For the past year or so, I've been doing a lot more thinking than I did before. I used to be the type who was proud of not giving a shit about anything that went on outside my little sphere of existence. I saw my ambivalence as an asset...something that allowed me to float through life with nary a care or concern. Some of that attitude took a shot in the arm when I got married and realized that I was committing to being cognizant of the needs of another person, but my political, economic, and social views remained enshrined in blissful ignorance. That all changed over the summer of 2004...when I did the first bit of serious reading I've done in a very long time. I devoted several months to reading Ayn Rand's seminal work, Atlas Shrugged.
Yeah, yeah...I hear a lot of you out there groaning. You're thinking I've become one of them. I've gone over to the dark side of Capitalist exploitation of the down-trodden masses. Whatever your view of Ayn Rand or her philosophy happens to be, there is one thing that I learned from this book that I believe every person should know and understand...and that is that in order to live any kind of life at all we all have to think for ourselves. The only real choice you have in anything is the choice of whether to think or not think, and all too often we choose not to think but to react emotionally and irrationally. Thus began the formation of what some of my friends are calling "The New Ron"...and not always in a complimentary fashion. I've also realized that I'm a Libertarian at heart.
My best friend, Steve, has been of a Libertarian mindset for almost as long as I've known him, though I wasn't fully aware of what that meant until fairly recently. We'd had discussions about society, economics, and politics over the years, but through it all he remained carefully non-evangelistic because he finds those type of people annoying. So now I'm annoying. I bug the hell outta my friends constantly about all things political and economic. That's what's so great about having friends, though...they keep talking to you even after you've gotten on their last nerve.
I'm not sure any of them know how valuable they are to my learning process, though. The discussions we have force me to think...and I'm grateful for that. Interesting thing, eh?...how before I didn't want to think and now I look forward to every opportunity to do so. I also have to thank my wife, Alli, for putting up with the new me and being willing to discuss these things as well. Without her support, there really wouldn't be any point in this anyway.
Which brings me to the purpose of this blog. This is primarily an outlet for the unfinished discussions I have with my friends. I'm not very skilled at debate, so it's often difficult for me to get my point across effectively in the heat of discussion. Later, it's much easier to reflect on the conversation and figure out how I could have made my point. It also gives me time to consider the alternative viewpoint presented by the person with whom I had the discussion and determine whether or not I agree and why.
The problem is that by the time I figure all this out it's too late. The conversation is over, and I'm usually lying awake in bed or something. I don't want to call up my friends to rekindle a discussion in the middle of the night or while I'm sitting on the toilet. Better to post it here and let them read it if they wish. This way I get to say what I wish I had said before, and everyone is happy.
So here it is...The Wombat's View on Economics (and random other things). Enjoy, and please post comments whenever you can.
Thanks!
~Ron
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
My dearest Ron, first of all, congratulations on being brave enough to pierce the veil. No small feat, and a lifetime enterprise, if what you see moves you. Secondly, I have four quotes for you: "I realize that each person can only claim one aspect as our character as part of his knowledge" (_Justine_). "'We live' (Pursewarden writes somewhere) 'lives based upon selected fictions. Our view of reality is conditioned by our position in space and time --- not by our personalities as we like to think. Thus every interpretation of reality is based upon a unique position. Two paces east or west and the whole picture is changed" (_Balthazar_). "'You are only a diplomat. You have no politics and no religion!'" (_Mountolive_). "'Civilisations die in the measure that they become conscious of themselves. They realize, they lose heart, the propulsion of the unconscious motive is no longer there" (_Clea_). These are from Lawrence Durrell's _The Alexandria Quartet_. I'm not an economist and I find much of what passes for modern philosophy (social or otherwise) naieve and too in love with its own cleaverness, but if some day you'd like to tackle questions such as the nature of reality, then I'm your bitch. Find some time to read the _Quartet_ and I'd love to dive into the text with you over a bottle or wine. Not the be-all and end-all of literature, but one of my chewy-good favorites, and it delves into social economics and post-colonialism enough to push those buttons for you, probably.
Woot! to my first poster, Kathy!!! Thanks for the props, babe. Thanks also for the quotes and recommended reading. I get fed up periodically with the political/economics thing, so having an alternative is a good thing. Love and kisses!
