Predictions for America's Future

Robert,

I'm comfortable arguing that the mere attendance at a school, or the mere operation of a small business, is in itself an insufficient basis to judge ivy league business practices. 

Fine, but that is NOT what is being argued.  You are implying that Fred doesn't have the knowledge that would support the statements he made.  You should argue against the points he made and leave it at that instead of questioning what Fred knows or doesn't know.  Do you get that?

Second, the fact that you are comfortable with saying something doesn't make it true.  Consider that from my perspective it is being comfortable with a bad argument.

Third, what is accepted in a court of law as expert testimony is not the standard here.  If it were, I'd ask you if you qualify as an expert in a court of law to speak to what knowledge Fred has.

Fourth, because other people, or most people, don't have the knowledge required to make the statements Fred made, doesn't mean Fred doesn't.  Have you read his mind?  Do you know what he knows?  The arrogance that I see is that you are implying that Fred doesn't know enough to have made sound statements regarding the ivies without knowing what he knows.

As a side note:  I really don't care much about changes in the business practices of the ivies.  But I'm very interested in how people present their arguments.  Do they understand the replies their posts get?  Do they answer what is reasonably asked? And mostly, I'm interested in the logic that people use to fight for their points.  When I get critical its sometime over the substance of an assertion, but often it is about the logic used to defend it.

Robert,

You brought up Fred's ivy-league attendance and small-business ownership. I'm saying they aren't relevant.

Nope, Robert, you were the first to mention them.  That was in post #52 - paragraph 2, the one about arrogance.
-----------------

I had mentioned just that because you felt comfortable with an argument didn't mean it was logical. You said, "This is arguing semantics. It was a figure of speech, meaning I'm sufficiently convinced that it's true."

That is true.  I should have seen that.  Well said.
------------------

You still are claiming that Fred hasn't the knowledge he needs to make an intellegent argument about the ivies and if your standard that you appear to be applying required us all to meet these "special" knowledge levels then none of us could speak outside of what we do for a living or have somehow been 'certified' as expert in.   Sorry, but it appears a way to diminish the opponent without addressing the actual arguments, and worse it is like a special place where you get magical knowledge of who is "special" and the rest of us are to accept that.
------------------

I'm not going to argue this business with you any further.  I have been arguing for what seems like years with Eva Matthews but there was a sound purpose to that - she was attempting to subvert the core principles of Objectivism with slippery rhetoric and misdirection  and all the while pretending to be here to learn about Objectivism.

You on the other hand appear to be an Objectivist who knows and agrees with the basic principles.

Maybe I'm just in argument mode from Eva... maybe I am put off by the insistence you showed at venting in your first posts here... maybe it is that's you're a lawer for the government... and maybe it is that you seem to be unbending even when it appears you should - i.e., kind of a one way street.

Robert,

I trust businesses to make responsible decisions for themselves more than I trust outside observers, who typically lack a lot of the information that goes into such decisions.

This is sensible, but there are two dimensions here.  One is about a forced decision, like unions would like to make and that governments do make.  The other is a suggestion put forth as fodder for a discussion among people who are not even decision makers in the mentioned organizations and aren't even trying to change the organization, but rather are commenting on what economic dynamics might be.  I don't have to 'trust' anyone since I carry no responsibility for reforming the ivies - it doesn't become a matter of trust for me.

We could get into discussions of what WalMart should do, and we might or might not have intelligent things to say despite not being a part of the business.  But it is a different kettle of fish when a powerful union, or a government offical starts making "suggestions."  To inhibit people like you and me from such discussions (not inhibit by force, but just by saying we shouldn't) isn't aiding any cause that I can see.  Tongue flapping is an old activity, and the worth of such activity can't be judged till after the tongue stops moving.

But to inhibit the government from making such statements would be a good idea and I wish we had a constitutional amendment that called for the separation of the economies and state as we do for religion.

Robert/Steve:

The thread documents itself.   Yet somehow this has lapsed into some Fred lamenting that 'Walmart should pay its workers more, dammit.'    Perhaps I should have been more clear about 'Yale has been proposing' when I brought all this up.   Or, perhaps I should have politely reinforced that in a second post.  Maybe it would have helped?

Why did I bring it up?  What was the context?  Was it a, by contrast, informed lament that the 'only' path open to youngin's today was to go 80k into debt to add their names to the seven pages of fine print listings in the local yellow pages under 'ATTORNEYS', only to at last have to land a job in government in order to avoid 'slavery?'     Yes, I somewhat agree-- that is the direction that our tribe's current policies are strongly being pushed towards.   But the only choice available?  We disagree.  I think, instead, a path of least resistance.    Do we ever wonder at all where these paths and trends and ideas come from, or do we all just flow with them?

Arrogance in the Ivies?   Let's add that to the list: It can be a whole chapter in some best seller: Chapter 1] There is Dampness at Sea  Chapter 2] They Found Some Sand in the Sahara Chapter 3] A Certain Fish Smell Has Been Detected At the Public Market in Seattle Chapter 4] You Have Read This Far? Seriously? OK, er. There is Arrogance in the Ivies ... 

