DISQUS

Thanks, it's good that some people have better memories than I do!

Didn't something similar to this happen on a much large scale with the paper making industry. I vaguely recall reading that they put in some "make your business greener by using less diesel!" subsidy, and some smart ass consultant told the paper companies to add diesel to their process (even though unnecessary) and then slightly reduce the diesel each year to qualify for the millions in subsidies.

I don't think anyone is objecting to people issuing calm, reasoned disagreements with her politics. It's the crazy silly stuff like fighting over how to pronounce her name that makes people say "God, I hate politics." I wish I had made that up.

I think the whole "strings attached to govt money" issue is going to be one of the primary debate points over the next 10 years -- you can already see it in the bailout stuff, and we're going to have the debate over healthcare pretty quickly as well. It will only be exacerbated as we find less amounts of money to spread around -- we'll have to find ways to ration it, and this is how it's going to happen: coming up withe rules that exclude people from receiving them.

To what extent do governments have a right to regulate the actions of those who receive benefits? Which benefits count as ones that should impose these regulations?

Yeah, this is the "making the perfect the enemy of the good" scenario, right? PJ's questions are perfect examples.

Libertarians may want the state out of marriages entirely, and to have no torture at all, and to legalize all drugs, but there's no contradiction or compromise if you support a less worse alternative over a worse one. All of these political issues exist on a gradient.

I do know libertarians who make these arguments, but it usually doesn't take long for them to either accept that going towards a less-worse option is better than doing nothing. Or, to admit that their objections are based on other, less-libertarian motives.

My name is Brian, and while I don't, I want the people I know who do to not have to be afraid of criminal penalties for doing so.

I think Galbraith may be considering unemployment benefits and Temporary Assist for Needy Families as "social security", after I looked around. As opposed to just "the money you get at 65."

The wikipedia article (disclaimer here) considers tthem part of SS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(U...)

Okay, after reading more, I see that my confusion is partly related to the idea that he was referring to "middle class people who have just lost their jobs and are in financial ruin." Which leaves mainly your critique of "how can we pay more into these if the economy doesn't recover?"

"the American middle class finds today that its major source of wealth is the implicit value of Social Security and Medicare"

What? Is this really true? I don't even know if I'm "middle class" or not, but I'm 28 and I have company-provided health insurance, so I don't see SS or medicare as really being part of my "wealth" -- rather they seem to be taking money out of my paycheck, which is what I do consider part of my "wealth". I'm willing to accept that I am ignorantly misunderstanding his comments, but then I'm just begging for someone to explain this to me.

While I have sympathies with both sides, I think they could easily come to an agreement around this point:

"for violent and property crime there is always an individual victim who gets hurt "

The key feature is what types of crimes we're talking about. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should not lock up violent offenders, or that we should ignore the costs of those crimes. It's that non violent (basically drug) crime is such a vast majority of what we're talking about. I don't know if Lott or Loury support decriminalization, but it seems like both of them should.

Loury's arguments look silly when applied to violent crimes. Lott's arguments look silly when applied to drug crimes. Seems to me like there's a simple way to fix this!

"I'm really struggling to parse resistance to the idea that there might be lots of people who are socially liberal, like markets, but think "tax is theft" libertarianism is for crazy people."

I don't think its resistance, I just simply don't know people who fit into that category. And I know my own experiences aren't sufficient, so I look around for people in government, in the media, or on the internet who might fit it. And I don't really find many.

I think you can find many liberals who are fine with markets when they feel things are working well, and will answer surveys to that effect, but really don't support anything that actually supports that viewpoint. Sure, these are just my own experiences. And I truly do apologize if I've missed the data that you've presented about people who hold socially liberal, pro-market beliefs, but who do not already identify as libertarians.

I admit that I would desperately like liberaltarianism to work, and I definitely agree on the silliness of traditional "left" and "right." But I kinda in the same boat as Welch. I consider myself socially liberal. I hang out with tons of social/economic liberals. We happily agree on many things, but absolutely none of them are interested in any debate about economics. And the recent crisis has even solidified that viewpoint. I'll continue to cheer for liberals when they manage to do things I agree with, but they have absolutely no interest in giving any ground on economic matters. Any of them who would has already self-identified as a libertarian.

