I think a possible proposal for welfare is to contract local groups to oversee the administration. I sense that nobody expects purely private charity to support the poor after government has weakened that social muscle. But it also seems that the inability to hold people accountable for their behavior means that welfare becomes a trap for entire social groups
Perhaps, experimentally, local entities with local knowledge could bid to direct welfare in the area. Conservative politicians who might be interested in this policy would likely choose orgs who say their charity will depend on behavior. An alarming concept to modern ears, but then our slums would be very alarming to people from decades ago
"What about the idea that capitalism and government have been “taking over” areas of life once handled via other social mechanisms?"
What is the name of the third category that isn't capitalism or government? If Adam barters two cows to Eve for seven apples, that seems like capitalism?
yeah, I guess my question is: I can totally see how government can take over part of your life. I don't understand how, in the context of "taking over", capitalism can do that. I guess I'm saying that I see the world more as a slider between gov -> capitalism, where any area of life that govt hasn't taken over counts as "capitalistic."
Capitalism is about capital: stuff, e.g. money, goods, services... products in a market. Some things are arguably outside the market, e.g. custom, religion, culture, family, leadership, relationships. Having dad tell you what to do works similarly in capitalist and non-capitalist societies, for example.
Sure, from a high level categorization, that makes sense. But in the limited context of "whether it's taken over or not" what does "capitalism takes over dad's advice" look like? He charges you 10 bucks for it? That might conceivably literally *be* more capitalistic, but it doesn't feel like "it's been taken over BY capitalism" it just would feel like like "your dad might be a bit weird and has chosen to add money to this interaction."
I know what "government taking it over" would look like - you'd have some board of education that vetted all parental advice to make sure it was true and useful, and threw dads in jail if they told you to do the wrong stuff.
Re: "Let’s agree that these changes have been correlated with big increases in wealth, health, and peace, which has greatly reducing cultural selection pressures"
Which cultural selection pressures, though? Are we talking about Apple vs Android? vi vs emacs? Protestantism vs catholicism? Dems vs Repubs? English vs Chinese? French vs German? It seems to me that grand claims about overall increases or decreases of cultural selection pressures are quite vulnerable to the criticism that the sample set has been cherry-picked.
I mean capitalism led to a general rise in incomes, which emancipated individuals relative to larger social structures which might've previously bent them in shape, in return for access to then scarcer avenues of employment, land, insurance, etc
the challenge is finding non coercive replacements for previous arrangements which weren't as heavily selected against coercion as wealthy denizens of capitalism desire
One side point: Modern capitalism and modern government are not fundamentally different things - they are parts of the same thing, neither of which exists on its own. Capitalism is literally made out of government rules and functions, and modern governments create and enable capitalism because capitalism makes governments stronger.
Can you unpack this a bit? Modern capitalism is endlessly mutable and quick to respond to evolving market demand. How would that process optimize for any particular cultural value?
Something seems to be missing here. Allowing capitalism to swallow everything certainly doesn't strike me as ideal. A market must be embedded within a culture, not culture embedded within the market. Markets are wonderful for the exchange of commodities... But not everything in this world ought to be conceptualized as a commodity to be exchanged. Some things need to be priceless or they become worthless. There needs to be areas of life that are properly recognized as neither the domain of government to coerce nor the market to purchase.
Is taxation coercion? Let's see... Even if we don't go all the way to the Libertarian "All taxes are legalized plunder" (aka "Tax is theft"), it's pretty undeniable that taxes are necessarily backed by the threat of force. You pay or eventually get sent to jail. Even when you pay, you've lost property that was yours. So sure, I think there is a plausible argument that taxation is inherently a harm, backed by the threat of greater harm, and there are certainly some taxes deliberately designed to discourage specific behaviors ('sin' taxes, luxury taxes, etc) or to target disfavored groups (wealth taxes, etc). Yes, taxes have an element of coercion to them, sometimes by design.
