You’re doing it right: (via Boing Boing)
Make sure to click on “shoot” or “don’t shoot.”
Wed 1 Sep 2010
Prison Tycoon
Posted by Brian Moore under bad things
No Comments
For all the people debating private prisons, I want to point out that this exists:
Prison Tycoon: Alcatraz
- Never underestimate the limitations of Alcatraz- from staff to prisoners you need to plan for everything!
- Expand your walls that house the most dangerous and diabolical criminals on earth- all for the bottom line.
- Anticipate escape attempts by hiring the baddest guards and staff around to manage the hardened criminals.
- Brick by brick. Steel door by steel door. Build your prison from the ground up in Free Play mode or take on preset objectives in Challenge mode.
- Keep ‘em busy- put your prisoners to work around the prison cleaning, cooking and maintaining your prison.
I guess it’s, uh, like Sim City?
Fri 27 Aug 2010
Libertarians Win Later
Posted by Brian Moore under libertarian
No Comments
I want to express my complete agreement with everything here:
But his column, and the libertarian donors he is channeling, make the same mistake (one he astutely recognizes in their case): operating on an inadequately short time horizon. I don’t know if a liberaltarian alliance is ever going to be a reality, or if the project is doomed to fail, but it’s folly to evaluate it based on two years of a single presidency.
[...]
Libertarian donors ought to fund efforts to oppose President Obama in the short term. They also ought to invest in intellectual projects with longer time horizons that only bear on particular electoral and legislative outcomes indirectly.
I feel like Mr. Carney is like someone who, during the early years of the draft during the Vietnam War, bemoaned that no matter how cogent the libertarian arguments for ending conscription were, attempting to convince the people in charge was a futile pursuit. For many years his pessimism would have been vindicated. But eventually the libertarian side won, in no small part to the relentless advocacy of explicitly libertarian voices.
I would go so far as to say that despite some very public anti-libertarian policies in the US over the past 10 years, the world wide trends over the past 20 years have had a dominantly libertarian nature, (my opinions on the economic issues here are very influenced by Scott Sumner, and for social issues, any opinion poll you wish to consult) which is, hilariously, something upon which only the lunatic left agrees.
Wed 25 Aug 2010
Revolutionary New Concept in Economics:
Posted by Brian Moore under Uncategorized
[4] Comments
Specialization of labor! The Daily Mail (via Instapundit) is not impressed:
More than half of young people lack the skills they need to maintain their homes, with many relying on their parents to carry out basic tasks, a survey suggested today.
Around 50 per cent of people aged under 35 admitted they did not know how to rewire a plug, while 54 per cent did not know how to bleed a radiator and 63 per cent said they would not attempt to put up wallpaper, according to Halifax Home Insurance.
Oh no! The knife twists:
Nearly two-thirds of young people admitted that their father was far better at DIY than they were.
Guess what? This describes me perfectly. I am pretty incompetent at house maintenance, (but even I can manage shelves and basic gardening, unlike some of the people described in the article), but that’s not the point. The point is, I do things I am good at and enjoy so that I don’t have to do the things I’m bad at and dislike.
I’m a computer programmer, and like all computer oriented people, I ‘enjoy’ the attention lavished upon me whenever someone in the family needs computer help. Why is it wrong for me to call upon the more expert members of my family (some of whom have extensive professional homebuilding experience!) when I need something done in the home maintenance field?
We could similarly write an article about how old people are incompetent with computers and constantly need to call their kids to come help with their interwebs, but again, it wouldn’t matter. So long as the average person knows someone who can do X, there’s no reason to learn it — unless you really want to, or enjoy doing it, or for whatever reason require doing it so often that it’s worth it. This is community and familial cooperation to maximize utility! This is good news, not bad news.
Edit: Let me specifically focus on the wallpaper example. Have you ever taken down/put up wallpaper? It is boring, stupid, messy and immensely not fun. Even if I were a wallpapering expert, I would never admit it around any who might possibly one day ask me to help do it.
Edit 2: Okay, still on wallpaper. Why would you even want to know how to PUT UP wallpaper? Wallpaper is terrible. You should not have it. Even the word itself, in a purely aesthetic context, is revolting. Sure I don’t know how to wallpaper, because I can never imagine wanting any surface to have wallpaper on it. I don’t know how to wallpaper just like I don’t know how to burn down my house — because I figure home prices have dropped enough, thank you very much. The only thing you should ever do with wallpaper is tear it out (and that’s no party either), while screaming obscenities at the past generations who thought it was acceptable. Get some goddamn paint. Painting is actually sort of fun!
