= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lyyce comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (212)
One major difference between left and right is the stance on personal responsibility.
Leftist intellectuals (tends to) think society influence trumps individual capabilities, so people are not responsible for their misfortunes and deserve to be helped. Whereas Rightist have the opposite view (related).
This seems trivial, especially in hindsight. But I hardly ever see it mentioned and in most discussions the right side treat the left as foolish and irrational and the left thinks right people are self-interested and evil rather than simply having a different philosophical opinion.
I guess this is part of the bigger picture on political discourse, it is always easier to dehumanise an opponent than to admit is point is as valid as ours.
Would this description pass an ideological Turing test?
It seems to me (leftish) that it's pointing at something correct but oversimplifying.
In so far as Lycce's analysis is correct, I should be looking at people in difficulty and saying "there's nothing wrong with their abilities, but society has screwed them over, and for that reason they should be helped". I might say that sometimes -- e.g., when looking at a case of alleged sexual discrimination -- but in that case my disagreement with those who take the other position isn't philosophical, it's a matter of empirical fact. (Unless either side takes that position without regard to the evidence in any given case, which I don't think I do and wouldn't expect the more reasonable sort of rightist to do either.)
But it's not what I'd say about, say, someone who has had no job for a year and is surviving on government benefits. Because that would suggest that if in fact they had no job because they simply had no marketable skills, then I should be saying "OK, then let them starve". Which I wouldn't. I would say: no, we don't let them starve, because part of being civilized is not letting people starve even if for one reason or another they're not useful.
We might then have an argument -- my hypothetical rightist and I -- about whether a policy of letting some people starve results in more people working for fear of starvation, hence more prosperity, hence fewer people actually starving in the end. I hope I'd be persuadable by evidence and argument, but most likely I'd be looking for reasons to broaden the safety net and Hypothetical Rightist would be looking for reasons to narrow it. That may be because of differences in opinion about "personal responsibility" (as Lycce suggests) or in compassion (as I might suggest if feeling uncharitable) or in realism (as H.R. might suggest if feeling uncharitable) but I don't think it has much to do with societal influence trumping individual capabilities.
I think Lycce's analysis works better to explain left/right differences in attitudes to the conspicuously successful. H.R. might say: "look, this person has been smart and worked hard and done something people value, and deserves to be richly rewarded". I might be more inclined to say "yes indeed, but (1) here are some other people who are as smart and hardworking and doing valuable things but much poorer and (2) this person's success is also the result of others' contributions". And if you round that off to "societal influence versus individual capabilities" you're not so far off.
In uncharitable mood, my mental model of people on the right isn't quite "self-interested and evil" but "working for the interests of the successful". (When in slightly less uncharitable mood, I will defend that a little -- success is somewhat correlated with doing useful things, thinking clearly, not harming other people too overtly, etc., and there's something to be said for promoting the interests of those people.)
I would guess (not very confidently) that people on the right will be more inclined to agree with Lycce's analysis, and (one notch less confidently still) that Lycce identifies more with the right than with the left.
Apparently I have not made my point clear enough. I am indeed simplifying, "everything is due do society" and "everything is due to individuals" are the both ends but you can be anywhere in the spectrum. This is also only one point among others, probably not the main one, defining identity politics (as you told it), and surely not every leftist/rightist will have the view I give him or is even concerned by the concept.
If i take your example about the person on government benefits with no skills, a common argument is that the fact that he had poor parents, grew in a bad neighbourhood or was discriminated against is one if not the main reason he has trouble acquiring skills or finding a job, then he should not be held responsible and left alone.
I consider myself leftist (by European standard). I do think success mostly depends on things beyond the individual and that we anyway ought to help everyone, even if someone are the only one to blame for his misery (i also buy this civilized thing).
It might well be a common argument, but the correct question is whether it's a valid argument.
Using a less sympathetic expression this is also known as the forced redistribution of wealth. There is an issue, though, well summed up by the quote usually attributed to Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".
