer said it. Go read "Freedom and Virtue" (ISI) (or some of the philosophical literature about "liberal neutrality"). Just because freedom of the will is a necessary condition for virtue, doesn't mean that freedom is an end in itself. The good human life is still the point of human freedom, and therefore its measure or standard. Some types of freedom may be more conducive than others to the good life. If so, this understansing of the good life should influence our political and economic decisions.

Regarding whether laws banning prostitution, heroine, computer-generated child porn, baby-selling, or other voluntary activities among adults can make a person "virtuous"... wrong question. The right question is whether it can improve people's abilities to live good lives by helping them and their neighbors to avoid really ugly errors. The answer is obviously yes.

BTW: You haven't addressed questions of the good life once. You just keep saying that freedom is all that matters, perhaps because doing what you want is the good life. If that's what you think, say it.

Bens: if the human good/end/good life is THE measure of a good economic system, then religious and philosophical accounts of the good life would be relevant to our discussion, and maximizing individual choices may not be conducive to the best way of life. Right?
Posted by short at July 1, 2005 01:19 AM

No...simply, no.

Because you still refuse to accept that the good life as you define it is not the the good life as everybody denies it.

Therefore, assuming I am not infringing on the rights of others, I should be able to pursue whatever vision of the good life I choose.

You as well, assuming you do not infringe on the rights of others, should be able to pursue your own vision of the good life.

However YOU should not be able to force ME to live in YOUR VISION of the Good Life.

L. Brent Bozell's theorizing is all very nice but when we look at government imposed virtue in practice we see societies like Iran. I want to live in America, not Iran.

Two quick responses.

Ben L,

I didn't miss your post, you just write really dumb things so I ignore you. That Walter Williams quote is asinine. What is the historical basis for such a stupid generalization. That is just more Enlightenment liberalism BS. "Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man." Whatever dude, that is nonsense. A leftist would respond to that "plundering" bit by saying "ever heard of Enron?"

Marcus,

I haven't read this whole thread of comments above but wanted to just respond to a couple things you asked or said.
1) I think if you do a double-take on some of what you wrote above you would not be asking of us conservative critics of capitalism "if not capitalism, then what?" or as regards price-gouging "what would you have the government do?" Why are you asking conservatives to come up w/ government or macro-managed solutions to social or economic systems? The Distributists (Belloc/Chesterton), and contemporary traditionalist conservative critics of capitalism deny the possibility of wholesale changes for teh good imposed by government coercion. So you sound like a liberal by demanding of capitalism's critics that they provide a better system that (presumably) could be implemented to replace whole cloth the current system.

A good contemporary writer in the Catholic social school of thought who focuses on economics is Thomas Storck. You may like his work. I will try and send you a few article links as well when I get a chance.

So you need to recognize that the right-wing critics of capitalism aren't spotty idealists waxing for some lost paradise (they may be but that isn't what they demand in terms of practical action). Instead they are generally moral realists who are pointing out the fact that economics, as practical action, is an area of human life (of choice) in which moral principles and prudence rule the roost. Therefore, I as a businessman am morally bound as a matter of justice to not price gouge, or to provide a living wage for my employees (or if circumstances don't allow for it now to do so when I can), and so forth. This state of affairs, the question of the good and just as regards MY economic decisions, do not (except for the liberal) automatically mean government oversight, regulation, and solutions. That is a question of politics and political economy and the argument should be carried on seperately.

Lastly, I think you asked me the diff between the free and the voluntary, right? Short or Brad can correct me if I am wrong here but I was making an Aristotelian point that people may voluntarily do things which they are in a number of ways compelled to do (out of fear for example), but which they would not have freely chosen to do.

Also, I am working with a rational or realist psychology that claims that internal "coercion" in the form of uncontrolled passions is just as real of a destroyer of our freedom as are external forms of coercion. So I can see fit to critique rampant "consumerism" and debt-spending as indicative of uncontrolled passions, and rather than being a result of human freedom under capitalism it reflects our bondage to our desires. Same goes for situations like unjust wages or price gouging where someone voluntarily accepts what is actually a coercive relationship.

