Models of models
I understand now why Tyler likes Megan: she is contrarian without being a jackass.
Megan says,
Progressives are seduced by this because they like to think conservatives are armed, beer-swilling, uneducated rednecks; libertarians are intelligent middle class white male plutocrats; and progressives are cosmopolitan altruists. Thus, in their narrative, conservatives want to base policies on NASCAR commercials, libertarians want to base policies on intelligent middle class white male plutocrats who can make complex decisions for themselves, and progressives want policies that balance complex issues in favor of multiple outliers in intelligence, culture, race, capability. This ignores basic problems, like the fact that academia is dominated by intelligent middle class white males -- self-identified as progressives -- who largely search for novel arguments in defense of the status quo (state capitalism). Or that many of the policies favored by libertarians are more accessible and democratic than those that involve the selection and navigation of politicians, policies, agencies, and rules to create the required balance.
I'm sure it is tempting for libertarians and others for similar, mirror-image reasons. Libertarians think of conservatives roughly the same way as progressives, except perhaps with more respect for their belief in moral values; of progressives as people who have a propensity to place more weight on intent than outcome and to signal their own morality by spending other people's money; and of themselves as economic literates with a deep sense of the morality inherent in freedom. Thus, in their narrative, conservatives want to base policies on what "everyone" knows from Sunday morning sermons, progressives want to base policies on things which perpetuate the state, and libertarians want to base policies on whatever lets people find the best answer for themselves (emphasis on private action, but accepting state action where it is the least worst solution).
Conservatives think of themselves as highly moral people, of progressives as possibly insane but definitely immoral, and of libertarians as the same, only worse. In their narrative, conservatives want to base policies on what is best for everyone, progressives want to base policies on the worst in man, and libertarians don't want any policies standing between themselves and complete debauchery.
The discussion also begs the question - what should the model of the individual be? When we assume that it should be people of average intelligence and capability, and then make policy decisions on that, we are largely eliminating the needs of both the most and least capable. That's politically palatable because we can speak for the least capable without actually speaking with them, and the most capable will find work-arounds.
Megan says,
First, your model of the individual is very likely based on you. It is possible that everyone acts just like you, and also that you can accurately predict your own behaviors and motivations. But that is far from certain. When you argue for a policy that would work best for a country of people who are just like you, you should have some reason to believe you are the right model of the individual.Interesting - is this a self-recursive model? Is your model of the modeling individual "someone who models individuals based on themselves" because *you* model modellers based on your modeling?
Progressives are seduced by this because they like to think conservatives are armed, beer-swilling, uneducated rednecks; libertarians are intelligent middle class white male plutocrats; and progressives are cosmopolitan altruists. Thus, in their narrative, conservatives want to base policies on NASCAR commercials, libertarians want to base policies on intelligent middle class white male plutocrats who can make complex decisions for themselves, and progressives want policies that balance complex issues in favor of multiple outliers in intelligence, culture, race, capability. This ignores basic problems, like the fact that academia is dominated by intelligent middle class white males -- self-identified as progressives -- who largely search for novel arguments in defense of the status quo (state capitalism). Or that many of the policies favored by libertarians are more accessible and democratic than those that involve the selection and navigation of politicians, policies, agencies, and rules to create the required balance.
I'm sure it is tempting for libertarians and others for similar, mirror-image reasons. Libertarians think of conservatives roughly the same way as progressives, except perhaps with more respect for their belief in moral values; of progressives as people who have a propensity to place more weight on intent than outcome and to signal their own morality by spending other people's money; and of themselves as economic literates with a deep sense of the morality inherent in freedom. Thus, in their narrative, conservatives want to base policies on what "everyone" knows from Sunday morning sermons, progressives want to base policies on things which perpetuate the state, and libertarians want to base policies on whatever lets people find the best answer for themselves (emphasis on private action, but accepting state action where it is the least worst solution).
Conservatives think of themselves as highly moral people, of progressives as possibly insane but definitely immoral, and of libertarians as the same, only worse. In their narrative, conservatives want to base policies on what is best for everyone, progressives want to base policies on the worst in man, and libertarians don't want any policies standing between themselves and complete debauchery.
The discussion also begs the question - what should the model of the individual be? When we assume that it should be people of average intelligence and capability, and then make policy decisions on that, we are largely eliminating the needs of both the most and least capable. That's politically palatable because we can speak for the least capable without actually speaking with them, and the most capable will find work-arounds.
Labels: doggerel, philosophy, politics
<< Home