Lorenzo Warby on Transformational Ideology; Matt Goodwin on the cultural revolution in Britain; Ross Douthat concerning weed (rather than me saying Douthat on weed); Auguste Meyrat on kids today;
"In the 21st century, marijuana legalization has been one of libertarianism’s few “wins.” Perhaps nothing to be ashamed of, but certainly nothing to be especially proud of."
A good summary.
Legalized pot may pass a utilitarian cost/benefit analysis in a vacuum. I'm less interest in that then its effect on the libertarian party which I would summarize as thus:
1) It shifted the libertarian focus from freedom to be the best you can be (start businesses, invent inventions, explore ideas) to freedom to be the worst you can be (pothead).
I may have my disagreements with Ayn Rand, but at least she was putting forward a positive vision of human accomplishment in a world of freedom. The pothead in my apartment building was not a Randian hero.
2) The popular libertarian view on crime has been majorly distorted by War on Drugs rhetoric.
I know you can find a few libertarians that are tough on crime, but the popular libertarian view on crime is that its entirely caused by the War on Drugs and that if the War on Drugs ended crime would virtually disappear. This has led to a very pro-criminal anti-police stance amongst you average libertarian.
Most people who have looked at the data know this probably isn't the case.
3) Going beyond that, the War on Drugs is like the one libertarian trick that will solve everything. Blacks aren't performing well? It's because the War on Drugs is keeping them down. Etc.
The War on Drugs became the great excuse to not really understand societies issues or take them seriously. Hence, libertarians didn't become a serious party.
4) I feel like the libertarian obsession with pot could be best summed up by the Libertarian Part 2016 nominating process. Faced with a once in a generation chance to be relevant it descended into a farce. All of its leading candidates, including the leading candidate that was supposed to add normalcy, had to talk to interviewers about what kind of marijuana they smoked.
Auguste Meyrat has kind of the perfect "I have never worked in industry" content.
"It may be important to communicate ideas clearly, follow deadlines, and show respect to others, but is it really important to use processes that are obsolete, complete tasks that are unnecessary, or deal with needless inconveniences that inhibit one’s wellbeing and potential? Is it fair to demand that younger employees respect the corporate hierarchy when older employees routinely flout it?"
Because fresh graduates are great at identifying what processes are obsolete, what tasks are unnecessary, or which inconveniences are needless? I am certainly the last to say that corporate processes are great; especially large businesses are inefficient across many margins. However, that is par for the course, and people have dealt with it for hundreds of years, and continue to do so without being whiney entitled brats.
If you don't want to do the job, quit and get a different job. If you find that every job is unworkable, maybe the problem is you, not the jobs.
Meyrat is correct that, especially for bright kids, a huge amount gov't school "teaching" is boring and of little relevance.
But most actions at most work places are actually full of small, necessary steps - even if there are aspects that are redundant and might be improved in some dimension.
New hires do need training - and so should mostly copy what the other folk do in similar jobs, with the special stuff their boss wants them to do. That "specialization" part which happens in all jobs to separate what they should do from what others are responsible. Like cold-call marketing from some list those with last names from F - G.
If different groups don't have equal merit, then some will be against meritocracy.
This is inevitable. What does meritocracy have to offer people without merit?
Nobody is going to come out and say "I'm a loser and I should get stuff anyway or I will use violence against you." But that's essentially what it boils down to. When blacks say "we will deliver you a 90/10 vote split in the millions if you give us affirmative action so that you can use the power of the state (violence) to get the things you want in return" that is what they are saying.
A more realistic evaluation of this dynamic would be helpful amongst those hoping to restore meritocracy.
"they are good at complaining prettily but utterly, utterly shit at generating workable policy. ... a great deal of robust research showing children thrive in intact families with a stay-at-home mother before they reach school age—while a majority of women are thereby made much happier—is offered up.
At the same time this claim is advanced, no-one evinces any understanding of the cost to the Treasury and labour markets it would entail. "
and next a great photo of Matt Goodwin on your stack with a link:
"Another fix is more home-grown babies, but because we’ve designed an economy utterly dependent on mass female labour-force participation and refuse to build enough houses, we’re experiencing a monumental baby bust. Ed West wasn’t just being ironic when he quipped that the London housing market is the world’s most effective form of contraception."