Oh yeah, and on the price gouging thing, the ethical thing to do is to sell one's water, or whatever, at the price that was already established, and to limit purchasers to one per. As far as your "first-come first serve would risk a riot" scenario, it seems much more inmtuitive to me that a store owner who demands 50$ a bottle or some such is far more likely to incite violence against himself or his store than someone who takes the course that I suggested above.
regards,

Brian: I read some of Stork's debate with Thomas Woods. I'm not a Catholic, and unlike a lot of conservatives, I'm not interested in Catholic humanism or Thomas Aquinas, so I didn't really find the debate too interesting. Also, I think I was at the Mises Institute now and then, and while I enjoy talking about economics a little bit, the more I'm there, the less I can hear about it (sorry Lew :) I wasn't aware of Stork having any writings other than on social justice. Does he have any pure economic ones?

I wrote a paper for a catholic economics class (you probably would have hated, as it was taught by Walter Block) criticizing Belloc and Chesterton's economics. I am positive I have quotes where they supported government intervention, I'd be more than happy to e-mail it to you when I have access.

If that is your argument, I can respect it. However, I had never heard a conservative critic of capitalism ever say, we do not want the government to do anything in the market, but we want businesses to do x, y, & z

The government need not create Red Light districts in each state for the option of sin to exist. Like it or not, in a free society, it will always exist; the tempation of sin is in front of all of us. Because we're talking about Earth and not Heaven, D'Souza's (or Rothbard's) argument stands. The government cannot make us more virtuous as human beings by restricting our ability to engage in immoral, consenting activities. If I'm not soliciting sex from a hooker because I'm scared of going to jail, is that virtue?

If someone is a total degenerate, if whatever their vice is, is banned they will find a way to get it, or they'll be an unfulfilled degenerate. That's not the issue. The point is, as short said, is that people are affected the moral environment they are surrounded by. As much as i'm a nature over nurture supporter, I'm positive if you took two identical twins who had the exact same moral views, and on their 18th birthday, you stuck one in a convent and one as a waitress at a strip club, the latter would probably be acting less virtuously. I really don't think government should promote morality, but it doesn't its incapable of doing so.

Actually, I can't remember where I read it, but the average West Indian makes almost as much as the average white, and they're a relatively new immigrant group which means that they'll probably surpass whites in the coming years. Now that you mention it, it was David Horowitz mentioned that in his reparations ad. I'm not sure if it's true, and a quick google search could not find me any info. However, if it is true, I guarentee you both of these are at play. The first is that West Indians probably tend to be centered around Miami and NY both of which have much higher cost of living adjustments so if you adjust for that it would go away. And furthermore, it was probably shortly after the initial wave of immigrants from the country came in and they happened to be among the smartest and hard working. If they ever had a higher income, then chain migration will kick in, and you'll begin to get the dregs from the country and soon the average wage will fall. That's if the statistic is true.

He says that Jews are a good example of middle-man minorities in general, whose initial poverty lends itself to the position they often take in the economy as merchants, lenders, etc. He goes through numerous historical examples where middleman minorities are hated, more so because of the resentment that stems from economic misunderstanding than from anything unique to that specific minority.

I agree with that, but at the vey least it's not imcompadible with MDM

[me]Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that Sowell pretty much saw the reason for anti-Semitism as them being successful and other people less successful, given that other than Israel they are a minority, that would make them MDM.

[Ben L]Incorrect. Read the essay.
From the reviews of the book, I have read and hearing him on C-Span, the book does not seem like one of his greatest, so I really don't see myself getting this book. If you could simlply tell me if there is anything other than the middleman fact that he made in the essay, I'd be willing to be enlightened.

I found a transcript of the C-SPAN essay.

LAMB: You have a chapter that’s ­ the first chapter is "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." The second chapter is, "Are Jews Generic?" Why the jump to ­ from black rednecks and white liberals, to are Jews generic? What’s the point?

SOWELL: Well it was ­ the book is really about ethnic and cultural issues in general. So there’s a chapter on the Jews, ...And we move on to the Jews because it’s a fascinating story, because among the middleman minorities, of which the Jews are the most prominent, the hostility of these people in countries around the world is out of all proportion to that to any other kind of group I can think of.

In terms of violence, the number of ­ the number of Chinese killed let’s say in one year, and by mob (ph) actually exceeds all the blacks lynched in the entire history of the United States. And the number of Armenians killed in the ­ in Turkey, you know, during the first World War, is greater than that. And of course the number of Jews slaughtered on a number of occasions in history, even before the Holocaust, is greater than that.

