I think Hyrum Lewis does a great job in this piece clarifying the Lewis' book's thesis and the roots of the disagreements between Caplan and him (and Verlan).
Although the ideological bundles that characterize the Left and Right at different times change - and and are even partially interchanged, it is still interesting to ponder if there is some unifying aspect at any specific time. That is, what, if anything, causes or encourages the coalitions Hyrum Lewis refers to? Why would anti-abortionists find common cause with those who oppose gun control or illegal immigration?
For instance, pro-life people think you should take responsibility for your actions (getting pregnant). They see pro-choice people as wanting to commit murder to escape responsibility for their actions.
A person that believes in personal responsbility would also want lower taxes.
Gun control is also seen as a personal responsibility issue (self protection)
Illegal immigration is lawlessness and general increases welfarism and immigrants vote for the left.
The one area I do think things get really jumbled is foreign policy.
Well, this post reads like a shifting of goalposts so I hope for their sake that the position they’ve decided to return to arguing now is the one they put forward in the book. Otherwise they’ll have to re-write the whole thing.
A great deal may be learned about society by studying man; but this process cannot be reversed: nothing can be learned about man by studying society—by studying the inter-relationships of entities one has never identified or defined.
-Ayn Rand
The statists’ epistemological method consists of endless debates about single, concrete, out-of-context, range-of-the-moment issues, never allowing them to be integrated into a sum, never referring to basic principles or ultimate consequences—and thus inducing a state of intellectual disintegration in their followers. The purpose of that verbal fog is to conceal the evasion of two fundamentals: (a) that production and prosperity are the product of men’s intelligence, and (b) that government power is the power of coercion by physical force.
-Ayn Rand
Epistemologically, [Pragmatist] dogmatic agnosticism holds, as an absolute, that a principle is false because it is a principle—that conceptual integration (i.e., thinking) is impractical or “simplistic”—that an idea which is clear and simple is necessarily “extreme and unworkable . . . . What, then, is left to man? The sensation, the wish, the whim, the range and the concrete of the moment. Since no solution to any problem is possible, anyone’s suggestion, guess or edict is as valid as anyone else’s—provided it is narrow enough.
Just a tangent: Supposing it did, why would the two major political parties agree to implement ranked choice? It would just mean a loss of power for them.
I would like a radical change to how the HoR is elected. Within each state, there would be no districts (I just solved gerrymandering!) and Reps would be elected vis Single Transferrable Vote.
So for Wyoming, nothing changes.
For slightly larger states, it starts to get interesting. I know KY (6 reps) and CO (8) well. Lets use CO as an example. A candidate would have to get 12.5% of the vote. It would be interesting to see what factors matter. At what point does geography override politics (would a NoCo republican put a NoCo democrat on his ballot above a western slope republican?). It allows the voter mentioned in the piece to vote according to her wishes. She could group anti-abortion, high-tax candidates at the top, then anti-abortion low-tax candidates below them, but still above pro-choice candidates.
In other states, lets use KY as an example, you might get Louisville and Lexington based black democrats to combine to elect a black democrat who wouldn't be able to be elected in either city under the current system. And unlike currently, a rural democrat could get elected, by combining votes from the the 4 rural districts.
And in a large state, like CA, it would take less than 2% to elect a candidate. Libertarians, Greens, Communists -- they could all manage to elect reps.
I think it leads to a congress that better represents the people as a whole. You may have to go far down your list, but eventually everyone gets a Representative that, in some way, represents them.
Fine answer, I'd say. Just at the end he kinda validates Caplan by referring to Maclean: "Her contention is that free-market George Mason University economists are continuing the racist, white supremacist project of John C. Calhoun. Her evidence? Both free markets and racism are “radical right.” And, no, she’s not just one marginal crank: hers is the standard view accepted by the historical profession." - 1. I strongly doubt that respected history professors confuse or conflate racism with capitalism (Mine were Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Paul Nolte, et al.). 2. If Nancy Maclean considers free-markets abominations of the extremist right, then Caplan's simplistic (his own word) theory "left=anti market" seems to be a very useful insight, indeed. - The feeling/conviction that markets are always suspicious + too often rotten and a benevolent "Vater Staat" must and can take better care of "society" IS very, very widespread. Even among the "right"/Republicans/'conservatives". Not only are there many of those anti-capitalists, some of them are even very deeply principled on this matter. Easily enough to become the core of a bundle of disparate issues, aka "political party". - And some parts of that bundle will deeply disgust other people (but often not the anti-market part). In a two party system: the other party. "The right".
