Richard Rorty’s paper, “Philosopher-envy” in the new Daedalus issue on human nature is just trash. You’d think that someone who has given up rational argumentation would be a better rhetorician. Instead, Rorty seems like he’s just phoning it in. The sophism is almost too transparent to count as sophism. He must be tired. The paper smells like death.
Rorty goes after evolutionary psychology — Pinker in particular. His general argument has this form:
Everything the Pinkerites say is painfully obvious, we don’t need science to tell us what we already know, and nobody really disagrees with it. Also, it is totally irrelevant, so who cares? Hey, let’s try socialism! Why not?
Here is Rorty on the idea of a theory of human nature:
What these philosophers doubt [that is, what Rorty, via the usual Rorty-ized history of philosophy sock puppets, doubts] is that factoring out the role of genes in making us different from one another, or tracing what we have in common back to evolutionary needs of our ancestors, will give us anything appropriately labeled ‘a theory of human nature.’ For such theories are supposed to be normative — to provide guidance.
Nope. No argument forthcoming. So, I will powerfully counter-assert: a theory of human nature is NOT supposed to be normative. Take that Richard Rorty! A theory of human nature, or at least a theory of homo sapiens is supposed to tell us what we are like and how we got to be that way. Such theories need tell us no more about what we ought to be like than the theory of the big bang need tell us what the universe ought to be.
Science can tell us a lot about the space of possibility, however. And because ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, there is a straightforward link from the descriptive to the normative. Because a theory of human nature can tell us a lot about what we can’t do, and what won’t work, we can learn a lot about what we shouldn’t do.
Now Rorty will probably want to say that there is no fact of the matter about what we are like and how we got that way, or that we have no objective access to the facts (what’s a fact!), and that there are just stories, and that any story we tell is going to be infected with all sorts of normative assumptions, and so our theory will just be a moralizing fairy tale anyway. So why not cut out the descriptive song and dance and go straightaway to talking about how we ought to live? But Rorty doesn’t make this argument.
He just wants to say that whatever we find out about the constitution of human beings, it doesn’t make any difference. Which is plain stupid.
Rorty argues that
The question “Is our humanity a biological or a cultural matter?” is as sterile as “Are our actions determined or do we have free will?” No concrete result in genetics, or physics, or any emprical discipline will help answer either bad question. We will go right on deliberating about what to do, and holding each other responsible for actions, even if we become convinced that every thought we have, and every move we make, will have been predicted by an omniscient neurologist. We will go right on experimenting with new lifestyles, new ideas and new social institutions, even if we became convinced that, deep down, everything depends on our genetic makeup.
Now, I agree, with caveats, with the point about free will. But the parallel to biology’s relation to “social experimentation” is just so transparently bad that we’ve got to wonder why Rorty’s even bothering. Does he assume that members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences are retarded?
In one sense he’s of course right. Yes. We will continue experimenting, no matter what we think about ourselves. But that’s not his point. He’s implying that our experimentation will go on unaffacted by our biological beliefs in the way that our practices of assigning praise and blame are unaffacted by our beliefs about free will. Yet, obviously if we come to sincerely believe, via good science, that some lifestyles and social institution are bound for failure we will tend not to try them. And that can be a huge blessing for humanity.
People in North Korea are eating each other because other people sincerely believed Marx’s theory that the human essence varies with the socio-economic context in which it is embedded. It’s not just that some preferences are endogenous to social structure (no doubt true), but that human psychology as such is endogenous to social structure, and so human psychology cannot be an exogenous constraint on “experimentation.” This is probably the deadliest idea in human history. And it’s just incredibly hard to give credence to the idea that it makes no difference whether or not we discover that some social goals are impossible due to they way that people are
When Pinker draws on some finding of evolutionary psychology to make some kind of social point, Rorty dismisses it as old news. Science tells us nothing we didn’t already know. “Pinker describes facts familiar to Homer and Herodotus as exhibiting ‘nonobvious aspects of human nature.’” Rorty implies that if Homer and Herodotus have said it, then it must be obvious. But, no, Homer and Herodotus have stood the test of time because of their insight, their ability to illuminate nonobvious truths about ourselves. And of course, others have made claims about human nature diametrically opposed to those of Homer and Herodotus. And so evolutionary psychology is quite usefully helping to settle the argument.
The kernel of Rorty’s bad argument comes in this passage:
Post-Galilean science does not tell us what is really real or really important. It has no metaphysical or moral implications. Instead, it enables us to do things that we had not previously been able to do. When it became empirical and experimental, it lost both its metaphysical pretensions and the ability to set new ends for human beings to strive for. It gained the ability to provide new means.
