Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Hubris

Re: Hubris

yetanotherDave — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:59:11 -0000

Daniel, I expected that question, and if I was certain I would have included the country name in my first post. I think it was Hungary or Yugoslavia (or at least one near there). Sorry for the non-specific answer.

Also, please note I'm not defending or promoting sloppy (or inflammatory) use of language. I'm just relating the comments I've heard from the only person I know with direct personal experience. Given what she's told me the term does seem to fit, at least from an early warning point of view.

Re: Hubris

John — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:53:12 -0000

Daniel,

I think of socialism as a system of involuntary charity.

In the name of the greater good we are forced to fund programs in which we may or may not be eligible to participate.

Does that fall into any textbook definition? I doubt it.

But I bet it would describe what many people think of when they use that particular word.

Re: Hubris

Babinich — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:50:02 -0000

Daniel Kuehn on 03/23/09 @ 12:41:59 PM

"If a real socialist had a real chance at getting any power in this country, I'd probably be more adamantly ringing the alarm bell. As it stands, I'm pretty comfortable with having a civil discussion with a socialist. Not many socialists at the table to talk with right now, though."

Dan, it's not you that I am worried about. It is all the other gimme, gimme, gimme, types that seem to soak up the message of "Change".

Re: Hubris

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:42:54 -0000

yet another Dave -

Which socialist country, may I ask?

Re: Hubris

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:41:59 -0000

John - please read my reply to Sam. I'm not advocating a strict dictionary definition. I'm just advocating a little coherence.

Babinich -

I'd agree with you on what socialism stands opposed to. But socialists strike me more as woefully mislead than they do as boogey men (and I admit - a lot of my unwillingness to treat them like boogey men is due to their reduced threat since the Cold War. I would probably approach it somewhat differently in the 60s or 70s).

If a real socialist had a real chance at getting any power in this country, I'd probably be more adamantly ringing the alarm bell. As it stands, I'm pretty comfortable with having a civil discussion with a socialist. Not many socialists at the table to talk with right now, though.

Re: Hubris

yetanotherDave — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:40:10 -0000

Maybe Daniel has a point about the semantic issues surrounding the word socialist. But, the only person I know who escaped from a socialist country told me that what is happening in the US is exactly how the transition to socialism started there. Naturally, she is very concerned. Having heard her informed viewpoint, it seems reasonable to use the term socialism to describe what's going on here now.

Re: Hubris

Randy — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:39:37 -0000

Socialism; Any system of thought in which the needs of "society", as expounded by those claiming to speak in the name of "society", are given priority over the rights of individuals. Modern variants include Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.

P.S. If you don't want me to call you a socialist, then all you have to do is make your programs voluntary.

Re: Hubris

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:38:21 -0000

He does address coverage issues - I don't think he exclusively addresses them.

One thing that helped me decide between Obama and Hillary in the primary was that Obama seemed much more aware of and concerned with both cost and coverage. Hillary's plan was far closer to a single payer system with much more subsidized care for low income people. I think expanding government coverage somewhat would be appropriate, but that doesn't seem to be the crux of Obama's plan.

McCain also demonstrated concern with costs, although he didn't talk about it as much. But I thought his plan to reduce the tax break on employer health benefits made a lot of sense. If benefits were taxed like wages, and then the new revenue allowed for a reduction of rates in all brackets, that would go a long way towards tamping down the rapid growth of national health expenditures, and make the employer system more equitable (currently there is more incentive to provide compensation in the form of health benefits for high income workers than there is for low income workers, because the tax break of that move is much greater for high income workers).

Re: Hubris

Babinich — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:37:33 -0000

"Why does this have to be so vicious?"

Because a great deal is at stake.

"Why does socialism have to be built up into a boogey man?"

Because socialism stands opposed to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Re: Hubris

Practitioner — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:32:40 -0000

What was the trade-off for smallpox eradication?

The costs associated with eradication meant that there was that much less to spend on other needs. (I.e., opportunity costs.)

