Showing posts with label nozick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nozick. Show all posts

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Why do "intellectuals" hate capitalism?

Note upfront that it is "intellectuals" in the title and not intellectuals.  Because of the presumption that there cannot be any intellectual on the right side of the political center.  To "intellectuals," a "leftist intellectual" is tautological because, ahem, intellectuals by definition are leftist!

I like to think of myself as an intellectual (haha, the joke is on me and I don't even know it!) but throughout my professional life I seem to be only pissing off the "intellectuals."  Ever since my graduate school days, when I started to systematically inquire about different ways in which we humans organize and govern ourselves, which is also when I started developing my own flavor of a libertarian-left approach, I have been puzzled at how much the "intellectuals" oppose, dislike, and hate capitalism, even as they benefit from it.

Source

One of my earliest introductions into understanding this came from reading Robert Nozick's "Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?"  Nozick noted there:
By intellectuals, I do not mean all people of intelligence or of a certain level of education, but those who, in their vocation, deal with ideas as expressed in words, shaping the word flow others receive. These wordsmiths include poets, novelists, literary critics, newspaper and magazine journalists, and many professors. It does not include those who primarily produce and transmit quantitatively or mathematically formulated information (the numbersmiths) or those working in visual media, painters, sculptors, cameramen. Unlike the wordsmiths, people in these occupations do not disproportionately oppose capitalism. The wordsmiths are concentrated in certain occupational sites: academia, the media, government bureaucracy.
Do you feel yourself agreeing with that definition of "intellectuals" and nodding yes?  Read up that complete essay then and find out Nozick's explanation for why "intellectuals" oppose capitalism! ;)

Of course, I have done my share of complaining and protesting.  A favorite example is from way back when WalMart was aggressively expanding.  I hated it but not because of the profits the corporation made.  I couldn't care about its profits.  But, my distaste for WalMart has always been with respect to how it dramatically alters the urban layout.  The huge store is typically located far away from downtown and away from populated areas, and almost overnight shutters the downtown stores.  The town loses its charm.  The kind of charm that attracts me to towns when I travel.  I couldn't care who made the money, but worried that the urban space was becoming less attractive.  To me, the quality of the place matters--immensely.

Thus, as I keep marching to my own libertarian-left music, I continue to fine-tune my understanding of how we humans govern ourselves.  While never a rah-rah cheerleader for capitalism, I am impressed by how much the profit motive makes people do things that they might not otherwise do.  While people talk big about "do the right thing," they rarely seem to actually do the right thing.  But then provide them with the dollar incentive to do the right thing and they seem a lot more eager to do it.

Over the years, I have also been struck by the contradictions that "intellectuals" display--and have often blogged about it too.  My favorite example these days is Apple.  "Intellectuals" seem to love, love Apple and its products.  Their scathing essays that are highly critical of capitalism are almost always composed on expensive Apple products.  While protesting against capitalism, they tweet using their iPhones.  They seem oblivious to the fact that Apple generates humongous profits.  Profits that are larger than the oil companies that the "intellectuals" protest against.  Profits that make Walmart seem insignificant.  My "socialist" colleagues, who proudly chant their union solidarity songs use expensive Apple laptops while I, who have never been a member of any union, am stuck with a cheap PC!  

It is one crazy world out there.  Perhaps it is the craziness that also makes it all the more exciting for the dull and boring wannabe intellectuals like me!

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Philosophical hassles with income inequality. Can Rawls or Bain help you out?

Before graduate school, I found it extremely easy to figure out answers to pressing public policy issues.  Graduate school messed me up--it was challenging to sort out the competing interpretations on any given issue.  It was like I ate the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge and I was, therefore, condemned to a life of constant weighing of the multiple narratives.

In one of the courses, two readings were paired together--an essay by John Rawls (one of the earlier essays prior to the publication of his magnum opus) and Robert Nozick's counterargument.  Years of doing math and science hadn't prepared me for this.  Math and science seemed way easier compared to figuring out my own public policy prescriptions post-Rawls and post-Nozick.  And then there was another essay--by Isiah Berlin on thinking about liberty in two ways

Over the years, I have found that the ideas from these three, more than anything else, complicate my personal take on any of the pressing public policy issues of the day. 

