To the extent this critique, it may be that Effective Altruists should focus on promoting a pro-innovation and pro-liberty mindset
It’s quite easy to say that you want to promote a pro-liberty mindset. There seems to be a lot of corporate money invested in think tanks to promote the concept of economic freedom.
What’s makes you think there a good way for EA’s to spend money in that region that isn’t already funded?
We also want some government regulation to prevent Xrisk.
I think you can make this critique more pointed. That is: “pro-liberty” is flag-waving rhetoric which makes us all stupider.
I dislike the “politics is a mind-killer” idea if it means we can’t talk about politically touchy subjects. But I entirely agree with it if it means that we should be careful to keep our language as concrete and precise as possible when we approach these subjects. I could write several paragraphs about all the ways that the term “pro-liberty” takes us in the wrong direction, but I expect that most of you can figure all that out for yourselves.
Basically, the use of a flagrant applause light to disguise confused thinking in this article is a big red flag. He is advocating a peculiar view of economic development held in some very right-wing economics circles, but economic development is not altruistic in the sense that the Effective Altruism movement means: it does not generate utility for any particular human individuals who happen to be suffering now, and in fact often generates very few “hedons” per marginal dollar invested, because the rich are well into diminishing happiness returns to marginal wealth increases.
economic development is not altruistic in the sense that the Effective Altruism movement means: it does not generate utility for any particular human individuals who happen to be suffering now
Which “capitalism”? The word is used to mean too many things.
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense that has been around since the Dutch and British East India Companies: the synergy, at the national level, of military force and private investment to meet those ambitions of the national elite that could not be funded by the hereditary conqueror class alone?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Adam Smith — an independent private business sector, enabled by government regulation to prevent collusion and fraud, but freed from nationalist mercantilism?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Marx — a globalizing economy focused around the ownership of capital by a shrinking minority class; with the non-owning class eventually reduced to possessing nothing of value but their labor, and their eventual privation through mechanized overproduction?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Ayn Rand — an economy in which the greatest human aspirations are realized through the unshackling of great men from their subjection to unworthy men, and from irrational ideologies such as altruism?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of the “first world”, the Western faction in the 20th-century Cold War, with its particular institutions, ideologies, and alliances — but particularly with its opposition to the “communist” Soviet and Chinese geopolitical axes?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of particular current political parties or forces which are opposed to social-democratic measures (e.g. national health care) and various forms of industrial regulation (e.g. environmentalism)?
Does that not create a bit of a problem, then, given that capitalism is one of the best things that humanity came up with during the last few centuries?
I don’t take that as given, particularly since taking such a statement as given tends to involve packing all the nice things about modernity into the word “capitalism” while simultaneously shoving all the nasty consequences of capitalism into some other word.
I think the claim is that capitalism increases (something like) total wealth but this does not necessarily entail increasing the wealth of each personal individually. In fact, most people could see their wealth decrease under capitalism, and some such as Piketty would (I think) say that this is the limit we are heading towards.
While I agree that capitalism is responsible for quite a few good things, at the end of the day it’s just an (extremely stable) economic system, and figuring out realistic ways to deal with some of its shortcomings seems like an incredibly important problem, though not one I know how to solve.
The rich getting ever riches doesn’t sound stable to me, since the poor periodically get fed up and hang the rich. Capitalism+redistribution could be stabler though.
I think the claim is that capitalism increases (something like) total wealth but this does not necessarily entail increasing the wealth of each personal individually.
Perhaps, but it does increase the wealth of nearly each person individually. The average American today, heck even the bottom 1% American today is wealthier then a rich ring ~200 years ago.
I could write several paragraphs about all the ways that the term “pro-liberty” takes us in the wrong direction
Do you believe that existing human societies can evolve (or made to move) in the direction of more liberty or in the direction of less liberty? Is this axis meaningful to you?
Whether liberty is a useful metric for societies is beside the point, the point was that it is disingenuous to use “pro-liberty” as a codeword for “pro-private sector”, which is exactly what you appear to aim for here. The rhetoric of “pro-liberty” was already coloured capitalist before this discussion even started; it’s difficult and risky to bargain for taking the term at face value, against collective perception. So if one means to praise the merits of free market policies, it is best if one does so honestly and openly, and if there is no way to present your viewpoint sympathetically without using buzzwords, best to leave it out of the discussion entirely.
There are a lot of separate discussions we could have about the relationship between economic freedom and overall freedom, the distribution of freedom, categories most in need of liberation, whether capitalism macht frei and so on. But they have little bearing on this discussion, and it’s best for all participants to not conflate terms for rhetorical value.
