6/9 "The last two decades have witnessed a revival of the American credo
of personal responsibility, championed by conservatives as an
all-purpose tonic to every social ill." I will agree that many
conservatives use personal responsibility as the solution to all
life's problems. However, I also get upset when liberals seem to run
from personal responsibility too. I think that this is a false
choice. The fact is we need both personal responsibility and social
responsibility. People need to responsible for the lives they are
given and be responsible for their fellow man and woman. It's not an
either/or, but a both/and. I need to find a job. That's my
responsibility, not the government's. However it should be the
government's responisibility to make sure I have adaquate health
care, and other stablizers in order to keep me slipping towards
poverty. That's what makes a social contract: I will do something
for you and in return you will do something for me. As a pragmatic
moderate who is experiencing economic insecurity, I know we need to
have government play a more expanded role. However, let's not
sideline personal responsibility in process.
\_ From what I have seen with my own eyes, the actual number of
cases where people are simply unwilling to find a job is nearly
negligible compared to the cases where economic realities are
enough to make socialized assistance a good idea. Living in
Berkeley was not good for my perspective since that "negligible"
number of people were right in my face everyday. Outside Berkeley,
I've mainly seen people working their asses off and barely getting
by. From that I've concluded that personal responsibility, at least
as far as getting a job, is an easy go-to emotional push button for
people who don't think socialized assistance (and that comes in many
many forms) is a good idea. It is an easy way to distract otherwise
well meaning people from a larger reality. -- ulysses
\_ A large majority of Republicans would say that people working
their asses off and barely getting by is how it should work.
The people working their assess off and doing better than that
"deserve" it because they came up with a better mousetrap, or
are children of those who already succeeded (inheritance, family
connections). They also say the lazy wealthy will spend all
their cash in one generation, and it's no one's right to tax
their inheritance away -- their kids will be working their asses
off and barely getting by again.
\_ Actually the Chinese say that. It's an old proverb that says
"wealth doesn't last past 3 generations". There's also an
old Chinese proverb to the effect that "weath creation is
hard, but wealth maintenance is even more difficult."
\_ The Chinese also say something to the effect of "Only the
good die young".
\_ Don't know that one. Lots of famously Chinese sayings
really aren't. What is it in Chinese?
\_ I'll go ask my girlfriend. Maybe she got it off of
soap operas or wu xia novels.
\_ There is a descriptive phrase that says "noble
spirit is dead early", but this is descriptive
rather than prescriptive.
\_ The good die young because only the young die good.
\_ You know, I had been experiencing economic insecurity more than once
in my life, but it never occurred to me to conclude I need the
government to play a greater role in my life and help me. People
are very different I guess. There is this microloan bank (fully
peasant-owned) in South-East Asia somewhere. They are doing really
well (most of their loans are not defaulted on). This is because
for most poor people there, it is a matter of honor to return the
loan, so they work hard on their 'microbusiness' which the loan
helped them bootstrap, and almost always end up better off, and
paying off the loan. Most poor people HATE relying on charity.
Do you know how I learned about this bank? Dr. Breyer (Inktomy fame)
Do you know how I learned about this bank? Dr. Brewer (Inktomy fame)
was giving a talk at UCLA about, among other things, how
charity-based efforts to uplift the third world poor tend to work
badly, while capitalist methods like microloans tend to be very
effective. -- ilyas
\- microcredit is good at some problems but it isnt going to
help with things like malaria, flood control, post-flood
recovery, arsenic in the water etc [BTW, this list is based
on development issue in bangladesh, where the grameen bank
started, not SE Asia]. what about govt promostion of business?
started, not SE Asia]. what about govt promotion of business?
this isnt just obvious corporate pork or things like tax holidays
but subtler things like city leaders going on trade promotion
tours, the import-export bank etc.
\_ Breyer's thesis is that 'development' (which is the real
tours, the import-export bank etc. --psb
\_ Brewer's thesis is that 'development' (which is the real
way to affect things like malaria and response to natural
disasters) has to happen in a capitalist way, or it is not
sustainable. The typical example he gave was a World Bank
project going in, spending some money for a few years, and
leaving once the grant ran out. The structures they have
build immediately dissipate because charity does not build
sustainable development structures, whereas a business does.
I don't think he was particularly hung up on microloans as
the universal panacea, nor was he saying charity has no place.
-- ilyas
\- to say development is the way to solve something like
endemic malaria or various other problems killing
10x the tsunami's total death toll per year is just
an excuse to do nothing, a lot like the people who
keep saying "oh first we have to solve the governance
and transparancy issues otherwise we will be throwing
good money after bad". without a doubt these long terms
policies are what do you need to accomplish long term
results and solutions but to avoid the problem is to
consign a lot of people to cheaply avoidable death and
misery.