If you want, what would go a long way to convincing skeptics would be if you could link a few dozen self-described liberals saying some libertarian type things as a matter of principle. And some people saying "yeah, wow, I hadn't thought of it that way." Even when I see Krugman defending free trade people jump on him for it. When I see DeLong say something like that, he gets jumped on. When Yglesias admits some program doesn't work, people slam him.

I think your "I go to the IOZ" link actually goes to Gene Healy. (feel free to delete!)

Though, I did appreciate that there were commenters to Healy's piece that called him a neo-con. That made me laught.

People have really gone off the deep end with this economic crisis thing. When people bring up the most absurd of Keynes' statements ( the money in the mineshaft) as good policy instead of crazy-man talk, they've totally lost it. There are a large subset of people who do not care one tiny bit about the facts. They know that if they can craft policy and public opinion on this to their favor, they are set for life. Chait knows which side he's on.

Wow, when people complain about the uniformly low quality of blog comments, we can use that to discredit them.

Yeah, any time I feel emotions around politics, I become very suspicious, because it means someone is trying to manipulate me. I didn't see the speech, since the whole thing has kind of turned me off, but the links at the end to evocative symbols of the candidates creep me the hell out. People's desire for Great And Noble Leaders to rule over them is really disgusting.

Also, and I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but shouldn't the proper term be: "Cosmo-spam?"

What Ezra's example conceals is that even allowing opt-outs is quite a concession from the government on most issues! Sure, for 401k's default-and-optout is a move in his direction, but for quite a few other things its a move in our direction. Think how many other things we are forced not to do at all, for our own good -- no opt-outs allowed. I'd be fine with Ezra's policy if we could apply it to drugs, prostitution, safety-belts, helmets and everything else that comes under the category of "most likely bad for us" but "some people want it anyway."

So all I have to do to participate in these things is carry a form around with me that says "I've opted out of the default legal restrictions."

The cops are gonna love this.

Our society has firmly established that giving someone five dollars in charity is better than selling them something that gives them twenty dollars of benefit for only ten dollars.

I have the sneaking suspicion that Gates is engaged in a long term moral experiment: how much money does a rich non-celebrity have to give away before people forgive him for being rich. I think he'll find that 100% isn't enough -- he'll have to start giving away other people's money before we like him. After all, look how we applaud those who do?

"But it can also be illuminating to occasionally note openly that ideologies do have an aesthetic dimension, and that some of them are just hideous."

Certainly! But I can't resist mentioning (even though as you put "some" you are allowing for it) that you could have nice aesthetics and bad ideology, and vice versa.

A critic of free markets could claim that Brittany Spears and The Enquirer are the vulgar aesthetics that arise when markets are allowed to "run wild." I pretty much look down on populism, but I have to accept that in a free system, lots of people are going to choose the tawdry over the refined, and that there's nothing wrong with that.

(I haven't tried to poke holes in this argument, just relaying it.)

I like Bouguereau and I don't like National Greatness. :(

*sniff*

I think this only displays that it's hard to make analogies like this. I'll forgive everyone's art taste if they promise to say bad things about McCain.

What it comes down to is that people are uncomfortable with the idea of other people (and themselves perhaps) doing what they want in an undirected manner.

Your post goes great with the Dan Klein paper (which I've recently been acquainted with) "The People's Romance."

I'm still stuck on your first reason. Why did anyone have to do anything for the MILITARY to tap Iraqi cell phone towers? None of the laws under debate even affect that.

Replace "wasted" with "used to get me a new yacht" and seems clear to me! :)

But yeah, we do need a simple way to do this. Would it be relatively easy to set up some "Open Source Lawyering" group that did quick rundowns on these outrageous patents? I'm not sure -- you'd think any Google lawyer with an ounce of tech knowledge could shoot it down. Why aren't these things being laughed out of court when they provide obvious prior art?

Maybe one day it will be easier AND more damaging to launch a "cyberwar" attack than it is to just shoot/bomb/stab people. Until then, real bad guys aren't going to care much about it. I do not think that day will arrive for quite some time.