Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I'd frame it differently. I say she doesn't have a 'right' to impose her sensibilities on a particular work environment.

I don't mean to flaunt the purity of any dogma. I don't think libertarian or any other dogma is 'pure'. I'm not an absolutist in anything and distrust any ideologue who is. I don't know if I would use the word 'juvenile' for it, but I think it is somewhat sophomoric to be an ideological purist of any kind, and I don't think libertarians have a monopoly on this.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

And around and around we go. This just seems to me to be another example to put in my file for instances of Libertarians afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

And Ron Paul's belief about America in the world has a similar problem I think. America has been instrumental in creating the world order we have at this time, although, of course, we don't always like what it does. It's far from perfect but it does somewhat give everybody a voice, although the powerful countries still maintain the biggest say.

I know some leftists like RP's ideas because part of what he promotes is non-intervention, and that fits with an anti-war/anti-US imperialism position.

But what he seems to be saying is that America should somehow shrink behind its borders and say to Hell with the rest of us. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. When the old countries finally had to give up maintaining world order, America was waiting in the wings. Who is now?

PS: I actually think China is still quite isolationist, despite their trade and investment activities everywhere. I think what we would have would be back toward chaos, trade wars and the like, if RP's approach of the US abandonning the global institutions, UN, WTO, trade agreements, etc., were to be adopted, which it wont be, of course. But maybe he will make people question the opposite extreme which is the idea of the US dominating everything and everybody and, in a different sense, abandonning the world order it created, for an "imperium".

I think Obama's on the right track, a middle road, in spite of all his lack of experience, which showed, and his difficulties.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

Glen is better than this. Declaring ideals deserve no space and dramatically declaring "they'll ruin us" with no proof, no context is indeed intellectually childish. Such a perfect term to sum up much of academia. Glen had distinguished himself as being one of the few from that community worth paying attention to. I'd love to hear Glen's defense of the Fed's tomfoolery and our fiat currency.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I heard Mark Shields say on the PBS "Newshour" today, after I posted, that Romney's camp is being particularly careful not to criticize Paul, because Romney is terrified of a third-party run by Paul, that such a run would give the election to Obama, in their view. And Shields attributed a similar view to "everyone" on the Republican side. Shields tends to know what he is talking about.

Paul is a Republican, when he is not a Libertarian. People tend to know this. Libertarians are much closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party, whatever the origins of the American branch of libertarianism may be.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I wish we had better information on this front. I think that disagreement about the nature of Paul's supporters underlies a lot of the disagreement between Wonderment and Ohreally and the anti-Paul liberals like myself around here.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

While I probably don't see afflicting the comfortable as an imperative the way those ideologies based on envy and resentment do, I do value comforting the afflicted, and try to do so.

However, I don't see the woman in the example I gave, who was not only not forced to work for this company, but was not forced to walk through the area which she found offensive -- as being 'afflicted'. Quite the opposite, she was a tyrant looking for an opportunity to enforce her values on the closest group she disapproved of. This attitude reflects itself in our more pro-government politics too often for my taste.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

This is a very good analysis, I think, although one group that is left out is those for whom the erosion of civil liberties is a top priority. I self-identify as a moderate libertarian, so I suppose I could fit into 3, but this is by far the most important issue to me. I just cannot imagine voting for anyone like the President who has a "star chamber" in the White House with a secret membership of faceless bureaucrats that prepares a death list for him of "enemies of the state", which he then uses to justify killing these people with drone missiles no matter who they are or where they are. And, of course, the Republican candidates besides Paul claim to believe that President Obama is too soft on civil liberties. So, no matter what Paul's other faults may be, this is really the decisive thing for me. I suspect that there are many on the left who feel the same way, although they are very far from being libertarians otherwise. I do know that the prominent liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald seems to have expressed similar opinions.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

He certainly has, but I'd be pretty careful about using Glenn as a barometer for the left in general. Like Wonderment, he is very professionally and emotionally invested in the issues where Obama has been the most disappointing, so he's been much quicker to break with the President than the average liberal.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I think memories are still fresh of the global catastrophe that resulted from the last left wing spoiler campaign -- Ralph Nader in 2000. Ralph Nader's candidacy led not only to Gore's loss, but to the eight year global nightmare that followed, including the disastrous Iraq War, including the hundreds of thousands lost civilian lives, and led to the enduring hatred for the US will that result for at least a generation.*

I think the difference between adults and children is that adults know they have to pick between imperfect choices. Recognizing that Obama is superior to any Republican is not the same as saying he's the perfect choice. This country has a seriously deformed political system, and until the fundamental root causes are addressed, we will continue to be forced to choose between varying degrees of evil.