So if one means to praise the merits of free market policies, it is best if one does so honestly and openly
One of the huge benefits/consequences/advantages of free market policies is the advancement of liberty (where this term is taken at face value). I see no reason to pretend this benefit does not exist.
conflate terms for rhetorical value
I don’t see any conflating going on. Free markets and (social and political) liberty are correlated and many people have made the point that you can’t have the latter without the former. I think this correlation is an empirically observable fact. What someone thinks is “in need of liberation” is neither here nor there.
Just because you are libertarian and, understandably, freedom in general seems to you inseparable from (or sufficiently strongly correlated with) free-market capitalism does not mean that this notion is not up for debate. There are people who value freedom, who do not value laissez faire capitalism, and until there is reasonable proof that their value system is incoherent, it is and remains disingenuous to use pro-liberty to really mean pro-capitalism. And the discussion on that is its own can of worms; the concept of freedom is stupendously broad and, if you’re not being very intellectually rigorous, can be used to justify any action taken by anyone ever.
it is and remains disingenuous to use pro-liberty to really mean pro-capitalism
You are not listening: wanting the outcome of liberty (at face value) and believing that there is an empirical correlation between free markets and liberty is a reasonable and defensible position. It’s not even a bit disingenuous to be pro-liberty (at face value) and to believe that pro-capitalism is the best (some people would even say “only”) way to get there.
You seem strangely unwilling to accept the pro-liberty inclinations literally, at face value. The observation that things are complicated is not a good justification here.
Whether something is a defensible position, and whether it should be embedded in the very terms you use when more-neutral terms are available, are separate questions.
If you say “I’m pro-liberty”, and somebody else says “no you’re not, and I think we could have a better discussion if you used more specific terms”, you don’t get to say “why won’t you accept me at face value”.
you don’t get to say “why won’t you accept me at face value”.
Oh, but I do :-)
The issue in this subthread is whether the call for liberty is a terminal goal in itself or is it a proxy for some other, hidden goal (here—laissez-faire capitalism).
I disagree. I think the issue is whether “pro-liberty” is the best descriptive term in this context. Does it point to the key difference between things it describes and things it doesn’t? Does it avoid unnecessary and controversial leaps of abstraction? Are there no other terms which all discussants would recognize as valid, if not ideal? No, no, and no.
It’s quite easy to say that you want to promote a pro-liberty mindset. There seems to be a lot of corporate money invested in think tanks to promote the concept of economic freedom.
What’s makes you think there a good way for EA’s to spend money in that region that isn’t already funded?
We also want some government regulation to prevent Xrisk.
I think you can make this critique more pointed. That is: “pro-liberty” is flag-waving rhetoric which makes us all stupider.
I dislike the “politics is a mind-killer” idea if it means we can’t talk about politically touchy subjects. But I entirely agree with it if it means that we should be careful to keep our language as concrete and precise as possible when we approach these subjects. I could write several paragraphs about all the ways that the term “pro-liberty” takes us in the wrong direction, but I expect that most of you can figure all that out for yourselves.
Basically, the use of a flagrant applause light to disguise confused thinking in this article is a big red flag. He is advocating a peculiar view of economic development held in some very right-wing economics circles, but economic development is not altruistic in the sense that the Effective Altruism movement means: it does not generate utility for any particular human individuals who happen to be suffering now, and in fact often generates very few “hedons” per marginal dollar invested, because the rich are well into diminishing happiness returns to marginal wealth increases.
Like capitalism?
Which “capitalism”? The word is used to mean too many things.
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense that has been around since the Dutch and British East India Companies: the synergy, at the national level, of military force and private investment to meet those ambitions of the national elite that could not be funded by the hereditary conqueror class alone?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Adam Smith — an independent private business sector, enabled by government regulation to prevent collusion and fraud, but freed from nationalist mercantilism?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Marx — a globalizing economy focused around the ownership of capital by a shrinking minority class; with the non-owning class eventually reduced to possessing nothing of value but their labor, and their eventual privation through mechanized overproduction?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of Ayn Rand — an economy in which the greatest human aspirations are realized through the unshackling of great men from their subjection to unworthy men, and from irrational ideologies such as altruism?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of the “first world”, the Western faction in the 20th-century Cold War, with its particular institutions, ideologies, and alliances — but particularly with its opposition to the “communist” Soviet and Chinese geopolitical axes?