\_ Partha you often accuse libertarians and
market-oriented folks of 'ulterior motives' for their
beliefs. Why is that? Do you really think they are
really more likely than any other political group of
having ulterior motives? Actually this touches on
'the motivation problem' which is something that
has been on my mind for many years now. At any rate,
I don't think those kinds of arguments are very
convincing. It's kind of like accusing the pro-charity
folks of having excuses for feeding unjust
dictatorships. -- ilyas
\- go count how many reasonably
well governed countries there are
in africa that could use some help.
there is more to africa than
uganda, congo, sierra leone, liberia,
sudan etc. you never hear about most
of those countries.
\- BTW, I think you should be more
specific when you are talking about
charities. I am not sure whether
you are talking about the SF Opera
or Breast Cancer or organic food
in the ghetto or free cateract
operations for poor people in the
3rd world. why do some rightwingers
only talk about the latter kind of
thing as fostering a culture of
dependence? hey let's have breast
cancer sufferers suck it up and the
SF opera singers can build their own
sets. --psb
\-Finally: it really says something
about the right-wing today to have
me lumped in with the leftists.
I mean this is truly new levels
of mendacity ... doesnt mining
nicaraguan harbors or iran-contra
just seem quaint now. --psb
\- my point about randroids is pretty specific.
my overall view is a lot of libertarians dont care
about others and dont choose to admit it and
a lot of liberals dont want to admit there are a
lot of stupid poor people who dont know what is
best for themselves so they let libertarians
bash them over and over with "are you saying
poor people dont know what is best for them" ...
yes, a lot of parents dont give a rats ass about
their kids, yes, a lot of people are too dumb to
manage their money. thats part of the problem with
some voucher and privatization plans. dumb richer
people can game the system after making a mistake
[orange county bailout]. there is a lot of
hypocrisy on both sides [family values sex fiends,
leftwingers advocating things that will drive up
costs of goods for poor people]. the angry
right wing mobilize in a way that advances their
interests while the angry left wing just foams.
the moderate left wing are too hedonistic to
bother to do much. the moderate leftwin now
consderates any day a democratic congressman
doesnt wet his pants on TV a successful day, see
recent judicial "compromise". the moderate right
wing is assessing whether they can throw money
at the problem and avoid the problems the angry
right might drag them into. --psb
\_ Firstly, I find it supremely amusing you wrote
4 separate replies. Secondly, I was not lumping
you with anybody, although I would say your
beliefs qualify you for a 'liberal' in the
American sense. Thirdly, to reiterate a point
I perhaps did not state sufficiently strongly,
I have no problems with charities. I love
charities, in fact, because I view them as a
more viable alternative over government-managed,
tax-funded programs, in many cases.
\- on a lot of specific policy areas ...
regulating pollution and other environmental
issues, trade unions, free trade, tort law,
govt paid for sex change operations ... i
hardly endorse the traditional liberal
position. but it's hard for to ignore
hypocrisy, racism, and rank criminality
because i agree with them on welfare
reform. if i have to choose between some
loser getting a free sex change operation
and halliburton ripping us off for millions
of dollars, it doesnt really matter to me
whether the transsexual is straight, gay
or bisexual. for example i have a reasonably
hard attitude toward illegal immigration,
but 1. the arguments for and against free
trade in goods largely apply to free movement
of labor 2. this new idea of creating a
semi-official second class status of persons
is really offensive ... it isnt excused by
being pareto superior. the right is sinking
to a new low on big issues that are hard to
ignore or compromise on becaues of their
extremeism or magnitude.
having ulterior motives? -- ilyas
more likely than any other political group to have
ulterior motives? -- ilyas
\_ I suspect libertarians such as ilyas are
actually a bit handicapped understanding
the perception of the libertarian pov.
ilyas, alone among the libertarians who
I've read here over the years, generally
sounds like he's convinced libertarianism
is a correct means to an end. All the rest
I've read, my impression has been that one
scratched their argument a bit and it was
a bit of Limbaugh-esque flim-flam painted
over naked greed or blame-mongering.
-- ulysses
\_ Everyone agrees microloans > charity, doing nothing.
However, is it that:
microloans > charity > doing nothing, or
microloans > doing nothing > charity
Also, above poster contends certain things are difficult to
microloan on.
