I reviewed Kevin Vallier’s Trust in a Polarized Age.
Vallier is saying that we are constrained to living among people with divergent values, and in that setting the most feasible libertarian society is one which sometimes bends libertarian principles to the popular democratic will.
This struck me as an argument for what Tyler Cowen calls “state-capacity libertarianism.” In a pluralistic society, many people will have expectations for state interventions. It is better to have state intervention well-executed. Government failure will only lead people to cede more power to government in the hope of seeing improvement.
Arnold, you should see the immediate problem here for what it is: scale (aka specialization)
People are not ‘constrained’ to living among people with divergent values. No, although it might not be possible to have an entire nation of people who share the same values; but certainly a household, and perhaps a neighborhood, city, county, or state.
Right now, we have a large industry focused on convincing people that they do not share the values of parents, spouses, etc, and that further, they should impose their lack of shared values on the people around them using the unbridled power of the State to intrude.
In a truly plural society, in which not only individuals, but families, and neighborhoods, etc are a diverse – a plural society, in which Maryland would be free to be Catholic, Rhode Island might be pagan, and who knows what economic systems might exist – nobody would have much expectation of Federal intervention in their lives, because that power would be ‘out there somewhere’ negotiating the terms of relationships between larger governmental units. How intrusive the local ‘government’ is depends partially on local choices about how authority is partitioned among market, family, church, government, and other organizations.
Values aren’t really all that divergent. It all sounds good but in the end, it doesn’t rea1lly explain anything. Perhaps I have the advantage of watching a corporate trainer in “values based ethics” pretty much throwing sand in his own gears in real time.
Having been given ( presumably black ) mirrors, we experience the narcissism of small differences. As median income butts up against the summed costs of education , healthcare and housing, differentiation-through-living-arrangement declines , leaving more artificial and ephemeral methods of differentiation.
The state, the church, the family – none have that much to offer now.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle ” – Orwell. We might have to look up from the phone to see that.
I truly appreciate Arnold’s guarded optimism here that there might be a bridge possible to resolve our differences in a productive manner. I certainly hope that he is correct.
However, at a practical level, my family is betting against this reconciliation and will do everything possible to minimize the risks of these contentious times. After watching what happened to the SF Bay Area and California generally, we have already moved to a red state. Absolutely no regrets; the quality of life is significantly better. If needed, we won’t hesitate to move again to somewhere that the crazy left finds uninhabitable. Courage > trust.
Sounds like being able to freely move from any state to the red state of your choice is important to you Hans.
That right will be much better preserved if America doesn’t split into a blue country and a red country where the red country is hostile to immigration. I’m glad you are happy in Texas and want to make sure you continue to be free to move where you please.
Instead of wasting your time trolling me :), please take a moment to complete your FIT scorecard. I was actually curious to see your picks. I was hoping that more left of center or centrist folks would have responded vs. the typical libertarian stuff.
I have no intention of filling out the whole thing Hans but I will give you a few names of thinkers I like who are in the mix. I was not familiar with Coleman Hughes before Arnold mentioned him but am now quickly burning through his old podcasts and am already a big fan.
Tyler Cowan would be high on my list. Also Matt Yglesias. I like Sam Harris and Matt Taibbi a lot but they don’t really qualify as far as being charitable with opponents and/or open to changing their minds. I like Scott Sumner, David Henderson, Chris Wallace, Fareed Zakaria, Daniel Kahneman. James Flynn would have qualified if he hadn’t died very recently.
One of the reason I read this blog is that it’s a good place to learn about thinkers I should be following but haven’t been.
This was perfect, thank you.
A little surprised that Haidt didn’t make your list. I’ve definitely got him in my top 5 and he is definitely not right of center. Care to comment?
If you haven’t found the Dave Rubin interview with Coleman Hughes yet on YouTube, it might be worth some of your time. And, if you get that far, check out the first Rubin interview with Larry Elder. Elder completely PWND Rubin and actually changed his mind on several issues (and Rubin readily admits this, which actually raised his credibility to my eyes).
I would probably be the world’s worst marriage counselor, but the first question that I’d ask my clients is “Why not just end it already? What precisely is the point of staying together?”
