In The New York Times, moderate conservative David Brooks reflects upon Charles Murray’s Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. Brooks agrees with Murray that Americans have divided into two polarized “tribes.”
“The members of the upper tribe,” says Brooks, “have made themselves phenomenally productive. They may mimic bohemian manners, but they have returned to 1950s traditionalist values and practices. They have low divorce rates, arduous work ethics and strict codes to regulate their kids.”
Meanwhile, “in the lower tribe, men in their prime working ages have been steadily dropping out of the labor force, in good times and bad. People in the lower tribe are much less likely to get married, less likely to go to church, less likely to be active in their communities, more likely to watch TV excessively, more likely to be obese.”
Brooks praises Murray for the rigor of his data and analysis, and then offers his own solution to the problem.
“I doubt Murray would agree, but we need a National Service Program. We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement.”
So: While American liberals want to use force to redistribute wealth and jobs among the rich and poor, Brooksian conservatives want to use force to redistribute values, practices and institutions among rich and poor. Liberals want to use compulsion to move other people’s money around as they see fit. Brooks wants to use compulsion to move the people themselves around as he sees fit.
Once again I am shocked at how easily and automatically so many intellectuals are willing to use compulsion to solve problems.
I have taken to heart all the left-leaning outrage at the unequal distribution of wealth — 1% versus 99% !!! — as well as all the social conservative angst over the breakdown of the traditional family. Sobering stuff.
In all modesty, however, I believe that I have hit upon a totally awesome solution that will satisfy both groups at once:
Let’s ban women from the workplace.
The leftish will love that all those double-income couples will find their income halved. And the newly-vacated jobs can be filled by unemployed family men, thereby increasing the wealth of those currently poorer. A giant step towards income equality!
The socons will applaud that more women will now devote more energy to their families. And without independent income, the womenfolk will have more incentive to stay married, so divorce rates will plummet. A giant step towards family stability!
Brilliant, or what? Two birds, one stone, and there will be peace in the land. No need to thank me, since that’s just the kind of guy I am — always thinking: How can I arrange other people’s lives to make everybody happy?
Our only obstacle: Those stuck thinking that unbridled economic freedom trumps benevolent social planning.
Posted 4 days, 23 hours ago at 8:26 pm. 7 comments
In this extended interview, philosopher Douglas B. Rasmussen responds to a series of questions (listed below) about his life and work.
Dr. Rasmussen is a professor of philosophy at St. John’s University in New York. In addition to the books discussed in the interview, he is the author of articles in American Philosophical Quarterly, The Review of Metaphysics, International Philosophical Quarterly, and many scholarly anthologies.
Why did you become a philosopher? [00:18]
Where did you go to college? [1:02]
Why does liberal society need a philosophical basis? [1:17 ]
You present those themes in some detail in your books Liberty and Nature, Liberalism Defended, and Norms of Liberty. What is your argument for liberty? [2:44] Previous question continued [00:09]
Which historical philosophers have you learned most from? [6:08]
How do those issues of metaphysics connect to liberalism? [8:15]
Which major historical philosophers do you most disagree with? [11:28] What is the hardest philosophical problem you are working on now? [00:08]
What is the most challenging criticism of your views? [2:43]
What is the state of liberal thought today among philosophers? [4:36]
To bring about a more liberal society, what key practical steps can and should be taken? [6:30]
Coming Soon:Profiles in Liberty interview with economist David R. Henderson.
The rationale for the session: Three giants of twentieth-century thought — but few comparative studies have been done. The following panelists will discuss rights-related issues in the thought of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Ayn Rand.
Richard Ebeling, Department of Economics, Northwood University
Title: Mises on Rights and Principles
Eric Mack, Department of Philosophy, Tulane University
Title: Desert and Entitlement in Atlas Shrugged
Michelle Vachris, Department of Economics, Christopher Newport University
Title: Atlas Shrugged down The Road to Serfdom: Rand and Hayek on Rights
Stephen Hicks, Department of Philosophy, Rockford College
Title: Economic facts and values in Mises, Hayek, and Rand
Posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago at 4:39 pm. Add a comment
Links to my posts over the last three years on the causes of the crisis. This is an ongoing project, and I’ll add new items to the Financial Crisis page as they are posted. Ten posts:
1. What is the US economy? Introduction. Before blaming the economic crisis on either government regulation or free enterprise, we need to know what kind of economic system the U.S. had before the crisis. A survey of the relevant factors in identifying the degree of capitalism or socialism then in place.
3. When was the financial sector deregulated? Data on two measures of regulation: The size of the federal government’s annual budget for regulating the financial and banking sector, and the total number of government employees regulating that sector.
4. The Subprime Mortgage Crisis: A simplified flowchart of subprime mortgages’ contribution to the crisis. Presidents, congressmen, Fannie Mae, and lenders’ changing incentives.
5. Pathologies of the mixed economy (or, How we got into this frackin’ mess): A big-picture overview of the development of our mixed economy. Integrating developments in ethics, economics and political history, and public choice. A video-lecture version.
6. Money and monetary systems: An introductory contrast of private/competing money systems to our government/monopoly money system. Includes an analogy of books to money: Books are to the intellectual realm what money is to the economic realm.
7. Has the Federal Reserve been a failure? A report on a conference paper given by economic historians George Selgin and Lawrence White comparing the Fed’s original mission with its track record over the twentieth century.
8. What is the OWS complaint? A question for those venting their frustration at Wall Street rather than Pennsylvania Avenue.
In this third Socratic seminar on the Best Arguments against Free-market Capitalism, we take up three arguments: a) the paternalist argument that human beings are incapable of living freely,
b) the collectivist argument that wealth is a social creation (at 11 minutes), and
c) the religious argument that value is not of this world (at 32 minutes).
I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, so I do not have a dog in that fight but rather a cultural history question about the financially bankrupt PIGS or PIIGS countries in Europe.
With the exception of Ireland, all are in southern Europe. Including Ireland, all of them are traditionally Catholic [except Greece, which is mostly Eastern Orthodox, as William W. points out].
Some questions:
1. Is the Protestant-work-ethic thesis — which is thought to encourage diligent labor, saving, and living more frugally — relevant here?
2. Is there something contrasting in Catholicism’s cultural heritage that makes it politically more spendthrift?
3. Are there predominantly Protestant nations in as much economic difficulty?
4. What about the exceptions — predominantly Catholic countries not in the PIGS category: France, Austria, Poland, etc.?
5. If we were to place all European nations along a spectrum from financially strong to weak, what would the distribution of traditionally Catholic and Protestant nations look like?
6. Is there a carryover to economic development in the Americas–e.g., that North America was mostly settled by immigrants from northern-Protestant-European cultures and South America was settled mostly by immigrants from southern-Catholic-European cultures?
In The New York Times, moderate conservative David Brooks reflects upon Charles Murray’s Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. Brooks agrees with Murray that Americans have divided into two polarized “tribes.” 
Brooks praises Murray for the rigor of his data and analysis, and then offers his own solution to the problem. 
The rationale for the session: Three giants of twentieth-century thought — but few comparative studies have been done. The following panelists will discuss rights-related issues in the thought of 
Links to my posts over the last three years on the causes of the crisis. This is an ongoing project, and I’ll add new items to the 
a) the paternalist argument that human beings are incapable of living freely,
With the exception of Ireland, all are in southern Europe. Including Ireland, all of them are traditionally Catholic [except Greece, which is mostly Eastern Orthodox, as William W. points out]. 
