"You may disagree, on the grounds that we are always the good guys."
No reasonable person could look at the last 25 years and conclude that we are the good guys. This doesn't mean the opponents are the good guys, but we clearly aren't.
That whole East Asia concept is being flipped on its head in Korea at the moment due to American influence. As a Korean myself, I see it in full view. Through US-Korea University partnerships, American left wing politics is being mainlined into every head of university age student in Korea not to mention the lax immigration policies that have introduced numerous foreigners into the country (used to be simply military but the influx of english teachers + multi-national companies has brought in cultural destablization along with it). The whole East Asia can withstand cultural pressures is going to be tested (and probably disproven) as the pressure of Korea as a US satellite will be too difficult to withstand.
Re: "The Right sees everyone as having poor executive control, and society as a whole develops norms and institutions to address that. These norms and institutions include the assignment of blame, so that crime is punished."
Arnold's insight here reminds me of David Hume's normative theory of checks and balances in constitutional design, in his essay, "Of the Independency of Parliament."
Therein, Hume explains that social norms ("honour") can check self-interest in small, close-knit groups, but not among large groups. (Compare Arnold's essay on Dunbar's Number, and Robert C. Ellickson's essay about "order without law" among close-knit groups., at links below.)
Let me quote Hume's remarkable essay:
"Political writers have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controuls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, than private interest. By this interest we must govern him, and, by means of it, make him, notwithstanding his insatiable avarice and ambition, co-operate to public good. Without this, say they, we shall in vain boast of the advantages of any constitution, and shall find, in the end, that we have no security for our liberties or possessions, except the good-will of our rulers; that is, we shall have no security at all.
It is, therefore, a just political maxim, that every man must be supposed a knave: Though at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact. But to satisfy us on this head, we may consider, that men are generally more honest in their private than in their public capacity, and will go greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. Honour is a great check upon mankind: But where a considerable body of men act together, this check is, in a great measure, removed; since a man is sure to be approved of by his own party, for what promotes the common interest; and he soon learns to despise the clamours of adversaries. To which we may add, that every court or senate is determined by the greater number of voices; so that, if self-interest influences only the majority, (as it will always do) the whole senate follows the allurements of this separate interest, and acts as if it contained not one member, who had any regard to public interest and liberty.
When there offers, therefore, to our censure and examination, any plan of government, real or imaginary, where the power is distributed among several courts, and several orders of men, we should always consider the separate interest of each court, and each order; and, if we find that, by the skilful division of power, this interest must necessarily, in its operation, concur with public, we may pronounce that government to be wise and happy. If, on the contrary, separate interest be not checked, and be not directed to the public, we ought to look for nothing but faction, disorder, and tyranny from such a government. In this opinion I am justified by experience, as well as by the authority of all philosophers and politicians, both antient and modern."
Sources:
David Hume, "Of the Independency of Parliament" (1741):
Authority "hoarding" by PH officials. I agree 100% that CDC/FDA did not even try to give the public and local policy makers the tools and information so that THEY, not CDC/FDA could make cost effective decisions about the response to CIVID (and the media failed to call them out for this). But is this new or just especially visible in the case of COVID? Has "hoarding" gotten worse?
Re: "I do not want to return to the “old-time religion” of standard economics, which ends up dealing with social norms by trying to stuff them into utility functions. But neither do I want to be forced to rely on Marxist sociology, seeing power relations, exploitation, and repression everywhere."
A generation ago, Robert Sugden, Jon Elster, and Robert C. Ellickson blazed a trail:
Yes- that is exactly what I am suggesting about Ukraine. If we hadn't pushed NATO right up the Russian borders, there wouldn't be a Ukraine-Russia War today.
Re: "Practices concerning premarital sex, divorce, and child-bearing have changed dramatically. What caused all of these changes? What economic impacts did they have? How did they reshape society? [... .] These questions strike me as interesting and important. I see neither standard economics nor Marxist sociology raising them, much less proposing interesting answers." -- Arnold Kling, essay at embedded link above, "The Road to Sociology Has Promises and Pitfalls."
