Feed on

Clarity is Courage

It is good intellectual practice (probably not dinner party practice) to take your ideas until they can go no further. If I had one magic wand to wave, one feature I might consider is that all of our attempts to be liked or at least not appear to be one of the deplorables were seriously attenuated.

Think about some policies you are either in favor of, or opposed to (and yes, I think this works in both directions). To really appreciate the idea, take it to the end. So, take for example the minimum wage. Ignoring the moral and economic arguments, just think for a moment about why you do or do not like it and what you think such a wage means and may end up doing. Now, I think a very healthy internal debate for you to have (or external one too?) is to think about how you would feel taking the position to the extreme. So, while we all argue today about whether it ought to be $7.25 or $10.10 or $15 or some other non-scientifically appointed number, take it further. If you think a $15 minimum wage will accomplish what you think it does (e.g. it tells businesses they can’t just go paying people whatever small amounts they wish, or it makes poorer people richer, etc.), then what do you think of a $60 per hour minimum wage. No one should have to live on less than $120,000 per year. Do you think this is more in line with how much businesses “owe” others? Do you think this will put more money in the pockets of the poor.

And then, perhaps compare this thinking with the complete opposite. If we are debating whether to keep the minimum wage where it is or to increase it, take it to zero. What would the world look like if there were no minimum wage at all? Would you see employers more profitable and better able to attract more workers? Would you see demand for products increase and therefore result in more employment? Would you see continued exploitation of workers and a race to the bottom for all of us.

It really becomes almost boring to debate $7.15 versus $15. We ought to be arguing on $60 versus $0 and see which of these is “closer” to better on the grounds you are arguing from. In addition to clarifying why you hold the views that you do, having the extreme version of the discussion will surely help us appreciate that on almost no policy issue is the case simply black and white – my bet is that an overwhelmingly large number of ideas we debate have big fat gray areas.

Don’t expect people will enjoy this method of inquiry, you surely will not remain popular if you pursue it. “Hater of the poor!” “Commie!” And so on. But don’t let that distract you.

Can you hold the idea of “equal pay for equal work” and still be a strong advocate of progressive taxation?

Ignore the moral arguments against progressive taxation – which include the political view of the founders warning against the tyranny of the majority … focus on the logical consistentcy for the moment.

The idea of equal pay for equal work seems to be derived from a natural desire for people being treated as equals. Assume that really is what is being advocated for. The idea of progrssprog taxation would seem to stand in contrast to that, with some people being treated differently than others. I suppose you could argue against me here that under progressive systems like the US that if you earn the same amount as someone else then your taxes will be similar.

There are additional logical challenges. My wife, for example, earns considerably less than people who do 100% identical work as she does. Because of the principal of progressive taxation, the second she married me she guaraotguathis would happen. Adding her income to mine puts her in a higher bracket than if she were single, and on top of that since she is covered by my health policy, she declined health coverage but received zero of the cash value of that. So, receives far less than each of her co-workers for doing identical work. This is exclusively a direct consequence of a progressive taxation system. So clearly folks seem to be perfectly fine with unequal pay for equal work …

As a general argument, what happens to my wife is no different than what happens to people who may otherwise be paid nominally the same but who work more than others. Their hourly work delivers them less remuneration than others doing identical hourly work. Lest you think that the REASON folks are paid differently matters, this makes the two ideas sit very uncomfortably next to each other.

I’ve yet to see very much acknowledgement of these sort of twisty pretzels in political-economic views, but I think this is because thinking through the logical conclusions of particular views is a lot of work and often leads to conundrums that probably would require any reasonable person to soften otherwise hard views or have to rethink views entirely.


Leo Rosten’s delightful short story on an “Infuriating Man” …

One of our fine students, Dan DiLoreto shares his insights on how local and state regulations stifle commerce and ultimately hurt not just consumers but workers too. Here is a bit:

The alcohol industry ultimately operates as a case study in how protectionist policies at both the national and the state level hurt growth and limit consumer choice. Trump’s tariffs exemplify this nationally, while legal strictures like Minnesota’s in-state grape requirement and the three-tier system demonstrate it on the state level. In both scenarios, businesses are often forced to raise costs and curtail investment in new innovations.

If consumers want to receive more products for a lower cost, battling protectionist policies is an essential step. This applies at the state level as much as on the national stage.

More from Walden:

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life …

I want the flower and fruit of a man; that some fragrance be wafted over from him to me, and some ripeness flavor our intercourse. His goodness must not be a partial and transitory act, but a constant superfluity, which costs him nothing and of which he is unconscious. This is a charity that hides a multitude of sins. The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own castoff griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy. We should impart our courage, and not our despair, our health and ease, and not our disease, and take care that this does not spread by contagion.

How about this?

Most of the stone a nation hammers goes toward its tomb only. It buries itself alive. As for the Pyramids, there is nothing to wonder at in them so much as the fact that so many men could be found degraded enough to spend their lives constructing a tomb for some ambitious booby, whom it would have been wiser and manlier to have drowned in the Nile, and then given his body to the dogs.

