Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Dain
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 months ago
in Tyler Cowen Fans on Will Wilkinson5 months ago
in Parties, Government Capture, and Poverty on Will Wilkinson
The odd thing about strong party identification is that at the level of realpolitik being a Democrat or Republican means compromise, as Don says - there aint no other parties at the table (despite the uptick in partisanship in Congressional voting in recent years). At the grassroots level it means the most rah-rah superficial cheerleading, as if the high ranking Ds and Rs don't compromise constantly to produce the very system their respective loyalists believe is dominated and directed (or obstructed) by their enemies (the superior virtue of the oppressed).
1 reply
Travel blog
You are absolutely spot on Dain!
6 months ago
in Naomi Klein Quote of the Day on Will Wilkinson
Wait, who are you saying is contradicting themselves? You mean Bush? Of all that he's ever said during the past 8 years, I scarcely recall him discussing Friedman. And him saying he likes capitalism is hopelessly vague, again, no more interesting than a Stalinist saying he likes "socialism." Either way, people actually dedicated to making a living as a professional free-marketeer or socialist can take what these professonal politicians say with a grain of salt.
If rhetoric should be held responsible for reality, then every tin pot dictator who's made references to the "people's will" or other vague, generally warm and fuzzy sounding b.s. ought to be strung up along with their lame, super nice ideology.
If rhetoric should be held responsible for reality, then every tin pot dictator who's made references to the "people's will" or other vague, generally warm and fuzzy sounding b.s. ought to be strung up along with their lame, super nice ideology.
1 reply
Fledermaus
Crap I've tied myself up here. What I'm trying to say is that your view of a free market capitalism, like communism, looks great on paper but is unlikely to work out in practice. I guess socalism (sp?) is what you get when a free market capitalist's buddies take a bath in the market. Since free government money is a fact of life now we're just arguing about who should get the largess
6 months ago
in Naomi Klein Quote of the Day on Will Wilkinson
Seems as if libertarians - the ultimate free market fundamentalists - have overwhelmingly NOT approved of the torrent of bailouts lately. Jeffrey Miron, for instance. I'm not sure who you speak of that is at all representative.
The last 8 years have seen an incredible increase in government assistance, including Bush's "ownership society" nonsense, which contributed to the current problem. The claim of a hugely interventionist Bush administration is a widely recognized fact at this point. Increased spending on discretionary "nice" stuff like education, etc.
And actually, there are many communists who'd claim that communism hasn't been tried, only authoritarian undemocratic versions. I'm not that familiar with their train of thought, so I'd best be humble. This sort of reminds me of the argument that Nietzsche was responsible for the Nazis, that Marx was responsible for Stalin.
The last 8 years have seen an incredible increase in government assistance, including Bush's "ownership society" nonsense, which contributed to the current problem. The claim of a hugely interventionist Bush administration is a widely recognized fact at this point. Increased spending on discretionary "nice" stuff like education, etc.
And actually, there are many communists who'd claim that communism hasn't been tried, only authoritarian undemocratic versions. I'm not that familiar with their train of thought, so I'd best be humble. This sort of reminds me of the argument that Nietzsche was responsible for the Nazis, that Marx was responsible for Stalin.
1 reply
Fledermaus
I agree that you are sincere in opposing all the bailouts. But that is not the world we live in. The s&l bailout, ltcm bailout, now this 700b give away all from someone who touted himself as a strong defender of free market capitalism and Friedman's philosophy. And this is what we get. How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away, Charlie Brown?
A Trotskyite would likewise argue that "although Stalin claimed to be a strong defender of Marxism he put an elite few in charge of industry who enriched themselves on the backs of an opressed labor force, not unlike western capitalists, therefore Stalin is the ultimate vindication of Marxism"
I don't buy it, but there we are. Your free market ideas will continue to be used to justify dening assistance to the poor and middle class and conviently ignored when the wealthy get themselves into trouble. Perhaps, just perhaps , we could try it the other way around for a while?
A Trotskyite would likewise argue that "although Stalin claimed to be a strong defender of Marxism he put an elite few in charge of industry who enriched themselves on the backs of an opressed labor force, not unlike western capitalists, therefore Stalin is the ultimate vindication of Marxism"
I don't buy it, but there we are. Your free market ideas will continue to be used to justify dening assistance to the poor and middle class and conviently ignored when the wealthy get themselves into trouble. Perhaps, just perhaps , we could try it the other way around for a while?
6 months ago
in Naomi Klein Quote of the Day on Will Wilkinson
No. Capitalism doesn't require that 700 billion dollars. Socialists like George W. Bush believe it does.
I heard that John Stewart rant about a "useful" product too...
I heard that John Stewart rant about a "useful" product too...
2 replies
fledermaus
Hmmm, last comment got eated.
Dain,
you have to deal with the free market you have not the free market on Big Rock Candy Mountain. The wall street bailout is a fact, admittedly supported on both sides of the aisle. And it was demanded by the very people who have spent the last 8 years or more extolling the vitrues of Milton and telling us how their hands off policies would unleash the wonderous powers of the free market and vigorously opposing any sort of government assistance (Hi Welfare Reform!) to those not part of the financial aristocracy.