* I voted for Nader in 1996 to protest Clinton's role in the passage of NAFTA, though I did so with the knowledge that Clinton had my state locked up and that my vote would not influence the outcome of the election. If there had been any chance that a vote for Nader could have tipped the state to Dole, I never would have voted for Nader.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I feel the same way about any ideology, including libertarianism. Ideologists don't care what happens to you or me or anybody because all they care about is some notion of a future state that they think would be so much better. It might be better for people just like them, but they never think of anybody else.

That's why I like Obama. I don't find him particularly ideological. He just seems to be trying to be pragmatic, to use his position in whatever way seems to make sense, and also, of course, with a consideration of what it might take to get himself elected again. But that's more or less the same as understanding he has to serve the people. He just has to think more about the fact that we don't mob rule, i.e. catering to whatever the polls say.

I know that's contradictory, but that's why I'm not a politician. I suppose it's about balance. Maybe he'll do better if he gets elected again.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I'm pretty concerned about a fairly wide variety of issues including the global warming, constraining the American empire and ending the killing of civilians, single payer healthcare reform that might actually work, financial regulation, the erosion of civil liberties, prosecution of war criminals in the previous administration and financial criminals on Wall Street, closing Guantanamo, campaign finance reform, etc. Obama has disappointed on all these issues, and I broke with him long ago.

This, of course, leaves me between a rock and a hard place in terms of who to vote for. If I vote again for Obama, I sign my name to his policies. If I write in a name, I'm essentially casting a vote for the Republicans. This seriously sucks since any of the potential Republican candidates will likely move things toward a disastrous outcome even faster than Obama is.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

Yep.

If you're driving down a mountain highway and a tire blows out, there's no shame in swerving into the ditch on the left side of the road instead of swerving off a cliff to the right side of the road.

The real world forces us to make hard choices.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I agree with Twin that your approach is the reasonable one, and I get your frustration, but I still find it very irritating that Obama doesn't get any credit here for the ACA, for saving the auto industry, for keeping his campaign promise to pull out of Iraq, etc.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I agree that Obama bailing out the auto was a good thing, but that's a fairly minor accomplishment compared to not pushing to break up the huge banks and reinstate some version of Glass Steagall or doing anything really meaningful on global warming.

As far as Iraq goes, the US now has the largest embassy there of anywhere in the world. I'm not sure how many private military contractors are still there. I suspect that even a Republican president would have pulled most if not all of the uniformed troops out of Iraq by now. In the meantime Obama has pushed to seriously expand the insane war in Afghanistan. Who knows where the winds will blow him on Iran.

What is ACA?

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

Six on one hand, half dozen on the other. I'm inclined to cut the guy a break.

Obamacare.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I guess we count differently. I hope that Obamacare will be the first step toward a healthcare system that will actually work to both cover everyone and bring down costs, but it won't do either as it stands. Obama didn't even bring single payer to the table. But no need to rehash any of that. I think we agree on the facts, we just assess things differently.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

Pretty much. I don't think that putting an obvious non-starter like single payer on the table would have had a positive effect on the ultimate outcome, but the answer to that question is so hard to assess that I doubt we'll ever know for sure, or even have any real evidence to bring to bear. This is definitely agree to disagree territory.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I agree that the US needs to be involved in creating international institutions that can constrain everyone's behaviour. The problem is that the US exempts itself from such constraints. In a way it's like the mafia keeping order in the neighborhood. Better than chaos, but if you happen to be paying them protection money to survive, not a whole lot better. Obama has great rhetoric, but his actual behaviour doesn't seem much different from Bush's. He continues to expand the American empire.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

If Obama were a stronger, more principled president single payer might have had at least a chance. It wasn't easy for Tommy Douglas, the Premier of Saskatchewan, to introduce single payer to Canada either, but he fought for it. Once people saw the benefits, it spread to the rest of Canada. Of course the US isn't Canada.

Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury
 

Elaborate on this if you will, because I must have missed something really important over the last three years or so.

Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

My condolences to Glenn, and best hopes for Joshua's full recovery. Cancer has just become far too prevalent in American society. It's a damning comment on America's supposed hegemony.

As for Joshua's argument about linking Paul's crackpot economics and attractive foreign policy views, Matt Stoller made a more comprehensive argument:

Actually, it occurs to me, that I finally need to crack open Robert Caro's masterpiece on LBJ, to ask what modern liberalism offers that Paul's libertarianism can't rebut.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

Shields' political argument and Matt Stoller's ideological argument are a potent combo for why Paul can't capitalize on his debate skills. Still, it would be fun to see a three-way between Romney, Obama, and Paul. And, as for a third-party run, that's only a problem because of the FPTP system. On a deeper level politically, Paul's candidacy highlights the electoral flaws in the American constitution.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

It is relevant. It means the leftist high horse disappeared.

Yeah, well I disagree with RP's theories. The Progressives outright dismiss him. How about applying the golden rule?

Why do you abstract to extremes about "above criticism"? This is the stephanie form of argumentation. The Progressive argument is that ending the Federal Reserve is a crank idea without having discussed seriously. That is all. I, personally, don't even want to end it.

Are you kidding me? This is the 2nd time Loury said let's take libertarianism seriously and they did not. If two libertarians come on to say let's take the Progressive critique of such and such seriously and do not, then you let me know.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

5. People who want smaller government and don't believe the lies coming out of the mouths of Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. The thing is I like Gary Johnson the most, but I spend very little time talking about him because libertarianism has to be pushed within the Republican Party. That is, GJ doesn't have a future unless right-libertarian gains power first because Progressives will never adopt a small government position. This is the first big hurdle. In due time, Republicans will see that all the other candidates don't want smaller government.

If the economy gets better, then small government will die as a political issue. We'll just have to see.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

It seems to me that sapeye is basically right here. I lived overseas in new Zealand for two years and people were very happy with the single-payer system there. They all pitied Americans who didn't have it. But the ACA seems just as bad as the current system. A ridiculously complex maze that ends up making it impossible for anyone to know what things are actually costing, combined with even more shoring up of the priveleged position of insurance companies, drug companies and doctors than the way things were before. And, really, no realistic way to pay for it all, with a lot of deception about how it would be payed for.

On a couple of previous matters raised by Don Zeko, Obama only pulled out of Iraq under the terms of the agreement that Bush made. He tried hi best to change the agreement and stay, but the Iraqis generally don't want us there. nevertheless, the president is going to keep a unjustifiably huge embassy presence with an big army of mercenary contractors the, ostensibly to defend it. So I'm not inclined to give him credit for pulling out of Iraq.

As far as the bailing out the auto industry, I haven't looked into that much, but at first glance it sure looks like more of the corporatism that we have seen for years from both parties. I doubt the Republicans would have done much differently.

About the only thing on which the president has clearly done anything better or different than what the Republicans would have done is in his being much less hostile to gay rights, which the Republicans tend to be monsters about. This isn't nothing, but it seems less important than all the other things.

So in terms of actual policy, many of us feel that almost the only significant difference between the president and the mainstream Republicans involves who is better at deceiving the voters with emotional flag-waving for one side or the other.

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

Good article on the contradictions and ambivalence of American liberalism. The connection between centralized banking and financing for war, of course, is much older than the FED (1913). It is as old as the "modern" state ("modern" in the French or European sense, i.e. since the 18th century). See Niall Ferguson, The Cash Nexus, Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000

I don't know how you intended "America's supposed hegemony," but it would make more sense to say "America's supposed empire." The US certainly has military hegemony, what it manifestly doesn't have is an empire.

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

As in Roman? No. But who the hell wants that? The world uses dollars, the world speaks English and the world is patrolled by Americans. Close enough.

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

Go ahead, little sugarman, puff out your chest and expose once again your ignorance.

The US borrows dollars from the rest of the world to stay afloat, the world speaks English about as well as you can think, and the American patrolling of the world has not exactly been a resounding success. Just ask your buddy Ron Paul. Some empire.