So the question is why this particular kind of people are the targets of so much venomous hatred? And I think the answer is that they not only succeed, they succeed in a way which is a threat to the egos of other people. That is ­ you can envy a rockefeller, but he’s no threat to your ego. If I should say listen, anybody can be rich if he’s born in Rockefeller. But the guy who comes here let’s say from Vietnam or Korea, and arrives here with little more than the clothes on his back and a few broken ­ words of broken English, and a decade later he has his own little business, and you see his son a few years after that getting ready to go off to Harvard or MIT, you’ve got to ask yourself, you either got to, you know, you’ve got to hate yourself for saying, my God, I’m a stagnate (ph), this guy was nothing, and now he’s (INAUDIBLE). Or you’re going to have to hate him.

And most people when they have a choice between hating others and hating themselves, they hate others.

LAMB: Where does the hatred for the Jews come from in history?

SOWELL: Number of places. But they are people who have ­ who have succeeded an awful lot, in the midst of other people who have not. Years ago one official of one of the Jewish organizations in New York asked me, what can Jews themselves do in order to minimize the hostility they face? And I gave him a one-word answer, fail. Because a lot of you succeed, you’re going to be hated.

Anyway, unles something in that interview contradicted what he wrote, I think I correctly summed up his argument. His point about people resenting rag to riches people more than Old Money, I disagree with, but it still seems to back up the Chua's MDM thesis.

Every religious group has double standards like that, so your argument doesn't really hold up. Most people just don't understand the economy, and they often think of it in zero-sum terms. So when they see a group making money without doing hard physical labor, they tend to be suspect.

Obviously Christians or Muslims didn't have that double standard or they would have had no problem lending money to Jews. Christianity is a much more universalistic religion in that it aims to save everyone, most of the moral codes are to applied when dealing with everybody etc. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but Judaism is a much more in-group oriented religion, and that is going to cause some people not to like it

Some types of freedom may be more conducive than others to the good life. If so, this understansing of the good life should influence our political and economic decisions.

Okay, I believe donating to charity is part of living a good life. Therefore, I think people should have to give about half of their income away in taxes and have the government allocate the money to various good causes. Reasonable?

Regarding whether laws banning prostitution, heroine, computer-generated child porn, baby-selling, or other voluntary activities among adults can make a person "virtuous"... wrong question. The right question is whether it can improve people's abilities to live good lives by helping them and their neighbors to avoid really ugly errors. The answer is obviously yes.

I don't plan on selling any babies any time soon, and if the practice were legal, my lack of baby salesmanship would not change. I'm not suggesting that this means it should be legal. It's a blatant violation of human rights; no human being should be sold. But some idiot injecting heroin is not violating anyone's human rights. Neither is a man who wants to take the risk of gamb1ing in a card game or pulling a slot machine. I don't think drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are sensible activities to engage in. In fact, everyone knows they often cause much harm (not only in their direct effect on the body but, for drinking, also in its various side effects). But my belief regarding how a person ought to live an upstanding, decent life should not be forced upon other people. In fact, as we've seen with the Prohibition and the current War on Drugs, there are plenty of unforeseen and unsavory consequences when the government plays the role of parent.

You just keep saying that freedom is all that matters, perhaps because doing what you want is the good life. If that's what you think, say it.

Freedom is not all that matters, and simply doing what you want is not the good life. Parents, churches, communities, etc. should inculcate values of decency and teach succeeding generations how to live good lives. The government should not have anything to do with this. My point is simple: if some guy across the street is a promiscuous, greedy, hateful, fat bastard who likes to listen to the Goo Goo Dolls while injecting heroin into his urethra, I don't care about him -- as long as he is not hurting anyone else. He is very clearly living a bad life. But it's his life to live.

you just write really dumb things so I ignore you.

I am honored that a Confederate apologist thinks I'm a "dumb" "dude".

I'm positive if you took two identical twins who had the exact same moral views, and on their 18th birthday, you stuck one in a convent and one as a waitress at a strip club, the latter would probably be acting less virtuously.

While on the surface this is an appealing argument, on second thought I don't buy it. Your inclusion of these hypothetical people having "the exact same moral views" makes me disagree with your conclusion. If the views are genuinely held, and not the product of pure force (on the part of a parent, or in our larger argument -- the government. In fact, this supports my argument even further, since many people know of situations where parents who rule with an iron fist have children who go wild as soon as they are out of the parents' line of sight) then both will continue to be good people. One will just have a rather odd job for her personality type.