Tue 24 Aug 2010
Good Thing We Fixed That Problem
Posted by Brian Moore under culture
No Comments
This isn’t painful until you see the date:
Without the high stakes of U.S.-Soviet conflict, national-greatness conservatives are desperately seeking the moral equivalent of the Cold War. Their pursuit is in vain, for Americans go to war reluctantly and are happy to be at peace. At this point in our history, American nationalism is a secure ideal. Its meaning evolves, certainly, but no one who has ever been abroad–or spent much time outside the Beltway–can doubt its vigor. It is absurd to think we require central direction to feel American.
Americans don’t need to concoct grand national struggles merely to prove their mettle. They prove it every day, in their own private pursuits.
Well said, I bet they had those jerks who are constantly invoking the war on terror in mind when they said that!
This article was published in the September 25, 1997 Wall Street Journal.
Oh.
Fri 20 Aug 2010
One Crazy Idea Too Far
Posted by Brian Moore under culture
[2] Comments
3 in 4 Americans believe stupid things, via Yglesias. I thought the funniest was this:
The “cumulative percent” column shows that more than one-fifth of all Americans, 22%, believe in five or more items, 32% believe in at least four items, and more than half, 57%, believe in at least two paranormal items. Only 1% believe in all 10 items.
I’m especially interested in the 2% who believe 9 out of the 10 things. Which was the one idea that they said “no way, that’s just going too far?”:
Believe in % Extrasensory perception, or ESP 41 That houses can be haunted 37 Ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations 32 Telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses 31 Clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future 26 Astrology, or that the position of the stars and planets can affect people’s lives 25 That people can communicate mentally with someone who has died 21 Witches 21 Reincarnation, that is, the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death 20 Channeling/allowing a ‘spirit-being’ to temporarily assume control of body 9
I assume that for most people, it was most likely to be “channeling” since the fewest % of people believed that one. I just think it’s funny that a non-zero quantity of people were cool with all the rest, but that “channeling” was right out. ”That’s not at ALL how spirits work, what kind of idiot would believe that?”
Fri 20 Aug 2010
More Honey vs. Vinegar
Posted by Brian Moore under Uncategorized
No Comments
Mr. Friedersdorf’s take on the debate. (Starring Reihan again!)
Thu 19 Aug 2010
Fusionism
Posted by Brian Moore under culture, libertarian
No Comments
So, lots of people are talking about the traditional conservative-libertarian alliance and wondering: why? I think one reason this worked for as long as it did is highlighted by things like this:
Earlier this summer, Grover Norquist agreed to join the group’s board and he immediately came under fire for betraying the conservative movement and the same thing has been happening to Ann Coulter, who agreed to speak at GOProud’s Homocon 2010, leading WorldNetDaily to drop her from its own upcoming Taking Back America conference[.]
This would be unthinkable a few decades ago, not that a conservative group would write someone out for being “too gay friendly,” but that any conservatives would have fit that description. The same situation exists with dozens of other socially liberal issues — from general polls to conservative politicians themselves, there has been a massive (though obviously not as massive as people who already self-defined as liberal) sea change on social issues. You see Republican politicians saying (and even more telling, implicitly accepting as fact) tons of things that would have gotten them purged as evil liberals years ago.
So, if you buy the 2-axis version of US politics, conservatives and Republicans have been moving quite a bit to the left on the social axis over the past few decades. Might this be another reason why libertarians (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) felt comfortable with the alliance? After all, what defines “social conservatism” has changed a great deal – for the better, in my opinion. We could imagine that in another few decades, if the opinion poll trendlines on issues like gay marriage and pot use continue, a “social conservative” could find themselves in favor (or perhaps at least grudgingly accepting) of such things. So maybe allying with conservatives is a-ok, because whatever social policy disagreements libertarians may have with them will probably be resolved (in the libertarian’s favor) in another generation or two.
Now, a bigger question is: regardless of social issues, is an alliance with conservatives even worth it on fiscal matters? I’m looking at you, Mr. Bush.
Thu 19 Aug 2010
Powerful Stuff
Posted by Brian Moore under philosophy
[2] Comments
When I wrote previously about the issue, I didn’t know Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the Muslim cleric who leads the Cordoba Initiative, had said this:
We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths.
