Thoughts on Threats and Distribution
Megan McArdle writes:
If you need to support your preferred wealth distribution model with a threat that, unless we give them money, the beneficiaries will riot and kill the people you want to tax, you are not making a good case for the moral worthiness of the recipients, or the justice of your scheme. Just saying.
I’m not sure that follows. The people of Palestine have a legitimate moral claim to not be condemned perpetually to stateless existence under Israeli military jurisdiction. But if you’re trying to make that case to an Israeli or Diaspora audience, it might well make sense to link this claim to a pragmatic argument about Israel’s long-term security. The practical case doesn’t undermine the the moral one.
Somewhat similarly, loose talk of rioting and killing can serve as a shorthand for concerns about the legitimacy of a political and social system. As we’ve been seeing over the past several months, the political and social elite in the United States is extremely responsive to the idea that, when faced with emergency, the government needs to come to the rescue of financiers. And there are some good reasons for being responsive in this regard. But for a posture of such responsiveness to be stable over the long run, the system needs to be responsive — through social insurance and the like — to adverse circumstances in normal people’s lives. The legitimacy of the ethical claim is bound up with the concern about legitimacy and stability. The government’s role in guaranteeing the integrity of the financial system can be seen, among other things, as an illustration of Rawls’ principle that a liberal society is a cooperative scheme for mutual benefit. Or, at a minimum, such a concept of our society would help explain and justify the need to guarantee the integrity and functioning of the financial system but it would also make larger claims on general public and social responsibility.
Obviously, these are big issues that people write long books about so probably this post won’t convince anyone who feels otherwise. But that’s how I see it.
36 Responses to “Thoughts on Threats and Distribution”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 25th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Of course, the argument that you either enslave yourself to aggregations of currency or you will be imprisoned until you die or submit to its demands has it ethical and moral shortcomings as well.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:21 am
The people of Palestine have a legitimate moral claim to not be condemned perpetually to stateless existence under Israeli military jurisdiction.
http://makkale.blogcu.com/meta-tag-nedir_29636531.html
November 25th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Or, to put it more succinctly: there’s only so many times that the king can ask for money before he ends up minus a head.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Suffice it to say that this statement should go hand in hand with 95% of what McArdle writes.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I’m imagining McCardle pondering the odd behavior of the colonies. If you need to support your preference for something other than the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States by saying that repeated injuries and usurpations would lead to revolution, then you’re not making a good case.
On the other hand, it could have its uses. If you need to support your foreign policy preferences by saying that you’ll invade Iraq or bomb Iran, you’re not making a good case. Just saying.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Meghan “2X4″ McArdle talking about using threats of violence is rich.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Matt,
You do know she’s an idiot, don’t you?
November 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Moral worthiness?
In the words of Bertolt Brecht, “Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral.“
November 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
cd, rickm, and others beat me to the key point, so let me add a story from my long-ago adolescence.
when i was a teenager, in the late ’60s, i was watching “firing line” with my mother. “boy that bill buckley is smart,” my mother (a liberal, btw) said at one point.
“no, mom,” i replied, “he’s articulate. if he were smart, he wouldn’t say so many dumb things.”
November 25th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Somewhat similarly, loose talk of rioting and killing can serve as a shorthand for concerns about the legitimacy of a political and social system.
Especially if you’re in your Harvard dorm room talking to other privileged kids who’ve never had to deal with violence or societal turmoil on any level!
November 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
If you need to support your preferred wealth distribution model with the threat that, unless taxpayers bail them out, the beneficiary corporations will collapse and kill the economy that pays the salaries of those taxpayers, you are not making a good case for the moral worthiness of the corporations, or the justice of your scheme. Just saying.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:13 am
The difference between sensible, effective conservatives and the other kind is precisely that they were willing to make enough changes, at the expense of the classes they served, to keep the lower orders from slaughtering them in their beds.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I still can not figure out why anyone takes Meghan McArdle seriously.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Slavoj Zizek’s recent Violence is recommended for thoughts on this topic. Briefly, the violence inherent in capitalist states is frequently disregarded for ideological reasons: iirc, depending on how you define war, the US has initiated one or two dozen wars in the past hundred years or so, etc. Rich and poor alike may be able to have their finincial investments in banks-cum-lottery tickets insured by the government, but that posture is an ideological stance that needs to be supported by massive levels of coercive force if it is not to fall.