I hope that this inquiry would generate an honest ledger of the debits and credits. Sometimes I think we tend overemphasize the negatives and take the positives for granted. Hopefully this could get teased out as part the process so that a reasonable decision could be reached by both sides.
That’s really all I’m asking in the context of blue vs. red. Do you really view me and my team as domestic terrorists? Any positives to possibly offset this? Is it time to explore other options?
Hans,
You are right about Haidt. I should have remembered to include him and didn’t. If I attempted the formal list I’m sure I would also forget others I’d regret leaving off or who should be included that I’m simply not familiar with…which is one of the reasons I don’t have much enthusiasm for completing the assignment. I will check out those interviews though. Thanks for the tip.
Of course I don’t view you as a domestic terrorist. I don’t view either the red or blue team as a bunch of individuals all having the same characteristics. I don’t think there is any question that very alarming and growing minorities of voters in both parties have authoritarian tendencies and a willingness to consider or tolerate violence. I think the voters are even less rational than the politicians and that, due to gerrymandering, the whole radicalization process is increasingly driven by the the small percentage of Americans who are primary voters.
I don’t think there is any question that Trump was the most authoritarian President in American history. We have never before had a President announce ahead of time that the only election result he would view as legitimate was one where he won. We have never before had a President call for virtually the entire leadership of the political opposition be locked up and tried for treason. We have never before had a President who was friendlier toward the world’s dictators than the leaders of democracies. Luckily his laziness and incompetence kept him from achieving the kind of power held by the leaders he admires. Him selling himself as a conservative values guy was just another con. He was a Democrat half his life and would have been happy to take that route to power if it had been easier.
Look, I understand that it doesn’t normally make sense to be a one issue voter in a two party system. It always comes down to what is a deal breaker for you. If the Dems had nominated Bernie I would have voted third party. I think you should have done the same.
I think both the political left and the political right in this country desperately need each other to check the worst impulses and policy ideas of each other. Two countries where each got to be unchecked in their’s would get bad result in both.
Trump was, by far, the least authoritarian president in my entire lifetime. He started no wars. He passed no authoritarian laws. His signature policy bill was something that let me keep more of my own money.
Meanwhile, you party locked down our entire society and told people they shouldn’t leave their homes or see their family.
The facts are against you. It’s all mood affiliation.
“I don’t think there is any question that Trump was the most authoritarian President in American history.”
I’m gonna be a horrible debater for you on this topic since I basically agreed with you for the first 2 years of the Trump presidency. Please have some fun with asdf instead.
Only thing I would add is that I had faith that the institutional safeguards inherent in our governmental structure would prevent the worst of whatever Trump really wanted (which magically evolved from day to day). And, the left seriously hurt its credibility on the silly Russian conspiracy stuff, which really undermined any valid concerns that they might have raised.
But, the orange boogeyman is gone (for now). Time to move on to something else?
Even in Slovakia, Trump-haters rely on ad hominem dislike of style and words, rather than a focus on policy. He tweeted “something bad”.
Look at your list:
“announce” something bad on election
“call” something bad on treason
“friendlier” [based on PR words, not noted] with some bad world leaders
“lazy” “incompetent” – reasons he failed to do the bad stuff you claim he wanted to do.
You ASSuME he’s bad and look in a biased way to show it, rather than judging results.
Trump-supporters like me judge him on his actual policies, and the results of those. Which were far better, in most areas, than I expected or predicted in 2016.
He was a Democrat half his life or more, but he always loved America and the American Dream.
The Dem Party moved away from him and is rapidly institutionalizing a hatred against America, with gov’t required indoctrination sessions.
See Biden’s recent military EO.
I’d rather defend Trump’s policy results than what I expect to be Biden’s policy results.
On Trump’s bad character, he’s almost certainly on his last wife, but he never claimed to be a great example of a faithful husband – and he wasn’t, tho possibly less unfaithful than Epstein’s friend Pres. Bill Clinton.
Hans,
>—“Only thing I would add is that I had faith that the institutional safeguards inherent in our governmental structure would prevent the worst of whatever Trump really wanted (which magically evolved from day to day).”