Is a subsidy coercion? Generally, I think not. A subsidy is nominally voluntary, even those who qualify aren't forced to take it. That said, certain subsidies COULD be considered coercion in a particular context such as a zero sum competition, when another's gain is literally your loss you ARE being threatened with that loss even if the method is indirect. For example, subsidies that allow one competitor to sell at below the price of production pretty reliably drives all unsubsidized producers out of business, so it becomes a very credible threat not disimilar to the old protection racket iof "Nice business you got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it...". So let's say that a subsidy CAN be coercion, but isn't always.
As for where doesn't government or markets intrude? Hopefully, in Love, in friendship, in pure self-expression, in generosity, in philosophy, etc...
Allow me to illustrate somewhat with a scenario: A coworker brings a plate of delicious cookies to the office...
If they just say "These are for the office", how many do you take? Even if you'd like more, you probably just take one at first, until everybody else also gets a chance to take one. It's a social context, you think about others and you have gratitude for your coworker's generosity.
If they just say "Bake sale, these are $1", how many do you take? If you'd like more than one, you probably take more than one. If somebody else in the office wouldn't get one then, oh well, first come first serve. It's a transactional context, you don't necessarily think about anyone else.
If it's an office 'mandatory fun' potluck event and they just happened to be assigned cookies as their thing to bring, you just grab a cookie or two and probably don't think much of it.
I think the first scenario is better than the second or third. I'd rather that life be about the people around you, not just what you're paid, bribed, or threatened into doing.
"Well first, let’s agree that these changes have been correlated with big increases in wealth, health, and peace, which has greatly reducing cultural selection pressures."
Isn't this the core issue? If we have ubiquitous health, wealth and peace, we won't have selection pressure, and therefore culture will move in an aimless, and almost certainly bad, direction until it gets to a point where health, wealth and peace collapse and selection pressures come back in force?
Reading as much history about subjects you care about seems the essential way to understand and partcipate on the subjects you reference. Observing the world as you live is how most people get their opinions about how to live.
Your family and people you meet usually form you unless you read. If you were born in 1950 like I was the first thougt I know is true is that I was born in the USA. TO BE CONTINUED, I THINK. JIM
> Well first, let’s agree that these changes have been correlated with big increases in wealth, health, and peace, which has greatly reducing cultural selection pressures.
Have cultural selection pressures really been reduced, or rather is it possible they've been simply obscured/camouflaged/gamified?
Many conservatives, possibly including yourself, view as among the "lamentable" social changes the widespread availability of abortion and transgendering procedures. It is mainly conservatives that have encouraged their restrictions and, in some cases, illegality. Would not a free-market approach to permitting and providing these services actually increase their availability and provision?
I actually think social norms are quite fickle. "Wokeness" seemed to rule for about 10 years, but is now on its way out. It is conservative forces in government that have restricted private colleges and universities from admitting or denying admission to anyone they choose, which, in a free-market world, would not have been restricted.
So it seems to me that a free-market approach to such practices as the above might actually increase and facilitate the very changes that you regard as lamentable.
Finally, I think that the most important single factor that facilitated many of these changes was technological: the advent of the birth-control pill, which became legally available in the US in 1964. All of a sudden, men and women could easily have sex for its own sake and avoid pregnancy. This led to the decline of marriage and of the traditional male role of providing for the family, because pregnancy could be easily avoided and women could have serious careers.
Whatever you think of this, it allowed more people to do what they wanted to do, which is the desideratum of a free-market system, and it actually was the free market in birth control mechanisms that lead to it. It also lead to our declining birth rate, I suppose, and I know that you are concerned about that.
I did not in any way state or imply that. Not even close! Perhaps you were trying to respond to someone else's comment but accidentally responded to mine.
I think a possible proposal for welfare is to contract local groups to oversee the administration. I sense that nobody expects purely private charity to support the poor after government has weakened that social muscle. But it also seems that the inability to hold people accountable for their behavior means that welfare becomes a trap for entire social groups
Perhaps, experimentally, local entities with local knowledge could bid to direct welfare in the area. Conservative politicians who might be interested in this policy would likely choose orgs who say their charity will depend on behavior. An alarming concept to modern ears, but then our slums would be very alarming to people from decades ago
"What about the idea that capitalism and government have been “taking over” areas of life once handled via other social mechanisms?"
