Scott Sumner, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite modern thinkers, offers some thoughts and insights on comments made by the BB&T Chairman and dogmatic libertarian John Allison.
I consider myself a dogmatic libertarian with the strong desire to become a pragmatic libertarian. I think it is near impossible to identify one's personal value system and philosophy as pragmatic without first being dogmatic. Let me explain.
By dogmatic, I mean one feels very passionate about what they believe in yet allows that emotion to significently determine their argument. In addition, their exposure to the true depth of the philosophy they are attempting to defend is shallow. Consequently, they have an argument heavy on emotion and light on intellectual depth.
The pragmatic thinker tips the scale. He is heavy on understanding and possesses a deep understanding of his argument, but is able to keep his emotions in check and make the appropriate, practical concessions to his opponent and his environment.
If one were to look at it in terms of Atlas Shrugged, the dogmatic libertarian would only be able to defend the work (and most likely not particularily well), whereas the pragmatic libertarian could both defend and critique it.
I think this view applies to both liberals and libertarians, but not conservatives, as I find much of their thinking contradictory and convoluted.
Showing posts with label Philosopy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosopy. Show all posts
Capitalism and Rights
Rob and I are having a bit of a back and forth concerning the subsidization of higher education. I'm having some difficulty following his argument, though, so I want to move it over to a post and get a little more philosophical.
Rob, as you stated earlier, you think capitalism is an amoral system. Yet you believe that the benefits of a capitalistic society establish specific moral standards. Take the case of higher education. Modern, mainstream higher education is made possible by capitalism. Mass production of study materials, construction of buildings and campuses, coordinating of dining services, the instant, all-encompassing spread of ideas around the world and historical amounts of leisure time are just a few indications and example of how capitalism has paved the road for millions to receive a low cost, high quality higher education that they never would have received under any other economic system.
This amoral system, thus, is doing a great deal of good. And you think that individuals have an inherent right to the benefits of this amoral system.
So my question for you is how can an amoral system be the parent of moral standards? In other words, how can higher education be a moral good every citizen has a right to if its creation was the result of amoral forces?
My answer is that it can't, but those in power pretend it can and most people like the simple utopian appeal and buy into it. This, in my opinion, is the essence of politics.
But before I say any more though I am interested in hearing what you have to say.
Rob, as you stated earlier, you think capitalism is an amoral system. Yet you believe that the benefits of a capitalistic society establish specific moral standards. Take the case of higher education. Modern, mainstream higher education is made possible by capitalism. Mass production of study materials, construction of buildings and campuses, coordinating of dining services, the instant, all-encompassing spread of ideas around the world and historical amounts of leisure time are just a few indications and example of how capitalism has paved the road for millions to receive a low cost, high quality higher education that they never would have received under any other economic system.
This amoral system, thus, is doing a great deal of good. And you think that individuals have an inherent right to the benefits of this amoral system.
So my question for you is how can an amoral system be the parent of moral standards? In other words, how can higher education be a moral good every citizen has a right to if its creation was the result of amoral forces?
My answer is that it can't, but those in power pretend it can and most people like the simple utopian appeal and buy into it. This, in my opinion, is the essence of politics.
But before I say any more though I am interested in hearing what you have to say.
Utilitarianism and Health Care
Last week Rob asked me this question in response to a post by me questioning the legitimacy of the claim that health care access is a right:
If you could prove that universal education and health care, regardless of being a right or not, created a healthier, better educated society from a utilitarian standpoint, would you still choose not to universalize education and health care in light of your moral position?
This question is more philosophical than economical so I will try and keep my answer in that realm.
Now, what I think Rob is really asking is do the ends justify the means. The means in this case would violate my moral principles, or at least radically diminish them to the point of non-existence, but would also accomplish the ends of attaining the best for the most.
My endorsement for capitalism is two-fold: it is the most efficient and effective economic system we know of and it is, in my opinion, the most moral system we know of. My basis for this assertion is that it, in the long run, capitalism facilitates the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people and consequently leads to the maximum number of benefits for those said people. Rob's question asks if the economic side of the capitalism argument is false, does the moral side still provide enough value that it should still be advocated?
