Is here. It’s long. I thought it was pretty good. He prepared very well, having read more of my work than I could even remember. Perhaps he should have interrupted more.
Is here. It’s long. I thought it was pretty good. He prepared very well, having read more of my work than I could even remember. Perhaps he should have interrupted more.
A superb podcast, which distills and integrates many of your ideas.
I have two questions, about ‘starting from where we are.’
A) Re: A universal basic income (UBI):
Does your endorsement of a UBI square with your broad insistence that new policies should start from where we are? Presumably, your UBI would replace extant means-tested welfare programs, and also welfare programs for age groups (children and the elderly). Otherwise, a UBI would amount to little, or would require major increases in taxation. However, starting from where we are, would people support clearing the decks (i.e., eliminating welfare programs and entitlements) to fund a UBI?!
B) Re: Reason vs. tradition:
Does your disagreement with Bryan Caplan really hinge on a contrast between reason and tradition? Bryan (like Michael Huemer and Jason Brennan) grounds his arguments for radical policies in widely shared, fundamental moral intuitions, and in the best evidence from the disciplines that study human behavior. Bryan starts from where people are.
Bryan contrasts his approach to two kinds of reason run amok: (a) “crazy rationalists” (e.g., Immanuel Kant and Murray Rothbard) and (b) “conventional rationalizers” (e.g., J.S. Mill). See the typology in Bryan’s essay, “Thoughts on Jason Brennan’s The Ethics of Voting:”
https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/351/rp_351_1.pdf