There are too many things wrong with this passage to enumerate. Modern science is full of metaphysical implications. If our best theory quantifies over something, then modern science is telling us that that something is “really real.” And it’s hard to follow how enabling us to do things we couldn’t do before has no moral implications. Morality is about thinking about what to do. And if new things keep showing up in the feasible set, due to scientific innovation, then we have more options open to us — more things that we might do. That’s just straightforwardly morally relevant. And, to take another tack on it, a billion people may well have starved to death had it not been for Borlaug’s “green revolution.” Whether or not a thousand million people live or die is a matter of no moral relevance?
Of course, what Rorty is trying to say, in his amazingly cavalier fashion, is that science can’t pin down what exactly we should be aiming at. And, yes. But that’s incredibly boring.
Rorty goes on:
But every so often a scientist like Pinker tries to have it both ways, and to suggest that science can provide empirical evidence to show that some ends are preferable to others.
This doesn’t follow. I agree that science doesn’t establish ultimate ends. But everything that is not an ultimate end is not merely a means. Some ends are partly constitutive of ultimate ends. And science can help us understand which ends together may succesfully constitute our ultimate end(s).
A physicist can provide an architect with evidence that a certain kind of structure will necessarily collapse. Now, the physicist doesn’t tell us whether to prefer non-collapsing or collapsing structures. But she can tell us that if you want a non-collapsing structure, don’t do this. Similarly, if we want individual happiness, or a stable social order that minimizes suffering, say, then we need science to tell us what constitutes happiness, what the empirical conditions for social order are, etc. And science can be extremely helpful in ruling things out.
That’s why, I guess, Rorty is so antagonized by the whole business of actually finding out about what people are really like. It may turn out that his arational political commitments are precisely the sort of thing that get ruled out. And we can’t risk that.
Here’s his conclusion:
The dreams of socialists, feminists, and others have produced profound changes in Western social life, and may lead to vast changes in the life of the species as a whole. Nothing that natural science tells us should discourage us from dreaming further dreams.
[link added]
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
You don’t mean any of the above in a BAD way, do you?
Newer, better drugs will provide their own profoundly improved “ultimate ends.”
What We Need More Of Is Science.
Bee – lieve it.
Absolutely, Kyle. And that reminds me, if anyone would like to buy me the Achewood shirt for Christmas, I would be dee – lighted.
http://www.achewood.com/science.php
Also, please listen to the “What We Need More of is Science” song fight. http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?key=morescience
“Yet, obviously if we come to sincerely believe, via good science, that some lifestyles and social institution are bound for failure we will tend not to try them. And that can be a huge blessing for humanity.”
So the Cato Institutes’ plan to turn over control of their retirement income to people who phone the Psychic Hotline for advice, ingest alternative medicines that actually harm them and more to the point, can be easily talked into bad investments by hucksters is…what? Something that every sane person knows is a bad idea, but, what the hell, we had to propse something…
People who piss away their retirement money will still come to the government for help. Or does Cato propose that these newly empowered self-investors eat each other if they lose all their savings?
Yes. They should eat each other.
Maybe you can muster the energy to READ the Cato plan? Or would that be asking too much?
Yes, I read plan.
It seems the cost of administering this plan will cost more than any savings it generates. Dear Lord, the government is going to be in charge of 100+ million IRAs?
So Tier I bucks are gonna be put in a ‘safe’ money market fund. And if the dollar collapses, which seems likely whether SS is ‘saved’ by grand plans or not…Tier I losses could be enormous.
Tier II bucks go into one of three ‘balanced funds’. Anyone who has an IRA knows how far south these things can go. If the Dow hits 1000, what then? Does the government guarantee a fixed rate of return on the Tier II funds? If so, more bad news. If not – there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ stock or bond. Imagine the Tier II funds in 1929.
Tier III bucks, as stated above, people are free to piss away on the magic beans of their choice.
But of course, talking about a problem is much more important that fixing it…well done, Cato!
Just because people make predictably bad choices in certain domains doesn’t automatically mean the state will do a better job, or that state intervention will lead to better ends. Unintended consequences and all that. Without very strong proof that state intervention is superior, I tend to be a silly liberal and put trust in people to make their own choices, even when I know they’ll make the wrong ones. I also think people should be allowed to gamble and take drugs, even though every sane person knows it’s a bad idea to let people destroy their lives because this choice was available to them.
Also, does Cato’s plan preclude some kind of minimal safety net to prevent people engaging in cannibalism? Ideally, of course, this could be done completely privately.
The Cato plan is geared so that you can’t do worse than 120% of the poverty level.
Don’t forget that old libertarian chestnut: Force a man to fish, he will become a better fisherman. Catch a fish for a man and he becomes a mindless ward of the state.