Fun fact: In a multi-party system as in Germany, much of the Lewis-Caplan discussion seems hard to comprehend. Obviously, there are more than one or two issues; sure, there is conformism. - Still, we do have a concept of "left" and "right". And those "on the left" usu. do seem to have an even harder time to go: "Laissez-faire!" (Just been at a citizen's meeting - oh, the same crazy anti-market leftines as during student-committees some decades ago)
I don't think MacLean is primarily motivated by being anti-market. Her book is titled "Democracy in Chains" because she is reacting against the view of many public choice economists (shared by many of the Founders) that unrestricted majoritarian democracy leads to undesirable results. If Iran's Council of Guardians decided that markets should be abolished and everyone switch to subsistence farming, I don't think she'd approve of that. Instead she likes what Robin Hanson would call a big talky collective* in which labor unions, activists, NGOs etc all get a say.
Thanks for reading her. It does not matter much who said so - as the claims are absurd, no matter who said them + Lewis claims that a) she said so + b) that this somehow shows: Caplan is wrong somehow ... his pro-market-stance makes him an object of hatred to her ... because she and many are sure: pro-market is kinda white supremacy ... so he should stop saying the left is anti-market ... . I really can not see Lewis' point there. I guess I see the points he made before, or 85% of them. :) Thinking about it, the deeper insight of Caplan's half-joking rule seems to me: Do not assume the "right" to be pro-market, just because the "left" is not.
I must confess I wasn't following this debate closely, but his points here make a lot of sense.
I must quibble with his remarks on astrology, however. astrology seems useless only because of selection bias. That is to say, if you're not very impressed with the thinking of people who like astrology, you have to consider whether or not you would like their thinking even less if they had somehow been prevented access to astrology.
I think Hyrum Lewis does a great job in this piece clarifying the Lewis' book's thesis and the roots of the disagreements between Caplan and him (and Verlan).
Although the ideological bundles that characterize the Left and Right at different times change - and and are even partially interchanged, it is still interesting to ponder if there is some unifying aspect at any specific time. That is, what, if anything, causes or encourages the coalitions Hyrum Lewis refers to? Why would anti-abortionists find common cause with those who oppose gun control or illegal immigration?
Most of the people I know that are pro-life are:
1) Pro-natality
2) Pro-family
3) Pro-conservative culture
4) Pro-personal responsibility
For instance, pro-life people think you should take responsibility for your actions (getting pregnant). They see pro-choice people as wanting to commit murder to escape responsibility for their actions.
A person that believes in personal responsbility would also want lower taxes.
Gun control is also seen as a personal responsibility issue (self protection)
Illegal immigration is lawlessness and general increases welfarism and immigrants vote for the left.
The one area I do think things get really jumbled is foreign policy.
Well, this post reads like a shifting of goalposts so I hope for their sake that the position they’ve decided to return to arguing now is the one they put forward in the book. Otherwise they’ll have to re-write the whole thing.
We really should drop the delusion that any of this is scientific.
A great deal may be learned about society by studying man; but this process cannot be reversed: nothing can be learned about man by studying society—by studying the inter-relationships of entities one has never identified or defined.
-Ayn Rand
The statists’ epistemological method consists of endless debates about single, concrete, out-of-context, range-of-the-moment issues, never allowing them to be integrated into a sum, never referring to basic principles or ultimate consequences—and thus inducing a state of intellectual disintegration in their followers. The purpose of that verbal fog is to conceal the evasion of two fundamentals: (a) that production and prosperity are the product of men’s intelligence, and (b) that government power is the power of coercion by physical force.
-Ayn Rand
Epistemologically, [Pragmatist] dogmatic agnosticism holds, as an absolute, that a principle is false because it is a principle—that conceptual integration (i.e., thinking) is impractical or “simplistic”—that an idea which is clear and simple is necessarily “extreme and unworkable . . . . What, then, is left to man? The sensation, the wish, the whim, the range and the concrete of the moment. Since no solution to any problem is possible, anyone’s suggestion, guess or edict is as valid as anyone else’s—provided it is narrow enough.
Ayn Rand
I agree much more with hyrum lewis here then bryan caplan.
This was a great explanation by the authors. I wish many of these explanations had make it into the original text of the book.
If this was indeed the "last word", then should we consider this *checkmate*?
How is the left pro free speech
Would ranked choice or approval voting make more parties feasible? Libertarians joke that we're the third-largest political party...
Just a tangent: Supposing it did, why would the two major political parties agree to implement ranked choice? It would just mean a loss of power for them.
