A peek into my brain: last night I had a long dream wherein I frantically hunted for my copy of Robert Nozick's Irony, State and Utopia.
« Seriously? | Main | Fast and loose »
Do libertarians dream of electric rational value maximisers?
30 Aug 2007 08:27 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16082
Comments (27)
This comment deleted because it references an earlier, deleted comment
Reading McArdle is strangely addictive, like examining wreckage or some malformed organism. Clearly, someone, somewhere at the Atlantic believes that her "perspective" is a valuable addition to the marketplace of ideas. This is the central mystery of McArdle's Atlantic blog : by what reasoning was she chosen?
I've said this before: most every blog I read, and certainly the Atlantic blogs, are a combination of about 75% weighty political/social/cultural issues, and 25% kind of goofy, "slice of life" stuff. I personally like the less robust posts; it makes the blogger more of a real person, and not just text on a RSS feed. You're free to disagree. But I don't get why MegArdle gets all this shine for it. Do you attack Matt Yglesias when he posts about basketball or his latest musical obsession?
Chill.
I am, in a good way, afraid of those Russian immigrants with a love for classical Greece (and especially Socrates, the examined life?, and their strange love for growth and free voluntary agents? etc. Carl Sagen was on par with Robert (only less in the field of economics).. no.. I love them! They oftentimes combine the East and West in balance rather than..
The only thing that I find melancholic is that when Robert discovered, like Thoreau and Emerson, that the economy is build on the ecology and not the other way around.. that he questioned his economics for a while ... no need for that as he later realized himself.. quite the contrary.. he became an even BETTER libertarian for it? (why do so many people seem to "lose their religion" when they make this discovery?)
It was only recently that I have heard of his animal rights passion - know I feel deeply related to him... There are oh so many great Russian immigrant who have championed growth and individual rights for everybody... do you know this argument from Carl Sagan (there are also some great ones from Isaac Asimov):
Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.
Carl Sagan
I would also put some other great minds on the list who have made the connection between ecology and the economy - but there are NOT Russian?
Question: Do you have to be an immigrant in order to see that the economy and ecology are NOT mutually exclusive? Do you have to be an immigrant to believe in free markets and to be against protectionism?
Answer: NO - but it helps: Albert Einstein for example (he too was an immigrant, libertarian animal rights advocate)..
That you DO NOT have to be an immigrant to see the connection has been proven by Socrates in Plato's Republic (God.. eh.. I mean... Socrates tackles ethics, then health, and then plan-economics?) But in moder times I have, except for immigrants, rarely found an economist who can see the obvious:
Socrates: Would this habit of eating animals not require that we slaughter animals that we knew as individuals, and in whose eyes we could gaze and see ourselves reflected, only a few hours before our meal?
Glaucon: This habit would require that of us.
Socrates: Wouldn't this [knowledge of our role in turning a being into a thing] hinder us in achieving happiness?
Glaucon: It could so hinder us in our quest for happiness.
Socrates: And, if we pursue this way of living, will we not have need to visit the doctor more often?
Glaucon: We would have such need.
Socrates: If we pursue our habit of eating animals, and if our neighbor follows a similar path, will we not have need to go to war against our neighbor to secure greater pasturage, because ours will not be enough to sustain us, and our neighbor will have a similar need to wage war on us for the same reason?
Glaucon: We would be so compelled.
Socrates: Would not these facts prevent us from achieving happiness, and therefore the conditions necessary to the building of a just society, if we pursue a desire to eat animals?
Glaucon: Yes, they would so prevent us.
PS: HH - thank you for your long, intelligent arguments and reasoning so far. you are in desperate need for this household item.. it will change your perspective!
http://www.headless.org/images/mirror1.gif
One can at least conceptualize an editorial model of cultural leadership that a distinguished journal of ideas, such as the Atlantic, might follow. The editorial function is fundamentally one of choice. Which voices and which themes deserve the attention of the readers? This model would indicate that contributors should be chosen with care to add insights and knowledge that are worthy of the readership.
There appears to be nothing in McArdles intellectual portfolio other than a shallow adherence to Chicago School market-worship. Why, at this late date, the editors of the Atlantic decided that another dose of Libertarianism is just the right medicine for our BushCo-ravaged nation, is a profound mystery.
I think you'll find the correct title of the book is Autarchy, Freight and Myopia.
I think McArdle has a sort of precious style on some of these posts, and it doesn't really work. But stylistic choices shouldn't be that big a deal, and I wouldn't exclude the possibility that there's something genuinely (unconsciously) misogynistic going on here.
Qualitative comparisons:
Digby vs. McArdle
Glenn Greenwald vs. McArdle
Arthur Silber vs. McArdle
Billmon vs. McArdle
It's no contest, yet the Atlantic PAYS McArdle while Billmon vanishes and the ailing Arthur Silber begs for contributions.
And it's not just the Atlantic. Time Magazine gives William Kristol a high profile column AFTER the Iraq disaster has unfolded. The NYT is still running David Brooks, an unstinting generator of junk sociology and authoritarian apologetics.
Something is seriously wrong with the cultural leadership of America.
Okay, but I think that's two different questions. Do I think that there are more talented bloggers out there, who The Atlantic could have hired? Yeah. But they gave the spot to MegArdle, and now that she has the mike, she may as well rock it.
It's not just two of us who are puzzled that McArdle made it through the Atlantic's editorial quality filter. She has become the poster girl for the quality/visibility disconnect phenomenon at Sadly No.
This isn't just noise in the system. The quality collapse isn't in McArdle's blog: it is in the editorial office of the Atlantic. And this same quality collapse has happened all over the MSM. E.g, NYT/Judy Miller & Michael Gordon; Time Magazine/Kristol, and CNN/Glenn Beck. A strange Gresham's law of primitive writing driving out more civilized writing seems to be at work.