If to be a Jew means to say with all one’s heart, mind and soul: “Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.”
If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.
And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, that to say “La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah” is no different.
It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values.
But if I had, it would have only reinforced my confidence in what I felt.
I am not a religious person, nor even a spiritual one, so I won’t comment on the actual theological content. But I do know my history, and how at odds that statement is (to its credit) with the blood-spattered catalog of interactions between Judaism, Christianity and Islam — and the repudiation (oh how I wanted to put an ‘f’ there) of the largely imaginary differences that provoked those conflicts is a moving one.
But one day I want to see a world where Christians, Jews and Muslims do not consider themselves antagonists. And this is a non-trivial step towards that goal.
Wed 18 Aug 2010
Step 2: Profit!
Posted by Brian Moore under libertarian, media
No Comments
Wait, sorry, that’s step 3! Conor is trying to figure out step 2, in discussing the political likelihood of a Gary Johnson presidency:
Then the Republican base embraced Sarah Palin, and all the same people who mocked Obama’s celebrity enthused about her star quality. One step forward, three steps back. Gene Healy’s book The Cult of the Presidency (magazine version here) is a great first step in pushing back against this trend. Unfortunately, I don’t know what the right second step is.
I do! If Conor and Marc (Ambinder) think Johnson would be a good president, and a suitable tonic to the cult of Palin or Obama, they should do the same things everyone else does when they find someone they think would be good for the job. Start a website advocating for him. Write articles on their blogs describing his wonderful policy points. Talk to their contacts in Johnson’s party about him. Show how he’s better than the other candidates. Do all the things Ambinder mentions in his post:
Johnson has plenty of tools available to build a grassroots following. Doing so requires creativity, work, charm, and a bit of luck, but it does not require the media.
Marc and Conor could help do that. And finally:
People vote for politicians who sparkle, or who harness their anger; politicians who make them proud to be Republicans … or proud to be Americans.
Agreed. So, for people who prefer Johnson to the alternatives: get to it! Show how much he sparkles. Show how voting for him will be an expression of anger at, well, whatever things anger you. Show how his policies exemplify what America stands for, so a voter could be proud of their choice. Sure, this all sounds tacky and formulaic, but if it’s works in today’s politics, then go for it. While you’re at it, play up the non-visceral qualities that appeal to the same people who dislike Palin.
There is a sizable group of people in this country who don’t like Obama or Palin that much — and even more who might be convinced that the parts of those two they do like could also be accomplished by a different candidate. Maybe a candidate named Gary. Get to work!
Tue 17 Aug 2010
A Noted Situation Defuser
Posted by Brian Moore under Uncategorized
No Comments
Hmmm:
(CNN) — Airport police in Albuquerque, New Mexico are expected to release details Tuesday about an “incident” aboard a Southwest Airlines flight during which a mother may have slapped a young child.
The Albuquerque International Sunport’s police chief told CNN affiliate KRQE that a flight attendant took the child from its mother.
“I think it was a solid move from the part of the flight attendant to take custody of the child,” [Police Chief Marshall] Katz said. “It neutralized the situation. It calmed everybody down.”
Wait, what? You can calm down a mother by taking their child away? I realize it’s a logical fallacy to come to a conclusion purely from anecdotal evidence, but I’m pretty sure that based on my experience, I can confidently claim that kidnapping a baby is not a situation neutralizing tactic. But then, I haven’t had the same training that Chief Katz has.
Mon 16 Aug 2010
Frustrating
Posted by Brian Moore under culture, libertarian
[8] Comments
It’s frustrating to see Roger Pilon of Cato, an institution I normally like, buy into the anti-Cordoba viewpoint:
It is the ground where some 3,000 people of all faiths lost their lives in a brutal attack by radical Muslims acting in the name of their religion, however distorted their beliefs may have been. Those who lost loved ones that day, to say nothing of the rest of us, cannot be indifferent to that fact — as those who support the mosque’s location near Ground Zero seem to be.
Yeah, and if radical Muslims were setting up shop, I might be willing to take a harder look at it. But this is explicitly the work of moderate Muslims who publicly, frequently, reject violence. There is absolutely no contention that they they’re anything but — and I think that Pilon understands that, because at no point in the three posts on the topic does he attempt to accuse them of extremism, like some other commenters.