What is the name of the third category that isn't capitalism or government? If Adam barters two cows to Eve for seven apples, that seems like capitalism?
The growth of US government, for example, as measured by Tax Freedom Day, was clear until 1970, where we settled at ~30% tax burden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day#United_States
yeah, I guess my question is: I can totally see how government can take over part of your life. I don't understand how, in the context of "taking over", capitalism can do that. I guess I'm saying that I see the world more as a slider between gov -> capitalism, where any area of life that govt hasn't taken over counts as "capitalistic."
Capitalism is about capital: stuff, e.g. money, goods, services... products in a market. Some things are arguably outside the market, e.g. custom, religion, culture, family, leadership, relationships. Having dad tell you what to do works similarly in capitalist and non-capitalist societies, for example.
Sure, from a high level categorization, that makes sense. But in the limited context of "whether it's taken over or not" what does "capitalism takes over dad's advice" look like? He charges you 10 bucks for it? That might conceivably literally *be* more capitalistic, but it doesn't feel like "it's been taken over BY capitalism" it just would feel like like "your dad might be a bit weird and has chosen to add money to this interaction."
I know what "government taking it over" would look like - you'd have some board of education that vetted all parental advice to make sure it was true and useful, and threw dads in jail if they told you to do the wrong stuff.
Another way, then...
Are there more goods and services than there used to be?
That was careless of me, let me rephrase: are there more kinds of goods and services than there used to be? Not just more books or cars, but novelty?
Absolutely.
Re: "Let’s agree that these changes have been correlated with big increases in wealth, health, and peace, which has greatly reducing cultural selection pressures"
Which cultural selection pressures, though? Are we talking about Apple vs Android? vi vs emacs? Protestantism vs catholicism? Dems vs Repubs? English vs Chinese? French vs German? It seems to me that grand claims about overall increases or decreases of cultural selection pressures are quite vulnerable to the criticism that the sample set has been cherry-picked.
FELICES EL CAPITALISMO Y ROBIN HANSONROBIN
FELICES Y GRACIAS EL CAPITATISMO
Capitalism is the classic victim of social desirability bias and populism
Yeah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
I mean capitalism led to a general rise in incomes, which emancipated individuals relative to larger social structures which might've previously bent them in shape, in return for access to then scarcer avenues of employment, land, insurance, etc
the challenge is finding non coercive replacements for previous arrangements which weren't as heavily selected against coercion as wealthy denizens of capitalism desire
One side point: Modern capitalism and modern government are not fundamentally different things - they are parts of the same thing, neither of which exists on its own. Capitalism is literally made out of government rules and functions, and modern governments create and enable capitalism because capitalism makes governments stronger.
Can you unpack this a bit? Modern capitalism is endlessly mutable and quick to respond to evolving market demand. How would that process optimize for any particular cultural value?
It would just remain adaptive. That's the value it would promote.
Rent, not capital or labor, is problematic: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Georgism
Pride. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pride : the belief that you are better or more important than other people.
Also, English has epicaricacy, which means schadenfreude.
Something seems to be missing here. Allowing capitalism to swallow everything certainly doesn't strike me as ideal. A market must be embedded within a culture, not culture embedded within the market. Markets are wonderful for the exchange of commodities... But not everything in this world ought to be conceptualized as a commodity to be exchanged. Some things need to be priceless or they become worthless. There needs to be areas of life that are properly recognized as neither the domain of government to coerce nor the market to purchase.
Is taxation and/or subsidy coercion? What area of life is untouched by markets?
Is taxation coercion? Let's see... Even if we don't go all the way to the Libertarian "All taxes are legalized plunder" (aka "Tax is theft"), it's pretty undeniable that taxes are necessarily backed by the threat of force. You pay or eventually get sent to jail. Even when you pay, you've lost property that was yours. So sure, I think there is a plausible argument that taxation is inherently a harm, backed by the threat of greater harm, and there are certainly some taxes deliberately designed to discourage specific behaviors ('sin' taxes, luxury taxes, etc) or to target disfavored groups (wealth taxes, etc). Yes, taxes have an element of coercion to them, sometimes by design.