I really don't think government should promote morality, but it doesn't its incapable of doing so.

The government is ill-equipped to do most things, including promoting morality (unforeseen consequences are another factor in this), unless you want to live in a totalitarian state.

The first is that West Indians probably tend to be centered around Miami and NY both of which have much higher cost of living adjustments so if you adjust for that it would go away. And furthermore, it was probably shortly after the initial wave of immigrants from the country came in and they happened to be among the smartest and hard working. If they ever had a higher income, then chain migration will kick in, and you'll begin to get the dregs from the country and soon the average wage will fall.

Or they work harder than white people.

at the vey least it's not imcompadible with MDM

I never said it was. I'm not arguing about Chua's thesis -- in fact I don't even know what it is. Does she even have a thesis or is the book simply a collection of facts about which groups dominate markets?

BL: You're argument simply boils down to the libertarian argument that a community lacks a "right" to prevent a homosexual pornographer from openning a strip club next to their neighborhood kindergarden. OK. You don't care if the guy across the street is a perv looking at child porn while on crystal meth. It's his life to lead!

Maybe you will if you have to raise kids. Then, moral libertarianism stops and reality sets in. You'll move somewhere else, somewhere they can price the dirty guys out and deny alcohal permits to the strip clubs. Get real. People aren't windowless atoms. That stuff makes a difference.

You don't care if the guy across the street is a perv looking at child porn while on crystal meth.

If he's looking at child porn, he should be summarily executed. Child porn is not a victimless crime. If he's doing crystal meth, I don't care. He's the only victim in that situation, unless he robs someone or in some other way hurts another, in which case he should receive appropriate punishment.

Guess what, short -- there are dirty guys everywhere. Norman Rockwell didn't get it right. Can you remind me again: where was the BTK killer found? In San Francisco? New York City?

When raising kids, I will instill firm moral principles in them and punish them when they do wrong. But just because I will have kids doesn't mean I get to wash out TV writers' mouths with soap and shut down every strip club within a 30 mile radius. My kids won't be so goddamn weak.

Ben, you're a sophist. You are willing to argue for a point you don't really believe and to impute false construals to you opponent's words in order to pretend to win an argument. Whatever.

The question is whether a community is allowed to try to pretect its moral atmosphere by banning some consensual activities, strip clubs, recreational drugs sales, etc. You are acting as though you don't believe in moral atmosphere, because "your kids will be strong." I'm saying that when it comes to your kid's kindergarden nest to the brothel, all of a sudden you will understand what "moral atmosphere" is. I'm not arguinh for Iran, and I'm not saying gov't can get rid of all bad guys.

I never realized you were an advocate of the nanny state Short.

Is the majority able to protect it's arbitrary "atmoshpere" by trampling on the rights of the minority? No.

I might say I think that in a good, moral society, I should be able to ban some consensual activities like homosexual activity. All homosexuals should be interned in camps, so that they do not infringe on the moral atmosphere of my society. That they have rights is irrelevant, they are infringing on an arbitrary "atmosphere" of my own creation that invoked from no real authority, therefore they must be stopped.

Now obviously the argument I invoked, of women wearing burkas, was alarmist and blown out of proportion. But then again, so was yours, about brothels being built next to kindergartens. So let's go back to a good argument Ben L made.

I believe that all human beings should give to charity, and that if they do not they are not leading a good moral life. Therefore the government should impose a 20% income tax on all citizens, and that tax should be devoted to government charity. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, any other option would infringe on my moral atmosphere.

The argument I invoked, of homosexuals being interned*

First of all, short, I do believe what I'm saying. This is what is called a disagreement. You are acting like a leftist, suggesting that I must have some kind of ulterior motive because, somehow, inexplicably, I don't agree with you and your pals' enlightened views.

You are acting as though you don't believe in moral atmosphere, because "your kids will be strong."

I do believe in a moral atmosphere. In fact, I will establish one in my home. I will ensure that my kids treat scumbags with scorn instead of befriending them.

Why can't people say, "We want to protect our country's moral atmosphere, so movies and music that promote immoral behavior will be banned"?

I'm saying that when it comes to your kid's kindergarden nest to the brothel, all of a sudden you will understand what "moral atmosphere" is.