“The Cato plan is geared so that you can’t do worse than 120% of the poverty level.”
It’s against the law for investment firms to make claims of a guaranteed returns, too bad this law doesn’t apply to professional navel-gazers, too.
The sad fact is there is no safer investment than the U.S. Government. Why? because if it defaults on its obligations, we’re all eating berries, nuts & squirrel meat anyhow. This is exactly what the current Social Secuity setup invest in now and should continue to so.
The Cato plan is nothing more than an attempt to reward loyal top Republican supporters at the expense of workin’ folks. The poor expect to get screwed anyway, y’all don’t need a ‘plan’ to do it.
How does the Cato plan pay off the wealthy Bush backers?
1. Dumping huge amounts of cash into the current stock and bond markets will reward current holders of these assets by driving up their price. Assets disproportionately held by the wealthy now.
2. Yeehaw, 100+ million new IRAs to ‘manage’, by Bushes banker and brokerage buddies. In effect, it is a make-work subsidy for Republicans.
Not to mention the huge potential for graft and corruption this ‘plan’ provides. How many of the approved ‘safe’ investments will be already held by cronies, or maybe a little heads up that a certain stock is going to be added to the basket of stocks.
Instead of tying to figure out fancy words to help the rich screw the rest of us(another normative behaoir), how about figuring out how the US can compete in the coming century?
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Read the proposal. One is required to save enough to purchase annuity for 120% of poverty.
The government can decide to rescind all entitlements at any time. There is no property right in SS. We get benefits entirely at the pleasure of politicians. This has nothing to do with a general default on loans.
Yes, I read the Fiscal Fallujah your pals are pushing, did you?
One is not required to buy an annuity that gives an income of 120% of the poverty level, rather, IF ONE CAN BUY SUCH AN ANNUITY THEY CAN OPT OUT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM ENTIRELY.
Haha…who could afford such an annuity? Let’s see…the wealthy, maybe?
I can’t believe people actually get paid to invent and shill such twadle. Just rape our children’s future and get it over with.
Monkyboy – if what you want is just poverty protection, just have floor. We can debate the moral or economic necessity of a floor. But why load down the rest of the populace with a loser Social Security System?
Gee whiz, guys:
Will writes, like, multiple paragraphs about the impact of science on moral philosophy and you just keep fussing about Social Security?
Do you really care SO MUCH about refining the American system of socialist pension tax that you need to spew about it in the comment section of a wholly unrelated blogpost?
Can’t you, at least, confine it to the comment section of a blogpost that actually addresses (*yawn, shrug*) Social Security?
Don’t you have your own blogs where you can kvetch ad nauseum about all that tiresome garbage?
I thought the philosophical point about evolution impinging on morality was kinda interesting.
Not so with the policy-wonk-fest on how best to micromanage other peoples’ retirement funds.
I don’t think my post was too far from the mark, McClain. There was a post here yesterday about the Social Security ‘crisis’ and the Cato plan to ‘fix’ it, and I found this post relates to it.
I had never heard of Rorty before, so I did a little digging. Turns out he is a professor at Stanford who thinks psychology and philosophy graduates are social scientists who yearn to be real scientists. I guess I see where the vitriol comes from in Will’s post.
Will’s post on Social Security seems to prove Rorty right, though. The Cato Institute’s plan for Social Security reform looks striking similar to the plan that caused the Savings and Loan crisis.
The S&L ‘fix’ cost the US government about a trillion bucks. It was a pretty good scam for the Republicans. They made money both creating the crisis AND in the governments ‘clean-up’ of it. Bush brother Neil made some nice loot for his family in that one. For those too young to remember this Libertarian coup, google “Silverado Savings and Loan”. I wonder where this latest plan comes from?
Once again we see the greedy eyeing a flawed, but still sound government program that helps the average American. Once again we see a Libertarian plan to ‘liberate’ funds for risky investments that, in the end, the govenment will have to cover once the money has disappeared into the pockets of the people who proposed the ‘fix’ and their cronies.
Real scientists recognize trends. Seems social scientists just ignore them.
Don’t feed the troll, folks.
I hear you, asg. And I know you are right.
But it’s so hard to be good.
asg, can I not just bat him about a little bit?
*sulks*
Hi Will,
I hope you are going to share your insights on some of the other papers in the issue, particularly the Pinker, Smith, and Haldt & Joseph ones.
Lynne, OK! But it’s harder to write about things that don’t make me mad.
monkyboy,
Why don’t you try clicking on the link Will provided regarding the “dreams of the socialists.” Then tell us with a straight face that only government can provide security and that free markets are just an excuse for the wealthy to expropriate from and exploit the masses.
Recogonize that trend, bitch.
