We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, March 15. 2018
The words which got Penn Law Prof Amy Wax in trouble (my bolds):
There are so many things today one hesitates to preach, or even to utter. You can get in trouble. Crazy world in which it can be dangerous to say obvious things.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
What, what? The bourgeois cultural script=privilege. Doesn't Charles Murray make the same case?
Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels) agrees. Review of Life at the Bottom:
But these cultural absurdities, he argues, were first intellectual absurdities. The true villains are the intellectuals who proposed a loosening of social mores, launched a parade of excuses for a long list of destructive behaviors, denied agency (and therefore full humanity) to the West’s euphemistically-named “poor”, built bureaucracies that reward the most irresponsible citizens with the greatest largesse, and otherwise indicted faceless society for the failures of individuals. Daniels uncovers the foolishness with elegance and wit.
George Orwell said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
These are dark times, in which the propaganda of deceit touches all our lives. It is as if political reality has been privatised and illusion legitimised. The information age is a media age. We have politics by media; censorship by media; war by media; retribution by media; diversion by media - a surreal assembly line of clichés and false assumptions. John Pilger
It is a dangerous situation if you can't speak to solutions of problems our society faces. This has been dangerous for some time and shows no sign of getting better.
"These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require."
I don't think that the above statement is true. Let's take a look at how these concepts are grouped. First you've got:
[cultural orientation - incompatible - free market economy]
Cultural orientations have no obligation to be compatible with a free market economy. For example, there are many rules and regulations within the "bourgeois cultural script" which are not free market. The first and foremost being a sense of order and hierarchy, in the forms of paternalism; and aryanism. It's the idea that all men are not created equal; and that the strongest and best men are expected to rise to the top, where they will enforce the type discipline that females are unable to provide. There is the Platonic expectation that quality of life for all citizens and workers will be the highest goal; within reason.
On to the next:
[advanced - free market - economy]
There is no reason to assume that a "free market" economy is more advanced than other types. China, for example, does not have a free market economy, but has grown much faster than the United States. I hate to refer to Hitler, but he was trying to prevent the collapse of blue-collar wages in the face of an over-financialized economy, when he came up with the idea of "National Socialism." There wasn't enough time to see if it would actually work, because it was replaced by Capitalism and Communism. His goal was to protect workers from over-taxation, and the ravages of inflation. He blamed Wall Street and the Federal Government for the whole mess.
On to the next:
[advanced - free market economy - viable democracy - require]
Again, there is no reason to assume that a free market economy is in the best interests of its citizens; and further, there is no reason to assume that a democracy is required for a free market solution to work.
The word "required" is intended to imply that an over-financialized, over-globalized, free market is the ONLY option if a State wishes to provide the highest quality of life to its citizens. But that's not true. Cheap TV's are of no benefit if the workers are impoverished by an enormous class of "democratic" rent seekers.
Finally, the word "advanced" needs to be examined in more detail. In the context of the statement given, it's intended to mean "better." But is it? America's actual experience with an "advanced" global economy would indicate otherwise. There is the social disaster of a thousand cultures trying unsuccessfully to blend. There is the economic disaster of trying to support millions of Blacks, Mexicans, and old people. There is the ecological disaster of farmers destroying the land and water to grow food for export. There is the financial disaster of skyrocketing house prices caused by rich Asians buying-up all the land. There is the family disaster of working men who have been rendered superfluous by the loss of factory work; and the rise of feminism. (Which Hitler rightly recognized as Communism.) And finally, there is the existential disaster of raising a generation of children who don't know who they are, or where they came from.
So as far as I'm concerned, the whole idea of an "advanced" economy is nonsense. A real advanced economy protects its citizens from foreign invasion; be it ideological, financial, or physical. Globalism is nothing but an empty promise. Each country has its own unique culture and people, and must engage the world in its own way.
I think you may be right; "free market economy" is probably not an adequate description unless it ties in with the level of technology. For example, the most valued skill sets and behavioral traits required during the steam era would be different from the skill sets and behavioral traits most valued in today's economy. I can't elaborate since I am off to work.
Although a free market may not be the best thing for citizens in every sense, there's little doubt it's the best way human beings have devised yet to increase overall material wealth, including the wealth of the world's poorest citizens on average. Obviously materially wealth isn't everything, but it's not meaningless, either, or we wouldn't be so concerned about the problems of poverty.
I know that theoretically all kinds of other economic systems are more efficient, equitable, and so on. The fact remains that when they are tried, they don't create as much wealth--not for the rich, not for the poor.
Who are you to question the idea that a free market allows everybody to decide for themselves how best to pursue their own ends when it's self-evident that the average person is a moron who needs his intellectual and moral superiors to tell him what's for his own good and therefore free markets are bad? Note, Dr. Lieberman here puts forward the idea that a free market and democracy are not necessarily necessary for a State to provide for the well-being of its "citizens" (I think he means "subjects" since a State charged with seeing to the well-being of the inhabitants of that State, as a parent to a child, does not have "citizens" but wards or charges). In some cases )certainly not in this case, of course) indicates a certain condescending paternalism which is the hallmark of our intellectual and moral superiors. You go giving the inmates a little freedom to make their own choices and inevitably they will choose poorly. Just ask Hillary Clinton.
Hillary knows she's the smartest person in the world, she knows everything there is to know. We could have a perfect world if we'd just put people like Hillary in charge of everything to give our lives meaning and direction. Unfortunately, we have too many stupid people who continue to vote and to do things against their own self-interest, too many crazy people who have bizarre ideas about how the world works and think democracy and free markets are as good as it gets because it limits the power of people who think they know better than you how you should live your life, too many evil people (mostly Republicans) who are racist and sexist and all sorts of -phobic and who know full well people like Hillary should be named God-Kings in the name of creating a perfect world but would rather live in an imperfect world so long as everybody who's not a rich straight white male has to suffer.
And really, what can you do about so many stupid, crazy, evil people? If people like Hillary who know better than you what's for your own good were in charge, the stupid people would be sent to re-education camps, the crazy people sent to psychiatric prisons, the evil people sent off to have a bullet inserted in the back of their heads. And wouldn't we be living in a much better world then? A place where the morally and intellectually superior rule and the rest of us chumps know our place.
PC means not saying what you notice.
So problems related to what you notice can't be solved.
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.'”
-St. Anthony the Great
Years ago I read a book on the psychological origins of political correctness and the author pointed out that when you become PC you have to deny reality and live in fantasy land.
IMHO it is possible to fix the problem of under achievement of minorities but not by making believe it does not exist or forbidding any honest discussion of it. Because someone benefits from the continued failure of minorities to do well in school, in jobs and in life it is allowed and mandated to continue. The worst part is those very people who benefit from this have convinced the minorities that more appeasement and special treatment is needed. Just keep voting "us" into office and we will get you more 'free stuff'. Sooner or later this corrupt system will collapse and the free stuff will run out and there will be a lot of people unable to provide for themselves. I worry that we won't fix it and it will alll end badly for all of us.