Is a subsidy coercion? Generally, I think not. A subsidy is nominally voluntary, even those who qualify aren't forced to take it. That said, certain subsidies COULD be considered coercion in a particular context such as a zero sum competition, when another's gain is literally your loss you ARE being threatened with that loss even if the method is indirect. For example, subsidies that allow one competitor to sell at below the price of production pretty reliably drives all unsubsidized producers out of business, so it becomes a very credible threat not disimilar to the old protection racket iof "Nice business you got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it...". So let's say that a subsidy CAN be coercion, but isn't always.
As for where doesn't government or markets intrude? Hopefully, in Love, in friendship, in pure self-expression, in generosity, in philosophy, etc...
Allow me to illustrate somewhat with a scenario: A coworker brings a plate of delicious cookies to the office...
If they just say "These are for the office", how many do you take? Even if you'd like more, you probably just take one at first, until everybody else also gets a chance to take one. It's a social context, you think about others and you have gratitude for your coworker's generosity.
If they just say "Bake sale, these are $1", how many do you take? If you'd like more than one, you probably take more than one. If somebody else in the office wouldn't get one then, oh well, first come first serve. It's a transactional context, you don't necessarily think about anyone else.
If it's an office 'mandatory fun' potluck event and they just happened to be assigned cookies as their thing to bring, you just grab a cookie or two and probably don't think much of it.
I think the first scenario is better than the second or third. I'd rather that life be about the people around you, not just what you're paid, bribed, or threatened into doing.
"Well first, let’s agree that these changes have been correlated with big increases in wealth, health, and peace, which has greatly reducing cultural selection pressures."
Isn't this the core issue? If we have ubiquitous health, wealth and peace, we won't have selection pressure, and therefore culture will move in an aimless, and almost certainly bad, direction until it gets to a point where health, wealth and peace collapse and selection pressures come back in force?
Yes that is the core issue.
Reading as much history about subjects you care about seems the essential way to understand and partcipate on the subjects you reference. Observing the world as you live is how most people get their opinions about how to live.
Your family and people you meet usually form you unless you read. If you were born in 1950 like I was the first thougt I know is true is that I was born in the USA. TO BE CONTINUED, I THINK. JIM
> Well first, let’s agree that these changes have been correlated with big increases in wealth, health, and peace, which has greatly reducing cultural selection pressures.
Have cultural selection pressures really been reduced, or rather is it possible they've been simply obscured/camouflaged/gamified?
Many conservatives, possibly including yourself, view as among the "lamentable" social changes the widespread availability of abortion and transgendering procedures. It is mainly conservatives that have encouraged their restrictions and, in some cases, illegality. Would not a free-market approach to permitting and providing these services actually increase their availability and provision?
I actually think social norms are quite fickle. "Wokeness" seemed to rule for about 10 years, but is now on its way out. It is conservative forces in government that have restricted private colleges and universities from admitting or denying admission to anyone they choose, which, in a free-market world, would not have been restricted.
So it seems to me that a free-market approach to such practices as the above might actually increase and facilitate the very changes that you regard as lamentable.
Finally, I think that the most important single factor that facilitated many of these changes was technological: the advent of the birth-control pill, which became legally available in the US in 1964. All of a sudden, men and women could easily have sex for its own sake and avoid pregnancy. This led to the decline of marriage and of the traditional male role of providing for the family, because pregnancy could be easily avoided and women could have serious careers.
Whatever you think of this, it allowed more people to do what they wanted to do, which is the desideratum of a free-market system, and it actually was the free market in birth control mechanisms that lead to it. It also lead to our declining birth rate, I suppose, and I know that you are concerned about that.
So be careful what you wish for!
Pinning the Civil Rights Act on “conservative forces in government” is quite the take!
I did not in any way state or imply that. Not even close! Perhaps you were trying to respond to someone else's comment but accidentally responded to mine.