Continuing in Walden, this brought a sad chuckle:

We are eager to tunnel under the Atlantic and bring the Old World some weeks nearer to the New; but perchance the first news that will leak through into the broad, flapping American ear will be that the Princess Adelaide has the whooping cough. After all, the man whose horse trots a mile in a minute does not carry the most important messages; he is not an evangelist, nor does he come round eating locusts and wild honey. I doubt if Flying Childers ever carried a peck of corn to mill

Walden University

Among the delights in rereading Walden is this gem (he’s writing in 1854):

 I cannot but think that if we had more true wisdom in these respects, not only less education would be needed, because, forsooth, more would already have been acquired, but the pecuniary expense of getting an education would in a great measure vanish. Those conveniences which the student requires at Cambridge or elsewhere cost him or somebody else ten times as great a sacrifice of life as they would with proper management on both sides. Those things for which the most money is demanded are never the things which the student most wants. Tuition, for instance, is an important item in the term bill, while for the far more valuable education which he gets by associating with the most cultivated of his contemporaries no charge is made. The mode of founding a college is, commonly, to get up a subscription of dollars and cents, and then, following blindly the principles of a division of labor to its extreme- a principle which should never be followed but with circumspection- to call in a contractor who makes this a subject of speculation, and he employs Irishmen or other operatives actually to lay the foundations, while the students that are to be are said to be fitting themselves for it; and for these oversights successive generations have to pay. I think that it would be better than this, for the students, or those who desire to be benefited by it, even to lay the foundation themselves. The student who secures his coveted leisure and retirement by systematically shirking any labor necessary to man obtains but an ignoble and unprofitable leisure, defrauding himself of the experience which alone can make leisure fruitful. “But,” says one, “you do not mean that the students should go to work with their hands instead of their heads?” I do not mean that exactly, but I mean something which he might think a good deal like that; I mean that they should not play life, or study it merely, while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end. How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living? Methinks this would exercise their minds as much as mathematics. If I wished a boy to know something about the arts and sciences, for instance, I would not pursue the common course, which is merely to send him into the neighborhood of some professor, where anything is professed and practised but the art of life;- to survey the world through a telescope or a microscope, and never with his natural eye; to study chemistry, and not learn how his bread is made, or mechanics, and not learn how it is earned; to discover new satellites to Neptune, and not detect the motes in his eyes, or to what vagabond he is a satellite himself; or to be devoured by the monsters that swarm all around him, while contemplating the monsters in a drop of vinegar. Which would have advanced the most at the end of a month- the boy who had made his own jackknife from the ore which he had dug and smelted, reading as much as would be necessary for this- or the boy who had attended the lectures on metallurgy at the Institute in the meanwhile, and had received a Rodgers penknife from his father? Which would be most likely to cut his fingers?… To my astonishment I was informed on leaving college that I had studied navigation!- why, if I had taken one turn down the harbor I should have known more about it. Even the poor student studies and is taught only political economy, while that economy of living which is synonymous with philosophy is not even sincerely professed in our colleges. The consequence is, that while he is reading Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Say, he runs his father in debt irretrievably.

This after his documenting that it cost him about $28 to build his cabin on his own near the pond, which was about one year’s rent of for a typical resident of Concord.

In thinking about arguments that I have heard made against the NSA’s PRISM program (this program is basically the limitless power the NSA seems to be exercising in collecting an ungodly amount of information, without warrant, from all Americans’ use of the internet), a little conundrum came to mind. One of the things the NSA is doing is building a data storage facility in Utah to maintain the Brobdignagian mountain of information on all of us American citizens.

Aside from the utter unconstitutionality of this (after all, this sort of thing is what really gave the American Revolution it’s fuel), one of the good arguments I have heard against it is that the NSA is collecting SO MUCH information that it has basically been rendered too unwieldy and hence useless in the fight to prevent terrorism in real time. In other words, even with the world’s largest data storage facility and access to state of the art algorithms and supercomputers, we can’t “plan” domestic terrorist defense well. I’ve heard this argument from people of both the left and the right.

Now think about that.

We can’t even process this data to plan one single aspect of our lives. Yet, even after making these sorts of comments and observations, those on the right continue to disavow all other basic laws of economics (deficits don’t matter! unless Dems are in power) and those on the left proudly proclaim themselves socialists, propose all manner of additional labor market interventions, dream of a Green New Deal program, and so on.

So, the NSA program is obviously awful – but so, too, are those arguments from folks who claim there is “too much data” … it is not that those arguments are wrong, they are not – but that they are just merely conveniently cherry picked and used for political convenience.

It has been said, and I totally agree, that “Clarity is Courage.” So many people are so deeply intellectually bankrupt today that it is nearly impossible to listen to any garbage spewing from their mouths. Until and unless those in the punditry and the permanent political class follow their thoughts to their logical conclusions, and admit them honestly, you are best served to totally discount what you are hearing, even if you like what it sounds like.


Indulge the simple thought exercise. There are a goodly number of people (mostly on “the right”) who argue (correctly?) that the science of climate change is extremely uncertain, vastly underidentified, requires measurement that we are not up to yet, etc. …

… so, they argue that the science is not settled and as such we should take alarmism with a grain of salt.

What do you think the reaction would be if a series of papers came out in reputable outlets that, using the same scientific methods, seemed to indicate that climate change was reversing, or caused by aliens or some such thing?

What does this have to do with *G*od? At the risk of getting myself socially ostracized, if you think about the argument made by some that science is irrelevant in matters of religion (such as in whether it can be used to examine the existence of God), what if biologists and geneticists and archaelogists managed to locate the body of Jesus, or some biological remnant that he left behind, and were able to test the DNA? And what if in that DNA test we were able to conclude both that he lived and died as we learned, but also that he actually did not have any biological fathers – that he indeed only had a mother’s DNA.

Would the community who thinks science is not relevant for discussing and examining the existence of God use this news in any way, shape or form? And if so, how?

OK, back into my hovel.

Older Posts »