The damage he did to those institutional safeguards is something you will come to view as much more regrettable when we get a President you don’t like. Norms take a lot longer to build than destroy.
The Trump Administration took the legal position that a sitting President can’t even be legally investigated while he is in office. Your head would have exploded if Clinton had ever tried that defense. In the Trumpian view, impeachment was the only legal response to opposing suspected Presidential crimes but that impeachment should be conducted without an investigation or evidence presented at the trial…and it should be viewed as a treasonous coup attempt.
>—“And, the left seriously hurt its credibility on the silly Russian conspiracy stuff, which really undermined any valid concerns that they might have raised.”
The Democrats concluded they did NOT have enough evidence to impeach on conspiracy with Russia. Mueller was appointed by Trump’s own administration with broad approval from Republicans at the time. The Mueller Report (Did you read it or just accept Barr’s summary?)was chock full of incidents of obstruction of justice that Republicans would easily have found impeachable had they been committed by any Democrat. Recall that many of them eagerly impeached Clinton for merely lying about a private sexual affair between consenting adults.
>—“But, the orange boogeyman is gone (for now).”
If by “gone” you mean still by far the most influential influential figure in the Republican Party.
[Trump is] still by far the most influential influential figure in the Republican Party.
Now that’s an interesting question. Many Republicans still love him, though a major reason is that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and “the left” loudly hates him.
But lots of Republicans always had problems with him, his bad manners and lots of embarrassing actions. And now many blame him for the loss of the Senate, with his weird actions before the run-off.
>—“Now that’s an interesting question. ”
Except that it’s neither a question nor a disagreement with your other observations Roger.
The question is whether Trump is “still by far the most influential influential figure in the Republican Party.” I am not at all sure. Though the answer may be nobody has much influence, including Trump, but Trump has the most.
I figure if America dissolved, there would be an “American Union” with a common currency and free trade and travel between states, like the EU, ideally before it got bloated. That’s the sensible way to do dissolution..
Yes, thank you. I feel like these debates always devolve into some sort of weird antebellum Mason-Dixon thing as if the history from 1860 is somehow relevant to today. The truth couldn’t be more different. I think of this as Brexit, but for North America. The conversation is worth having even if the likelihood is remote. It helps to frame values and desires.
>—“That’s the sensible way to do dissolution.”
So then, in an atmosphere where the two sides find it difficult to agree on anything, we should just assume they will agree to do this in the way you think is most sensible.
And this would be on the most dangerous and controversial issue of all – the issue that caused a devastating Civil War which decided the issue against secession.
That’s an impressive amount of hand waving and goal post moving. A common currency is especially problematic because monetary policy and the purposes that monetary expansion should be used for are one of the main disagreements between red and blue states.
Almost equally contentious are immigration and trade policy. What would be the point of tightening up your state borders while allowing free travel and trade from states with the very border policies and trade policies you oppose?
>—“like the EU, ideally before it got bloated.”
So then like the E.U. just before it stated to fall apart.
In the book Vallier also points to more substantive factors girding trust: “Productive policy must not undermine sustainable economic growth… not merely because persons have primary rights to income, wealth, and capital, but because the principle of sustainable improvements requires that the economy be shaped so as to allow economic growth and to ensure that the benefits of growth redound to all.”
That war has been lost.
The opposition forces of stakeholder capitalism, eco-millenarianism, hate-on-whitey as foundational doctrine, high taxes, destroying middle class home equity, regulatory fervor, indoctrination as education, pro-Iranian mullah foreign policy, and USA troops as security guards in perpetuity for Chinese mining interests in Afghanistan, won.
And they won forever: the absence of anything approaching even third world standards of protection of electoral integrity means no hope for democratic discipline or reform.
The USA is now Venezuela. In 20 years illegal USA immigrants will be trying to sneak across borders into Nigeria and other countries that will still have functioning oil refineries.