Hehe, thanks Micha, your reply seems to about par for the course around here. I am anything but a socialist. Politically, I fall squarely on the Republican/Libertarian axis in whatever coordinate sytem you choose. Until the last election, I have never voted for a democrat.
Maybe you just need a little life experience before you can recognize the current crop of Republicans for what they are, greedy little thugs, no different than the cabals that run most third world countries.
The current crop of young conservative/libertarians remind of the doctor who made the news recently when he amputated the wrong leg from his patient. Armed with nothing more than a hatred of government and a few misquotations from the man himself, Thomas Jefferson, they stride into the operating room, eager to hack off anything they can from the body of the government. Hospitals now mark limbs to be removed with a marker to prevent the wrong limbs from being cut off. Someone needs to do the same with government programs to show the rabid anti-govenment people what to keep.
As you get older, you will see that some government programs work. Maybe not as well as they should, but they work. There is nothing wrong with the idea of Social Security. Workers pay in a small percentage of their wages, and when they retire they get a modest retirement income. A few adjustments now and it will continue to work for well beyond our lifetimes. The people crying for drastic changes do so either due to a flawed adherence to dogma or a blatantly obvious desire to loot the system.
Learn to acknowledge where theory breaks down in pratctice when advocating government cuts. It isn’t *always* the right thing to do. Consider the recent move to outsource many support services for the military. Looked great on paper, but the great minds who came up with it failed to take into account we actually go to war once in a while. In addition to costing the government far more for these services than if they had stayed government functions, this policy is getting people killed. That the major beneficiary of this program is a company that pays our current vice-president more than his regular salary is…about what I expected.
If you want to get in a lather over some chunk of government spending, look no further than the most expensive *thing* it has bought over the last few years, Missile Defense. Even its backers admit it doesn’t work now, and has little chance of working in the future. Yet hundreds of billions of dollars will be dumped down this rathole before it is stopped.
It’s easy when your young to thing you are always right. It’s easy to ignore data points that show your pet theories might not work. Consider the words of another great lead, Winston Churchill:
Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.
and another classic:
Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is – the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.
It’s obvious who the milkmaids are these days
Happy Holidays!
“Politically, I fall squarely on the Republican/Libertarian axis in whatever coordinate sytem you choose.”
Really? On the personal responsibility axis? On the private property axis? On the people-should-have-the-right-to-make-their-own-investment-decisions-even -if-they-may-make-bad-choices axis?
For those who truly believe that there are too many stupid Americans who cannot be trusted to provide for their own retirement security, there is a very simple solution: means test social security benefits so that only those who are truly poor at the age of retirement are allowed to collect. In other words, turn Social Security into what it pretends not to be: a redistributionist social welfare program. Instead of taking a fixed percentage from everyone’s wages, thus giving the illusion that everyone has an equal interest in maintaining the current system, use general revenues to fund retirement benefits for poor people, as we already do for housing, food, and medical care. The stigma of depending upon charity would attach, and taxpayers would recognize income redistribution for what it really is and decide whether or not it is something they wish to support. While we’re at it, we should do the same for education.
Now, one can argue whether or not Cato’s plan is a good second-best solution for reaching this sort of goal. I used to believe so; now I’m not so sure. But what one cannot say is that Cato is dishonest or putting forth its privatization plan in order to ingratiate itself with the current administration. Cato has been pushing the same sort of plan for decades, during both Democratic and Republican presidencies.
“Maybe you just need a little life experience before you can recognize the current crop of Republicans for what they are, greedy little thugs, no different than the cabals that run most third world countries.”
Oh, I have no doubt. But you’ve been targeting your hatred at Cato and libertarians, not Republicans. Nice try changing the subject.
“Someone needs to do the same with government programs to show the rabid anti-govenment people what to keep. As you get older, you will see that some government programs work. Maybe not as well as they should, but they work.”
Work for whom? For what purpose? Compared to what? You cannot determine whether a government program is worth keeping or not until you first answer these sorts of questions. Some government programs work incredibly well, if our metric is increasing the wealth, power, and status of politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups. But if our metric is what benefits all people in society, then government programs–which are all nothing more than various forms of coercive redistribution–fail miserably.
If Marx had seen the horrors of Stalin era Soviet Union, would he have thought twice about jotting down his thoughts on government and economics?
If Darwin had seen a Concentration Camp in operation, would he have put a few codicils in his writings on evolution?
Cato is to be commended for sticking by its plan, but they should also consider the enviroment they are pitching it.
If the United States had a bipartisan government, an active press core and an engaged citizenry, trying out their plan might be worth a shot.
Currently, we have a one party system run by leaders who don’t even bother to hide their greed, a press core that is little more than a bunch of paid mouthpieces for the whatever party or company that writes their paychecks and a confused citizenry constantly bombarded by ‘information’ provided by said press.