I do think it is a valid arguments (I might be wrong of course), many studies have highlighted the effect of education, parents, genes, environment, etc. So I find it unfair to blame someone for its problems since there are too many element to consider to give an accurate judgement.
I don't like the idea of forced redistribution of wealth (taxes, namely), but in my opinion having a part of the population living in horrible conditions if not outright starving is worse, whether they deserve it or not.
I'd wager there is enough money in the first world to give everyone a "decent" life (admittedly depends on your definition of decent, let's say a shelter, food, education, health care and some leftovers for whatever you want to do). It is already implemented in various country and the States are not so far off in their own way so it is doable. However it is probably not be the optimal path in the long run for economic growth, I think if it is worth it (low confidence though).
Yes, but let me emphasize the important part of that argument: "then he should not be held responsible and left alone". That's a normative, not a descriptive claim. It is also entirely generic: every single human being should not be held responsible -- right?
For how long?
You're assuming there is a magical neverending pot of money from which you can simple grab and give out. What happens in a few years when you run out?
Fair enough, this is only my own biased opinion. It is indeed generic, I am still unsure if my position should be "mostly not responsible" or "not responsible at all" depending on which model about free will is correct.
Wealth is produced, and the money do not disappear (does it actually? my understanding of economy is pretty basic) when you give it out since they spend it as consumer the same way the people you take it from would do.
I don't see anything "running out" in the few socialist countries out there.
The money usually does not literally disappear, but what happens if you have too much money in circulation and not enough things to buy is that the money loses value, i.e. things become more expensive. (Attempts to fix this problem by regulating prices typically result in literally empty shops after the few cheap things are sold.) It is related to inflation, but the whole story is complicated.
There are many countries in eastern Europe that once had "socialist" in their names and now don't. And they happen to be among the poorest ones in Europe. The "running out of money" meant that over decades their standards of living were getting far behind the western Europe.
You probably mean Sweden (people who talk about "socialist" countries not running out of money usually mean Sweden, because it's quite difficult to find another example). I don't know much about Sweden to explain what happened there, but I suspect they have must less "socialism" than the former Soviet bloc.
(For the purposes of a rational debate it would probably be better to stop using words like "socialism" and instead talk about more specific things, such as: high taxes, planned economy, mandatory employment, censorship of media, dictatorship of one political party, universal health care, basic income, etc. These are things typically described as "socialist" but they don't have to appear together.)
I think that, as much as having once had "socialist" in their names, may be their problem. They got screwed over by the Nazis in WW2 and then screwed over again by the USSR. I think they'd be poor now whatever their politics had been.
Again, the former Soviet bloc is distinguished by features other than socialism -- notably, by having been part of the Soviet bloc. And the USSR is distinguished by features other than socialism -- e.g., by totalitarianism, by having been the enemy of the US (which was always the richer superpower), etc.
On the other side, it's not just Sweden -- but also, as you say, not exactly hardcore socialism either.
Basic income is historically no socialist idea. It's a liberal idea. Milton Friedman came up with it under the name of negative taxation.
Billionaire Götz Werner did a lot to promote the concept. In Germany the CDU (right-wing) politician Dieter Althaus spoke for it. YCombinator who invests into research in it is also no socialist institution.
Socialism is about workers rights. People who don't work but just receive basic income aren't workers. The unemployed aren't union members. Unions generally want that employers take care of their employees and believe that employeers should pay a living wage and that it's not the role of the government to pay low income people a basic income.
If "not at all" won't you have issues with e.g. the criminal justice system?
Money is just convenient tokens, you can't consume money. What you want is value in the form of valuable (that is, desirable) goods and services. Most goods and services disappear when you consume them: if you eat a carrot, that carrot is gone.
When you give out (free) money you generate demand for goods and services. In the context of a capitalist society there is a common assumption that "the market" will automagically generate the supply (that is, actual goods and services) to satisfy the demand. However if you are not in the context of a capitalist society any more, you can't assume that the supply will be there to meet the demand -- see the example of the Soviet Union, etc.