Charles Murray goes over a similar issue in the book "What it Means to be a Libertarian". He says that many fear that if drugs were legalized, we'd see full-page ads for heroin in the NY Times and cocaine-sponsored golf tournaments. His answer is that such a situation is extremely unlikely, because pornography is legal, yet we don't see full-page ads for the latest porn movies in the newspaper, nor do we see porn-sponsored golf tournaments. The point is that such things would be obviously inappropriate and not sensible business decisions at all. Do you actually believe it is likely for a whorehouse to be built next to a kindergarten? Communities set up moral atmospheres naturally.

Also, please answer the question I asked earlier:

Some types of freedom may be more conducive than others to the good life. If so, this understansing of the good life should influence our political and economic decisions.

Okay, I believe donating to charity is part of living a good life. Therefore, I think people should have to give about half of their income away in taxes and have the government allocate the money to various good causes. Reasonable?

I guess if a local community says to a topless bar that they can't display any 10 foot flashing neon mammaries on their signs, then Ben T will say that I'm setting up a nanny state and will invoke the evils of Iranian virtocracy. Whatever. Get a grip.

Why do I call you a sophist, Ben L? Read the quotation you take from me and then look up the word 'influence'. Reread the quote. If you can't see how your "charity" example's construal of my meaning is a strawman, then you should take a logic class or an honesty class.

One last comment from me: Do you two think there is such a thing as "a community's freedom to do x"? If so, then libertarianism is wrong. If not, then democracy in any form is wrong. When it comes to domestic affairs, you two seem to think any community action is tyranny, because it limits individual action within the community. When it comes to foreign affairs, you tend to think that democracy is some magical right promised to all peoples.

10 foot flashing neon mammaries

What are you talking about? Local communities obviously should be able to decide on essentially-public issues like this. I am talking about what grown men and women opt to do behind closed doors. Neither of us suggested that people ought to be allowed to walk around completely naked, and things of that nature.

your "charity" example's construal of my meaning is a strawman

I looked it over again, and I think I see where my initial misinterpretation of your comment was. (I didn't even have to take an honesty class, either). But I'd appreciate a clarification.

you two seem to think any community action is tyranny, because it limits individual action within the community.

I'm not against limiting individual actions. In essence, I shouldn't interfere with you. I'm against extending the limit beyond that point.

OK, BL, you grant now that all “essentially public” behavior (like advertising) can be legislated over for the sake of creating a moral atmosphere that aids a community’s members encourage a good life according to their view of it. Good. Glad to hear it. Now, two points: First, if we grant that, then we grant that one’s view of the good life should influence our community’s political and economic decisions. Right? Otherwise, how do we decide which non-violent public activity should be controlled? That was my initial point, which started this mess. Second, how do we draw the line between public and private? I think that if a brothel were next to an elementary school, keeping that non-public to the degree that I would like (so that the children simply would not know about it in general) would be essentially impossible without simply districting it out. And why can’t a community just say, “We don’t want you here”? I think that is part of the right of free association, which civil libertarians often dismiss because for them one person exercising their right of free association violates the “rights” of the people they don’t like to hang around with.

I would of course go further: we should be able to ban computer-simulated child porn (this does not involve real child victims; this was a SC case last year, I think) or prostitution. Why? Because I don’t want people like that in my neighborhood to influence other people in my neighborhood, let alone to abuse people in my neighborhood, a violence to which they are encouraged by their non-violent vice.

Short, we generally seem to be in agreement, except for principles. But I am willing to put principles aside when common sense overrules them. I would have no problem with a law that makes computer-generated child pornography illegal and one that bars brothels from being in the vicinity of schools.

I guess if a local community says to a topless bar that they can't display any 10 foot flashing neon mammaries on their signs, then Ben T will say that I'm setting up a nanny state and will invoke the evils of Iranian virtocracy. Whatever. Get a grip.

Why do I call you a sophist, Ben L? Read the quotation you take from me and then look up the word 'influence'. Reread the quote. If you can't see how your "charity" example's construal of my meaning is a strawman, then you should take a logic class or an honesty class.

One last comment from me: Do you two think there is such a thing as "a community's freedom to do x"? If so, then libertarianism is wrong. If not, then democracy in any form is wrong. When it comes to domestic affairs, you two seem to think any community action is tyranny, because it limits individual action within the community. When it comes to foreign affairs, you tend to think that democracy is some magical right promised to all peoples.
Posted by short at July 2, 2005 09:45 PM

No when you rely on alarmist BS for your arguments, I will counter you with the same alarmeist BS.

Get some intellectual honesty.