Introducing Cato SS plan in this country now would simply result in people turning in a guaranteed retirement benefit for shares in whatever future Enrons the wealthy can cobble together to absorb theier funds.
Good scientists publish, along with their theories, the exact conditions that will prove their theories wrong. People who come up with schemes to modify government programs should do the same. I would argue that the primary consideration of any such plans should be, “Can this be corrupted?”
If Darwin had seen a Concentration Camp in operation, would he have put a few codicils in his writings on evolution?
Are you kidding me? Now Darwin is as responsible for the Nazis as Marx is for Communism?????
beep, wrong answer, try again. seriously you sound like a f***ing creationist.
Haha, first I’m a socialist, now I’m a creationist? I don’t believe in god, so I think I would make a bad one.
I think the Theory of Evolution is a good, but flawed explanation of how living thing got to where they are now. I think it’s the best explanation we’ve got right now, so I’m in favor of it being taught in our schools.
That said, I wouldn’t mind if a teacher threw out the possibility that some super-being made us exactly how we find ourselves today. It certainly is a possible, no matter how unlikely, explanation, too.
Very interesting post Will, but I’ve got a few disputes with it (these ones about the philosophical aspects, not social security).
When Rorty says post-Galilean science has no metaphysical implications, he’s probably closer to the truth than you think (though I don’t think he’s actually there). Niels Bohr and his whole set of followers definitely seemed to agree with this, and that’s what gave us the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, on which there are no particles or waves, and just waveforms that collapse when observed. I personally think it’s because Bohr hung out with the positivists too much (or perhaps the influence went the other way), but it’s certainly been a trend in modern physics. Of course, there’s still the many-worlds interpretation, which is empirically equivalent and very metaphysically oriented, and thus perhaps more appealing for Quineans (perhaps like myself?) who want science to be committed to the entities it quantifies over. I think both strands are present in contemporary physics.
And as for people eating each other in North Korea because of Marx’s mistakes, I think that’s a fairly ridiculous idea (though I know you were just exagerrating to make a point). It’s probably fair to blame high European unemployment rates on problems of socialism (though there are plenty of people willing to debate this point). Maybe it’s fair to blame the failings of the USSR on Marxism, though I think that it’s far more accurate to blame them on the misapplications arising when Lenin tried to apply it to a non-industrialized society, compounded by Stalin’s dictatorship. But as far as I can tell, North Korea hasn’t really been Communist basically ever, and has instead been a cruel and despotic tyranny. Many people like to believe that’s what communism is, but it clearly isn’t, when actually attempted.
And I think “ought implies can” is potentially controversial, though not in any serious way. (Of course, to a consequentialist, it’s trivially true.)
But otherwise, everything was spot on, like Rorty with the sock-puppets (I remember his lecture to one of my freshman classes where he argued that Nietzsche was a pragmatist). And of course sociobiological experiments are useful, even if they can’t answer ultimate philosophical questions – they at least help us frame our discussion and ask the right questions, and give some constraints on the answers for some of them. And why exactly he thinks a theory of human nature should be normative is beyond me (though that seems to be the lesson vulgar social darwinism seems to be based on, taking Rorty’s modus tollens as a modus ponens).
Pingback: Ex Nihilo
Pingback: Knowledge Problem
Pingback: Gene Expression
You don’t mean any of the above in a BAD way, do you?
Newer, better drugs will provide their own profoundly improved “ultimate ends.”
What We Need More Of Is Science.
Bee – lieve it.
Absolutely, Kyle. And that reminds me, if anyone would like to buy me the Achewood shirt for Christmas, I would be dee – lighted.
http://www.achewood.com/science.php
Also, please listen to the “What We Need More of is Science” song fight. http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?key=morescience
“Yet, obviously if we come to sincerely believe, via good science, that some lifestyles and social institution are bound for failure we will tend not to try them. And that can be a huge blessing for humanity.”
So the Cato Institutes’ plan to turn over control of their retirement income to people who phone the Psychic Hotline for advice, ingest alternative medicines that actually harm them and more to the point, can be easily talked into bad investments by hucksters is…what? Something that every sane person knows is a bad idea, but, what the hell, we had to propse something…
People who piss away their retirement money will still come to the government for help. Or does Cato propose that these newly empowered self-investors eat each other if they lose all their savings?
Yes. They should eat each other.
Maybe you can muster the energy to READ the Cato plan? Or would that be asking too much?
Yes, I read plan.
It seems the cost of administering this plan will cost more than any savings it generates. Dear Lord, the government is going to be in charge of 100+ million IRAs?