\_ I would say charity is better than doing nothing, but I
think charity tends to be a very inefficient means to
achieve desirable long-term positive effects, because of
the mentioned lack of sustainability of effects charity
produces. I think people who want to enact long-term
change ought to spend more time thinking about the best
way to spend their charitable contributions than just
blindly give to a charity, and telling their conscience
to shut up. Breyer gave an example of developing a
malaria blood tester machine that can be used 'in the field'
as a PhD thesis. Then you can put in your CV "my work
saved 50 million lives." -- ilyas
way to help than just blindly give to a charity, and telling
their conscience to shut up. Breyer gave an example of
their conscience to shut up. Brewer gave an example of
developing a malaria blood tester machine that can be used
'in the field' as a PhD thesis. Then you can put in your CV
"my work saved 50 million lives." Hard to argue with that.
This touches on a larger philosophical problem of moral
actions being generally uncomputable (you don't have time,
\_ I think most people agrees with what you wrote,
up to ". Breyer ...".
and doing nothing is also immoral). -- ilyas
\- i am not familar with your "blood tester" but you can
look at jay keasling's [ucb/lbl] work on "e coli"
factories to bring down the cost of an anti-malarial
as well as something like ashok gadgil's [lbl]
UV waterworks. BTW, i am sure Brewer is a "breyte"
guy [are we talking about Brewer?] but why dont you
read a development export on this stuff? like say
jeffrey sachs or AMARTYA SEN. you might be interested
in SEN: DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM. --psb
in SEN: DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM.
\_ It is Brewer, sorry. Fixed. I forget what disease
the field blood tester was for. It might not have
been malaria. -- ilyas
\_ I think most people agree with what you wrote,
up to ". Breyer ...". As for Breyer, well, I think he's
up to ". Brewer ...". As for Brewer, well, I think he's
just stating the obvious, except he is a startup founder
and Berkeley CS professor (but that's just my opinion).
The "obvious" being:
microloans (and other aid which encourages self-reliance
and comes with long-term benefits)
> short-term charity, doing nothing
\_ If, as you say, most people agree with what I wrote,
it is very curious that there is so much controversy
about whether it is better to uplift the poor in the
United States using capitalist or charity-based methods.
Is there something fundamentally different between the
situation here and in the Third World? -- ilyas
\- yes. in jeffrey sachs rather disturbing phrase,
some people are "too poor to live". by and large
the poverty in the united states is not "the
poverty that kills". --psb
\_ Yes, I am of course aware of that. This
actually makes the 'uplift through charity'
argument harder in the case of the US poor.
\_ Let's go back to:
Everyone agrees microloans > charity, doing nothing.
However, is it that:
microloans > charity > doing nothing, or
microloans > doing nothing > charity
The problem is that the process hasn't been created
to efficiently microloan everything but only a
limited number of projects.
Let's say the U.S. government could potentially spend
$10 on aid. Practically speaking, we can only spend
$1 on microloan type stuff. So, do you: spend $9
on charity, keep the $9 (do nothing), spend $4.5 on
charity and keep the rest, spend $9 on developing the
process for microloan type stuff and give nothing
to charity, or some combination of the above?
It is on these practical issues on which most of
the substantive arguments are about.
Plus, you have Dems who think that GOPers prefer
doing nothing over giving charity and think
micro-loans are really about doing nothing; and
you have GOPers who think Dems prefer giving charity
over doing nothing and micro-loans.
From my perspective both parties are making the wrong
assumptions about the other side, and this is a
major part of what a lot of the bickering is about.
In an ideal world, both parties are having arguments
on the substantive differences, not the imagined
ones, but oh well (what better way to rally the base
than to say that the other side would like nothing
better than spending zilch on charity, or say the
other side prefers putting the lazy on the dole
forever).
In the real world (which includes soda), the vast
majority of arguments are about imagined differences,
or are situations where 80% of the difference is
imagined/non-substantive and 20% of it is
substantive.
majority of arguments are situations where 80% of the
difference is imagined/non-substantive and 20% of it
is substantive.
\_ I don't think this is really true. Some people
really do not trust market and self-interest-based
solutions. -- ilyas
\_ I am not excluding that.
People who understand the valid points held by
the other side are having the substantive
arguments.
\_ So you are experiencing economic insecurity and you want the gov
to fix it all up for you? What is this kindgarten? If you are
really worried about economic insecurity, why don't you save money
to get through the tough times? How about trying to get another
degree or something?
\- if you owe the bank $100, you have a problem. if you owe the
bank $1m, the bank has a problem.
\_ Why get yourself in a position where you owe the bank
$1m (or $100) and don't have the means to pay? (Serious
question - I've never carried long term debt and don't
understand why you would want to) |
http://csua.com/feed/