This gets back to the concept that moderate Muslims are our greatest weapon (in the comments, Sarah notes that using the term “weapon” to describe advocacy of peace is probably a poor choice of words) against Muslim fundamentalism. If another ally of ours, such as England (a theocratic state, I might add!), wanted to put up a building expressly dedicated to peacefulness regarding religion, then I would salute it — and Muslim moderates are just as important an ally (if not more so!) in fighting fundamentalism. I consider our alliance with Muslim moderates to be the ultimate insult that we can level — not to us, or our memory of September 11th — but to the backwards thugs who committed that crime. The fact that we consider their greatest enemy (Muslim fundamentalists have been fighting moderates far longer than Americans) to be our esteemed allies is a gigantic “fuck you” to their medieval concept of the world, and that’s something that can’t be yelled at them often enough. Cordoba House is indeed a symbol — that we consider moderate Muslims to be partners in the great alliance against fundamentalism that encompasses the vast majority of humanity.
The only thing I really agree with Mr. Pilon on is this:
After all, the president isn’t, or shouldn’t be, the moral compass of the nation — certainly not this president. [I'd argue that he's no worse or better than any other] But it’s rather late in the day to be ducking out on this one, now that it’s been elevated to the presidential level.
Definitely. We have a division of powers for a reason — this is, legally, a local zoning issue — and “legally” is certainly the standard by which we should judge whether a president should get involved. He has no reason or jurisdiction here. Though I don’t think it’s some great crime by itself, I think we would be all be better off if we exercised a little more restraint about presidential involvement. There are actual tasks a president should be doing, and I certainly don’t think his execution of them has been so perfect that there is time to spend giving speeches on little things like this.
But when it comes down to it, I don’t want to convince conservative opponents of Cordoba that they should merely be allowed to build, though I respect those who are willing to allow it based on principles of property rights and religious freedom, I want to convince them to enthusiastically support it, for the precise reason we all hate violent fundamentalists. For the past 9 years we’ve actually sent thousands of our soldiers into battle, some losing their lives, alongside moderate Muslims who categorically reject the extremism of idiots like Al Qaeda. Whether or not you think that specific policy is a good idea, we are actually sacrificing lives to achieve the triumph of moderation over extremism within Islam. If we can ask men and women to lay down their lives for the idea that moderate Muslims are our allies, we should be able to accept a far smaller burden (if the construction offends you) ourselves — nor should we hesitate to stand beside those who are already the epitome of that idea’s victory.
Edit: as Cato is not a monolithic organization, here is Christopher Preble with a much better viewpoint.
Edit 2: I decided that “CATO” should be the mythical Central Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Mon 16 Aug 2010
Regulation By The Other Guys
Posted by Brian Moore under culture, libertarian
No Comments
When objecting to regulations of businesses, libertarians often point out that just because the intent is to put wise and noble regulators in charge, that doesn’t always happen. And sometimes, those regulators may end up being people that advocates for that regulation may not like at all. Here’s one case:
The developers’ [of Cordoba House in NYC] landlord is ConEdison, the power utility serving New York City. While ConEd is a private company, it is subject to regulation by New York’s Public Service Commission. Republican candidate for Governor Rick Lazio has pledged to appoint PSC members who would block the sale of the property [to Cordoba House].
This is not a damning argument against regulation of this power utility — but rather it’s just an example of how regulatory power, though granted with the best of intentions, can often be used for less than noble goals.
Sat 14 Aug 2010
Hating The Audience
Posted by Brian Moore under culture, media
[4] Comments
I randomly stumbled across this critique of reviews for the latest Michael Cera movie. I don’t really care about the movie itself, since I haven’t seen it, but this jumped out at me:
NPR’s Linda Holmes dissected reviews from the film’s harshest critics and discovered something interesting: negative critics don’t hate the film per se, they hate its target audience. Scott Pilgrim, you see, is a tale in which Michael Cera must defeat his love interest’s seven evil ex-boyfriends. It’s loaded with geeky gamer jokes and comic fanboy humor. Is it right for critics to denounce a film based on the audience it caters to?
Now that is something that exists far beyond movie reviews: disliking something because we don’t like those who already like it. I’d actually go so far as to say that this mechanism, more than any other, drives our political beliefs — and it makes sense that it would. Our brains are finely tuned mechanisms; but they are not tuned for the goal of analyzing policies for their pros and cons. What they are really good at is social politics — determining who is on our side and who isn’t, and furthermore, figuring out which beliefs or ideas represent them or us.
