Sing for your supper, Masonomists

Bryan Caplan never fails to demonstrate why the philosophy of libertarians and other conservatives is ‘kick ’em when they’re down.’

If, on the other hand, you’re poor and powerless, standing up for yourself is normally disastrous. If you have little to offer, you have to rely on the goodwill of others. And one of the surest ways to make a bonfire of your accumulated goodwill is to embrace a bad attitude.

The tendency that advertises itself as the philosophy of self-interest is more accurately advertised as the philosophy of ‘know your place.’ Kochsuckers.

About n8chz

पृथ्वी की उच्च किराया जिले में उद्यमिता कौशल अभाव
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Sing for your supper, Masonomists

  1. human mathematics says:

    lul

  2. ricketson says:

    Caplan’s analysis of reality may be correct (you have to pick your fights wisely, and high-status people will win more of their fights), but his prescription is completely asinine.

    First, I don’t think that high status (i.e. professional) people are particularly meek. However, I do think that they may be more careful about how and when they assert themselves. If you want to get ahead, pick your fights carefully (i.e. don’t get caught up in your emotions) and choose strategies that will minimize the disturbance caused by your fight (and the potential loss of reputation). I’ve met people from working class backgrounds who extoll the virtues of pride-driven and loud self-assertion (as opposed to strategic and subtle self assertion), and explicitly describe this as a “working class” ethic (as opposed to a professional class ethic).

    More generally, his prescription illustrates a common conservative fallacy: “if one person did it, then anyone can do it; and if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it”. Neither of those statements are true, yet conservatives regularly conflate these three issues (one, any, all).

    In fact, his observation that high-status people will win more fights is a perfect illustration of rankism, and why the status quo will necessarily produce a dominance hierarchy that has little to do with merit.

    p.s. by “conflict” and “fights” I am including things as mundane as negotiating over wages, where there is still a conflict of interest even though both sides will likely walk away happy at the end.

  3. n8chz says:

    More generally, his prescription illustrates a common conservative fallacy: “if one person did it, then anyone can do it; and if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it”. Neither of those statements are true, yet conservatives regularly conflate these three issues (one, any, all).

    What??? You mean it’s all a Ponzi scheme?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s