I read this op-ed today:
One word response: wow. I seldom read something so openly calling for restricting liberty. I have heard of asking government to do this or that, and people can think that is find because they don't see government as coercive, but to outright oppose autonomy is a breath of fresh air: thank you, dear statist, for being honest. My favorite statist thus far is this psychologist.
The technocrat central planners are here, and they're ready to run our lives for our own betterment, whether we want them to, or not.
It’s because such a ban suggests that sometimes we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff, and this has become, in contemporary American politics, highly controversial, no matter how trivial the particular issue.
If only we could stop these statists from doing the really foolish stuff. And I love the trivial comment. If it were so trivial, why did they go to all the trouble implementing it? Because either it's not trivial, or it's the first of further more serious encroachment.
Agression undermines the victims ability to reason and waists the time of the agressor. Every act of agression undermines human cooperation. Paternalism just turns into stupid people being micromanaged by exhausted people (who also aren't producing anything).
Regulators are subject to every criticism that the average American is. If I am capable of irrational decision making, so is someone in power. Expanding potentially irrational people's ability to control the lives of others is not a good ideas.
I also love how a liberal is going to appeal to the irrationality of the populace in hopes that people will vote for proper leadership.. The way in which they express elitism and populism at the same time has always confounded me.
I seldom read something so openly calling for restricting liberty
Have you ever been to Manhatten? It's the progressive-technocrat capital of the USA. From my 6 mo. experience living there "People" (to use a generous term) talk like this all the time.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
The way in which they express elitism and populism at the same time has always confounded me.
It's all tones, flavors, and moods and how to manipulate them,
And in the case of all or most political situations, you're on their paradigm: you can't out-argue, out-moralize, out-nihilize, out-sentimentalize, out-journalize, etc etc...this ought to be seen as self evident You can insurrect, but that's about it
I am not sure what you mean by insurrection, but I think I agree. People like that don't want to change their minds, and they don't care. However I think its important for those who can change their minds to know about alternatives to their control.
All I can do is try to show people there is a better way by living that way, not by pleading with the enemy.
that's roughly all I meant
Her thesis is fatally flawed from the start, as it depends on value being objective.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Her argument is just a bunch of generalities; it's the same way that "psychics" draw people from the crowd based on carefully generalized statements. For being a philosophy professor at Bowdoin, I'd expect a more detailed analysis. Maybe that's what she's done in her book, but if that's the case, why publish such fallible material?
Also, is it normal that there are no comments/no opportunity to comment on this article? I didn't see it.