The only thing more annoying than an evangelical libertarian is an evangelical nihilist. If there is such a thing as a kick in the ass, they all need one.
You mean we've been having *intelligent* conversations?!?
One thing I learned the hard way is to not confuse the terms "libertarian" and "lesbian." While it indeed does spark confusing, intense, and interesting discussion and debate, this little silp up can change the context of the conversation entirely.
And get one banished to the garage for the balance of the gathering.
I've been meaning to give _Atlas Shrugged_ another try. Count me in for any wine inspired book chewing.
Did you know that Alan Greenspan was a student, and long time friend and confidant, of Ayn Rand? It is something I am reminded of everytime I hear him endorse the reduction of benefits, and transition to private accounts, as a solution to Social Security's long-term fiscal imbalance.
So, are you more interested in policy, e.g. are the canonical libertarian approaches to such issues as Social Security and Taxes, good ideas and why, or philosophical foundations, e.g. is the underlying libertarian view of human persons as radically individual monads in fact sound?
Actually, I did know that Alan Greenspan was part of Rand's "Collective", as they called themselves...which is somewhat ironic given her philosophy. I'm not yet up to speed on what Greenspan has or hasn't done to reduce the role of the Federal Reserve in the economy, but I have seen a few things that have been somewhat in line with the Libertarian philosophy...such as indicating that the Fed itself should be phased out entirely, as well as recommending a return to the gold standard.
I'm interested in both policy and philosophy, particularly in the way the former should be shaped by the latter. I've just borrowed Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, from Steve. It promises to be a substantial undertaking, but it addresses exactly that subject.
I'm also reading The Creature From Jekyll Island by Edward G. Griffin, which is an analysis of The Federal Reserve. It discusses everything from the mysterious nature of its initial formation to the profound effect it's had on the American economy. Fascinating stuff...and scary as hell.
Of course, it might not be the case that philosophy and policy line up neatly. It could be, for instance, that people are by nature individual monads, and yet turn out that the best way to organize society is along communitarian lines; likewise, we could be more intersubjective by nature (that is, it may be that it is only possible to become a person in a community of a certain kind--I believe some version of this thesis), and yet the best way to organize society is in a way that encourages maximum liberty and individual responsibility.
So, an initial question: what is society for?
I would answer along the following lines: it is to allow/encourage human flourishing, to maintain the conditions under which human flourishing is possible.
Note that even if one agrees with this minimal formulation, we would still have to decide what "human flourishing" was, and what conditions made it possible. And yet it is a substantive thesis nevertheless, insofar as it implies that there is such a thing as human flourishing, and that human life can be evaluated for its quality.
This rules out certain purely "medical" approaches to the question, which seem to imply that the only human good is more life (and, therefore, no assisted suicide, no euthanasia, etc.). I am thinking in particular of the recent case in Florida.
Finally, note that agreeing with the theses above--that there is such a thing as human flourishing, and that society exists to maintain the conditions under which it is possible--need not imply that there is only one valid and specific account of human flourishing (e.g. "studying philosophy" or "being married with children"); rather it could be that there are general conditions and principles, that allow for many different ways of living.
Note to self...don't invite friends who are smarter than you to post on your blog. ;-)
Let's see if I can add anything meaningful to that...
It is certainly true that philosophy and policy do not always "line up neatly", particularly since philosophy can only shape policy so long as "society" (or at least the majority thereof) is in agreement with said philosophy. Thus, the question becomes: Who or what factors determine which philosophy(ies) should shape policy?
The formation of our Constitutional Republic is certainly one example of an attempt to create policy, restricted by a set of ground rules that were based in a particular philosophy, that would ensure that the conditions necessary to "allow/encourage human flourishing" would continue well into the future. Part of the philosophy acknowledged that the definition of "human flourishing" is highly subjective, so maximum liberty was needed to ensure that individuals had the opportunity to flourish, each according to his or her own values.
I personally reject the "medical" approaches you mention as irrelevant, as more life in no way guarantees a better quality of life for everyone...in fact, quite often the opposite is true, particularly when geographic constraints are taken into account. I feel, therefore that the question of suicide (assisted or not) is ultimately one of personal choice, and I fail to understand how forcing someone to continue to exist when they do not wish to do so in any way benefits society.
Post a Comment