Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6845)

sugarkang 06-29-2011 05:44 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 214649)
That is the crucial difference between the US and Europe in the year 2011. No one in Europe believes anymore that state and society are antithetical.

This is a factual assertion as opposed to, say, an argument, right?

Florian 06-29-2011 05:53 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 214725)
This is a factual assertion as opposed to, say, an argument, right?

Correct. There is no reason to argue with history, is there?

sugarkang 06-29-2011 06:02 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 214726)
Correct. There is no reason to argue with history, is there?

I agree.

---
In The Liberty Scam, Part 2:

Quote:

[Brad] Delong is right in saying Keynes wrote Hayek telling him he admired Road [to Serfdom] ("a grand book"), but since Delong's primary interest is in pampering his own self-image as the scourge of a lazy world, he leaves his reader with a false, or at least, incomplete impression.
Has Slate always been like this or is it just Metcalf?

operative 06-29-2011 06:16 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you seriously suggesting that a citizen of France or of any other European country has no rights against the state? That the state can do whatever it pleases with regard to him? That only the US defines the state "by what the government cannot do to its citizens?" [/
No, that'd be a bit extreme. I'm saying that the US framers' number one goal was limiting government. I don't think that was the number one goal of many modern Constitution makers across Europe--I don't want to homogenize the continent, since there's considerable variation and since the political culture in, say, Switzerland is considerably different than the political culture in Greece.

Quote:

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Obligations to the state, i.e. (I presume) the payment of taxes, are indeed sacrifices but they are sacrifices made in return for services that the state provides, i.e. defence, a system of justice, education, health care, unemployment insurance, pensions in old age (among other things). Are you saying that any obligation that goes beyond paying for defense and a system of justice is unjust?
That'd be the Nozick definition (at least from Anarchy...); I'm not quite as rigid. I'd say that any government involvment where the price mechanism can work is unjust (the Hayek definition), and that any sort of tutelary governance is unjust.


Quote:

That is not what Isaiah Berlin meant by "positive freedom." Which is closer to the Kantian and Rousseauian notion of autonomy, giving the law to oneself.
The issue is in how that is used. So, when Berlin writes, "I wish to be sombody, not nobody; a doer--deciding, not being decided for, self-directed and not acted upon by other men as if I were a thing, or an animal, or a slave incapable of playing a human role, that is, of conceiving goals and policies of my own and realizing them," the argument is that unless we have some level of income parity, unless we guarantee people medical coverage, etc. that people are unable to attain this goal. At the extreme end would be the SDS crowd, who felt that in order for mankind to achieve this liberated positive autonomy they essentially had to be ushered into a totally different system (inevitably by force) which would restore human dignity. Thankfully most people aren't on that extreme end, but we still have the notion that positive liberty is inextricably bound with welfare state policies. And those so-called freedoms become obligations--the state then forces you to live by its standards so that you don't weigh the medical system down, the state forces you to work for half of the year without keeping a penny, to pay for its welfare state.

stephanie 06-29-2011 06:29 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 214729)
I'm saying that the US framers' number one goal was limiting government.

This isn't true. It's a gross over-simplification and anachronism, as are all efforts to turn the Founders into modern day libertarians.

The Framers weren't even concerned with the overall size of government, in particular state governments. Allen Keyes is kind of insane on this point (there's a shock!) but it's fun when he used to go off on this, because he's more correct than those who think there was some general Nozickian understanding of what the state should be, merely because the Constitution limits the federal government's role.

It is also, of course, true that the Founders had an understanding that there are limits to the authority of the state vs. the individual -- natural rights. These views were grounded in philosophical ideas of the time, including Locke, and I think that's a good thing. But they didn't structure the Constitution around how to protect these ideas. Instead, the ideas were inherent in their understanding of how government worked and thus the decision to include the recognition of them in the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) was almost an afterthought.

The focus of the Constitution was how to balance the need for a central government that worked with the competing rights and interests of the states and a population that didn't yet think of the other states as part of one country with them. The Founders were also really focused on other, related questions, such as how to set up a working government more generally, something hard to do, and how to balance representation and political factions and so on given they had a healthy suspicion of the public.

operative 06-29-2011 06:37 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 214730)
This isn't true. It's a gross over-simplification and anachronism, as are all efforts to turn the Founders into modern day libertarians.

The Framers weren't even concerned with the overall size of government, in particular state governments. Allen Keyes is kind of insane on this point (there's a shock!) but it's fun when he used to go off on this, because he's more correct than those who think there was some general Nozickian understanding of what the state should be, merely because the Constitution limits the federal government's role.

It is also, of course, true that the Founders had an understanding that there are limits to the authority of the state vs. the individual -- natural rights. These views were grounded in philosophical ideas of the time, including Locke, and I think that's a good thing. But they didn't structure the Constitution around how to protect these ideas. Instead, the ideas were inherent in their understanding of how government worked and thus the decision to include the recognition of them in the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) was almost an afterthought.

The focus of the Constitution was how to balance the need for a central government that worked with the competing rights and interests of the states and a population that didn't yet think of the other states as part of one country with them. The Founders were also really focused on other, related questions, such as how to set up a working government more generally, something hard to do, and how to balance representation and political factions and so on given they had a healthy suspicion of the public.

I don't disagree with all that much of what you are saying but among other things I would note that there was a very clear attempt to limit centralized power (we seem to be agreeing on this) and that the Senate was designed to be very slow moving (I think there are some specific quotes from a few founding fathers about this) because of the recognition of the danger of an overactive government.

sugarkang 06-29-2011 07:06 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 214729)
I'm saying that the US framers' number one goal was limiting government.