But I am no FIT and hopefully have the pessimism dialed up too high. Maybe Lee Smith (FIT) offers a more optimistic third way: humble vassalage to the CCP:
“American institutions lost any sense of circumspection or shame about cashing checks from the Chinese Communist Party, no matter what horrors the CCP visited on the prisoners of its slave labor camps and no matter what threat China’s spy services and the People’s Liberation Army might pose to national security.”
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-thirty-tyrants
It seems fair to ask whether polarization is just the divide between CCP loyalists and those not yet on the payroll. It seems clear which side the people peddling “if we just could have a trustworthy elite” like Levin and Gurri are on.
>—“The USA is now Venezuela.”
Now there is the most vivid example of Poe’s Law I’ve seen in a while.
OK. Fair enough. Possibly guilty. The average citizen in the USA is still much better off than the average Venezuelan
Points in mitigation:
– USA establishment elites calling for unseating of over 120 elected members of Congress;
– Movement to pack courts with partisan hacks;
– Potential of rich energy endowment being mindlessly squandered;
– Establishment elites calling for extrajudicial drone strikes on USA dissidents on USA citizens on USA soil;
– Military being screened for personal loyalty to Biden;
– Machine Gun Pelosi calling for crew-serviced machine guns to wipe out mostly peaceful protesters;
– Nuclear Nancy attempting to insert herself in the nuclear launch control chain process;
– Capital is a militarized zone;
– Wide infringement of basic human rights such as freedom of thought and speech;
– No credible path forward out of current relative levels of impoverishment;
– Pro-Iranian foreign policy;
– China heavily invested in establishment;
– Etc.
Forgot Chuck Schumer threatening the Supreme Court.
> https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-thirty-tyrants
Woo boy that was quite a read. Ty for the link. Always nice to revisit the time Dianne Feinstein was gracious enough to contextualize Tiananmen Square for us westerners.
The war is not yet fully lost – partly because the victors / econ winners are PR smart enough, mostly, to avoid claiming victory.
But that’s also why there hasn’t been any “last ditch” red-state battles. Most Republicans are still “fighting” against the lousy Dem policies – and many are already predicting a big Rep win in the House come 2022.
Which seems likely to me EXCEPT if there are lots of mail-in ballots and cheating.
“It is better to have state intervention well-executed. Government failure will only lead people to cede more power to government in the hope of seeing improvement.”
It seems like either way you slice it the answer is more government for a lot of people. “See? Government CAN solve problems, let’s solve more of them.” Or, “See? Not nearly enough power in government to face these monumental and UNPRECEDENTED problems.”
The government is currently not letting me buy a vaccine, not letting me buy an instant at home COVID test, and not letting me send my kids to school.
Certainly, that is a lot of “capacity”. The list of things they prevent me from doing is quite vast. They just haven’t solved any problems with it.
Maybe time to find some c-c-c-courage and move to a state that supports your values?
None of what you’re complaining about is a problem in Texas. Daughter has been in-person at school since August and vaccination rates are doing quite well.
https://youtu.be/LEEyijiTW-I
A month or so ago, Arnold posted a dear high school senior letter. In it, he recommended doing a road trip to explore the U.S. What I’m recommending here is something similar, but on a longer time scale. Explore each red state on a somewhat permanent basis until it turns blue and then explore another red one to settle in. Rinse and repeat. You may not like this approach, but you got anything better?
Moving would cost me close to $100k and my wife would lose her job and partnership in the firm. She would likely be unable to find something that would allow permanent work from home post pandemic given her industry which her current employer is going to allow, which is a huge quality of life hit for us. We’d have to move somewhere in commuting range of a big city, which would be more blue than were we live now, and she would see our kids a lot less.
It would also be a huge, physical, health, and mental burden for my parents who live with us.
It’s a large sacrifice and for a benefit as nebulous as “living in a red state”. Any common sense look at the pluses and minuses just don’t add up. You would have to really overvalue “living in a red state” in a world where blue America can more or less tell you what to do no matter where you live.
I still could not buy a vaccine in Texas. According to the vaccine tracker, my state has inoculated 8.9% vs 7.2% for Texas. The national average is also better than Texas. You’re 65+ as % of vaccinations is 43% vs 37% for my state, a little better but not much different. I should move to Israel, or at least Florida.
