DISQUS

That, in a nutshell, is the basis for a powerful post-harmony, neo-Benthamite, crypto-Marxist, argument for the restriction of advertising and marketing. All Madison Ave. does is create wants that do not satisfy us. Good policy will restrict our choice sets to only truly satisfying options, like watching public television, paying higher taxes, and attending deliberative democracy summits in the local junior high gymnasium, instead of allowing the market to, in effect, addict us to junk. A system that allows us to self-defeatingly generate and satisfy “false” desires hardly constitutes a realm of true freedom, now does it?

Any economists out there wedded to the folk morality that want to tell me how to avoid this conclusion once pre-established harmony falls?

I'm no economist but i can see an easy way to avoid this conclusion. It's possible "in principal" to restrict people's choice so as to provide them with a smaller set of choices which wil have a greater payoff just like it's possible "in principal" to build a ladder to the moon. The problem is that neither are realistically achievable. The problem with the neo-Benthamite, Crypto-marxist proposal is that it's going to prove impossible to determine which are the good and which are the bad choices for a given individual never mind all of society. That's even before you get into comparing the (massive) costs and (slight) benefits of such a policy should it ever prove feasible.

Will, I think you are misinterpreting Bertram. I'm inferring this because of your elision of the word "decent". Bertram doesn't refer to those on the left who are in favour of protectionism. The "decent left" means something quite specific and refers to those, such as David Aaronovitch, Harry's Place and Norman Geras, who identify as "left" but who were/are also pro-war. Incidentally, his argument is a bit stretched here and is based on the dubious notion that the "decent left" are primarily concerned with the issue of national self-determination.

This post caught my eye earlier but I was thinking about this again, aren't you conflating two separate beliefs here?

1) That there is a God

2) That there is an afterlife (of presumably infinite bliss)

The latter doesn't automatically follow from the former, yet what is revealed by the behaviour described is an unacknowledged scepticism of the prospect of an afterlife (entry to which is presumably based on conforming to certain standards of behaviour) rather than meta-atheism as such. This would tie in with the fact that for believers, existence itself is "proof" of a Creator*, while the afterlife portion must be taken on "faith".

*Note, I don't buy this at all myself, I am a convinced atheist, but it has the same ring of plausibility to many people as the notion that animals are capable of reflective thought.

Monkyboy, word of advice: If you're going to go around accusing people of posting "slurs", it kind of diminishes the effect if you start with the crass formulation "didn't mean to get your Irish up".

Did this the other day, got this:

iTunes

Crystal Vibrations, Roy Ayers
J'ehin, J'ehin Fela Kuti
Life's Mood, Isaac Hayes
Music is My Life, Pleasure
We're going to make it, Brief Encounter
Point Zero, Voyage
Free And Easy, Lonnie Liston Smith
Angola (Carl Craig mix), Cesaria Evorio
Stepping Into Tomorrow, Donald Byrd
Shining Symbol, Roy Ayers

iPod

Strike Hard, Trouble Man
Big Love, Fleetwood Mac
Alive, Skin Le le
Think Twice, Detroit Experiment
Changeless, D*Note
Makes Me Wonder, Calibre
Fire Drill, Dj Pierre
Upa Neguinho, Luiz Arruda Paez
Wha Blo, Focus
At The Beach, Minus 8

This thought experiment is a bit of a conjuring trick. If it is the case that the Government 'gives back' exactly 98% to each person of the 100% it 'takes" then the 100% tax is just an accounting fiction and the correct tax rate is 2% making it small government - you can do what you like with the 98% "rebate". If it is the case that the 98% given back is some sort of redistributed average and is meant to include any "benefit" provided by the government whether the individual wants that benefit back or not then it's big government - you don't have the freedom to do what you like with the 98%

eNTj sometimes iNTj

It strikes me that the left ought to prefer forced savings over outright wealth transfer in at least many cases. I can't see how a welfare liberal can account for the justice of transfers in cases where people become deprived in old age due to their own failure to plan and save

Isn't there a rather charitable assumption here of intellectual consistency in the left? Surely, after the recent "desert" discussion you initiated, you should realise that those on the left strongly resist any distinction between "deserving" and "undeserving" poor?