What's Wrong with the World Comments

(22:13) Mark on I'm a purist, but I'm not an attack dog

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:47:03 -0500

Author: Mark
Date: Feb 8, 2012 10:13 PM

The nominalism connection is a common one, and not particularly controversial. That is a classic understanding. But the issues the book deals with are far beyond that, and you need to be well versed in philosophy to deal with them. I would recommend Gillespies' book for those who really want to grapple with the issues in a very long-term fashion because it is provocative. Some books are deeply flawed, but even the more useful for it. I'd say Gillespies is one of those books. Sometimes you can learn more negatively than positively, and in making errors a lot is revealed to a reflective person. But it isn't the kind of book to recommend for those who don't get all that. Book reviewers will always emphasize the positive and use understated language to point out the most egregious flaws, as they should. Feser says: Gillespie's account of the long-range consequences of nominalism is compelling and important, but the defense of his overall thesis and his suggestions for contemporary application are surprisingly underdeveloped. It is true that the modern dispute over freedom and necessity had, as a matter of historical fact, its roots in various theological controversies. But, is this a historical accident? Why exactly should the contemporary debate over this issue take heed of these historical antecedents? These are questions Gillespie neither asks nor answers. As I said, what he says about nominalism is not particularly controversial, and I agree with it. But our dispute isn't about that. If you'd switch to condemning nominalism instead of modernity and/or the Enlightenment we'd have no argument. But you make far more sweeping claims, and Gillespie unknowingly points to the problem by his rehashing of the freewill debate, which I regard to be a philosophical account of the commonsense view that was eloquently described by the middle-knowledge position of Molina. Gillespie seem to love pointing out difficult theoretical questions, but doesn't seem to want to acknowledge satisfying answers that the Western world seems uniquely capable of producing. He seems to favor cultures and methods that flirt with the anti-rational. You recommended the book to me, but I have a background in philosophy and I know all the issues he discusses (except some of the Kantian references since I've not gotten that far yet) and I don't see that I can learn anything about modernity as you seemed to think I would. What I can learn from the book is some nuances about the historical development of the problem, but nothing that bears on our dispute. Which is, whether or not modernity has a "fundamentally and irrevocably flawed" anthropology, or whether a correct anthropology is that mankind is flawed himself, such that no theoretical system could solve it. I am of the latter view. That said, I do not accept any sort of "total depravity" view of mankind, which is deeply flawed. But we don't need a perfect theoretical framework and there are none anyway because we have a limited ability to see reality and man's nature is such that that a perfect system would soon be corrupted by us in any case. You need to find the problem external to man, much like a modern Liberal always searching for the correct education program. I think mankind is redeemable, whereas you don't think Western culture is redeemable. My view is that Western culture as it has been handed down to us is serviceable. It has problems that are excesses, but not any more problems and excesses than any of the previous ones had. Mankind now has more destructive powers at his disposal, but that is another issue. Your criticism is purely idealistic, as if there were some pre-modern and/or pre-Enlightenment alternative open to us. All we can do is try to counter and reform the excesses we see in their detail, whereas sweeping anti-modern, anti-Enlightenment, or anti-anything projects are not helpful. Rather they are a nihilistic cry for purity that is destructive, and way too easy to make.

(19:33) Chucky Darwin on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: Chucky Darwin
Date: Feb 8, 2012 7:33 PM
URL: http://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/

Lydia: Chucky, I thought of bringing that up myself, so we agree on something. Well I'm glad for that. I have to apologize for my confrontational stance in the previous threads. I re-read them and realize now that I felt more "under attack" at the time than I really was so - I'm sorry about that. Maybe we can find more common ground? I fail to understand exactly why the principles of Austrian economics are considered "evil". I've never actually heard that before and that passage of Scripture immediately popped into my head. Nice Marmot: One problem I see with Austrian economics is that it assumes that even badly-perceived self-interest contributes positively to the working of the Invisible Hand. Or to put it another way, the Austrians do not seem to differentiate between good and bad self-interest when it comes to economics. But isn't one of the basic tenets of Austrian economics the law of consequences? The market determines the merit of an individual's (or an entity's) actions - good or bad. Austrian economists unanimously opposed the various government bailouts of institutions that had engaged in bad business practices - advocating instead to let the market work. If they had their way (theoretically at least) bad practices would have had strong negative consequences and businesses that had not engaged in them would have been rewarded with a larger market share. Of course the government, even under Austrian economics, would police against force and fraud in business dealings (another thing that didn't happen when the bubble burst.)