Do you mean “capitalism” in the sense of particular current political parties or forces which are opposed to social-democratic measures (e.g. national health care) and various forms of industrial regulation (e.g. environmentalism)?
I mean capitalism as the empirically observed economic organization of the world’s richest countries for the past couple of centuries.
If by that you mean, “capitalism does not generate utility for any particular human individuals” and so on, yes.
Does that not create a bit of a problem, then, given that capitalism is one of the best things that humanity came up with during the last few centuries?
I don’t take that as given, particularly since taking such a statement as given tends to involve packing all the nice things about modernity into the word “capitalism” while simultaneously shoving all the nasty consequences of capitalism into some other word.
I think the claim is that capitalism increases (something like) total wealth but this does not necessarily entail increasing the wealth of each personal individually. In fact, most people could see their wealth decrease under capitalism, and some such as Piketty would (I think) say that this is the limit we are heading towards.
While I agree that capitalism is responsible for quite a few good things, at the end of the day it’s just an (extremely stable) economic system, and figuring out realistic ways to deal with some of its shortcomings seems like an incredibly important problem, though not one I know how to solve.
The rich getting ever riches doesn’t sound stable to me, since the poor periodically get fed up and hang the rich. Capitalism+redistribution could be stabler though.
Perhaps, but it does increase the wealth of nearly each person individually. The average American today, heck even the bottom 1% American today is wealthier then a rich ring ~200 years ago.
Heh. It’s just the system which achieved this :-)
I’ll agree with that, if you agree it’s also one of the worst.
Do you believe that existing human societies can evolve (or made to move) in the direction of more liberty or in the direction of less liberty? Is this axis meaningful to you?
Whether liberty is a useful metric for societies is beside the point, the point was that it is disingenuous to use “pro-liberty” as a codeword for “pro-private sector”, which is exactly what you appear to aim for here. The rhetoric of “pro-liberty” was already coloured capitalist before this discussion even started; it’s difficult and risky to bargain for taking the term at face value, against collective perception. So if one means to praise the merits of free market policies, it is best if one does so honestly and openly, and if there is no way to present your viewpoint sympathetically without using buzzwords, best to leave it out of the discussion entirely.
There are a lot of separate discussions we could have about the relationship between economic freedom and overall freedom, the distribution of freedom, categories most in need of liberation, whether capitalism macht frei and so on. But they have little bearing on this discussion, and it’s best for all participants to not conflate terms for rhetorical value.
You may be confused—I’m not the OP.
One of the huge benefits/consequences/advantages of free market policies is the advancement of liberty (where this term is taken at face value). I see no reason to pretend this benefit does not exist.
I don’t see any conflating going on. Free markets and (social and political) liberty are correlated and many people have made the point that you can’t have the latter without the former. I think this correlation is an empirically observable fact. What someone thinks is “in need of liberation” is neither here nor there.
Just because you are libertarian and, understandably, freedom in general seems to you inseparable from (or sufficiently strongly correlated with) free-market capitalism does not mean that this notion is not up for debate. There are people who value freedom, who do not value laissez faire capitalism, and until there is reasonable proof that their value system is incoherent, it is and remains disingenuous to use pro-liberty to really mean pro-capitalism. And the discussion on that is its own can of worms; the concept of freedom is stupendously broad and, if you’re not being very intellectually rigorous, can be used to justify any action taken by anyone ever.
You are not listening: wanting the outcome of liberty (at face value) and believing that there is an empirical correlation between free markets and liberty is a reasonable and defensible position. It’s not even a bit disingenuous to be pro-liberty (at face value) and to believe that pro-capitalism is the best (some people would even say “only”) way to get there.
You seem strangely unwilling to accept the pro-liberty inclinations literally, at face value. The observation that things are complicated is not a good justification here.
Whether something is a defensible position, and whether it should be embedded in the very terms you use when more-neutral terms are available, are separate questions.
If you say “I’m pro-liberty”, and somebody else says “no you’re not, and I think we could have a better discussion if you used more specific terms”, you don’t get to say “why won’t you accept me at face value”.
Oh, but I do :-)
The issue in this subthread is whether the call for liberty is a terminal goal in itself or is it a proxy for some other, hidden goal (here—laissez-faire capitalism).
I disagree. I think the issue is whether “pro-liberty” is the best descriptive term in this context. Does it point to the key difference between things it describes and things it doesn’t? Does it avoid unnecessary and controversial leaps of abstraction? Are there no other terms which all discussants would recognize as valid, if not ideal? No, no, and no.
Would you like to suggest a better term for the subject of this subthread, then?