Once again how does this differ from the sad bitter Trotskyites complaining that Stalin wasn't a real communist and real communism hasn't been tried?
Dain,
you have to deal with the free market you have not the free market on Big Rock Candy Mountain. The wall street bailout is a fact, admittedly supported on both sides of the aisle. And it was demanded by the very people who have spent the last 8 years or more extolling the vitrues of Milton and telling us how their hands off policies would unleash the wonderous powers of the free market and vigorously opposing any sort of government assistance (Hi Welfare Reform!) to those not part of the financial aristocracy.
Once again how does this differ from the sad bitter Trotskyites complaining that Stalin wasn't a real communist and real communism hasn't been tried?
fledermaus
You deal with the free market you have not the free market on Big Rock Candy Mountain. The wall street bailout is a fact and it was demanded by people (both GOP and Dem, admittedly) who spent the last 8 years or more extolling Milton and how their policies would unleash "free market capitialism." This is what we got.
Once again I fail to see how this is not unlike to those sad, sorry trotskyites bitterly complaining that real communism hasn't been tried.
Once again I fail to see how this is not unlike to those sad, sorry trotskyites bitterly complaining that real communism hasn't been tried.
6 months ago
in The Indeterminacy of Propertarianism on Will Wilkinson
If one can't even agree that he or she owns their own kidney, I don't see how most other ponts of contention in politics suffer from even more ambiguity.
And with Todd above, I think most left-liberals simply don't hold property in such high esteem, rather than have a wholly different conception of it.
And with Todd above, I think most left-liberals simply don't hold property in such high esteem, rather than have a wholly different conception of it.
1 reply
webgrrl
If you asked most Americans if you own your body, they will say of course. If you ask them then if you own your own kidney, they will say yes. If you further asked if your kidney could be removed without your consent they will say no.
Yet if you then inquire as to whether you have the right to remove your own kidney and sell it, they will say no - arguing that your choice to sell the kidney to someone privately is "playing God" and denies both justice (in which the "person who need it most" should have it) and respect to God (since your sale of the kidney will probably determine whether someone lives or dies, a function that should be relegated to God).
This is one of those areas where to engage with the real world and its objections to things, you have to realize . . .well, you know, the link. But you know, sometimes in America ya gotta wrestle with that religious belief Tocqueville described so well.
Yet if you then inquire as to whether you have the right to remove your own kidney and sell it, they will say no - arguing that your choice to sell the kidney to someone privately is "playing God" and denies both justice (in which the "person who need it most" should have it) and respect to God (since your sale of the kidney will probably determine whether someone lives or dies, a function that should be relegated to God).
This is one of those areas where to engage with the real world and its objections to things, you have to realize . . .well, you know, the link. But you know, sometimes in America ya gotta wrestle with that religious belief Tocqueville described so well.
Sadly, I have both Intercourse and MacKinnon's Only Words - "pornography is the law for women" - right here on my book boxes. I read them both when they were new. Tragically, I remember both of them fairly well. I confess Only Words is clearer to mind because it is better written and concise.
Dworkin's context is clear. Power dynamics in the patriarchy make heterosexual sex tantamount to rape. Penetrative sex is the male's expression of contempt for women. She just says so, flat out. I mean, we live in a semi-patriarchy today - so that's the way it is today. That's her statement of reality, or as she wrote, "the material conditions." Women inevitably suffer violence and economic disadvantage, which is the basis of the exploitation, yadda yadda yadda.
But somehow in some mysterious state of "equality", which apparently could be realized only by criminalizing even the mildest forms of pornography, even perhaps fashion advertisements in Vogue, and by making men hate themselves constantly, then sex will be ok again.
But let me emphasize that we do not, as Dworkin says, live in such an equal state. Outside the equal state, sex is rape. Therefore now sex is rape. That's just her argument no matter how many fancy hairs she and her acolytes tried to split.
The problem is - even if you are not a big evolution fan - that frankly I and many modern women don't feel these supposed degrading material conditions. Thanks to capitalism, even in its current state, I make waaaay more money than most men, am certainly not submissive to any, and have the means of birth control and choice to foster my own destiny. I'm just not a victim here as Dworkin wants to analyze me. And I really resent her trying to tell me she knows my state better than I actually live it.
In fact, let me compare myself, as I am wont to do, Queen Elizabeth I. Although not an absolute monarch as she was, I demonstrably have much more personal power and freedom than she ever did over my own self.
Look, Dain, I'm a feminist. But this kind of MacKinnon-Dworkin-Shalit-Farley craziness is exactly what turned an entire generation of women away from feminism. This is the old-fashioned, men-are-evil, sex-is-bad stuff that has set us back so far.
We really need a different attitude if we are to progress further, an attitude in which men are our partners who face their own issues that we must address together. And I think most women under 35 or 40 now have this attitude.