(18:02) Micha Elyi on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: Micha Elyi
Date: Feb 8, 2012 6:02 PM

Psst, Gian, your computer and Internet connection are "based upon explicitly atheist principles." Good-bye! Now as for Austrian Economics, it is based upon the Natural Law and I hear that many popes have commended the study of the Natural Law.

(17:14) johnt on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: johnt
Date: Feb 8, 2012 5:14 PM

Choice, and your checkbook, are within easy reach and consistent practice. One may assuage his conscience by casting aside ruminations on the evil of a free market society by depleting your own bank account. Though it's much easier to talk of what society, or in reality, government should do. A coerced, supposed, morality is no morality at all, it has no more meaning than shared tooth aches. There are moral conditions at large in this case, they do not adhere to any one person but only allow for false claims to a moral status. And a lttle vote bribery. Free market capitalism gives one the opportunity to be as charitable as one wishes, take it, if you will.

(14:30) Steve P. on The zero-sum game and a smoking gun

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:54:50 -0500

Author: Steve P.
Date: Feb 8, 2012 2:30 PM

Step2, "Simply that if you wish to tar liberals with actual blood libel, ironically in the comments of a post where Lydia has strongly suggested good liberals should always assume the best motives about conservatives, you might be a little paranoid and prone to reading certain conspiracy theories." I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. I can assure you that I'm not paranoid. I have a related psychosis, though: I have the delusional belief that everyone is out to get YOU. ;-)

(14:14) Lydia on The zero-sum game and a smoking gun

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:54:50 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: Feb 8, 2012 2:14 PM

Al, look, we know you don't give a damn. You've shown that again and again. Hugonin _shouldn't_ have been "on the wrong side of the law." You are a bully, Al. Your very words here show it: "Hey, I wouldn't talk like that if I were you, homophobe. You should keep your mouth shut. Remember, you're on the wrong side of the law." Again and again, where there are laws that are manifestly unjust but your ox isn't being gored and your political perspective is being forced on people, you couldn't care less. You just make menacing, bully-like noises about how people are "on the wrong side of the law." The whole point if this article in the main post is that the "anti-bullying" statute _was applied_ to stating one's politically incorrect views on homosexuality. If you don't like kids being bullied in school, well and good. Neither do I. But it should be stopped just as much if based on someone's wearing an uncool outfit as if based on someone's being perceived as "gay." Moreover, the constant, disgusting sexualization of the schools by sodomite advocates is hardly helpful here and has introduced to children a whole new set of concepts barely known or used in bullying when I was in school. Thanks a lot, guys. I've gone round with you enough times to know that you are no civil libertarian. You *do not care* when people are forced to violate their consciences on this subject. You are *positively gleeful* at the prospect of homosexual "marriage" and forcing people to recognize it in the workplace and in numerous business relations. Why should anyone at this web site care what you think about such subjects?

