Why I could never be a libertarian
Here.
Yeah, yeah, yeah: you'll tell me that idiot judges are part of the government.
And then I point out that having a large government is the only ingress for coalitions to protect those who would otherwise be under-represented in a smaller cabal. And then you ask for stats on the size of the U.S. government vs. Russian government. And then I tell you you're missing the point. All not important; let's fast-forward.
Rousseau was deluded, ok? You want "human nature"? Russia's got your human nature right there, baby. And I, for one, want protection from it.
Why do we even talk about these questions as if they haven't been solved? Why can't we just go to our local academic library, get access to the HRAF database, and assess the results of all of these lovely large-scale social experiments that have been running for years, in the guise of "culture," all around the globe? We don't need a headline like "Girls' and boys' math performance now equal" -- though those are never amiss -- to know that gender is a ridiculously plastic and non-diagnostic concept; fr'eavens sake, just look at what happens when girls are raised as boys in Albania.
I think we don't, because -- well, we're lazy; and, ok, HRAF really should be open, free, and accessible to anyone with an internet connection, in this day and age. But also because we believe there's some real and intrinsic difference between growing up in the U.S. and growing up in Albania or Russia. And there is, certainly. But it's completely trivial in the face of all the things that aren't different. And I've never really been able to figure out why most of the people who claim otherwise are the very same ones who seem most quick to reach for the charge of racism. (But, then, I've never been able to wrap my head around gender-essentialist feminism, either.)
We digress, of course. Global big government now!
Preferably, headquartered in Brussels.
Yeah, yeah, yeah: you'll tell me that idiot judges are part of the government.
And then I point out that having a large government is the only ingress for coalitions to protect those who would otherwise be under-represented in a smaller cabal. And then you ask for stats on the size of the U.S. government vs. Russian government. And then I tell you you're missing the point. All not important; let's fast-forward.
Rousseau was deluded, ok? You want "human nature"? Russia's got your human nature right there, baby. And I, for one, want protection from it.
Why do we even talk about these questions as if they haven't been solved? Why can't we just go to our local academic library, get access to the HRAF database, and assess the results of all of these lovely large-scale social experiments that have been running for years, in the guise of "culture," all around the globe? We don't need a headline like "Girls' and boys' math performance now equal" -- though those are never amiss -- to know that gender is a ridiculously plastic and non-diagnostic concept; fr'eavens sake, just look at what happens when girls are raised as boys in Albania.
I think we don't, because -- well, we're lazy; and, ok, HRAF really should be open, free, and accessible to anyone with an internet connection, in this day and age. But also because we believe there's some real and intrinsic difference between growing up in the U.S. and growing up in Albania or Russia. And there is, certainly. But it's completely trivial in the face of all the things that aren't different. And I've never really been able to figure out why most of the people who claim otherwise are the very same ones who seem most quick to reach for the charge of racism. (But, then, I've never been able to wrap my head around gender-essentialist feminism, either.)
We digress, of course. Global big government now!
Preferably, headquartered in Brussels.
8 Comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 5:30 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 3:54 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 9:23 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 9:16 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 7:46 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 10:06 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 10:10 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 1:51 AM
Post a CommentYour reasoning is exactly backwards: you distrust human nature, so you hope that giving more power to people in control of the government will help resolve problems created by human nature? Why are the people in government immune from the human nature problem in the first place?
Oh--you want "good" government that will magically resolve these problems because the people in them have your sensibilities. Why stop there? Why not petition for rule by a benevolent dictatorship?
(See also: how well women do in Brussels in two generations when sharia is officially recognized as a viable legal system in Europe.)
I'm with Anonymous: benevolent dictatorship all the way. I'm serious: those benign dess-pots (pronunciation courtesy of Mrs. K from high school) got a lot done.
I'm glad that you're officially not a libertarian, though. It's a nice idea in concept but most people are too human for it to work.
Ah, yes. The "all roads lead to libertarianism" chestnut. People are good? Great -- let 'em self-govern. People aren't good? Ok -- keep 'em out of government.
But, see, I'm also a statistician. Given my view of human nature -- we're selfish, venal, bullying little f*cktards, but, fortunately, also moldable by the social emotions engendered by our herd instincts -- I want a herd on the Hill. Anything less than that -- a small, unrepresentative sample -- and you wind up with selfish, venal (etc.) folks insufficiently susceptible to the full range of social groups and their arsenal of shaming, flattering, and the like.
I do honestly believe that our alternatives are either tyranny (in the Russia sense, not necessarily the more recognizable and sympathetic -- because it affects men! -- Patrick Henry sense) or mediocrity. And, given those choices, I vote for mediocrity. (And, indeed, do, every two years.)
Not surprisingly, I do agree with Italo (Mrs. K was a helluva teacher): benevolent despotism represents a special case. In fact, I think it's the obvious flip side of the rules of small sample sizes, which tend to generate results either below or above the population mean. I think the case can be made, historically, that B-Ds presided over periods of great progress, peace, and prosperity, but, heck, I understand the popular opinion of such sentiments and I'm not going to even try to mount a defense. Anyway, I freely admit that for every B-D, there are all too many Ds, and, historically, it's a scenario that runs into real problems when it comes time for succession.
I agree.
Mrs. K was a great teacher!
-s.
Oh, now, who is this mystery S.? I have an idea ...
Anyway, three cheers for our senior-year teachers in general, who were among the best that I've ever had (including profs at undergrad and MBA levels).
Aw, you guys! I post something provocative, with the clear aim of generating a comment war, and it quickly devolves into reminiscences about 12th-grade civics. "Yes, yes, of course; benevolent despotism is OBviously the way to go; but, more importantly; that Mrs. K; wasn't she diVINE?"
Eesh. Only on my blog.
12th grade? I thought Mrs. K was 11th. Thanks for the correction. Yeah, that's right - I think Stahlberger was 11th.
See? I *always* learn something from your blog....
-s.
Good ol' "Cactus Jack"! Yes, indeed, that was 11th grade. But, dear S., you don't want to reveal too too much about our shared history, do you?
PS to E.: We're just down-home folks here. With the parents having officially sold the Family Home this past week, I will not apologize for a bit of nostalgia.
<< Home