Substack is a civilized place... Ah, an application of Tor/Bitcoin anonymized prediction markets, mayhap.
I would like a radical change to how the HoR is elected. Within each state, there would be no districts (I just solved gerrymandering!) and Reps would be elected vis Single Transferrable Vote.
So for Wyoming, nothing changes.
For slightly larger states, it starts to get interesting. I know KY (6 reps) and CO (8) well. Lets use CO as an example. A candidate would have to get 12.5% of the vote. It would be interesting to see what factors matter. At what point does geography override politics (would a NoCo republican put a NoCo democrat on his ballot above a western slope republican?). It allows the voter mentioned in the piece to vote according to her wishes. She could group anti-abortion, high-tax candidates at the top, then anti-abortion low-tax candidates below them, but still above pro-choice candidates.
In other states, lets use KY as an example, you might get Louisville and Lexington based black democrats to combine to elect a black democrat who wouldn't be able to be elected in either city under the current system. And unlike currently, a rural democrat could get elected, by combining votes from the the 4 rural districts.
And in a large state, like CA, it would take less than 2% to elect a candidate. Libertarians, Greens, Communists -- they could all manage to elect reps.
I think it leads to a congress that better represents the people as a whole. You may have to go far down your list, but eventually everyone gets a Representative that, in some way, represents them.
Fine answer, I'd say. Just at the end he kinda validates Caplan by referring to Maclean: "Her contention is that free-market George Mason University economists are continuing the racist, white supremacist project of John C. Calhoun. Her evidence? Both free markets and racism are “radical right.” And, no, she’s not just one marginal crank: hers is the standard view accepted by the historical profession." - 1. I strongly doubt that respected history professors confuse or conflate racism with capitalism (Mine were Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Paul Nolte, et al.). 2. If Nancy Maclean considers free-markets abominations of the extremist right, then Caplan's simplistic (his own word) theory "left=anti market" seems to be a very useful insight, indeed. - The feeling/conviction that markets are always suspicious + too often rotten and a benevolent "Vater Staat" must and can take better care of "society" IS very, very widespread. Even among the "right"/Republicans/'conservatives". Not only are there many of those anti-capitalists, some of them are even very deeply principled on this matter. Easily enough to become the core of a bundle of disparate issues, aka "political party". - And some parts of that bundle will deeply disgust other people (but often not the anti-market part). In a two party system: the other party. "The right".
Fun fact: In a multi-party system as in Germany, much of the Lewis-Caplan discussion seems hard to comprehend. Obviously, there are more than one or two issues; sure, there is conformism. - Still, we do have a concept of "left" and "right". And those "on the left" usu. do seem to have an even harder time to go: "Laissez-faire!" (Just been at a citizen's meeting - oh, the same crazy anti-market leftines as during student-committees some decades ago)
I don't think MacLean is primarily motivated by being anti-market. Her book is titled "Democracy in Chains" because she is reacting against the view of many public choice economists (shared by many of the Founders) that unrestricted majoritarian democracy leads to undesirable results. If Iran's Council of Guardians decided that markets should be abolished and everyone switch to subsistence farming, I don't think she'd approve of that. Instead she likes what Robin Hanson would call a big talky collective* in which labor unions, activists, NGOs etc all get a say.
* https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/forager-v-farmer-elaboratedhtml
Thanks for reading her. It does not matter much who said so - as the claims are absurd, no matter who said them + Lewis claims that a) she said so + b) that this somehow shows: Caplan is wrong somehow ... his pro-market-stance makes him an object of hatred to her ... because she and many are sure: pro-market is kinda white supremacy ... so he should stop saying the left is anti-market ... . I really can not see Lewis' point there. I guess I see the points he made before, or 85% of them. :) Thinking about it, the deeper insight of Caplan's half-joking rule seems to me: Do not assume the "right" to be pro-market, just because the "left" is not.
I must confess I wasn't following this debate closely, but his points here make a lot of sense.
I must quibble with his remarks on astrology, however. astrology seems useless only because of selection bias. That is to say, if you're not very impressed with the thinking of people who like astrology, you have to consider whether or not you would like their thinking even less if they had somehow been prevented access to astrology.
Aha! The opening seems quite reasonable to me!
Bryan, are you thinking about airing a reaction to my theory of left and right?
You generously posted it for me:
https://betonit.substack.com/p/dan-klein-dissects-left-and-right
In particular, what do you think of my?:
– party-rooted notion of left and non-left
– the Left Pole
– the implied and demonstrated greater diversity on the non-left
– the Marcel Gauchet quotations
– the ngrams that show what it is that we are even trying to theorize