(14:02) Chris on You must and will fund abortion clinics

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:01:52 -0500

Author: Chris
Date: Feb 8, 2012 2:02 PM

Actually, the Atlantic article is somewhat suspect in the truthfulness department. The "wonderful" testimonial from the one lady appears off. So when I took my first job, I readily opted into my employer's insurance plan. After submitting my application, I was told that the insurance company would not cover any tests/procedures/expenses related to my pre-existing condition...breast cancer. I know this changed in the 90's because my wife has a pre-existing condition. Before the change was made to the law, insurance companies could deny covering pre-existing conditions for one year. After the law changed, as long as you maintained coverage between job changes, you could not be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. So, at most, she wouldn't have been covered for one year. Additionally, I am limited as to what hormonal birth control I can take as a result of the cancer. Because we all know there is only hormonal birth control. I've been in a relationship with my significant other for about six years. While we have regularly discussed the possibility of children, we are simply not ready. Obviously not significant enough where he would help with the medical bills. Birth control is essential for our life plan. Luckily, not only was I able to turn to Planned Parenthood for my mammogram needs, they became my ONLY source for affordable birth control. PP doesn't do mammograms they just refer to people who do which was one of Komen's points. Again, hormonal birth control is not the only option. All this has shown is the PP will do whatever it takes to keep the cash flowing in.

(13:54) al on The zero-sum game and a smoking gun

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:54:50 -0500

Author: al
Date: Feb 8, 2012 1:54 PM

"Nobody should be arrested for committing "homophobia." That's a problem in itself. I don't care who it is. Saying that homosexual behavior is immoral, an abomination, wrong, unnatural, etc., none of that should ever be illegal." "The American Family Association of Michigan, in particular, has been pointing this out and has been fighting to make any "anti-bullying" legislation passed in Michigan include no special categories, no specially protected classes, in its language. The idea there is that in that case the legislation would not, at least on its face, give sanction to administrators and teachers to bully traditional students for their views." "The whole point of the agenda is to change the behavior of those people in their ordinary lives." As usual we have speech confused with behavior. Writing an editorial is clearly one thing while bullying is another. No one I know of is suggesting arresting folks for expression opinions in public. Employers have broad rights as to conditions of employment. The Vedala case in Massachusetts doesn't seem so clear on closer view and the facts are unclear (did she repeatedly confront him or did he merely overhear her talking with others/was the term "deviant" used, etc.?). Consider the Hugonin case - OK, and on balance public accommodations laws still seem less harmful than the alternative. There is a broader issue here - the adoption of the 70s emphasis on the centrality of individual "feelings" and their free expression by social conservatives. We also have a certain confusion with how one properly expresses an emotionally based aversion to this or that with freedom of association and belief. The notion that all one has to do is invoke claims of "conscience" and one becomes free to engage in all sorts of otherwise anti-social behavior is a curious one, to say the least. The Hugonin case is on point here. As I recall the woman wishing the services of a photographer contacted Hugonin by email. All Hugonin had to do was to reply that she wasn't available and that would have been that. But no, she had to express her "feelings". Why? To what end? Being rude when one is on the wrong side of the law is not a good choice. If she was engaging in civil disobedience then one accepts the risks. We should never lose sight of life's food chain. Emotion and passion can easily blind one to the realities. A little history might be useful here. When conservatives like Bill Buckley and James Kilpatrick wrote this, "The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage," they were constructively defending this, http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/images/elizabeth-eckford-will-counts-19571.jpg and when one supports organizations whose response to things like this, "Seeking relief from bullying, Brittany transferred to Jackson Middle School. Her very first day of eighth grade, eight boys crowded around her on the bus home. "Hey, Brittany, I heard your friend Sam shot herself," one began. "Did you see her blow her brains out?" "Did you pull the trigger for her?" "What did it look like?" "Was there brain all over the wall?" "You should do it too. You should go blow your head off," with, "Minnesota Family Council president Tom Prichard blogged that Justin's suicide could only be blamed upon one thing: his gayness. "Youth who embrace homosexuality are at greater risk [of suicide], because they've embraced an unhealthy sexual identity and lifestyle," Prichard wrote," and "She added that if LGBT kids weren't encouraged to come out of the closet in the first place, they wouldn't be in a position to be bullied." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202?page=4 well, draw your own conclusions. The law requires attendance at school until a certain point in ones life. Along with that comes the obligation to provide a reasonable level of protection to those the laws requires to be there.