Perhaps you should do a little reading instead of constantly spouting off your childish, barely educated opinions on every subject.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

Yeah, I agree with this. Eliezer may strike many people as, perhaps, oddly socialized, but there's no evidence I can see that he shouldn't be taken as a serious and extremely interesting interlocutor.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

Serious if you take science fiction seriously. Interesting if you think it is interesting to equate human intelligence and artificial intelligence.

I take back what I said: Eliezer seemed to me eccentric, but no doubt seems serious and interesting to aficionados of science fiction.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

That would be a good description of me. I also work as an engineer in related fields to Eliezer's topic of research (not AI and not at the level of sophistication at which he seems to operate.) I have significant doubts in regard to whether his work is likely to yield the treasure he's seeking. I'm very glad people like him are in active pursuit of answers to the questions he's asking. When I was much younger I'd hoped to be one of them.

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

And if you bothered to read anything I've written in the past 6 months, I've said exactly that. The empire is over.

Aww, Florian. Are you still upset that you didn't know what American exceptionalism meant? That was a long time ago, buddy. You know, like when your country mattered.

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

Good try, pitiful nitwit. But you said exactly the opposite above.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what American exceptionalism means. It means, for one, that imbeciles like you can say whatever they please.

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

I think this blogpost of Stoller's is OK historically, but not very good analytically.

Here are some objections I have to the analysis.

First, there are plenty of contemporary "liberal" welfare states which are not simultaneously national security states (to use Garry Wills's taxonomy) and which do not pursue the drug war in the way that the US does. The national security state has to do with America's sole superpower status, not with its "liberalism."

A reason that there is and will be no challenge to Obama from the left in electoral terms is that Obama is a sitting president. Nevertheless, let's grant that "the left" is less powerful in the US now than is the oppositional right. I think that's true. But Stoller makes this sound as though this represents a problem with the thought capacity of the left, or with contradictions that are peculiar to "left-liberalism." But then he goes on make the point that Cohen had made, namely that there is no longer much "left-liberalism" in the Democratic Party. So I think the observation one needs to make is one about the changed power dynamics in US politics, not really about ideas. Garry Wills, perhaps one of America's paradigmatic "liberals," did write this book about the apotheosis of the National Security State, after all. There are plenty of liberal intellectuals who oppose the war on drugs, as evidenced on bhtv. The thing which distinguishes Ron Paul among the policies mentioned by Stoller is his opposition to the Fed and his gold-buggery. And this perhaps explains why Glenn Loury is particularly concerned to voice his opposition to those positions, although Loury should have been more expansive about his reasons for that opposition.

I have to go now.

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

I just want to offer my condolences to Josh and Glenn. They have always been two of my favorites (I know it seems I say that about everyone, but really...)

Josh, I guess there's nothing to say beyond hang in there and try to enjoy as much of life as you can despite what you're going through. And take some joy in knowing that you do make a difference, even if it is only in inspiring fellow lefties with your all-too-uncommon proud (and eloquent) defense of the very fundamentals of liberalism. I hope you continue to write and opine and come here to spout long diatribes on the importance of the welfare state, for many more appearances.

Glenn, your story was heart-breaking to hear (and I'm truly sorry for your loss), but also inspiring to those of us just beginning to embark on long-term relationships, in showing the strength and power of such profound love. It sounds like you had a rather amazing gal and a rich and rewarding love that all can admire.

Thanks to both of you, for being so candid. I'm sure you are in the thoughts and prayers of many. --Uncle Eb

Re: Means and Ends (Joshua Cohen & Glenn Loury)
 

Nice words, Eb. We really are lucky to have these guys come here to talk to us.

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

lolwut

You know I'm a Ron Paul supporter, right?

Funny how you get to throw personal insults like "imbecile" so casually. When I used the more politically correct variant "retard" in a joke, that gets me censored. Don't worry, though. I won't call the BHTV police on you. That's for whiners, right?

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

I was using the word solely in ts denotative sense: "preponderant influence or authority over others." I apologize to the IR profession for not using the usual connotations. Perhaps, I should have just used, "medical prowess" or "technological precociousness". Or, maybe just call it "immoral".

Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul
 

You draw a good distinction between "national security state" and "liberal welfare state". Still, LBJ is the president who extended the New Deal to its maximum extent and was responsible for the Gulf of Tonkin scandal. This is my point: is there something necessary about LBJ's twin accomplishments that undermines the argument for both types of state?