 |
Comments |
|
 | Monday, October 6, 2008 at 4:52:35 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Gina wrote: "Furthermore, "Bad, Democrats!" for blaming the whole thing on the Republicans, when the Clinton administration helped stage the inevitable fallout by legislating irrational lending to facilitate home ownership among people who otherwise wouldn't qualify."
What about "Bad Republicans!" for being the party that actually controlled Congress during the last six years of the Clinton administration when these changes to the CRA were enacted? Presidents don't write and pass legislation, Congress does. Which party is to blame when a Republican controlled Congress legislates irrational lending to facilitate home ownership among people who otherwise wouldn't qualify? What about "Bad Republicans!" for sweeping this economic time bomb under the rug during the entire eight years of the Bush's "compassionate conservative" presidency -- more than half of which they *also* controlled both houses of congress?
The CRA was a contributing factor to the current mortgage crash to be sure, but a larger role was played by the policies of the Federal Reserve. During much of the decade, it maintained such artificially low interest rates that after inflation, they were actually negative. I'm not sure what else a person with half a dozen firing brain cells would have expected to be the result, if not an orgy of irrational borrowing that drove up housing prices so high that many people who would formerly have been able to afford to buy a home could no longer do so without dangerously over-leveraging themselves.
Let's not kid ourselves that responsibility for this train wreck can be laid on one party or the other. This is precisely the kind of thing that we can expect from the spirit of "bipartisanship" that we're hearing such glowing and wistful talk about from policiticians these days. |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 5:40:36 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)earthlink.net
There's no doubt that both parties are to blame for this mess. But it would sheer distortion not to note the central role that certain Democrats (and the Clinton administration) played in creating and feeding the Fannie/Freddie monster. Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank should be held up to public ridicule at every opportunity. Remember, one of central mechanisms of this crisis was the Federal Government's threatening of banks with charges of racial discrimination if they did not dramatically increase the percentage of minority loan applications that were granted approval.
If one disapproved of the Iraq war it would be legitimate to point out that both parties funded the war and that both parties shared the blame for the "debacle." However, one could not escape the fact that the Republican party had a central role in the whole affair, notwithstanding the fact that Dems could have cut off funding at any time. In the same way there is certainly enough blame to go around for the Fed/Housing crisis, but there's no shame or inaccuracy in Gina Ligget pointing out Democratic perfidy on this issue.
Every crisis/controversy/calamity that comes out of Washington is, to some extent, bipartisan. But sometimes we like to zero in on those who are most guilty, to put the heat on them a bit. Otherwise, the tag of "bipartisan guilt" becomes somewhat of a cover under which people like Dodd and Frank (and Obama) can hide. |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 6:02:02 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
> ". . . they were warned about the crisis in the housing markets years ago."
Was the current fiasco predictable by individuals who understand the economic principles involved? If it was, based on legislation passed years ago, then I wonder if any opponents, such as Objectivists who have chosen to be intellectual activists, began preparing at that time for this moment. If they had done so, they would have been well prepared to be informed, articulate, practiced spokesmen for capitalism and against statism--using their expertise in their chosen special issue as a springboard.
No one has an automatic, contextless obligation to work for the future of his culture. Specifically, no one has an obligation to be an intellectual activist. There are other ways of supporting efforts to make the future better (e.g., donating heavily to ARI or similar organizations). But among those who make the choice to be intellectual activists, I wonder if long-term specialization--each activist in a separate niche that fascinates him most--might be more effective in the long-run (and more satisfying) than many intellectual activists being generalists who have to lurch from crisis to crisis scrambling to find facts about the current crisis and hurriedly preparing arguments that are specific enough to sound like they are coming from someone who has studied the issue all along.
The work that Paul Hsieh and others are doing in fighting statist medicine is an example. Dr. Hsieh is steadily accumulating not only mounds of information about particulars but also he is polishing his principled arguments through steady year-after-year practice. From year to year, medical issues may wax and wane among all the other crises to come, but he will be steadily accumulating intellectual capital. By contrast, a bevy of generalists will in the years ahead only touch on the issues as each emergency arises. Individuals such as Dr. Hsieh will, I suggest, be far more effective in the long-run than dozens of ill-informed generalists.
Am I saying generalists have no value in a fight for a rational society? No. I am saying that I would suggest that long-term specialization--perhaps following one's own passionately held central purpose in life as a guide for choosing a specialization, as in-line activism--might be more effective and more personally rewarding for some in the long run. |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 7:26:21 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: John Donohue
E-mail: john(at)jrdonohue.com
URL: http://jrdonohue.com
When that new constitution is written, I'd suggest that this be the new Preamble:
"...All men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
George Mason, The Virginia Declaration of Rights |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 8:08:28 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Burgess: I'm all for specialization, but we need a critical mass of intellectual activists before that will become practical. We've been making progress toward that goal over the last decade, but we're nowhere near there yet. And judging from what's happening today, I don't know how much time we may have left to get there. |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 9:31:29 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paulhsiehmd(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org
To Burgess and Tony: I just have a couple of observations based on the ~2 years of amateur activism that we've done here in Colorado. (And thanks for your kind words, Burgess.)
For the professional intellectuals at the ARI, they definitely wish to develop areas of specialized expertise and I believe that is the correct strategy. They are already moving in that direction (with some people specializing in foreign policy, others in environmentalism, etc.) and as more intellectuals come through the "pipeline" of OAC and academia, I expect we'll see that approach continue to mature. I hope that in 10 years there will be a very active team of writers and lecturers at the ARI/ARC giving speeches, cranking out articles, position papers, OpEds, etc. in all the important fields of policy and cultural analysis, just as our opponents do in their organizations.