Lots of places in England, or America, have low cost housing, available now, as well as low cost construction for new houses. But not so many jobs. Maybe the gov't needs to push jobs away from where housing is expensive (because of the jobs) and towards where the housing is cheaper. The gov't using its stick of taxes, and the semi-carrot of tax breaks, can certainly push some City of London businesses to move more new jobs to lower cost housing locales. The businesses and their location decision making is far more rational with better cost/benefit analysis than most voters or consumers or workers - and gov't taxes can be increased until the cost of being in London outweighs the social benefit.
Related to NatCons are the NatChristians - who want to use gov't power explicitly to promote "good (Christian) culture". Which is mostly better for most people than PC-Woke culture.
Note that NYC & Chicago & California, thru their policies of coddling criminals & high taxes, are driving out businesses. Having locales compete for new businesses thru having more housing would be better than thru having lower profit tax rates.
"Google search data shows that people are looking up "what to talk about at work" more than they have in the past two decades, with young workers saying they've found it hard to navigate small talk with their colleagues. Reddit is similarly awash with recent threads dedicated to the topic, providing talking points and tips for conversation starters." https://afterschool.substack.com/p/swiftie-dads-and-the-new-the-rules
Lots of debatable opinions in this piece. In particular, "a sort of anti-racist police state" stood out. I get that there are excesses but a police state? Isn't this the kind of inflammatory language that speaks to and separates one's tribe?
"In the 21st century, marijuana legalization has been one of libertarianism’s few “wins.” Perhaps nothing to be ashamed of, but certainly nothing to be especially proud of."
A good summary.
Legalized pot may pass a utilitarian cost/benefit analysis in a vacuum. I'm less interest in that then its effect on the libertarian party which I would summarize as thus:
1) It shifted the libertarian focus from freedom to be the best you can be (start businesses, invent inventions, explore ideas) to freedom to be the worst you can be (pothead).
I may have my disagreements with Ayn Rand, but at least she was putting forward a positive vision of human accomplishment in a world of freedom. The pothead in my apartment building was not a Randian hero.
2) The popular libertarian view on crime has been majorly distorted by War on Drugs rhetoric.
I know you can find a few libertarians that are tough on crime, but the popular libertarian view on crime is that its entirely caused by the War on Drugs and that if the War on Drugs ended crime would virtually disappear. This has led to a very pro-criminal anti-police stance amongst you average libertarian.
Most people who have looked at the data know this probably isn't the case.
3) Going beyond that, the War on Drugs is like the one libertarian trick that will solve everything. Blacks aren't performing well? It's because the War on Drugs is keeping them down. Etc.
The War on Drugs became the great excuse to not really understand societies issues or take them seriously. Hence, libertarians didn't become a serious party.
4) I feel like the libertarian obsession with pot could be best summed up by the Libertarian Part 2016 nominating process. Faced with a once in a generation chance to be relevant it descended into a farce. All of its leading candidates, including the leading candidate that was supposed to add normalcy, had to talk to interviewers about what kind of marijuana they smoked.
Auguste Meyrat has kind of the perfect "I have never worked in industry" content.
"It may be important to communicate ideas clearly, follow deadlines, and show respect to others, but is it really important to use processes that are obsolete, complete tasks that are unnecessary, or deal with needless inconveniences that inhibit one’s wellbeing and potential? Is it fair to demand that younger employees respect the corporate hierarchy when older employees routinely flout it?"
Because fresh graduates are great at identifying what processes are obsolete, what tasks are unnecessary, or which inconveniences are needless? I am certainly the last to say that corporate processes are great; especially large businesses are inefficient across many margins. However, that is par for the course, and people have dealt with it for hundreds of years, and continue to do so without being whiney entitled brats.
If you don't want to do the job, quit and get a different job. If you find that every job is unworkable, maybe the problem is you, not the jobs.
Meyrat is correct that, especially for bright kids, a huge amount gov't school "teaching" is boring and of little relevance.
But most actions at most work places are actually full of small, necessary steps - even if there are aspects that are redundant and might be improved in some dimension.