In the debate over ending birthright citizenship, Will Wilkinson describes the same thing:
Part of it, I’m afraid, is just knee-jerk opposition to policies their political enemies favor. Of course, the fact that bad people with bad motives support a policy does not mean it is therefore bad policy.
Now, I’d like to believe that I’m above all that, and my opposition to Will’s idea of ending BC is based solely on my reasoned, objective analysis of the situation, but I’m not sure I can justify that. After all, I certainly have paid the idea a lot more attention since Will proposed it, because I respect his motivations (and on a basic tribal level, consider him “on my side”) a lot more than most of the other people who have proposed the idea. I’m still opposed to it, but I’ve softened my opposition to “I don’t think it would achieve very much, and would be more difficult than alternatives that I consider to be superior.” I would not have granted that to the average proponent of the idea.
Fri 13 Aug 2010
Time Travel Assassination Targets
Posted by Brian Moore under history
[2] Comments
Amateur time travelers always go back in time and kill Hitler. But I think the entry of the US into WW1 was even worse than Hitler’s rise of power — because they actually led to the circumstances that made Hitler possible. Without the punitive Versailles treaty made possible by the US breaking the trench warfare stalemate, Hitler is just a simple WW1 veteran. You can kill two birds with one time-travelling stone! The other key point (from the same year, in fact, the US declaration of war and Lenin’s trip to Russia occurred the same week!) that results in almost untold suffering was the export of Lenin to Russia, where he transformed a potentially moderate revolution into an extremist one. So, if you only have one time machine, you might want to consider going back and stopping Lenin too.
But I’ve just come across the holy grail of time travelling history revisionism: Arthur Zimmerman. Yup, astute high school history students will remember that he was the author of the Zimmerman telegram, the German message to Mexico asking them to (!!!) declare war on the US and reclaim some southwestern states. Thankfully, the Mexican leader smartly declined this opportunity, but not before the Americans became convinced that this constituted casus belli. It’s not an exaggeration to state that without this revelation, the US may not have entered WW1. But here’s the kicker: Zimmerman, in his role as foreign secretary, was also personally responsible for that other terrible historical event:
In March 1917, with the imminent collapse of the Russian front, Zimmermann took steps to promote Peace in the East with the Russians, a proposal that was of immense importance to Germany at the time. The foreign secretary set forth the following: regulations for frontline contacts with the opposite side; reciprocal withdrawal of the occupied areas; an amicable agreement about Poland, Lithuania and Kurland; and a promise to aid Russia in its reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Last not least, Lenin and the émigré revolutionaries would be allowed to pass through Germany to Russia by train. These proposals once carried out, would free Germany’s armies in the east and allow them to be concentrated in the west, a master-stroke that would reinforce the German western front vastly. Zimmermann thus contributed to the outcome of the October Revolution.
So, aspiring time travelers, if you’ve only got one paradox-causing bullet to shoot, here’s your target.
Mon 2 Aug 2010
Persuasive Modes
Posted by Brian Moore under culture, libertarian
No Comments
Reihan Salam was talking at Tim’s site (using a dandy inline chat called Envolve) about liberaltarians and conservatarians. In discussing this, one of the most interesting things (to me) that came up was the debate over how to approach those you disagree with. The specific instance was the mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks. While (I think) everyone was agreed that it should be allowed, the two basic positions on how to approach those who didn’t were as follows:
1) Vinegar. Stigmatize bad beliefs — call those opposed to the mosque bigots. The thought being that you don’t want to establish that such bigotry is an acceptable position. I assume this goes along with the idea of “moving the goalposts.”
2) Honey. Don’t call them bigots, instead try to show them that the position you take embodies some of their basic principles. Just insulting your opponents might just cause them to retreat to the echo chamber.
Mon 2 Aug 2010
Goodbye Iraq
Posted by Brian Moore under foreign policy
No Comments
If this is for real, I’ll take back 6.4 bad things I’ve said about Obama:
The Obama administration’s planned drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq is proceeding “as promised” and should lead to an end of America’s combat mission there by the end of August, President Barack Obama said Monday.
Plans to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 50,000 by the end of this month are on schedule
Only 50k by end of August? Damn. Nice.
A full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is scheduled to occur by the end of next year.