When you redistribute money, people use that money to buy stuff. Someone has to produce the actual stuff and moving money around will not, by itself, lead to actual stuff being produced. If no one is growing carrots, there will be none to be had, free money or no free money.
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence. Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
The advantages are nobody left out, more flexibility in your work, people doing what they like (more artist and stuff), not having to work to survive (that counts for some). It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned The disadvantages are a net loss of production compared to the current systems and the producers of good being worse off. Maybe the trade off is not worth it, I'd like to have it tried just to check.
I am indecisive, even if they are not responsible, criminals are harmful for the rest of the population so imprisonment can be necessary. However the justice system should be focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Your question made me think, coming from that one could perfectly argue that since people not doing anything are harmful to the rest of the society (technically they are taking money from the productive part) so they should be forced to be productive.
Bearing that, I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive. But then you have the question at how much incentive is ethically justified.
The reason to think in terms of ideological Turing test is that "opposite" is almost never correct. Almost nothing can be usefully simplified to a simple one-dimensional aspect where both ends are reasonable and common.
In the mulidimensional space of different personal influences (genetics, upbringing, current social environment, governmental and non-governmental support and constraint networks), there are likely multiple points of belief in the balance of choice vs non-choice. It's just not useful to characterize one cluster as "opposite" of the other.
Personally, I find the three-axis model fairly compelling - it's not that different political leanings come from different points on a dimension, it's that they are focusing on completely different dimensions . Progressives tend to think of oppressor/oppressed, Conservatives about Barbarism/Civilisation, and Libertarians about Coercion/Freedom.
This does get accepted (to some extent - it's still massively oversimple) by both liberal and conservative friends of mine, so passes at least one level of test.
(for the ideological turing test)
I have tried to make my argument as neutral as possible, giving both sides of the arguments and avoiding depreciating any,
Let's try from both directions then (personally am a leftist).
Left side, I think so, I definitely think societal influence (amongst other things out of the individual power such as genetics) trumps individual choices, I also saw this opinion amongst friends and intellectuals so I am not alone in this, not everybody on the left think like this though.
Right side, my model of the right is not as good as I'd like, but i have seen it expressed in various places. Again it does not concern all the rightists neither is the main point for everyone.
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about, could you develop your point?
One way of thinking about this is "would my enemies, if reading this, think it is a description of their beliefs written by an ally?"
I'm not sure of the relevance in this instance.
I downvoted the post for it being a political post on LW that tries to explain complex politics with a simple model.
Thank you for the feedback. Unfortunately it looks like I have not been able to express myself clearly.
It was not supposed to explain anything but rather gives one point I find not stressed enough, I am aware that it does not sum up politics or gives a full distinction between political side.
I don't think that the general class of posts "Political idea XY with whom I just came up isn't mentioned enough in the venues I read" makes a good LW post.
“This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!”
Still, it would be very wrong to describe rightists as thinking that everyone should starve who can't support themselves. Many people on the political right also practice and/or believe in charity.
As a rightist myself I'd like to point out that there is a massive difference in our belief system between being forced to support folks who don't work (you are a slave, changing this intolerable state is the primary goal of your life) and choosing to do so (a righteous act, golf claps).
And I'd like to point out that there is a massive difference between maybe getting charitable support that keeps you alive and having a right to welfare. You don't know you going to be in the position of the giver from behind a veil.
I think this subthread is a good summary of why we should just leave politics out of LW, and why trying to summarize a single dimension of difference is hopeless.
So I'll continue :) Here goes the anti-turing definition (each side will agree it applies to the other, but not to themselves):
Progressives/leftists believe it's OK to define rights over things that don't exist yet (say, food that isn't yet planted or care from a future doctor who might prefer to golf that day instead of exposing himself to your disease). The conservatives/rightists think it's OK to define rights that make it easy to ignore others' suffering.