It is nice that they are letting your kids go to school though.
“Explore each red state on a somewhat permanent basis until it turns blue and then explore another red one to settle in.”
If Texas turns blue, I don’t think there are any red states left. I also doubt that in such a scenario that there would be many states rights to speak of if leftists had that level of control over the federal government.
Quite frankly, running away from your problem until there is nowhere left to run isn’t “courage.”
“Quite frankly, running away from your problem until there is nowhere left to run isn’t ‘courage.’”
That’s right, it’s about maximizing quality of life and net cash flows. But, it takes courage to make the leap…else you wouldn’t need your unnecessarily long winded whining about your current state of affairs.
BTW – we don’t see it as running away from our problems at all. It’s just an extended road trip through some of the most beautiful and underrated parts of the country. And, we are loving it. First stop, Texas…next stop (if needed)…tbd. You come up with something better in Israel, then let me know. Florida is awesome and we are visiting in June after a wonderful stay last August. You should definitely check it out. #DeSantis 2024
My parents, 75+, got vaccinated several weeks ago in California.
“That’s right, it’s about maximizing quality of life and net cash flows.”
Making massive personal sacrifices for vague and shifting improvements of dubious value doesn’t maximize anything.
“BTW – we don’t see it as running away from our problems at all. ”
We all have to rationalize our decisions whether its true or not.
The NYTimes published this article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/opinion/vaccine-inequality-Alabama.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
—–
This woman is 39 and healthy. She feels sort of guilty about getting the vaccine when there are obviously more deserving people, but she gets it anyway.
Instead of making a sacrifice or lobbying for a change to our vaccine priority system (her union no doubt pushed for her to be at this spot in the line) she rages at people for going to church or not wearing masks wherever she thinks they should. She was able to get over rich black athletes saying they want the vaccine first. Rage can’t last too long for them.
She makes sure to note how terrible she and others are for being white, even though the same vaccine distribution priorities that got her her shot and that her cultural and political allies advocated for are why middle aged degree holding white woman aligned with the left are the winners in the vaccine game by a long shot.
Isn’t that the essence of “trust” these days. A woman that advocated for and benefited from a system that prioritized her above drastically more needy individuals who would likely have been willing to pay more then her for the vaccine if allowed covers for her own guilt by publishing an op-ed about how terrible OTHER white people are and her hating them makes it OK for her to do what she did no matter who it hurts.
I guess I could move to deep deep red Alabama and have my kids get taught by her.
“We all have to rationalize our decisions whether its true or not.”
That sounds about right. Back at you.
For our situation it made absolute sense from an income and quality of life perspective. Where the courage comes in is to actually make the leap since running the theoretical numbers is always going to be on a risk adjusted basis and attempting to measure quality of life is, well, difficult and subjective.
You gotta do what you gotta do and I’m not questioning your decision based on your specific facts and circumstances. However, I’m gonna continue to complain about your whining. Suck it up…utopia is not an option.
In God We Trust –
all others must pay cash.
On Thursday, 28 Jan, the DTCC upped the collateral needed by the buyers of GME, so as to stop the retail buyers from Robinhood that were causing a gamma squeeze on rich HFs (hedge funds). Not allowing buyers naturally resulted in a huge price drop on Friday, when many shorts needed to be closed out.
The Gamestop / WallstreetBets stuff was a shot against HF shorters, and we see the mostly secretive DTCC (Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation) “cheating”.
When the DTCC was established in 1999, it combined the functions of the Depository Trust Company (DTC) and the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC).1 The NSCC is currently a subsidiary of the DTCC.
These guys broke the spirit of their own anti-price manipulation rules. It looks like it will be called technically legal – plus the 1000s of retail buyers will be investigated for price manipulation rather than the dozen or so big HF shorters.
The gov’t protecting the rich cheaters. Not so different from 2008 TARP bailout for billionaires.
Ain’t gonna increase trust THAT way.
Kevin Vallier muddies the waters by changing the meanings of everyday words. Two clarifications:
1) Trust.
