4 ms·

I see the pursuit of logically consistent views both a sign of moderate intelligence and a sign of intellectual arrogance. It takes some intellect to question

I see the pursuit of logically consistent views both a sign of moderate intelligence and a sign of intellectual arrogance. It takes some intellect to question the foundations and consequences of your beliefs and to try building a unified framework around them. It also takes some arrogance to assume that if you can't reconcile two contradictory views you hold, nobody else can either, and one of them must be wrong. For example, I find it rather obvious that nobody deserves to be rich when many poor people are lacking the basic necessities of life. I also find it rather obvious that allowing people to become rich encourages, under the right circumstances, behavior that benefits everyone in the society. I haven't been able to reconcile those views, and I haven't been able to find anyone who can do that and explain it to me. On the other hand, I have found many people who see the contradiction and choose to reject one of the beliefs. They choose to believe that some people deserve to be rich (and others deserve to be poor), or that nobody should be allowed to get rich. And that's how we get political polarization.

noduerme 5y ago
I don't think there's a contradiction in your example. "Nobody deserves to be rich" seems to be just a moralistic opinion about individual behavior - and perhaps, what they do with their wealth. It's not really a policy prescription, in that it's purely negative, i.e. preventing people from getting rich doesn't necessarily have any relationship with preventing other people from being poor. (See: USSR). But "allowing people to become rich ... benefits everyone in the society" is, however arguable, a policy position and not a negative judgment on personal behavior. It proceeds from the fact that in every society, ever, wealth stratification emerges; and it accepts that the state has an interest in both allowing some accumulation of capital and in preventing a runaway hoarding of wealth. So I think you could reconcile these views. Both of your statements follow a consistent, demonstrable underlying argument: That without some intervention by the state, too much wealth will accumulate at the top and extreme poverty will reign at the bottom. From that starting point, your views aren't contradictory; you would be on the side of well-regulated markets. You're not stepping into the fantasy lands where either eating the rich or trickling down wealth will cure poverty.
bluecalm 5y ago
The way I think about it is that you are applying mechanism that evolved and is useful for small close groups of people (morality) to the whole world (or a country). Think about it this way: you have two countries at two ends of the world. They are independent, have their own policies, culture, economy. People in one are pretty smart about policies and hard work and build wealth over decades while people in the other can't organize, have constant struggle for power, zero social policies and end up not being able to feed their every growing population. Is there any reason people in the rich country should feel moral obligation to not be rich and devote resources to lift the other country out of poverty? Additional problem is that the poor country won't easily give up independence and accept smart policies so the situation is kinda hopeless. Now apply to the local level. Even if you feel moral duty towards those in need you can't do much if you don't get some authority over their decisions/culture/education etc.
- noduerme 5y ago
  I upvoted this even though I think you have a hopelessly Confucian mentality wherein the imposition of authority can be a cure for bad policies/backward culture/lack of education. I believe culture, education and good policy can only grow and thrive among educated populaces (i.e., those educated to reject blunt authority), and really can't be induced from the top down. In third world basket-cases, a distributed, non-authoritarian approach of soft power is better; it's only American or Russian or Chinese imperialist ideas that argue an external imposition of order or a new political hierarchy will be the cure for social arguments in a nation that can't grow enough grain to feed itself. For examples of how local authority is less impactful than soft power, consider the economic and cultural growth of the entire planet under American cultural dominance from 1918 to 2001.

noduerme 5y ago

I don't think there's a contradiction in your example. "Nobody deserves to be rich" seems to be just a moralistic opinion about individual behavior - and perhaps, what they do with their wealth. It's not really a policy prescription, in that it's purely negative, i.e. preventing people from getting rich doesn't necessarily have any relationship with preventing other people from being poor. (See: USSR). But "allowing people to become rich ... benefits everyone in the society" is, however arguable, a policy position and not a negative judgment on personal behavior. It proceeds from the fact that in every society, ever, wealth stratification emerges; and it accepts that the state has an interest in both allowing some accumulation of capital and in preventing a runaway hoarding of wealth. So I think you could reconcile these views. Both of your statements follow a consistent, demonstrable underlying argument: That without some intervention by the state, too much wealth will accumulate at the top and extreme poverty will reign at the bottom. From that starting point, your views aren't contradictory; you would be on the side of well-regulated markets. You're not stepping into the fantasy lands where either eating the rich or trickling down wealth will cure poverty.

bluecalm 5y ago

The way I think about it is that you are applying mechanism that evolved and is useful for small close groups of people (morality) to the whole world (or a country). Think about it this way: you have two countries at two ends of the world. They are independent, have their own policies, culture, economy. People in one are pretty smart about policies and hard work and build wealth over decades while people in the other can't organize, have constant struggle for power, zero social policies and end up not being able to feed their every growing population. Is there any reason people in the rich country should feel moral obligation to not be rich and devote resources to lift the other country out of poverty? Additional problem is that the poor country won't easily give up independence and accept smart policies so the situation is kinda hopeless. Now apply to the local level. Even if you feel moral duty towards those in need you can't do much if you don't get some authority over their decisions/culture/education etc.

noduerme 5y ago
I upvoted this even though I think you have a hopelessly Confucian mentality wherein the imposition of authority can be a cure for bad policies/backward culture/lack of education. I believe culture, education and good policy can only grow and thrive among educated populaces (i.e., those educated to reject blunt authority), and really can't be induced from the top down. In third world basket-cases, a distributed, non-authoritarian approach of soft power is better; it's only American or Russian or Chinese imperialist ideas that argue an external imposition of order or a new political hierarchy will be the cure for social arguments in a nation that can't grow enough grain to feed itself. For examples of how local authority is less impactful than soft power, consider the economic and cultural growth of the entire planet under American cultural dominance from 1918 to 2001.