(13:17) Lydia on You must and will fund abortion clinics

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:01:52 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: Feb 8, 2012 1:17 PM

Step2, I think their rather strange thing about the congressional investigation was meant to seal it up in some high-falutin' fashion. It was an extremely ill-judged attempt to fend off exactly the virulent response from the left that they have received. Leftists hacked into their web site. It's *incredibly* classless for an organization that has received grants to sic congressmen and activists (not to mention hackers) on the grant-making entity because they stop their grants. Planned Parenthood could have kept the moral high ground by expressing disappointment *and thanks* for grants received and going their way, then applying again later on. The response instead was *highly* politicized and the opposite of classy. Sure, it was a bungle on Komen's part not to make the points I made to begin with and calmly move on, with no further statements or apologies. People were going to think what they were going to think. Komen has bungled this at every turn, including "revising" their new grant-making policies in a way expressly designed to make room for Planned Parenthood in the future. This hardly in any way excuses the virulence and bullying nature of the response from the left, which has been both revealing and unedifying. This should be obvious to any fair-minded man.

(12:45) Nice Marmot on I'm a purist, but I'm not an attack dog

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:47:03 -0500

Author: Nice Marmot
Date: Feb 8, 2012 12:45 PM

By the way, I first became interested in Gillespie's book via a review I read awhile ago in (I think) First Things. That reviewer, if I remember correctly, found the book flawed but valuable. I was initially interested in it because of its treatment of nominalism (I subsequently bought Taylor's Secular Age also, but haven't read it yet.)

(12:40) J. W. on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: J. W.
Date: Feb 8, 2012 12:40 PM

Gian, please support the claim that "Austrian economics is based upon explicitly atheist principles" or "axioms."

(12:26) al on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: al
Date: Feb 8, 2012 12:26 PM

Paul, Marx is indispensable when it comes to a general understanding of things but not so much for his economics. Current events have shown Keynes to be necessary but any serious graduate program in economics isn't going to focus on any one individual or school in the sense that we have here. This seems like a career dead end for individuals and harmful to the school's reputation.

(12:09) al on You must and will fund abortion clinics

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:01:52 -0500

Author: al
Date: Feb 8, 2012 12:09 PM

Karen Handel (the now former Komen VP for policy referenced just above) has now made Komen CEO Nancy Brinker out to be a liar. It keeps getting better. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/planned-parenthoods-deep-bench/252726/

(10:04) Nice Marmot on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: Nice Marmot
Date: Feb 8, 2012 10:04 AM

Agreed, Mike. Humans make bad decisions all the time, ones that go against self-interest objectively understood. Thing is, their decisions are almost always based on perceived self-interest, even if their perception is way off-base. One problem I see with Austrian economics is that it assumes that even badly-perceived self-interest contributes positively to the working of the Invisible Hand. Or to put it another way, the Austrians do not seem to differentiate between good and bad self-interest when it comes to economics.

(09:17) Mike T on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: Mike T
Date: Feb 8, 2012 9:17 AM
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com

If markets were truly "free" in the way they are in economists' models, this might not be the case. The bigger problem is that the mainstream economic model of human nature is wrong. Man is a rationalizing, not rational, animal. Exhibit A is hard drug use. There is simply no rational reason to use hard drugs because their consumption has foreseeable, dire consequences for one's health and anything beyond very strictly controlled consumption will result in many people getting caught in a downward spiral of consuming more to get the same effect. In fact, most vice is intrinsically irrational. A rational man (that is a man whose psychology is fundamentally rational) would never gamble, drink heavily, smoke modern tobacco products, etc. because they're pointless resource drains with a net negative cost-benefit ratio.

(08:48) Nice Marmot on I'm a purist, but I'm not an attack dog

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:47:03 -0500

Author: Nice Marmot
Date: Feb 8, 2012 8:48 AM

More later, but after an initial "skim-read" and a partially complete close read I'm not finding Gillespie nearly as problematic as you are. I have not, however, read the epilogue so I will skip ahead and do that. "There's no question that there are certain features of every age that deserve condemnation" I'm not seeing the Enlightenment as an "age" but as an intellectual movement or trend. That its anthropology was fundamentally and irrevocably flawed, and in a very damaging and corrosive way that affected future thought, is my primary concern. But I'm short on time now -- more later.