So Tier I bucks are gonna be put in a ‘safe’ money market fund. And if the dollar collapses, which seems likely whether SS is ‘saved’ by grand plans or not…Tier I losses could be enormous.
Tier II bucks go into one of three ‘balanced funds’. Anyone who has an IRA knows how far south these things can go. If the Dow hits 1000, what then? Does the government guarantee a fixed rate of return on the Tier II funds? If so, more bad news. If not – there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ stock or bond. Imagine the Tier II funds in 1929.
Tier III bucks, as stated above, people are free to piss away on the magic beans of their choice.
But of course, talking about a problem is much more important that fixing it…well done, Cato!
Just because people make predictably bad choices in certain domains doesn’t automatically mean the state will do a better job, or that state intervention will lead to better ends. Unintended consequences and all that. Without very strong proof that state intervention is superior, I tend to be a silly liberal and put trust in people to make their own choices, even when I know they’ll make the wrong ones. I also think people should be allowed to gamble and take drugs, even though every sane person knows it’s a bad idea to let people destroy their lives because this choice was available to them.
Also, does Cato’s plan preclude some kind of minimal safety net to prevent people engaging in cannibalism? Ideally, of course, this could be done completely privately.
The Cato plan is geared so that you can’t do worse than 120% of the poverty level.
Don’t forget that old libertarian chestnut: Force a man to fish, he will become a better fisherman. Catch a fish for a man and he becomes a mindless ward of the state.
“The Cato plan is geared so that you can’t do worse than 120% of the poverty level.”
It’s against the law for investment firms to make claims of a guaranteed returns, too bad this law doesn’t apply to professional navel-gazers, too.
The sad fact is there is no safer investment than the U.S. Government. Why? because if it defaults on its obligations, we’re all eating berries, nuts & squirrel meat anyhow. This is exactly what the current Social Secuity setup invest in now and should continue to so.
The Cato plan is nothing more than an attempt to reward loyal top Republican supporters at the expense of workin’ folks. The poor expect to get screwed anyway, y’all don’t need a ‘plan’ to do it.
How does the Cato plan pay off the wealthy Bush backers?
1. Dumping huge amounts of cash into the current stock and bond markets will reward current holders of these assets by driving up their price. Assets disproportionately held by the wealthy now.
2. Yeehaw, 100+ million new IRAs to ‘manage’, by Bushes banker and brokerage buddies. In effect, it is a make-work subsidy for Republicans.
Not to mention the huge potential for graft and corruption this ‘plan’ provides. How many of the approved ‘safe’ investments will be already held by cronies, or maybe a little heads up that a certain stock is going to be added to the basket of stocks.
Instead of tying to figure out fancy words to help the rich screw the rest of us(another normative behaoir), how about figuring out how the US can compete in the coming century?
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Read the proposal. One is required to save enough to purchase annuity for 120% of poverty.
The government can decide to rescind all entitlements at any time. There is no property right in SS. We get benefits entirely at the pleasure of politicians. This has nothing to do with a general default on loans.
Yes, I read the Fiscal Fallujah your pals are pushing, did you?
One is not required to buy an annuity that gives an income of 120% of the poverty level, rather, IF ONE CAN BUY SUCH AN ANNUITY THEY CAN OPT OUT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM ENTIRELY.
Haha…who could afford such an annuity? Let’s see…the wealthy, maybe?
I can’t believe people actually get paid to invent and shill such twadle. Just rape our children’s future and get it over with.
Monkyboy – if what you want is just poverty protection, just have floor. We can debate the moral or economic necessity of a floor. But why load down the rest of the populace with a loser Social Security System?
Gee whiz, guys:
Will writes, like, multiple paragraphs about the impact of science on moral philosophy and you just keep fussing about Social Security?
Do you really care SO MUCH about refining the American system of socialist pension tax that you need to spew about it in the comment section of a wholly unrelated blogpost?
Can’t you, at least, confine it to the comment section of a blogpost that actually addresses (*yawn, shrug*) Social Security?
Don’t you have your own blogs where you can kvetch ad nauseum about all that tiresome garbage?
I thought the philosophical point about evolution impinging on morality was kinda interesting.
Not so with the policy-wonk-fest on how best to micromanage other peoples’ retirement funds.
I don’t think my post was too far from the mark, McClain. There was a post here yesterday about the Social Security ‘crisis’ and the Cato plan to ‘fix’ it, and I found this post relates to it.
I had never heard of Rorty before, so I did a little digging. Turns out he is a professor at Stanford who thinks psychology and philosophy graduates are social scientists who yearn to be real scientists. I guess I see where the vitriol comes from in Will’s post.
Will’s post on Social Security seems to prove Rorty right, though. The Cato Institute’s plan for Social Security reform looks striking similar to the plan that caused the Savings and Loan crisis.