Income inequality is one of the most contemporary urgent issues.  In the old days, before wandering around in graduate school, I would have flatly stated that income inequality is awful.  Now, I have to wear Rawls' "veil of ignorance" and think about Berlin's "postive and negative freedom" while dealing with Nozick's libertarianism.  The result: nothing is ever easy anymore.  Nor am I stupid enough to echo the words and sentiments of a former president who proudly claimed that he did not do nuance!

Even while sorting these out through those philosophical filters, there is Warren Buffett with his "ovarian lottery," which is what Michael Lewis also seems to point out:
Don't be deceived by life's outcomes. Life's outcomes, while not entirely random, have a huge amount of luck baked into them. Above all, recognize that you have had success, you have also had luck. And with luck comes obligation. You owe a debt, and not just to your gods. You owe a debt to the unlucky.
Keep all those in mind as you watch Jon Stewart talk with Edward Conard, a former managing director of Bain Capital before he retired when he was about fifty years old.





Wednesday, November 02, 2011

A Libertarian-Democrat I am

Through the long and winding road of time and geography, I paused at, and passed, quite a few religious and secular isms.  Over the last few years, I have comfortably settled into a Libertarian-Democrat perspective on society.

While the respect and value for the individual and the contempt for intrusion into lives fuel the Libertarian me, I can not see myself signing up ever as a full-fledged Libertarian, primarily because of the concern for the disadvantaged, and the worries over the power that the military-corporate alliance has--the triggers for the Democrat in me.

As is probably the case for many of us in this corner of the political spectrum, two intellectuals helped me a lot in arriving here (even if it was only my half-baked understanding): George Orwell and Robert Nozick.

It was, thus, a pleasure to read this lengthy critique of Nozick's philosophy, and of full-throated libertarianism. The final paragraphs are way too good to summarize:
Calling yourself a libertarian is another way of saying you believe power should be held continuously answerable to the individual's capacity for creativity and free choice. By that standard, Thomas Jefferson, John Ruskin, George Orwell, Isaiah Berlin, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and even John Maynard Keynes are libertarians. (Orwell: "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." Keynes: "But above all, individualism … is the best safeguard of personal liberty in the sense that, compared with any other system, it greatly widens the field for the exercise of personal choice.") Every thinking person is to some degree a libertarian, and it is this part of all of us that is bullied or manipulated when liberty is invoked to silence our doubts about the free market. The ploy is to take libertarianism as Orwell meant it and confuse it with libertarianism as Hayek meant it; to take a faith in the individual as an irreducible unit of moral worth, and turn it into a weapon in favor of predation.
Another way to put it—and here lies the legacy of Keynes—is that a free society is an interplay between a more-or-less permanent framework of social commitments, and the oasis of economic liberty that lies within it. The nontrivial question is: What risks (to health, loss of employment, etc.) must be removed from the oasis and placed in the framework (in the form of universal health care, employment insurance, etc.) in order to keep liberty a substantive reality, and not a vacuous formality? When Hayek insists welfare is the road is to serfdom, when Nozick insists that progressive taxation is coercion, they take liberty hostage in order to prevent a reasoned discussion about public goods from ever taking place. "According to them, any intervention of the state in economic life," a prominent conservative economist once observed of the early neoliberals, "would be likely to lead, and even lead inevitably to a completely collectivist Society, Gestapo and gas chamber included." Thus we are hectored into silence, and by the very people who purport to leave us most alone.
Thanks in no small part to that silence, we have passed through the looking glass. Large-scale, speculative risk, undertaken by already grossly overcompensated bankers, is now officially part of the framework, in the form of too-big-to-fail guarantees made, implicitly and explicitly, by the Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, the "libertarian" right moves to take the risks of unemployment, disease, and, yes, accidents of birth, and devolve them entirely onto the responsibility of the individual. It is not just sad; it is repugnant.