(07:57) Nice Marmot on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: Nice Marmot
Date: Feb 8, 2012 7:57 AM

"nothing stops [the Invisible Hand] from harming Common Good and also individual Good (objectively considered). Thus a polity must check the operations of the Invisible Hand." Very few people will argue that the free market hasn't accomplished some great things. What it tends not to be so great at is cleaning up its own messes, hence the need for extra-market entities to involve themselves. If markets were truly "free" in the way they are in economists' models, this might not be the case. But fact is, they aren't, and it doesn't necessarily follow that in all areas freer is better. For an informative read on this issue see the work of the Catholic theologian/economist Albino Barrera, such as his book on the social encyclicals or his Economic Compulsion and Christian Ethics. Imo Fr. Barrera can be a bit too sanguine about the role of the state in correcting market disparities, but other than that I think his fundamental analysis is sound.

(07:43) Mike T on Checking in

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:42:05 -0500

Author: Mike T
Date: Feb 8, 2012 7:43 AM
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com

Alex, your point is interesting. I think that the 135,000 figure is with a LOT of overtime, at a guess running at least 60 hours a week. Although I don't begrudge properly behaved police a good wage, one wonders whether they have created a self-sustaining monster, having a vested interest in there being sufficient active criminal population so as to demand ever more police service. At 20 hours of overtime a week, that comes out to a base salary of $90k. That's good money, even in an expensive city like DC, NYC or Chicago. Another problem that that salary plus overtime creates is that you could hire a fourth officer using the money spent on the overtime for three normal patrolmen. The problem you cite at the end there is why we need to shutdown the ATF and DEA and merge their operational components with other agencies with broader mandates like ICE and the FBI. Police service, as with most basic government service, is essentially a leach on society's total wealth: usually you feed government only because NOT doing so ends up eating even MORE of your resources in mopping up messes, not because government is intrinsically productive of wealth. With police, not hiring them leaves criminals free to eat away your substance with robbery and other methods of detaching you from what is yours. The more threat of robbery, the more you need protection, the more you pay for protection, the less you have left over, the less you have something that needs protecting: a vicious fiscal-feedback mechanism that peters out when the police, robbers, and citizens all have the same amount. But only one of the three produced any wealth, the other two just live off it. One of the reasons policing has become so expensive is that we've all but destroyed the posse comitatus. We could greatly reduce law enforcement costs by restoring private law enforcement mechanisms like citizen's arrest.

(02:04) Thomas on I'm a purist, but I'm not an attack dog

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:47:03 -0500

Author: Thomas
Date: Feb 8, 2012 2:04 AM

A lot of Republicans supported Santorum, even though the establishment told them Romney is the inevitable nominee. I wonder how much of the victory can be attributed to Romney care and how much can be attributed to conservative Christians finally recognizing that Santorum is closer to their mindset then is Romney and Gingrich.

(22:51) Gian on GUEST POST: Is Free Enterprise Evil?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:37:30 -0500

Author: Gian
Date: Feb 7, 2012 10:51 PM

I have said that Austrian economics is based upon explicitly atheist principles. Conceivably, the free enterprise system could be based upon Catholic principles too. However, the commanding heights of the economics have always been coordinated with the State. Even in 19C Britain, the nominally private East India Company was certainly coordinated with the State. The American Conservatives have difficulty with the definition of Man as a political animal. If everything is taken care of by mutual arrangements and free enterprise, what remains for politics? What exactly is Common Good and is it not the sum of individual goods? or there is something extra? The Invisible Hand promotes social coordination by satisfaction of subjective desires. However, nothing stops it from harming Common Good and also individual Good (objectively considered). Thus a polity must check the operations of the Invisible Hand. However, I would agree that presumption must be given to the Invisible Hand.