The S&L; ‘fix’ cost the US government about a trillion bucks. It was a pretty good scam for the Republicans. They made money both creating the crisis AND in the governments ‘clean-up’ of it. Bush brother Neil made some nice loot for his family in that one. For those too young to remember this Libertarian coup, google “Silverado Savings and Loan”. I wonder where this latest plan comes from?
Once again we see the greedy eyeing a flawed, but still sound government program that helps the average American. Once again we see a Libertarian plan to ‘liberate’ funds for risky investments that, in the end, the govenment will have to cover once the money has disappeared into the pockets of the people who proposed the ‘fix’ and their cronies.
Real scientists recognize trends. Seems social scientists just ignore them.
Don’t feed the troll, folks.
I hear you, asg. And I know you are right.
But it’s so hard to be good.
asg, can I not just bat him about a little bit?
*sulks*
Hi Will,
I hope you are going to share your insights on some of the other papers in the issue, particularly the Pinker, Smith, and Haldt & Joseph ones.
Lynne, OK! But it’s harder to write about things that don’t make me mad.
monkyboy,
Why don’t you try clicking on the link Will provided regarding the “dreams of the socialists.” Then tell us with a straight face that only government can provide security and that free markets are just an excuse for the wealthy to expropriate from and exploit the masses.
Recogonize that trend, bitch.
Hehe, thanks Micha, your reply seems to about par for the course around here. I am anything but a socialist. Politically, I fall squarely on the Republican/Libertarian axis in whatever coordinate sytem you choose. Until the last election, I have never voted for a democrat.
Maybe you just need a little life experience before you can recognize the current crop of Republicans for what they are, greedy little thugs, no different than the cabals that run most third world countries.
The current crop of young conservative/libertarians remind of the doctor who made the news recently when he amputated the wrong leg from his patient. Armed with nothing more than a hatred of government and a few misquotations from the man himself, Thomas Jefferson, they stride into the operating room, eager to hack off anything they can from the body of the government. Hospitals now mark limbs to be removed with a marker to prevent the wrong limbs from being cut off. Someone needs to do the same with government programs to show the rabid anti-govenment people what to keep.
As you get older, you will see that some government programs work. Maybe not as well as they should, but they work. There is nothing wrong with the idea of Social Security. Workers pay in a small percentage of their wages, and when they retire they get a modest retirement income. A few adjustments now and it will continue to work for well beyond our lifetimes. The people crying for drastic changes do so either due to a flawed adherence to dogma or a blatantly obvious desire to loot the system.
Learn to acknowledge where theory breaks down in pratctice when advocating government cuts. It isn’t *always* the right thing to do. Consider the recent move to outsource many support services for the military. Looked great on paper, but the great minds who came up with it failed to take into account we actually go to war once in a while. In addition to costing the government far more for these services than if they had stayed government functions, this policy is getting people killed. That the major beneficiary of this program is a company that pays our current vice-president more than his regular salary is…about what I expected.
If you want to get in a lather over some chunk of government spending, look no further than the most expensive *thing* it has bought over the last few years, Missile Defense. Even its backers admit it doesn’t work now, and has little chance of working in the future. Yet hundreds of billions of dollars will be dumped down this rathole before it is stopped.
It’s easy when your young to thing you are always right. It’s easy to ignore data points that show your pet theories might not work. Consider the words of another great lead, Winston Churchill:
Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.
and another classic:
Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is – the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.
It’s obvious who the milkmaids are these days
Happy Holidays!
“Politically, I fall squarely on the Republican/Libertarian axis in whatever coordinate sytem you choose.”
Really? On the personal responsibility axis? On the private property axis? On the people-should-have-the-right-to-make-their-own-investment-decisions-even -if-they-may-make-bad-choices axis?
For those who truly believe that there are too many stupid Americans who cannot be trusted to provide for their own retirement security, there is a very simple solution: means test social security benefits so that only those who are truly poor at the age of retirement are allowed to collect. In other words, turn Social Security into what it pretends not to be: a redistributionist social welfare program. Instead of taking a fixed percentage from everyone’s wages, thus giving the illusion that everyone has an equal interest in maintaining the current system, use general revenues to fund retirement benefits for poor people, as we already do for housing, food, and medical care. The stigma of depending upon charity would attach, and taxpayers would recognize income redistribution for what it really is and decide whether or not it is something they wish to support. While we’re at it, we should do the same for education.
Now, one can argue whether or not Cato’s plan is a good second-best solution for reaching this sort of goal. I used to believe so; now I’m not so sure. But what one cannot say is that Cato is dishonest or putting forth its privatization plan in order to ingratiate itself with the current administration. Cato has been pushing the same sort of plan for decades, during both Democratic and Republican presidencies.