Behaviorally, ‘to trust an individual or organization’ means to refrain from taking precautions in interactions with the person or organization. Psychologically, ‘to trust an individual or organization’ means to believe that the person or organization is competent (ability) and honest (motivation). Failures of trust can be about incompetence or guile (opportunism) or both.
Disagreement need not involve mistrust. Person A might disagree sharply with Person B about goals, even if A believes that B is competent and honest. Think of commonplace phrases like “reasonable people may differ” and “honest disagreement” and “let’s agree to disagree.”
Psychologically, polarization tends to inject mistrust in all disagreement; and mistrust escalates disagreement into polarization. Bad equilibrium.
Mistrust makes people either take costly precautions (monitoring, surveillance, written contracts) in interactions, or disengage from interactions.
2) Constitutionalism and democracy.
Constitutions are stable frameworks for liberty and democracy. Constitutions specify machinery of government (branches, powers, checks, balances) and individual rights (liberties, and protected behaviors that enable democratic participation). Democracy is the sphere of individual political equality and majority rule.
David Hume argued that framers of constitutions should act as if people, and especially political parties, can’t be trusted:
“It is, therefore, a just political maxim, that every man must be supposed a knave: Though at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact. But to satisfy us on this head, we may consider, that men are generally more honest in their private than in their public capacity, and will go greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. Honour is a great check upon mankind: But where a considerable body of men act together, this check is, in a great measure, removed; since a man is sure to be approved of by his own party, for what promotes the common interest; and he soon learns to despise the clamours of adversaries.” — “Of the Independency of Parliament,” Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, Part I, Essay 6.
A wise constitution must assume untrustworthiness, but healthy societies depend on trust and trustworthiness.
Mission creep undermines government competence. (Competence is a key object of trust.) If ‘state capacity’ is crucial, then wise citizenries and governments must exercise restraint against mission creep, and focus narrowly on (a) swift, fair, predictable justice, (b) efficient infrastructure, (c) public health (pollution, contagion), and (d) basic safety nets that don’t create perverse incentives — always asking whether government or market has the comparative advantage.
Re:
“This leads me to suggest that Vallier’s social trust and political trust are not sufficient to form cohesive associations. For people to collaborate, they also need to believe in the value of the collaborative effort. This might be called ‘enterprise trust’ or a shared sense of mission or a common myth. In order to have a durable marriage, the partners must agree that the marriage itself is an exalted endeavor. In order to have an effective business, the employees need to believe in the mission of the firm. Finally, citizens must believe that their nation-state has a noble purpose.” — Arnold Kling, review of Kevin Vallier
Collaborative effort based on a common myth is a two-edged sword. Nationalism, especially, can wreak havoc and destruction.
It’s safer to base large organizations on sound incentives.
Healthy societies have many dimensions of status and excellence, so that every person can shine in some way. For example, a middle-aged neighbor has a blue-collar job at a shaky manufacturing firm, and lacks viable exit options, but takes pride in looking out for the neighborhood any way he can. Neighbors appreciate his efforts and call him ‘the mayor.’
“Nationalism, especially, can wreak havoc and destruction.”
Isn’t this merely a Tribal-state version of Tribalism?
My tribe is better than yours … therefore we can take your stuff, by force, and it’s good.
… therefore we can tell you what to do, for your own good, and it’s good.
Since WW II, none of the big mass killings were “nationalistic”.
China’s Great Leap Forward & Cultural Revolution
Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge ~25% anti-educated (anti-elite?) genocide
Hutu genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda.
Each tribal killing included dehumanizing the other tribe.
Not so different from what Democrats seem to be trying to do to the Trump-supporting “tribe”.
Hard to distinguish “my nation is better than your’s” and “my ethnic group is better than your’s”. Hitler’s German People (das Volk) included a lot more people than lived within the 1933 boundaries of Germany (and didn’t include some who did). Hutus and Tutsis get called different ethnic groups living in the same country.
Prior to WW I, the Austro-Hungarian census cataloged every inhabitant as one of eleven nationalities, what we would call an ethnic group. Informed opinion said that each nationality was actually a nation, which deserved its own exclusive piece of territory. The peace treaties acted on that sentiment.