Even so, none of the 6.4 criticisms I take back will be those about Afghanistan:
Obama defended his decision to increase U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan — a decision criticized by some of the more liberal members of his own party. He said the military has now gone on the offensive against extremist elements, and took issue with critics who claim the U.S. end game in Afghanistan remains poorly defined.
Ah well, one outta two ain’t bad.
Wed 28 Jul 2010
Hey, That’s My Idea!
Posted by Brian Moore under healthcare
No Comments
Wow, I completely agree with this:
So here’s a modest proposal: Instead of spending $400 billion on Medicaid in 2010, let’s spend $300 billion, but instead of spending it on Medicaid, or even on vouchers, let’s write checks to the poor. Instead of filtering $9,815 per Medicaid enrollee through a cascade of government employees, let’s send $7,361 in cash into the mailboxes of impoverished individuals, to spend on whatever is most important to them and their families. It achieves more efficient wealth redistribution than does Medicaid, and allows the poor to afford high-quality, private-sector health insurance.
Uhm, yes? It’s amazing how programs designed to help the not-so-well-off so rarely consider just giving them money and letting them decide. It’s almost like people don’t really respect their autonomy very much.
Tue 27 Jul 2010
Doctors at 100k a Year
Posted by Brian Moore under business, healthcare
No Comments
I accept that this post isn’t really arguing for 100k a year max incomes, as Matt says:
Similarly, one important reason high-end consumption items are so expensive is that the people who buy them have so much money. If there weren’t all these rich people around, that house on the Hamptons would be much cheaper and you wouldn’t be so desperate to earn enough money to buy it. These points are important, underappreciated, and should shape our thinking about policy to a greater extent than they do, and I think the Grief piece is a welcome contribution to dramatizing that fact even if the specific proposal has some problems.
Some problems still remain, though. Though surely the wages of some CEOs are driven primarily by prestige competition, what about doctors? Medicine is actually a field where the income is necessary (and 100k a year is not enough) to compensate the doctor for the immense losses (both financial and otherwise) they have suffered on the route to becoming a physician.
- Educational costs: Now, on some level, the prices of education, both undergraduate and medical school, are driven by the higher wages one can expect to reap as a physician, but it’s still going to cost a lot.
- Hours worked/work conditions: 100k seems like a decent hourly salary at 40 hours a week. It’s not so nice at 80 hours a week, especially when you consider that those extra 40 hrs are probably worth a lot more to you as luxury time. Plus, what’s the cost of literally having people’s deaths on your hands? Even the best doctor will one day, have a patient die that they could have done something about. One of the best features of my job is that I don’t have that kind of responsibility, and it would take an immense amount of money (much higher than the difference between my salary and 100k) to get me to change that.
- Opportunity cost: you could have earned a lot of money working, instead of the 4 years of medical school, or having a part-time job in college (you may not have time for that as a pre-med), and the 3-4 years as a resident, during which you make a very small amount.
- Intangibles: what’s the proper wage for someone who has sacrificed personal relationships or time with kids to the extent that a doctor has? I’m not sure that I can put a price on that, but I’m pretty sure it’s high.
- Value of what they’re providing: certain surgeons actually can save lives that no one else in the world can. Now, I’m not saying that we should compensate them at the going insurance rate for life-years or whatever, but I think most of the people in the world are fine with the idea of people who save lives making more than 100k.
So yes, I accept that for some jobs, the high salary is driven by competition instead of real compensation. But there are quite a few where it is not — there are “real” as opposed to positional reasons for their paychecks. I know Matt’s not actually recommending the max income policy, but it’s hard to imagine any policy that we might propose that reduces the positional component of a CEO’s pay without similarly affecting doctors, who may have little or no positional income. After all, it’s hard to show off all your conspicuous consumption if don’t get home until after all the other Maserati owners have gone to bed.
Tue 27 Jul 2010
Liberaltarian Argument 101
Posted by Brian Moore under culture, libertarian
No Comments
This is how it should be done:
I am curious about the modern liberal take on autonomy and credit. Let’s say that two gay men, of unknown health status, want to have informed, consensual, unprotected sex. Should the law prohibit this? I believe the answer is no. [...]
The unprotected sex is riskier and less prudent than borrowing money at an annualized rate of two hundred percent. Why prohibit one and not the other?
That’s precisely what I think of when I hear “liberaltarian:” showing how libertarian policies can exemplify liberal values. And perhaps more importantly, showing not just that those liberal values are a welcome side effect, but indeed the purpose and justification for the policy.