I mader a mistake.  I was trying to be sympathetic.  Don't know why; a totally irrelevant misplaced sense of conversation.  I'll tell my nephew the HS grad the news; he must sell his company, and if that is not sufficient, borrow money, go deeply into debt to become an attorney, and unless he goes to work for government, then get ready to sell frappacinos, because unlike my uninformed example, that is the only choice open to him.  Clearly, not all flow, even if most do.

Methinks it all went awry when it appeared I was being critical of the Justice Department, and then the legal frtaternity genes kicked in.  My apologies, but no regrets.

regards,

Fred

Predictions for America's Future based on reviews of Sarah Conly's "Against Autonomy: In Defense of Coercive Paternalism"

Reviews & endorsements

"For generations paternalism has had a bad odor, and individual autonomy has reigned supreme. Sarah Conly's book will change all of that. She argues in favor of paternalism with rigor and gusto, and persuasively shows how shedding our reflexive aversion to paternalism will make people better off. Some will be persuaded and others not, but this book will forever change the nature of the debates about paternalism, autonomy, and the role of the state in individual well-being."
--Frederick Schauer, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia

"Sarah Conly has written the best book about paternalism since Mill, and the best philosophical defense of paternalism we have to date. Tough-minded, resourceful, precise, and informed by knowledge of both psychology and the regulatory state, the book issues a challenge to which, from now on, anyone who objects to paternalistic government policies will have to respond. A marvelous achievement."
--Martha Nussbaum, Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago

"According to Mill, 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.' Sarah Conly disagrees. In this lively, accessible, sensible, and well argued book, Conly makes a case for coercive paternalism that critics of the 'nanny state' will have to take seriously."
--Alan Wertheimer, Professor Emeritus, University of Vermont

"...careful, provocative, and novel, and it is a fundamental challenge to Mill and the many people who follow him..."
--Cass R. Sunstein, The New York Review of Books

"...Sarah Conly’s book “Against Autonomy” is the first full-length, philosophical exploration and defense of a much broader, and coercive, paternalism.... This is a well-written, thoughtful, informed, treatment of its topic. One test of the quality of a book’s argumentation is to see, when a doubt arises in one’s mind about some claim, whether the author, at some point, addresses it. Conly passes this test with high marks...."
--Gerald Dworkin, University of California, Davis, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

"...a timely and important addition to the literature on paternalism.... this is a well-written, well-argued volume that will be of interest to undergraduates, graduate students, and researchers.... Highly recommended..."
--J.S. Taylor, The College of New Jersey, CHOICE

"...a concise and coherent argument worth considering by students and the lay public interested in the intersection of philosophy, politics, and psychology. It is written in plain language with minimal philosophical jargon, and is both accessible and eminently readable.... Overall, the book is coherent and generally very well-argued..."
--Matthew A. Butkus, PhD, Assistant Professor, Philosophy, Dept. of Social Sciences, McNeese State University, Metapsychology

"...a thought-provoking contribution (in every sense of the word provoking) both to general practical philosophy and to biomedical ethics in particular.... this book is worth reading because it poses the right questions and does not shy away from consequences which may be drawn from this although violating political correctness at first sight.... should be studied by everyone who is interested in defending autonomy and liberty for finite human beings."
--Michael Quante, Munster, Germany, Short Literature Notices

When you examine the dross that is Comly et. als. central thesis, you run across arguments like this:

"The main issue between perfectionaism and anti-perfectionism centers on which one gives a better account of political morality."

Literally, the first line of the companion book,  Liberalism, Perfectionism, and Restraint.

Stopped me in my tracks.   Wait a minute; the main issue centers on "which one gives a better account of  Robespierre's justification for The Terror?   They really meant to admit that-- especially as a dictatorial assertion? 

Who falls for this drivel?

"Political" is the most political word in political discourse.  It is the Alpha and Omega.  It is a Floor Wax and a Dessert Topping-- it is whatever the fuck you want it to be, because, in fact, politics is all about whatever the fuck you want.   Literally, what you want, from others, and what better way to get it from them than by beating them over the head with almost totally meaningless words whose only meaning is 'whatever the fuck I, speaking for an un-identified we, want?"

What the fuck is "political morality" other than "what the fucking mob wants as moral?"    Because it is important to know if that is being discussed is in any way different than what the fucking mob wants in a gang rape, as its version of "political morality." or is it yet more dross, readily ignored?

regards,

Fred

This is no less than the tribal jungle, clawing back against a brief outburst of modernity and freedom, re-claiming its own:  the tribe uber alles.

It is called Progress; it is regression.    Everything in the Regressive Movement is backwards -- back towards the tribe.

Freedom is, freedom from the tribe; human relationships among peers walking the earth not based on forced association, but on free association.   An idea so powerful that it deserves mobbing up to defend.

regards,

Fred

.

Great points, Steve.

Thanks, Luke.  Welcome.