And here’s another one questioning the ghandian impulses of she of the randian two by four.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I am pretty sure that such a sentiment could have got one tarred and feathered if uttered in New England in 1775 or thereabouts.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
It is hard to make sense of the point without any context as to who exactly is making the suggestion she is opposed to. Would it really reflect poorly on the impoverished in Zimbabwe if it turned out that the only way they could get reasonable economic conditions would be to revolt in a way that would bring down the wealthy in the country? Or on the otherhand, is anyone suggesting in this country that the reason for more progressive taxation is a fear of a populist uprising.
But mostly her quote brings to mind Bertie Wooster’s great explanation as to why he is imposed to communism, “As I understand it, the basic idea is that chaps like you will chase chaps like me down the street with butcher’knives.”
November 25th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
How much do we have to pay you not to link to McArdle ever again?
Here, we’ll get you a subscription to the NY Review of Books and the London Review of Books. The latest NY Review of Books has an interview with Olmert, which would be better fodder for a post than a superficial yahoo like McArdle.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I agree with Sock Puppet. This is the only McArdle blog that should ever be linked.
http://firemeganmcardle.blogspot.com/
November 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Re: the ghandian impulses
Please, please, please. The name is “Gandhi”. “Ghandi” would be pronounced entirely differently, and written with entirely different letters.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Meghan “2X4″ McArdle talking about using threats of violence is rich.
And here’s another one questioning the ghandian impulses of she of the randian two by four.
Hey now, that’s completely unfair. She said quite clearly she was only talking about hitting violent anti-war protesters with a two-by-four, not just anyone opposed to military action.
Oh, wait. She said “preemptive” use of a two-by-four? Never mind, then. Fuck her.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Don’t you think it’s a bit of a cheap shot to complain grammar about the spelling of a comment on Mathyew Iglesias’ blog? Mat and I will have none of your fascist imprecations on what is or is not a “correct” way to spell a word.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Obviously, these are big issues that people write long books about…
Then they’re taking too long to get to their point. Otto Von Bismarck sold Kaiser Wilhelm and the Junkers on a social security system based on the rationale that it kept the commies at bay.
If that isn’t good enough for the WSJ crowd, we’re even more fubar than I thought.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
cmholm:
Thanks for the example. I was too busy at the time of my earlier post to expand on it with specifics.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I’m tempted to invoke Godwin’s law. Starting from Megan McCardle’s logic, you could demolish any policy proposal by saying a large group of people want — and need — that policy so badly that they might protest publicly or even riot if the policy fails to pass. After all, the rise of mass politics is associated with the rise of fascist and socialist parties around the beginning of the twentieth century.
On the other hand, I’ll concede you could try to support the same policy proposal by doing the same thing, on the grounds that preempting the wishes will prevent a mass political party from taking hold. Some people might think doing this rather than the other makes a lot of sense, but it’s to be hoped somebody will stop them before they give emergency powers to an unelected popular figure on the same reasoning.
Of course, these arguments don’t apply to societies that already have effective mass political participation.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:01 am
McArdle manages to fit quite a few fallacies (ok 2 or 3 by my count) into one snappy sentence. Her reasoning includes the following arguments
1) Agree that Megan McArdle’s moral intuitions must be valid, so if you can’t convince her that justice requires some action, you have not made a good case for the justice of your scheme.
If Ms McArdle had a solid grounding in meta-ethics, she would be familiar with the argument that claims about justice can’t be proven, so a failure to present proof of a moral proposition tells us nothing. She might have a convincing counter-argument. The facts that no such argument has ever been presented and that she doesn’t even grasp the issue does not prove this statement wrong. “Might” makes right.
2. All poor people are identical. This is a bit of a howler. She asserts that if stingy social welfare will make some people riot then “the recipients” are not morally worthy. Since she doesn’t qualify or restrict the set of unworthy recipients, standard logic allows us to add the words “all” and “of” making ‘all of the recipients” are not morally worthy’. So the most long suffering and meek poor people must be condemned, because other poor people might turn to violence. Now that is impressive moral reasoning (I think such a view can’t be refuted as moral gibberish because moral gibberish can’t be refuted). I also think that it is a sincere expression of her world view, that the poor are an undifferentiated mass to her. Seeing them that way does make it much easier to accept their poverty.
3. Giving to bad people is immoral. This is not stated, but think it is assumed. This view is inconsistent with utilitarianism or, indeed, consequentialism. A consequentialist will, to a certain extent, accept the logic of deterrence but only as a means to an end. McArdle isn’t making a consequentialist argument, she isn’t saying that giving money to people who would riot (as opposed to people who have just rioted) will cause people to riot. To her (and most people I guess) the idea that some people are unworthy so giving to them is wrong is a belief in pure ethics.
OK 3 just asserts that she seems to believe something that most people believe. Still I don’t like it.
Not bad for one sentence.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Thank you for your help!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:51 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Incredible site! viagra