Re: Hubris

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:32:01 -0000

I would agree that the partisanship also degrades the debate. As a self-proclaimed moderate, it's amazing the flack that I've received from both sides. After the last eight years I'd probably say I'm more "center left" than "center right" - but who knows. Give me eight years of Obama and I might be "center right".

Nevertheless - I'm not trying to adhere strictly to technical definitions of socialism and communism. But I'd at least like to see some resemblance. If you think Tim Geithner, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, and Christie Romer are really orchestrating socialist policies, fine. You are going to have a really really hard time convincing me of that.

Clearly there is some variety in socialism. The Europeans have proved that you can have socialism without an iron curtain and egregious repression. But even the most liberal suggestions of the Obama administration bear no resemblance to European socialists (and European socialists certainly don't fit the dictionary definition of "socialism" or "communism" anyway).

Re: Hubris

John — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:32:00 -0000

I see. One may not use the word Socialist unless it is directed at a person who agrees and practices 100% of the dictionary definition of Socialism, down to the last letter.

Wow, I guess we'd better quit using adjectives in political discourse, since nobody fits any definition perfectly.

Re: Hubris

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:26:07 -0000

You may need to be a little more precise about what exactly you think the Obama health plan is.

Regardless of what "solution" they come up with, the very fact that it is an "Obama health plan", shows a collective approach, using collectivized resources, via the collective agency of government.

It is apparent to me that the symptoms are viewed as "the problem".

Re: Hubris

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:22:09 -0000

MY definition of socialism would be useless?

No, the term would be useless.

As pure communists discovered, the pure state of communism (and socialism) cannot be attained. I say it's because they require the concentration of political power in collective agency to effect their gaols. Such agency is always political and oligarchical, and as such must always reflect a compromise between the various agencies comprising the oligarchy and with reality.

Hence, it discussing real world issues, labels such as communism and socialism are not useful if they must be confined to their technical definitions.

It is the preference of some to use these terms in a more general sense, to indicate that some policy is socialistic.

If you can't bear it, then perhaps you can provide better labels.

How about "collectivist"? or maybe "statist"?

Populist might be used, but that one is pretty fluid.

I suggest that the discussion is already degraded, but not by misuse of terms such as socialist, but rather by the blatant partisanship of many contenders and the meme of the right/left political spectrum which has a fairly antique history.

Those on the left assume that if you disagree with them, then you must be on the right side of the spectrum and vice versa.

In 1976, the National Review published an article exposing the Libertarian Party as communist. At the same time, many leftists criticized libertarians as right wingers.

The political debate is founded at the bottom.

Re: Hubris

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:21:57 -0000

No John - don't be so sensitive. I'm happy to have an exchange on what the most useful definition of the word is.

But - I think the more unrelated things that fall under the umbrella of the word "socialism", the less meaningful the word is. When I say "meaningful" I literally mean how much meaning it communicates.

I see very little reason to lump people who think there is a role for government in the economy with people who have a total collectivist vision for the role of government. As for government control of AIG - again, your statement proves my point. Yes we own 80% of AIG. But if you can't honestly distinguish between the circumstances of that nationalization and the circumstances of, say, Chavez's nationalization of oil companies, then I think that's a big problem. Why did they do it? How many other companies do they have that high of a stake in? Is it likely that they'll still own 80% of AIG five years from now?

These are all very relevant questions, and if you took some time to think them through you'd realize that it makes sense not to call that socialism. Does that mean you can't criticize it? Of course not! There may be lots wrong with owning 80% of AIG. One thing that isn't wrong with it is that it is some version of socialism.

There are very, very, very, very few socialists in the U.S.. The ones that are here don't have that much power (at least political power... perhaps in Hollywood or the university they do). Generally speaking, I don't find "socialism" to be a very useful word to use in policy discussions. I'm sure some exceptions will come up, but as a rule of thumb I think it makes sense to assume "socialism" is a complete non sequitor.

