This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think thats a questionable mash-up. Neoliberalism started out with 1) and 2). In recent times, it means something more wonkish/technocratic, with lots of pigouvian taxes and subsidies, and generally in favour of redistribution. This is because the name stuck to an academic tradition more so than an ethical one, and the people who went into economics shifted over time.
Since OP mentioned Milton Friedman as the defining figure of neoliberalism—a characterization I mostly agree with, mind you—here’s what I think Friedman would have to say about the aforementioned 5 points:
Basically agree; Friedman did write a bit about social libertarianism here and there (in particular, I remember his opposition to the draft) but his focus was of course on free-market economics—which he saw as necessary but not sufficient for a liberal (in the European sense) political order.
Agree, but perhaps object to the somewhat-pejorative term “trickle-down economics”
Agree in principle, though in practice would be against so-called “free trade agreements” that are full of un-free pork-barrel incentives (see also: Friedman’s famous support of a negative income tax in theory, but opposition to the EITC in practice, on the grounds that he wanted to simultaneously get rid of all other federal welfare)
Mostly disagree, with perhaps some exceptions for national defense and alleviating the worst kinds of poverty (though on the latter point, he favored direct cash transfers). Certainly Friedman would not be in favor of industrial policy.
This would have Friedman spinning in his grave. The only remotely similar thing that Friedman would support is the government not allowing a massive contraction of the money supply, so as to avoid repeating the mistake of the Great Depression. But this is a far cry from “bailouts for companies”.
I’m not claiming that these 5 points are a bad definition of neoliberalism as it stands today, necessarily. It’s just that the definition of neoliberalism has shifted in a more interventionist and less free-market direction since Friedman’s time, due in large part, I think, to the kinds of personalities that go into academic economics and the attendant wonkish/“soft paternalist” culture that the field has adopted.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link