There are incisive exceptions.
1) See, for example, the explanation in terms of "technology shock" (the pill and legal abortion), by George Akerlof and Janet Yellen (1996):
2) And see David D. Friedman's essays in chapters 13 ("Human Reproduction") and 14 ("The More You Know ...") of his fascinating book, *Future Imperfect* (2008):
Soldo: Maybe we should just amend Westphalian norms to legitimize soft interventions. Russian interference in US elections OK, invading Ukraine not OK. Ditto US support for color revolutions OK, invading Iraq not OK.
I don't disagree with Soldo on the grounds that "we" (I don't identify with the US government, which is generally malicious) are always the good guys; I disagree with him on the grounds that he's wrong. Russian (in Russia, not diaspora) writer Devcroix, (who has a good Substack here: https://devlin.substack.com/archive), briefly explained why on Twitter. https://twitter.com/devarbol/status/1636702793250623488
Depending on the study, Blau and Kahn is one, after correcting for known variables women make 90 to 98% as much as men. Is the other ~5% discrimination or unknown/unmeasured choices by women? IDK? If there were no discrimination and the affect of choices made by women all known and accounted for, would incomes be equal? Again, IDK but I suspect in our knowledge economy with a high value for social skills, women might make more than men after correcting for other variables.
"You may disagree, on the grounds that we are always the good guys."
No reasonable person could look at the last 25 years and conclude that we are the good guys. This doesn't mean the opponents are the good guys, but we clearly aren't.
That whole East Asia concept is being flipped on its head in Korea at the moment due to American influence. As a Korean myself, I see it in full view. Through US-Korea University partnerships, American left wing politics is being mainlined into every head of university age student in Korea not to mention the lax immigration policies that have introduced numerous foreigners into the country (used to be simply military but the influx of english teachers + multi-national companies has brought in cultural destablization along with it). The whole East Asia can withstand cultural pressures is going to be tested (and probably disproven) as the pressure of Korea as a US satellite will be too difficult to withstand.
Re: "The Right sees everyone as having poor executive control, and society as a whole develops norms and institutions to address that. These norms and institutions include the assignment of blame, so that crime is punished."
Arnold's insight here reminds me of David Hume's normative theory of checks and balances in constitutional design, in his essay, "Of the Independency of Parliament."
Therein, Hume explains that social norms ("honour") can check self-interest in small, close-knit groups, but not among large groups. (Compare Arnold's essay on Dunbar's Number, and Robert C. Ellickson's essay about "order without law" among close-knit groups., at links below.)
Let me quote Hume's remarkable essay:
"Political writers have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controuls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, than private interest. By this interest we must govern him, and, by means of it, make him, notwithstanding his insatiable avarice and ambition, co-operate to public good. Without this, say they, we shall in vain boast of the advantages of any constitution, and shall find, in the end, that we have no security for our liberties or possessions, except the good-will of our rulers; that is, we shall have no security at all.
It is, therefore, a just political maxim, that every man must be supposed a knave: Though at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact. But to satisfy us on this head, we may consider, that men are generally more honest in their private than in their public capacity, and will go greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. Honour is a great check upon mankind: But where a considerable body of men act together, this check is, in a great measure, removed; since a man is sure to be approved of by his own party, for what promotes the common interest; and he soon learns to despise the clamours of adversaries. To which we may add, that every court or senate is determined by the greater number of voices; so that, if self-interest influences only the majority, (as it will always do) the whole senate follows the allurements of this separate interest, and acts as if it contained not one member, who had any regard to public interest and liberty.
When there offers, therefore, to our censure and examination, any plan of government, real or imaginary, where the power is distributed among several courts, and several orders of men, we should always consider the separate interest of each court, and each order; and, if we find that, by the skilful division of power, this interest must necessarily, in its operation, concur with public, we may pronounce that government to be wise and happy. If, on the contrary, separate interest be not checked, and be not directed to the public, we ought to look for nothing but faction, disorder, and tyranny from such a government. In this opinion I am justified by experience, as well as by the authority of all philosophers and politicians, both antient and modern."