For us amateur activists, I think it's reasonable to engage in a mixture of general and more topic-specific work with the exact proportions to be determined by one's personal context. For any of us, our own interests will naturally tend towards a few areas above others. For instance, I have strong interests in science, technology, and medicine (and related policy issues) and enjoy thinking and writing about these issues. On the other hand, I don't particular get pumped about, say, education, although I am glad there are people who are passionate about promoting rational education and opposing irrational educational trends -- hence, I gladly give those people my moral support even though I have nothing substantial to add to that particular debate.
And during the recent "bailout" debates, I wrote to my public officials and local newspapers as a concerned citizen with no special background in economics or finance -- one can certainly engage in general advocacy along those lines, as a complement to any areas of specialized work. They key is to find areas genuine interest and do what one enjoys.
What us amateurs can do is to apply the broad principles spelled out by Ayn Rand in "What Can One Do?" in "Philosophy: Who Needs It". Although I highly recommend reading the whole thing, the key point is to decide to speak out in whatever venues and contexts are appropriate to your particular circumstances. For some people that will involve writing LTEs and OpEds in local papers. Others will write to public officials. Others may wish to speak up at town hall meetings or professional society meetings.
Others will engage in "microactivism" just by conducting oneself as a reasonable person at work and at home. If you become known amongst coworkers, friends, and family as having thoughtful reasonable positions on a variety of issues, then they will naturally seek out your opinion when they are faced with difficult or challenging issues. You can have a lot of subtle influence in that way just as a natural consequence of attempting to integrate your own philosophy into your life in a serious fashion, even without any specific attempts at "proseletyizing" towards others. Even just speaking out to say, "I don't agree" when someone says something horrible can make a difference (provided you're able to elaborate your views in a calm and rational fashion if need be.)
As Burgess correctly notes, none of this should be viewed as an onerous duty. Instead, advocacy of good ideas should be viewed as an *opportunity* to promote one's self-interest. When one has to express one's ideas to others who are honest and reasonable but not yet convinced of our views, it forces us to get a better handle of those ideas ourselves.
For instance, prior to my own public advocacy, my understanding of certain issues like "rights" was admittedly a bit "floating". It's definitely much better grounded now as result of talking and writing about this topic to my professional colleagues and to the general public (although I also acknowledge that it could still be better).
Similarly, as one sees ones ideas actually having a positive effect on others, it helps foster some rational respect towards others and helps dispel some of the pessimistic defeatism about the future of our culture that is unfortunately too prevalent amongst many Objectivists.
It's entirely possible to become a self-taught intellectual. You just have to be willing to learn about a topic/topics that genuinely interest you and be willing to articulate your ideas to others. Especially in the age of internet, there's no shortage of opportunities to practice and develop these skills. A great place to try out arguments is on the comments sections of non-Objectivist blogs or the comments sections for the online version of articles in your own newspaper. Those are also great opportunities to leave links to ARI or TOS pieces that cover the article topic in greater detail -- that way you don't have to reinvent the wheel, and you leverage the already-existing excellent content on those sites. Plus it can be fun. Even the negative responses one gets can be encouraging -- because one sees how *small* and nonintellectual our opponents are.
We may not win every local battle, and we might not necessarily win the final philosophical battle. But as Ayn Rand had pointed out repeatedly, we have the best possible allies -- reason and reality. And as Yaron Brook points out, we still have a decent (but fading) American sense of life that we can appeal to. But the clock is ticking. The rest is up to us... |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 9:52:01 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
[I have erased most of this post, after seeing Paul's excellent suggestions.]
I have offered my views here, in the August 1 and 8 posts on in-line activism: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/
I welcome further discussion--and correction if I have made errors. |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 12:31:52 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Thomas Shoebotham
E-mail: tbshoe1927(at)yahoo.com
"This bailout is just the latest in a long string of Venezuelanesque growth in government: from Medicare/Medicaid/FDA...to public schooling... to Social Security...to limitations on abortion..to special programs this..to special programs that...to subsidized industries in agriculture/autos/airlines/Savings and Loans....and now to the big kahuna bailout of October 3. The greed of capitalism? I don't think so."
I think that those of us who understand this issue should make a point about "greed" that almost no one else seems interested in noticing: the greed of the unlimited state. |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 15:41:08 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: steven
I would be in favor of a constitution that begins something like this: We value the rights of individuals above all else. Each individual is a soverign entity with the right to direct the course of their own life (and only their own life). Anyone who lives in peace and refrains from trespassing on the rights of others has fulfilled their obligation to society. No one has the right to govern the life of another person or to sacrifice another's right to self determination for their conception of how society should function. No one has the right to use force or fraud against another person except for the purpose of self defense. |
|
| Monday, October 6, 2008 at 16:03:19 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Gina Liggett
E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net
Tony, I did not lay blame *just* on the Democrats. As I outlined, it is multiple governmental factors all the way from the Pres to the Congress to the Fed to the SEC. But a critical element that Congress brushes aside is their *altruist* mentality that all Americans must somehow be *equal* in result--that government must force financial institutions to go against their own self interest and provide loans to people who can't balance their check book. They've confused *equality of opportunity* with *we must all be rich, we must all have big houses* whether we've earned it by our own effort or not. The Democrats have historically been the cruisadors for social altruism, and the Republicans are right along there with them. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
Comments