You might even call this decadence.
Um, at risk of apostasy, I think her writing on pure economics subjects is pretty interesting. I liked the posts on Chinese wage increases, for example. They're refreshingly free of sinophobia, and they show the kind of caution and interest in complexity that I expect from good economists' blogs. Of course Dani Rodrik and Brad DeLong are better at that stuff, but they're freaking top economics professors -- and in Brad DeLong's case a former high-ranking policymaker. You really can't demand that the Atlantic find people with those kinds of academic creds just to blog for them.
Anyway, it would have been pretty objectionable if, having 5 male bloggers, they then didn't hire a woman.
like digby, perhaps?
HH
I am not sure I understand your emotional rage? There always have been different types of discussion, blogs and media strategies out there? Some invite and target only the "converted" (no matter what your ideology is) - some are open to everybody and will produce more heat by definition?
Yes - there is a huge difference between the Austrian and Chicago School of thought and the economics department of the University of Islamabad? There are too many politicians with degrees or understanding outside of pure economics. an understanding of the natural laws of self-assembly are necessary tools - even if you yourself long to build more cultural "socialism" on top? (but i do not know about yourself)
It is common among many to not come in with their own solutions but to provoke a debate among commenters... sadly - this approach seems to be wasted on you as you can only attack the host.. she picks a topic and asks some provocative questions... (and I hope nobody has a problem with some fun posts that are not directly related to economics?) WalMart does not force you to buy anything!!!
The Atlantic, btw, is a business! What does a business do? It wants to grow? wants to make profit? Are you afraid that they do not generate enough "clicks" now that Megan has joined the ship?
It is boring to read from you how good other bloggers are and to worry about how much who gets paid! Boring! The only real argument that you attempt reads like:
There appears to be nothing in McArdles intellectual portfolio other than a shallow adherence to Chicago School market-worship.
is that a bug or a feature? to me it is a feature when compared to world media!
Why, at this late date, the editors of the Atlantic decided that another dose of Libertarianism is just the right medicine for our BushCo-ravaged nation, is a profound mystery.
I am not aware of a better medicine? what drugs would you prescribe if i may ask.. we know so much about your hatred for Megan and so little about yourself?
I think all this trolling about Megan is really dumb. I like her posts. If you don't, don't read her. If you disagree with what she says, consider reading anyway, since reading other people's opinions can be useful.
Kieran's crack aside, the book's title should be corrected. (Or am I being Myopic and missing some Irony?)
Apparently, there is an essay by that title in a compilation edited by Richard Rorty (per a quick Google search).
Greenwald? For really and truly?
The most obvious thing I notice about your list, HH, is the political bent of the contributors you prefer.
Is there a single non-Leftist you think would be a better choice for the Atlantic than Megan McArdle?
(Given the list, and your "BushCo-ravaged" quip, and the rest of the content, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that your problem with Megan is ideological and nothing else, and thus deeply uninteresting to her, to us, and to the Atlantic editorial board.)
And what mk said; if you think the Atlantic is making a Terrible Decision, try writing the editorial board and seeing if you can convince them. Have fun with that.
Complaining about it here, that her blog is a blog, and not exactly the one you want cannot possibly be productive, can it?
I think all this trolling about Megan is really dumb. I like her posts. If you don't, don't read her. If you disagree with what she says, consider reading anyway, since reading other people's opinions can be useful.
I don't get what you're saying. If it can be useful to read the opinions of people you don't agree with, isn't that an argument in favor of people who disagree with Megan posting? That way both Megan's supporters and her detractors are getting the utility of engaging opinion they disagree with.
HH: "Something is seriously wrong with the cultural leadership of America."
At last, something the left and right can both agree on. (And it's good to see that regardless of your party affiliation, this diagnosis can be based with confidence on the NYT op-ed page.)
I don't get what you're saying. If it can be useful to read the opinions of people you don't agree with, isn't that an argument in favor of people who disagree with Megan posting?
My objection is to trolling, not to people expressing opinions in an on-topic way.
I would count "taking up half the comment space to argue that the blogger in question should be fired due to perceived low quality" as trolling.
OK, if the person says something really offensive, it's fine to complain. Racism, misogyny, general flagrantly annoying tone. From the posts I've seen, none of those things applies here. As far as I can tell, the biggest difference may be ideological.
Kieran's crack aside, the book's title should be corrected. (Or am I being Myopic and missing some Irony?)
I think perhaps just possibly.
Nozick's little-known book on chess-by-mail in Africa (Intercity Mate in Ethiopia) has a relevant discussion.
I think perhaps just possibly.
To be clear, I found your comment amusing, but wasn't sure if McCardle's title was intentional or not.
Interestingly, Nozick's brief foray into the physics of farsightedness in gastropods addresses just this kind of misunderstanding: See Entropy, Snails and Hyperopia
Freddie-
But I don't get why MegArdle gets all this shine for it.
"Go home and get your shine box!"
Meanwhile, Freddie is surely the No. 1 "shine-boy" around here...
This comment deleted for being needlessly inflammatory. Please be nice, ever--especially--when you're defending me.
Meanwhile, Freddie is surely the No. 1 "shine-boy" around here...
When Megan deserves defending, I'll defend her. When she deserves getting criticized, I'll criticize her. It's baffling to me that the libertarians around here think that being a fan of MegArdle means you can tolerate no dissent at all.
Digby vs. McArdle
Glenn Greenwald vs. McArdle
Arthur Silber vs. McArdle
Billmon vs. McArdle
It's no contest,
I agree. Talk about throwing your swine to a pearl.
Well, I thought that was hilarious.
| 
This comment deleted for rampant trolling
Posted by HH | August 30, 2007 8:40 AM