Sources:
David Hume, "Of the Independency of Parliament" (1741):
https://davidhume.org/texts/emp/ip
Arnold Kling, "Dunbar's Number" (20 December 2022):
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/dunbars-number
Robert C. Ellickson, "Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute-Resolution among Neighbors in Shasta County" (1986):
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/4171/Of_Coase_and_Cattle___Dispute_Resolution_Among_Neighbors_in_Shasta_County.pdf
Authority "hoarding" by PH officials. I agree 100% that CDC/FDA did not even try to give the public and local policy makers the tools and information so that THEY, not CDC/FDA could make cost effective decisions about the response to CIVID (and the media failed to call them out for this). But is this new or just especially visible in the case of COVID? Has "hoarding" gotten worse?
Re: "I do not want to return to the “old-time religion” of standard economics, which ends up dealing with social norms by trying to stuff them into utility functions. But neither do I want to be forced to rely on Marxist sociology, seeing power relations, exploitation, and repression everywhere."
A generation ago, Robert Sugden, Jon Elster, and Robert C. Ellickson blazed a trail:
Robert Sugden, "Spontaneous Order" (JEP, 1989):
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.3.4.85
Jon Elster, "Social Norms and Economic Theory" (JEP, 1989):
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.3.4.99
Robert C. Ellickson, "The Market for Social Norms" (2000)
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/3480/Market_for_Social_Norms__The.pdf
Academe has lent a deaf ear, mostly. I don't know why these ideas about norms haven't gained traction.
Yes- that is exactly what I am suggesting about Ukraine. If we hadn't pushed NATO right up the Russian borders, there wouldn't be a Ukraine-Russia War today.
RE: Richard Hanania, how does he explain then that nearly all of those countries are basket cases of governance?
Would he really prefer to live in China or North Korea, or would he just prefer for himself to be turning Japanese?
Re: "Practices concerning premarital sex, divorce, and child-bearing have changed dramatically. What caused all of these changes? What economic impacts did they have? How did they reshape society? [... .] These questions strike me as interesting and important. I see neither standard economics nor Marxist sociology raising them, much less proposing interesting answers." -- Arnold Kling, essay at embedded link above, "The Road to Sociology Has Promises and Pitfalls."
There are incisive exceptions.
1) See, for example, the explanation in terms of "technology shock" (the pill and legal abortion), by George Akerlof and Janet Yellen (1996):
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-mothers-not-married-technology-shock-the-demise-of-shotgun-marriage-and-the-increase-in-out-of-wedlock-births/
Full QJE article at the link below:
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~vjh3/e262p/readings/Akerlof_Yellen_Katz.pdf
2) And see David D. Friedman's essays in chapters 13 ("Human Reproduction") and 14 ("The More You Know ...") of his fascinating book, *Future Imperfect* (2008):
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Future_Imperfect.html
Moral Dyad. Clearly the correct answer is somewhere between the extremes, and that point depends on the issue.
Gender economics "ends up dealing with social norms by trying to stuff them into utility functions."
I'd guess it has been a long time since that was "standard economics. :) It's more like a Leftist straw man.
Soldo: Maybe we should just amend Westphalian norms to legitimize soft interventions. Russian interference in US elections OK, invading Ukraine not OK. Ditto US support for color revolutions OK, invading Iraq not OK.
I don't disagree with Soldo on the grounds that "we" (I don't identify with the US government, which is generally malicious) are always the good guys; I disagree with him on the grounds that he's wrong. Russian (in Russia, not diaspora) writer Devcroix, (who has a good Substack here: https://devlin.substack.com/archive), briefly explained why on Twitter. https://twitter.com/devarbol/status/1636702793250623488
Depending on the study, Blau and Kahn is one, after correcting for known variables women make 90 to 98% as much as men. Is the other ~5% discrimination or unknown/unmeasured choices by women? IDK? If there were no discrimination and the affect of choices made by women all known and accounted for, would incomes be equal? Again, IDK but I suspect in our knowledge economy with a high value for social skills, women might make more than men after correcting for other variables.