me: >>> I would guess that he's the type of principled money libertarian >>> encouraged by the socioeconomic environment of the West (including >>> Texas). Somehow government subsidies help breed "rock-ribbed" >>> individualism there.
David B. Shemano wrote: > So he is principled, but his principles derive from government > subsidization. No. Instead, Mr. Paul is just like the rest of us (including yours truly). We are highly influenced by our upbringing, where we live, our jobs, and the like. For example, because I've lived near or in cities all my life, I am more likely to see the interdependencies among people, how what I get depends so much on what other people do (and vice-versa), I am encouraged to be more "liberal," like most urbanites. (We're also more urbane, natch.) Of course, I am also an individual (with a mild case of Asperger syndrome and dysthymia, with different family experiences, etc.) so I respond to my environment and my experience with it differently than do others in a similar situation. The role of environmental conditioning is much more obvious for averages of populations, but you can still see it in most biographies that have been written. Someone who lives in a widely dispersed population is more likely to be "libertarian" (anti-government, anti-collectivist, and thus anti-democratic as a matter of principle) because they don't see the interconnections among people, even when they exist. > Now, I doubt that you intend to mean that since Ron Paul is so experienced > experiencing the effects of government subsidization, he is uniquely > positioned to know that government subsidization is a bad thing and, > therefore, his libertarian philosophy is more credible than say, a proponent > of government subsidization who has not experienced government > subsidization. That would be logical -- opinion informed by experience. < No, in fact in my sentence above "Somehow government subsidies help breed "rock-ribbed" individualism there," the word "somehow" was supposed to convey irony, though clearly it didn't do so successfully. So restate it: "a naive person would say that government subsidies of the West would encourage Westerners to be grateful to the government (for providing land stolen from the Native Americans sold at rock-bottom prices, inexpensive access to the national forests, lots of military jobs, etc.) but in reality, we see many of them embracing "rock-ribbed" individualism." One explanation of this contrast appears above. I'm not pretending that references to dispersed populations represent a complete explanation. > But I assume you are saying something else, something along the lines of it > is a priori impossible for any individual to reach a decision that is > abstractly objective untainted by personal historic circumstance (or, to use > the word I was taught back in the day, all individuals are "encumbered").< I don't think anyone but God can be objective. And he -- or she -- doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. > You have made this argument before, in fact very recently. I suppose it is > true, but it is unclear to me whether it is true in any sense more than > trivial. Once I know that my decision-making is encumbered, I can try and > identify my encumbrances and weed them out of the analysis. At least from > personal experience and introspection, I think that can make a very real > difference. I am curious, how do you explain your beliefs and opinions? Do you assume that your present beliefs are traceable to specific historical events in your life as opposed to the application of dispassionate reason? If so, by what measure do you determine that your beliefs and opinions are better or preferable to the beliefs and opinions of others? If so, how do you justify anger and moral judgment directed at individuals when those individuals make decisions with which you profoundly disagree?< I am probably too aware of my own "encumbrances" for my own mental health. In any event, when enraged or whatever, I try to use logical & empirical arguments that take into account as much of the relevant information as possible (trying to live up to scientific standards even though it's most often not possible in social research). I also know that no individual has the whole story, so that dialog is important and understanding is a collective product. All of this encourages humility. Since there is often not a consensus on moral issues, I usually try to find contradictions between someone's moral stance (e.g., rock-ribbed individualism) and his or her practice (living partly off government subsidies). -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
