I think that this recent post by Robert Reich highlights the dichotomy between his thinking and mine:
There is moral rot in America but it’s not found in the private behavior of ordinary people. It’s located in the public behavior of people who control our economy and are turning our democracy into a financial slush pump. It’s found in Wall Street fraud, exorbitant pay of top executives, financial conflicts of interest, insider trading, and the outright bribery of public officials through unlimited campaign “donations.â€
I don’t think there’s a difference. I think that virtue is a habit and that you acquire that habit by what you do. If you routinely lie, when push comes to shove you will lie whether it’s a matter of “private behavior” or “public behavior”. I think that the man who cheats on his wife or the woman who lies on her income tax is likely to cheat and lie in their dealings as a public official or businesswoman, too. If you are greedy, you’ll probably stiff a waiter who’s given you adequate service as quickly as you’ll defraud a customer.
I don’t much care about other people’s sexuality or religious views. I do care about how they treat me and how they treat other people.
Courage, prudence, moderation, justice. They’re all acquired by doing. There is no other way. I think that Robert Reich believes that we can have a just and decent society by passing the right laws, putting the right structures in place, and spending enough money. I believe we can have a just and decent society if we behave justly and decently.
If you are greedy, you’ll probably stiff a waiter who’s given you adequate service as quickly as you’ll defraud a customer.
You’re confusing greed with dishonesty and parsimony. I can think of several greedy people who tip BIG. Donald Trump and any number of professional pokeer players I can think of are both greedy and big time spenders. (Way back in the day when he was still a road gambler Doyle Brunson used to pay for meals in diners with hundred dollar bills and would tell the waitress to keep the change. He didn’t want the hassle of carrying around bills smaller than hundreds! This was back in the 1950s and 1960s, so diner meals were cheap.)
That could be. I think the issue is more the difference between guilt and shame, that difference being that they’d stiff the waiter if they could do it without being found out.
I think that Robert Reich believes that we can have a just and decent society by passing the right laws, putting the right structures in place, and spending enough money.
And don’t forget that it also requires electing the right kinds of people – preferably rich Democrats who made their money in questionable ways and went to Ivy League schools. You can’t have a decent society without the John Corzines of the world being in charge. (Yes, Corzine didn’t go to an Ivy League school – no one is perfect.)
I don’t think we can have either. I think that there will always be those who cheat and abuse whatever institutions and customs that are in place. It is for this reason that I want to limit the ability of institutions to do things via force–i.e. the government. If you want to get technical about it, I think cheating and abusing “the system” is always an evolutionary stable strategy when you consider mixed strategies when you have an unknown time horizon.
What Reich writes here,
is right. My solution, limit the power of the public sector. The idea of using the government to accumulate wealth is something that moves with the size and scope of government in my view. Rent seeking needs an activist government…it is a necessary condition (least, an activist government might also be a sufficient condition for rent seeking). Remove that and you’ll have less rent seeking.
I do not believe in the perfectability of human nature. I think that a perfectly just and decent society will always be beyond our grasp. What I meant by this is that the mechanism for improving things is to improve ourselves. I think it’s possible that philosopher-kings could produce a good republic. I don’t think that a good republic will produce philosopher-kings but rather inevitably be corrupted by less-than-perfect citizens.
That will also inevitably weaken whatever rules limit the power of the public sector. What is needed is a commitment to the limitation (which comes from individuals). A citizenry not committed to such limitation will inevitably thwart it.
“My solution, limit the power of the public sector.”
Then we get Chad or the US 1800s.
Steve
Reich is kind of amusing. He basically writes the same article, with the same themes, over and over again, just wordsmithing it each time.
BTW, in a completely unrelated matter, I wanted to mention to Dave that I bought Skyrim a couple days ago and it is pretty amazing.
Why is you people always have to run to some Hell hole for your examples….
Do some research and broaden your horizons a wee bit there steve, it will do you plenty of good.
Andy,
Might want to read this:
http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2012/01/mid-game-problem.html
Interesting read…bottom line, be very careful in how you advance your skill set and save your gold.
Steve,
Yeah, that can be an issue. I read about some players who power-leveled skills during the tutorial scenario and came out into the world having already gained many levels. They were still in the starting gear, though, so they were just getting wiped out by most of game’s enemies.
I’m taking a different approach and am working on some of my crafting skills early.