New hires do need training - and so should mostly copy what the other folk do in similar jobs, with the special stuff their boss wants them to do. That "specialization" part which happens in all jobs to separate what they should do from what others are responsible. Like cold-call marketing from some list those with last names from F - G.
Re: "a sequence starting with honor culture, moving to dignity culture, then to victimhood culture.."
A culture of equal dignity requires ethical individualism. Equal dignity is unstable because:
• People often spontaneously focus on groups rather than individuals.
• People readily perceive race and sex; i.e., individual membership of a naturally visible demographic category.
• People tend to confuse disparate intent and disparate impact. (Compare Arnold's "intention heuristic.")
• People want to ignore partial heritability of various talents, when people think about public policy.
• Elites can have it both ways:
(a) Distributive justice based on disparate impact in formal organizations (admissions, hiring, promotion).
(b) Advantage in spontaneous sorting and matching (what Charles Murray calls Belmont):
-- Residential self-sorting
-- Assortative mating by educational attainment
-- Networking for career
-- Comparative advantage in self-control (what Bryan Caplan calls puritanism)
If different groups don't have equal merit, then some will be against meritocracy.
This is inevitable. What does meritocracy have to offer people without merit?
Nobody is going to come out and say "I'm a loser and I should get stuff anyway or I will use violence against you." But that's essentially what it boils down to. When blacks say "we will deliver you a 90/10 vote split in the millions if you give us affirmative action so that you can use the power of the state (violence) to get the things you want in return" that is what they are saying.
A more realistic evaluation of this dynamic would be helpful amongst those hoping to restore meritocracy.
"Seeking an unequal redistribution of dignity—of presumptive social standing—is now standard across social justice progressivism."
This seems to me to be the essence of modern "social justice". Some animals are more equal than others.
Thanks once again, Arnold - Lorenzo is asleep now but I'm sure he'll be along in due course!
Helen, you also have fine stuff, about post-liberals and NatCons:
https://helendale.substack.com/p/among-the-post-liberals
"they are good at complaining prettily but utterly, utterly shit at generating workable policy. ... a great deal of robust research showing children thrive in intact families with a stay-at-home mother before they reach school age—while a majority of women are thereby made much happier—is offered up.
At the same time this claim is advanced, no-one evinces any understanding of the cost to the Treasury and labour markets it would entail. "
and next a great photo of Matt Goodwin on your stack with a link:
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/special-report-who-are-the-nat-cons
"Another fix is more home-grown babies, but because we’ve designed an economy utterly dependent on mass female labour-force participation and refuse to build enough houses, we’re experiencing a monumental baby bust. Ed West wasn’t just being ironic when he quipped that the London housing market is the world’s most effective form of contraception."
Lots of places in England, or America, have low cost housing, available now, as well as low cost construction for new houses. But not so many jobs. Maybe the gov't needs to push jobs away from where housing is expensive (because of the jobs) and towards where the housing is cheaper. The gov't using its stick of taxes, and the semi-carrot of tax breaks, can certainly push some City of London businesses to move more new jobs to lower cost housing locales. The businesses and their location decision making is far more rational with better cost/benefit analysis than most voters or consumers or workers - and gov't taxes can be increased until the cost of being in London outweighs the social benefit.
Related to NatCons are the NatChristians - who want to use gov't power explicitly to promote "good (Christian) culture". Which is mostly better for most people than PC-Woke culture.
Note that NYC & Chicago & California, thru their policies of coddling criminals & high taxes, are driving out businesses. Having locales compete for new businesses thru having more housing would be better than thru having lower profit tax rates.
"Google search data shows that people are looking up "what to talk about at work" more than they have in the past two decades, with young workers saying they've found it hard to navigate small talk with their colleagues. Reddit is similarly awash with recent threads dedicated to the topic, providing talking points and tips for conversation starters." https://afterschool.substack.com/p/swiftie-dads-and-the-new-the-rules
Frankly, there aren't a lot of opportunities to make small talk.
Lots of debatable opinions in this piece. In particular, "a sort of anti-racist police state" stood out. I get that there are excesses but a police state? Isn't this the kind of inflammatory language that speaks to and separates one's tribe?