As one can see (and I'm not writing anything new here), the economic virtues of capitalism directly stem from its moral virtues. By providing individuals with the maximum amount of choice possible, the maximum amount of optimal solutions to whatever problems that face a society have the best chance of being reached. Consequently, we have the largest chance of seeing our lives improve in two ways. Principally, we can follow whatever course of life we deem fit given the choices we are provided with. In a sense, we can say that capitalism is not in and of itself a moral system but an avenue for moral systems to be discovered (invented?), evolve, and compete. And materially, as mentioned before, we can reap the maximum benefits that these choices will inevitably lead to.
Where am I going with this? Maybe it is too much of a stretch, but I think that by eliminating the moral virtues of capitalism in a market as complex and varied as health care, we will by default eliminate the material benefits capitalism provides. Choice is so integral to health care because the market is so varied and complex in all of it demands. Capitalism is thus, by default, the optimal system, both morally and materially, to meet all of these demands.
The inevitable question then is is there a minimum limit of complexity or variation in consumer demand where a centralized approach is more appropriate than the free market model in achieving utilitarian ends? That's a question for another day (and I think the one the Rob is asking and have avoided answering). But I do not think a centralized approach is a plausible model for the our current health care system, and thus cannot answer the original question without basing it on what I think are false premises.
Education strikes me, at least initially, as the better area to look at this question through, I will try and answer that question at some point in the future.
(Note: My knowledge of utilitarianism is very limited, so if I mischaracterized anything about the philosophy forgive me and please correct in the comments section)
If you could prove that universal education and health care, regardless of being a right or not, created a healthier, better educated society from a utilitarian standpoint, would you still choose not to universalize education and health care in light of your moral position?
This question is more philosophical than economical so I will try and keep my answer in that realm.
Now, what I think Rob is really asking is do the ends justify the means. The means in this case would violate my moral principles, or at least radically diminish them to the point of non-existence, but would also accomplish the ends of attaining the best for the most.
My endorsement for capitalism is two-fold: it is the most efficient and effective economic system we know of and it is, in my opinion, the most moral system we know of. My basis for this assertion is that it, in the long run, capitalism facilitates the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people and consequently leads to the maximum number of benefits for those said people. Rob's question asks if the economic side of the capitalism argument is false, does the moral side still provide enough value that it should still be advocated?
As one can see (and I'm not writing anything new here), the economic virtues of capitalism directly stem from its moral virtues. By providing individuals with the maximum amount of choice possible, the maximum amount of optimal solutions to whatever problems that face a society have the best chance of being reached. Consequently, we have the largest chance of seeing our lives improve in two ways. Principally, we can follow whatever course of life we deem fit given the choices we are provided with. In a sense, we can say that capitalism is not in and of itself a moral system but an avenue for moral systems to be discovered (invented?), evolve, and compete. And materially, as mentioned before, we can reap the maximum benefits that these choices will inevitably lead to.
Where am I going with this? Maybe it is too much of a stretch, but I think that by eliminating the moral virtues of capitalism in a market as complex and varied as health care, we will by default eliminate the material benefits capitalism provides. Choice is so integral to health care because the market is so varied and complex in all of it demands. Capitalism is thus, by default, the optimal system, both morally and materially, to meet all of these demands.
The inevitable question then is is there a minimum limit of complexity or variation in consumer demand where a centralized approach is more appropriate than the free market model in achieving utilitarian ends? That's a question for another day (and I think the one the Rob is asking and have avoided answering). But I do not think a centralized approach is a plausible model for the our current health care system, and thus cannot answer the original question without basing it on what I think are false premises.
Education strikes me, at least initially, as the better area to look at this question through, I will try and answer that question at some point in the future.
(Note: My knowledge of utilitarianism is very limited, so if I mischaracterized anything about the philosophy forgive me and please correct in the comments section)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