“Maybe you just need a little life experience before you can recognize the current crop of Republicans for what they are, greedy little thugs, no different than the cabals that run most third world countries.”
Oh, I have no doubt. But you’ve been targeting your hatred at Cato and libertarians, not Republicans. Nice try changing the subject.
“Someone needs to do the same with government programs to show the rabid anti-govenment people what to keep. As you get older, you will see that some government programs work. Maybe not as well as they should, but they work.”
Work for whom? For what purpose? Compared to what? You cannot determine whether a government program is worth keeping or not until you first answer these sorts of questions. Some government programs work incredibly well, if our metric is increasing the wealth, power, and status of politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups. But if our metric is what benefits all people in society, then government programs–which are all nothing more than various forms of coercive redistribution–fail miserably.
If Marx had seen the horrors of Stalin era Soviet Union, would he have thought twice about jotting down his thoughts on government and economics?
If Darwin had seen a Concentration Camp in operation, would he have put a few codicils in his writings on evolution?
Cato is to be commended for sticking by its plan, but they should also consider the enviroment they are pitching it.
If the United States had a bipartisan government, an active press core and an engaged citizenry, trying out their plan might be worth a shot.
Currently, we have a one party system run by leaders who don’t even bother to hide their greed, a press core that is little more than a bunch of paid mouthpieces for the whatever party or company that writes their paychecks and a confused citizenry constantly bombarded by ‘information’ provided by said press.
Introducing Cato SS plan in this country now would simply result in people turning in a guaranteed retirement benefit for shares in whatever future Enrons the wealthy can cobble together to absorb theier funds.
Good scientists publish, along with their theories, the exact conditions that will prove their theories wrong. People who come up with schemes to modify government programs should do the same. I would argue that the primary consideration of any such plans should be, “Can this be corrupted?”
If Darwin had seen a Concentration Camp in operation, would he have put a few codicils in his writings on evolution?
Are you kidding me? Now Darwin is as responsible for the Nazis as Marx is for Communism?????
beep, wrong answer, try again. seriously you sound like a f***ing creationist.
Haha, first I’m a socialist, now I’m a creationist? I don’t believe in god, so I think I would make a bad one.
I think the Theory of Evolution is a good, but flawed explanation of how living thing got to where they are now. I think it’s the best explanation we’ve got right now, so I’m in favor of it being taught in our schools.
That said, I wouldn’t mind if a teacher threw out the possibility that some super-being made us exactly how we find ourselves today. It certainly is a possible, no matter how unlikely, explanation, too.
Very interesting post Will, but I’ve got a few disputes with it (these ones about the philosophical aspects, not social security).
When Rorty says post-Galilean science has no metaphysical implications, he’s probably closer to the truth than you think (though I don’t think he’s actually there). Niels Bohr and his whole set of followers definitely seemed to agree with this, and that’s what gave us the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, on which there are no particles or waves, and just waveforms that collapse when observed. I personally think it’s because Bohr hung out with the positivists too much (or perhaps the influence went the other way), but it’s certainly been a trend in modern physics. Of course, there’s still the many-worlds interpretation, which is empirically equivalent and very metaphysically oriented, and thus perhaps more appealing for Quineans (perhaps like myself?) who want science to be committed to the entities it quantifies over. I think both strands are present in contemporary physics.
And as for people eating each other in North Korea because of Marx’s mistakes, I think that’s a fairly ridiculous idea (though I know you were just exagerrating to make a point). It’s probably fair to blame high European unemployment rates on problems of socialism (though there are plenty of people willing to debate this point). Maybe it’s fair to blame the failings of the USSR on Marxism, though I think that it’s far more accurate to blame them on the misapplications arising when Lenin tried to apply it to a non-industrialized society, compounded by Stalin’s dictatorship. But as far as I can tell, North Korea hasn’t really been Communist basically ever, and has instead been a cruel and despotic tyranny. Many people like to believe that’s what communism is, but it clearly isn’t, when actually attempted.
And I think “ought implies can” is potentially controversial, though not in any serious way. (Of course, to a consequentialist, it’s trivially true.)
But otherwise, everything was spot on, like Rorty with the sock-puppets (I remember his lecture to one of my freshman classes where he argued that Nietzsche was a pragmatist). And of course sociobiological experiments are useful, even if they can’t answer ultimate philosophical questions – they at least help us frame our discussion and ask the right questions, and give some constraints on the answers for some of them. And why exactly he thinks a theory of human nature should be normative is beyond me (though that seems to be the lesson vulgar social darwinism seems to be based on, taking Rorty’s modus tollens as a modus ponens).