Re: Hubris

John — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:13:45 -0000

I see the word "meaningful" in there.

Very nice. Now the definitions of Socialism that matter are determined by you, and all others are meaningless?

Saying that socialism is a philosophy in which government force is used to promote "economic justice" wouldn't be meaningful, because that's what is happening.

Socialism as a system where industry is owned and controlled by government must also be a meaningless definition, since the government owns 80% of AIG.

If by "meaningful" you mean central planning with the government controlling all production and distribution, then I'd have to agree that Obama is not a Socialist.

Re: Hubris

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:02:42 -0000

John -

I meant we're in agreement that what we're concerned with is what Obama does.

It's not that he doesn't fit into the precise dictionary definition. It's that neither his actions nor his beliefs bear any resemblance to any meaningful definition socialism.

Re: Hubris

Mr. Econotarian — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:02:20 -0000

I remember when the only huge debt we were passing on to our kids was unfunded future costs of Social Security and Medicare...

Re: Hubris

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:01:19 -0000

Sam -

No, you weren't. Nicole was talking about what he was thinking about the issue. That was a response to her, not you.

Collective problem resolved through collective action? I'm not sure what you mean. You may need to be a little more precise about what exactly you think the Obama health plan is. And honestly, I don't think they know exactly yet - my understanding is they're still working it out.

Re: Hubris

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:53:10 -0000

Sam -

Wait a minute, MY definition of socialism would be useless? Defining every attempt at government intervention as "socialist" is what's dumbing down our public discourse right now. People aren't talking about real options - they're fighting out imaginery ideological battles.

I know genuine socialists have made attempts to be more palatable. But even those "linguistically reformed" socialists offer programs that are radically different from what the Obama administration is offering.

vidyohs uses the term as a catch-all. How in the world is that more useful than using it more specifically? How is lumping Tim Geithner and Bernie Sanders useful for anyone?????

Re: Hubris

Greg Ransom — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:52:30 -0000

Harry Frankfurt taught us why most people in public life are bullshitters:

Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit":

http://www.gwinnettdailyonl...

Re: Hubris

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:52:05 -0000

the flip side of the "they'll get the bill" is that if we do nothing and health care remains as expensive as it is today, they'll get the bill for that too.

Of course, the cost of government spending, indeed of all spending, will always be borne by those who labor to create value.

But they aren't questioning why health care is expensive to find the roots of the problem, they assume that the problem is that people can't afford it, so the solution is to make the wealthier pay for the health consumption of the poorer.

The shortcoming of this is that the expense of health care will not be relieved and the costs of all spending will always be borne by those who labor to create value.

So tell me, why is health care unaffordably expensive for so many people that it is viewed as a collective problem to be resolved through collective action?

Re: Hubris

Superheater — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:48:51 -0000

"Let's be honest - your political allies and your political opponents probably all recognize that everything is a tradeoff. Do them the charity of assuming that. "

This is kind of amusing considering the left has never practiced any sort of "charity" toward their opponents.

I saw Mr. Obama is entitled to the same presumptions about his motives, competence and character as Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan received.

The left passed a bill the other day that provides for a uniformed paramilitary youth organization-CAN YOU IMAGINE how that would have been treated if it wasn't being done by the left?

Re: Hubris

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:45:52 -0000

All I'm saying is that you can't look at the situation, see that Obama's program is expensive, and ASSUME he's not personally interested in relieving the burden on the future.

I wasn't referring to Obama's intentions.

As I see it, a failing of modern liberals is that they seem to believe that results automatically spring from intentions.

They have good intentions, therefore their actions will produce good results, and if good result aren't achieved, then the blame will be placed on those with bad intentions; those who oppose their well intentioned actions.

Re: Hubris

John — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:42:59 -0000

Daniel,

Agreement? I'm haven't figured out where you stand so I'm not quite sure.

It seems to me that your argument is a matter of semantics, that Obama isn't a Socialist because what he's doing doesn't fit the dictionary definition of Socialism.