No, leftists thinks you have rights to things, not over things. Insisting that a right can only be over something pretty well begs the question in favour of property rights.
I don't understand this -- it doesn't make sense to me.
It was my attempt to rephrase the "massive difference" posts by WalterL and TheAncientGreek, above.
WalterL taking the rightist side, asserting a right to freedom from coercion and that being forced to support others is a form of slavery. TheAncientGreek takes the leftist side in asserting a right to welfare being far preferable than a charitable state of support.
These rights are in direct conflict. Person A's right to welfare requires that person B is mandated to provide it. Person B's right to choose her own activities implies that person A might not get fed or housed.
Then or was completely wrong. I was drawing a distinction between he kind of outlook you might have if you know you are in a winning position, and the kind you might take if you don't know what position you are going to be in,
Um, to quote TheAncientGeek, "there is a massive difference between maybe getting getting charitable support that keeps you alive and having a right to welfare" -- I think you misunderstand him.
But still, how is the right to welfare a right "over things that don't exist yet" and how is the right to be not taxed (more or less) a right that "make[s] it easy to ignore others' suffering"?
The first is the right to support and the matching duty falls onto the government. It could be (see Saudi Arabia) that it can provide this support without taking money out of any individuals' pockets. The second is basically a property right and has nothing to do with the ease of ignoring suffering.
Perhaps I do misunderstand him. I took his "massive difference" comparison to mean that he doesn't believe charity is sufficient, and he would prefer welfare to be considered a right.
In the long term, the government is just a conduit - it matches and enforces transfers, it doesn't generate anything itself. The case of states that can sell resources is perhaps an exception for some time periods, but doesn't generalize in the way most people think of rights independent of local or temporal situations.
In any case, a right to support directly requires SOMEONE to provide that support, doesn't it? If everyone is allowed to choose not to provide that support, the suffering must be accepted.
That what I meant , butit it has nothing to with things that don't yet exist.
So, can we just get rid of it, then? :-/ I don't think we should take a detour into this area, but, let's say, a claim that government does not create any economic value would be... controversial.
Yes, correct. All rights come as pairs of right and duty. Whatever is someone's right is someone else's duty.
I'm still confused about "rights over things that don't exist yet" and "rights that make it easy to ignore".
I would guess that people on the political right are more likely to donate to charity than people on the political left.
At least when I look at people around me, those on the left are more likely to say "why should I care about this problem; isn't this one of those things that government should do?". And those on extreme left will even say something about how 'worse is better' because it will make the capitalist system collapse sooner, while donating to alleviate problems delays the revolution.
This analysis suggests that any relationship between political affiliation and charitable donation isn't very strong. For what it's worth, the sign of the coefficient in the regression suggests that lefties give more than righties. (The paper also looks at volunteering, and finds that lefties volunteer quite a lot more than righties.)
I wouldn't make any large bets on the basis of that paper, though. There are lots of interrelated things here -- politics, wealth, religion, etc., etc., etc. -- and even if those regression coefficients indicate something real rather than just noise it may be much more complicated than "group X is more generous with their time/money than group Y". And it looks like it's the work of a single inexperienced researcher, and doesn't seem to be a peer-reviewed publication.
This paper -- not available for free, but there's an informal writeup by someone else here says that other research has indicated that righties give more than lefties (contrary to what the paper above says), and purports to explain this by saying that righties are more religious and the religious give more. More precisely, it looks as if religion leads to giving in two ways. There's giving to religious charities, which obviously religious people do a lot more of than irreligious ones; and there's other giving, which church attenders do and so (to a comparable extent) do people involved in other sorts of socially-conscious meeting up. ("Local civic or educational meetings" is the thing they actually looked at.)
If you control for religion, then allegedly the left/right differences largely go away.
Make of all that what you will. (What I make of it is: it's complicated.)
"charity" is a political term that makes measuring this very difficult. If you count donations to private-charity art museums and to activism/signaling groups rather than only looking at poverty impact, you'll get results that don't really tell you much about useful donations.