= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (381)
I think a lot of the disagreement between the left and the right boils down to disagreement about the appropriate form of the social welfare function. I think this applies not just to economic issues but also issues of gender and race.
While there quite likely is some degree of resolvable factual disagreement about the extent of certain inequities, and maybe-somewhat-resolvable disagreement about how those inequities might be lessened, there is also disagreement about how much those inequities should matter to us and affect our behavior, both political and personal. This is not the sort of disagreement I expect to see someone resolve in a blog post.
Now for a more blatantly left-wing argument: It is hard to get people to realize the extent and import of their privilege, to acknowledge that certain social inequities that are of minor significance when viewed from a privileged position are in fact deeply oppressive from the perspective of the marginalized. This is not the sort of thing that can be communicated by presenting scientific studies, because such studies may establish the existence of an inequity, but they do not fully convey the impact of that inequity on the lives and psyches of the population affected. The best way to acquire that sort of information is to listen to anecdotes from a number of marginalized people, a difficult thing to do on a website with demographics like LW has.
As a right-winger I must strongly disagree with the characterization of the right wing position given in your comment. In particular it seems to me that the left-wing position contains a number of specific falsifiable (and false) beliefs, for example, the false belief that all the policies leftists tend to promote to "help the poor and oppressed" actually help the poor and oppressed in the long run.
In fact the main value disagreement that I can see is that some leftist tend to have a pathological form of egalitarianism where they're willing to pursue policies that make everyone worse off in order to make the distribution more equal.
I did say this:
So I agree there are a number of falsifiable beliefs on both sides. But the mere fact of falsifiability doesn't mean the disagreements are easy to resolve, partly for "politics is the mind-killer" type reasons, and partly because it is legitimately difficult to find conclusive experimental evidence for causal claims in the social sciences.
I do, however, think there are important value disagreements about how to trade off efficiency and equity between left and right, and I also think your description of the "main value disagreement" is a caricature. I'm pretty sure I could easily come up with socio-political thought experiments where all (non-moral) facts are made explicit, leaving no room for disagreement on them, but where we would still disagree about the best policy, and I assure you I'm not one of the "pathological" egalitarians you describe (although you would probably consider my views pathological for other reasons).
A few examples? (Preferably ones where the conclusion that the policy leads to an anti-Pareto improvement is based on real-world data rather than on dry-water economic models.)
That's an interesting thought. Maybe I do think that it is better to make everyone a little bit worse off materially to make the distribution more equal. I don't think this is pathological. In somewhat of a paradox what matters most to absolute well-being is our relative material wealth not our absolute wealth. Now, of course, when looked at as a ranking nothing can be done about the fact that some will have more wealth than others. Nothing short of trying to make everyone equal (and no one wants that). But the ranking is not the only thing that matters. There has always been a distribution of wealth but the those at the top have not always had so much more than the median. Making everyone a little worse off materially to make the distribution a bit narrower may make the absolute well-being greater.
Also I wonder if right wingers would support a distributionist policy to help the poor and oppressed even if such a policy were certain to be effective. My hunch is that they would not because they are opposed, in principle, to any redistribution.
Maybe some policies fail at helping the poor and at making people more equal.
I can imagine a policy done in the name of the poor which results at everyone being poorer... except for the people who organized the redistribution... you know, the powerful good guys.