tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post6048185984640587498..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Does the Moral Flynn Effect Support Flynn's Democratic Socialism or Murray's Classical Liberalism?Larry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-65290242880077240772023-05-15T03:54:25.950+01:002023-05-15T03:54:25.950+01:00I am still wrangling with the words used to differ...I am still wrangling with the words used to differentiate the two views discussed. For example, the last paragraph states the Murray view as "When government is limited to <b>deterring</b> and <b>punishing</b> the initiation of force, to <b>enforcing</b> laws of contract and private property, and to providing those few public goods that cannot be provided by the market..." VS the Flynn view - "will human beings have to be <b>forced</b> by government bureaucracies to solve their problems..." So... both side use "force" or "enforce" or "deter" and "punish" people to get them to behave a certain way? Is it just that one side uses some sort of "enforcing authority" (would you say police state?), while the other would use "bureaucracies" (whatever that means)? Both then seem to use some sort of structured authority, regardless. I guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-26279760135873254132015-07-21T01:19:37.420+01:002015-07-21T01:19:37.420+01:00By the way, classical liberalism just means all li...By the way, classical liberalism just means all liberalism prior to the twentieth century. There were progressive liberals in the 1800s and 1700s. <br /><br />That includes among the founders. Thomas Paine wrote about many ideas of goverance (e.g., "Agrarian Justice") that are perfectly in line with contemporary progressivism and social democracy. By definition, Thomas Paine was a classical liberal, albeit a progressive one.<br /><br />But even consider people like Adam Smith. He advocated for public education. He also thought one of the greatest dangers to a free society was high economic inequality. Those remain two central concerns of liberals.<br /><br />There is no inherent contradiction between social democracy and classical liberalism. In fact, classical liberalism wouldn't be possible without social democracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-66515704016118247762014-06-17T16:57:43.924+01:002014-06-17T16:57:43.924+01:00Then why do so many socialized countries in the we...Then why do so many socialized countries in the west have less unemployment than the U.S.? Look for example at Germany, which is more socialistic than the U.S., and yet is arguably the strongest economy in the world right now. The same arguments stand for the socialist countries I named above -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway etc.. They have welfare states while also maintaining vibrant economies with relatively little unemployment, and with higher educational levels, better health care, less crime, more civic engagement, better housing, greener industries, and a happier citizenry.<br /><br />This isn't simply theoretical. I think the empirical data speaks for itself. Check out the OECD pages sometime.Rob Schebelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-51356567501082729472014-06-17T15:29:11.834+01:002014-06-17T15:29:11.834+01:00But socialized countries also end up with nightmar...But socialized countries also end up with nightmare housing projects when the incentive to work is removed because all your educational, medical, food, and housing is paid for. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-82083992899472725882014-06-17T13:51:39.596+01:002014-06-17T13:51:39.596+01:00Rob,
I would ask that you also consider the dynam...Rob,<br /><br />I would ask that you also consider the dynamic of leading economies and industries as opposed to drafting. Catch up is relatively easy with proper institutions and culture. However, someone has to lead, and this requires a dynamic of innovation, risk taking and such.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-56045141172701409162014-06-12T18:30:12.628+01:002014-06-12T18:30:12.628+01:00As I read back through it, I should probably revis...As I read back through it, I should probably revise my statement above. Instead of saying that the data justifies Flynn's ideas over Murray's, I should say that the data suggests that both Flynn and Murray's ideas can be justified. Highly capitalistic nations (like the United States and Switzerland) do well, as do highly socialistic nations (like the baltic states, France, Canada, etc.). <br /><br />However, in general, the most successful of the modern industrialized nations tend to be democracies with moderate levels of socialism. The OECD data, the WHO data, the U.N.'s Human Development Index, the Legatum Prosperity Index -- these all tend to show a predominance of more socialized countries over more capitalistic countries in their assessments of a variety of measures of human well-being.Rob Schebelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-50771657903369412882014-06-12T15:45:40.876+01:002014-06-12T15:45:40.876+01:00Flynn may not provide evidence for his claim that ...Flynn may not provide evidence for his claim that moderate socialized democracy improves the quality of life, but the evidence is out there. Look for example at the mountains of data provided by the OECD. That data shows that countries with higher levels of democratic socialism -- Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, etc. -- tend to have higher levels of education, better health outcomes (with socialized universal health care), less crime, greater social mobility, and higher levels of reported contentment and happiness than countries with less socialized regulation (like the U.S.). The World Health Organization backs the OECD data with regard to health care quality. Also, countries with greater regulation of firearms suffer much less violence than countries with less. See Michael Shermer's recent twitter posts for that data.<br /><br />In the past, it's been difficult to assess the variety of claims about socialism versus capitalism. Those claims remained highly theoretical and solely within the purview of theorists. But the increasing availability of data on various industrialized countries allows us to assess those claims with more empirical validity now. While Flynn may not adequately defend his views in his own work, other data does in fact justify his perspective over Murray's.Rob Schebelnoreply@blogger.com