This is true, but it depends on how we define "limit." If we say as to the actual size of government relative to GDP, then, probably not; those concepts were still being worked out. After all, as we all know, Wealth of Nations was written almost contempraneously with the Constitution. The size aspect is what we mean in the 21st century.

However, it is unequivocally true that our founders wanted to limit government tyranny and maximize liberty. Today, I think libertarian minds think of the unwieldy, inefficient bureaucracies as "tyranny." To that extent, it's not the same as the founders. But the founders were definitely interested in keeping government power at bay. They were absolutely mindful of needing to balance the will of the majority (democracy) and rights of the individual (republic) on the other. We clearly see this debate in The Federalist Papers (10? can't remember).

But whether it's the size or the overreaching power of government, they are still intertwined concepts. Tyranny, perhaps connotes some intent. Perhaps, in that context, it is not as relevant a concern as it was 200 years ago.

With respect to our Bill of Rights and whether it is a guarantor of rights or a limiter of them is an unresolved debate. No surprise that I think they are the bare minimum, unviolable without proper amendment.

Hal Morris 06-29-2011 08:19 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 214584)
Put down the Naomi Klein books, pick up the Milton Friedman books and then unlearn all the Marxist crap you've been taught. Let's start from there.

Most of what I've learned, if any of my "learning" has any substance, is from straight history, and I think if you read enough history you'll learn one thing: In chaotic times, bad people tend to come to power. It happened in Russia twice, at the beginning and the end of the 20th century. You have a very thick skull or you wouldn't keep saying things like "unlearn all that Marxist crap you've been taught". Perhaps you've been taught by the likes of Glenn Beck that anybody who disagrees with you, or anyone who doesn't believe markets are the magic elixer for everything is a Marxist.

I've been trying to read Von Mises lately (I realize Friedman had a much sunnier nature), and I find he writes very much like Marx (and Lenin), which is characteristic of a certain kind of obsessed ideologue. I think they devoted at least 2/3 of their output to making caricatures of what other people supposedly believe, and talking ironically in the voice of some vaguely drawn antagonist.

chiwhisoxx 06-29-2011 11:03 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 214663)
They're keeping a spot warm for you at Cato or Reason. You needn't worry about your really, really, really unsophisticated style of rebuttal. Just start voicing concern about prison rape and police overreach. No understanding of philosophical tracts necessary, listening to Tool and System of a Down will suffice. You may be the Pepsi generation but Koch pays better.

you sure turn on a dime. it's easy to see why so many people hate you now! don't assume every response I post here is what I deem the most sophisticated version of an argument possible. I would think you of all people would understand that; considering a huge majority of your posts are vague, only occasionally funny trollings of whomever your target of the month is. As Aryeh/Bob said in a recent commenters court, your signal to noise ratio is quite low. honestly, I don't really care about that. this forum should be a place where people can choose their own "ratio", and some people deserve trolling. but then maybe you could realize I don't always have the time or inclination to put out 8 paragraphs on every subject, and I enjoy trying to throw out zingers from time to time. and speaking of sophisticated arguments, it's nice that you're resorting to age jabs. keep em coming, cranky old man.

graz 06-29-2011 11:04 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 214757)
you sure turn on a dime. it's easy to see why so many people hate you now! don't assume every response I post here is what I deem the most sophisticated version of an argument possible. I would think you of all people would understand that; considering a huge majority of your posts are vague, only occasionally funny trollings of whomever your target of the month is. As Aryeh/Bob said in a recent commenters court, your signal to noise ratio is quite low. honestly, I don't really care about that. this forum should be a place where people can choose their own "ratio", and some people deserve trolling. but then maybe you could realize I don't always have the time or inclination to put out 8 paragraphs on every subject, and I enjoy trying to throw out zingers from time to time. and speaking of sophisticated arguments, it's nice that you're resorting to age jabs. keep em coming, cranky old man.

WATB.

TwinSwords 06-29-2011 11:24 PM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 214757)
As Aryeh/Bob said in a recent commenters court, your signal to noise ratio is quite low.

I think that was actually Starwatcher -- not Bob or Aryeh. That said, one man's libertarian/wingnut boilerplate is another man's noise. I'll take graz's wisdom over the depraved politics of the American far right any day.

eeeeeeeli 06-30-2011 11:46 AM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 214445)
I wouldn't say it's totally bizarre, but it's a bit off. This is not an academic department, or a political philosophy group. This is a general audience forum. Many people volunteer their views and opinions without having any deep knowledge of the issues or their philosophical roots. That's the nature of these discussions.

expert schmexpert!

R. Richards 07-18-2011 02:25 AM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Christian Sandvig applies Nozick's argument about mobility, in an interesting way, to Internet video distribution, in his 2010 presentation at Berkman Center: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/...010/04/sandvig

sugarkang 07-18-2011 06:28 AM

Re: Political Philosophy and Wilt Chamberlain (Matthew Yglesias & Julian Sanchez)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Richards (Post 217195)
Christian Sandvig applies Nozick's argument about mobility, in an interesting way, to Internet video distribution, in his 2010 presentation at Berkman Center: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/...010/04/sandvig

I've watched about 30 minutes of this. Is there an argument within it? So far it sounds like a guy complaining about how YouTube doesn't run recommendation algorithms the way he would like.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.