Sender: Michael Strong
Subject: Re: An Ideological Turing Test featuring arguments against Raddatz's "Cap and Priori
Date: Sun, May 18, 2014
Msg: 100992

Michael,

First of all, I want to thank you for your sustained, respectful, and enthusiastic embrace of the transpartisan cause.

Second, my perception is that your amendments to my attempts to pass the Ideological Turing Test were of the nature of adding nuance and refinements to the positions I outlined rather than fundamental disagreements. That is, based on your amendments, I'd be inclined to give myself a "passing grade," so to speak, on the "test," while respecting that you added considerable philosophical and practical detail to the relatively blunt and simplistic "progressive" statements that I had provided.

Third, I would be interested in seeing you or other progressives on this list attempt to "pass" an Ideological Turing Test, especially for a "bleeding heart libertarian" perspective,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding-heart_libertarianism

Why might a "bleeding heart libertarian" support Raddatz's "cap-and-prioritize" proposal?

Michael Strong CEO and Chief Visionary Officer FLOW, Inc. www.flowidealism.org

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Michael Briand wrote:

> Thank you, Michael S., for this careful construction of a rationale. I > can imagine someone subscribing to it, but (for myself, at least) I would > amend it somewhat. > > 1. First, I don't believe "it is (a) self-evident to a moral human being > that (b) once one's basic needs have been met, (c) most of the rest of > one's wealth and income should be devoted to (d) helping those in need." > (a) No propositions of any sort are "self-evident," though we often > (because of Godel's proof) have to treat them as such in order to get an > argument off the ground. That's why ethical argument is so difficult to > initiate and sustain--we can't agree on a starting point. > (b) People have many basic needs, so the question of the proper > threshold beyond which anyone ought to consider the consequences of his or > her self-regarding actions is a matter that must be settled through > dialogue and deliberation. For example, whether or not Rawls was right > about the principles of justice he argued that persons in the Original > Position would select, the derivation of those principles was > *hypothetical*, not *actual*. (See, e.g., Janna Thompson, *Discourse and > Knowledge*.) If you feel you need the gratification that owning a > 200-foot yacht provides, I have a duty to engage you in discussion about > that need and how you can best go about having it satisfied (and how I > might help you do so). > (c) "Most" is arbitrary and (probably) excessive. The question of > what one owes her society and compatriots should be taken up in the context > of a joint consideration of (i) the benefits each of us receives from our > way of life, its practices and institutions (including markets), etc.; > (ii) the consequences for everyone of allowing them to fall into > disrepair; and (iii) the responsibility each of us bears for contributing > to their upkeep. > (d) Devoting "most" to "those in need" suggests simple > redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality of wealth. I don't think > it's that simple. Who needs assistance, of what type, for what purpose, > when, and in what form are highly relevant considerations that have > implications for the nature and extent of anyone's responsibility for > contributing to the upkeep of institutions, practices, infrastructure, and > the like that benefit everyone, even if only very indirectly. > > 2. Second, it can certainly be the case that "government is too large" > or that "government spends too much." But in relation to what? The > problem with the "cap" portion of "cap and prioritize" is not its > artificiality but its suggestion either that there is some "absolute" limit > that must be respected (in order to avoid what?) or that, contingently, we > have reached the point at which it is no longer practical (in virtue of > what?) to continue at the current level. Are we talking about spending > in relation to GDP? If so, GDP measured how? (It matters.) In relation > to total debt? To the annual deficit? In relation to comparable > nations (Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Canada, Sweden)? In relation > to our own future? What evidence should we consider as we try to > establish a causal link between level of spending or "size" of government > and consequences anyone reasonably might agree are undesirable? > > > 3. Is "Cap and Prioritize" about "set[ting] ... limits on what Americans > can or should do for their fellow citizens, for their country, and for the > world"? As I've agreed before, "ought implies can." But what Americans > "can" do is pretty far down the line toward literal impossibility. Fighting > the Second World War was something we could do and did do. When William > James said the modern world needs the "moral equivalent of war," he was > talking about a cause that would inspire us to make the kind of sacrifices > people made willingly when the world (not just the U.S.) was threatened in > the late 30s and 40s, or earlier, in the 1770s. So the basic question is > really the normative one of what we *should* do. It seems to me a > non-starter to agree to "cap" what government does or what it spends > *before* we address the question of what we should do (and hence, > perhaps, what *government* should do) *if we are able*. The question is > not whether we are able, but able *at what sacrifice by whom*? There is > an implicit assumption in "capping" that calls for discussion of both what > we should do and then, in light of that, what we "can" do. > > As for prioritizing, done well this would be enormously helpful, at > least periodically. Whether we could go to zero-based budgeting every > year or every two years is another question. For me, prioritizing is > imperative, even if we had (*per impossibile*) the fiscal means to do > everything. There are always hard choices to be made, and the public > currently is not bearing the responsibility for facing up to and making > these. But asking the public how many billions it wants to pay for > defense versus social assistance won't work. People must be able to > relate their contribution to collective expenses to the scale of budgeting > with which they're familiar in daily life. (How many Starbuck's *grande > lattes* for my share of an adequate supply of drones?) > > Do we want to open this particular can of worms? I'm inclined to > say yes. But others might have reservations. > > > > 4. I understand the desire to try asking a simple, straightforward > question and receiving a simple, clear, straightforward answer. The only > way to do that, though, is to unpack every element in a question or > statement to the point where your interlocutor feels he or she can give > such an answer. Although your hypothetical rationale is a good and welcome > step in that direction, for me it doesn't unpack things nearly enough, as I > hope my reply indicates. > > > > Thanks again, Michael. > > > > Michael Briand > > > > > > *From:* Michael Strong > *Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2014 1:27 PM > *To:* TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > *Subject:* [TRANSPARTISAN] An Ideological Turing Test featuring arguments > against Raddatz's "Cap and Prioriitize" proposal > > In an earlier thread, I was surprised that after I came out supporting > Rick Raddatz's "Cap and Prioritize" proposal, there were many follow-up > posts that struck me as completely unrelated to my post. In going through > to see how these well-intentioned people had thought they were responding > to my post, I realized that if I put myself back into the progressive > mindset, their seemingly unrelated comments might make sense. > > This sense of temporary disorientation led me to attempt to pass an > "Ideological Turing Test" by presenting a progressive's argument against > Raddatz's "Cap and Prioritize." I'd love to hear if progressives here have > a significantly different set of rationales for not supporting Raddatz's > "Cap and Prioritize" proposal, or if this is a roughly decent articulation > for a progressive's rationale for not supporting his proposal: > > > > Conservatives and libertarians want to cap government spending and then > work with transpartisan progressives to improve the manner in which > government funds are spent. While we respect the transpartisan spirit of > this proposal, in a world in which inequality is the over-riding issue of > our time, in a world facing severe environmental challenges, and in a > nation with inadequate public goods, the cap-and-prioritize proposal is > unacceptable. > > > There is abundant evidence that above a certain point, more wealth does > not increase happiness. At the some time, there is abundant evidence that > poverty and inequality result in severe harms to the health and well-being > of the least disadvantaged in our society. There is also abundant evidence > that our environment is at risk, including global warming, over-fishing, > water scarcity, ecosystem vulnerability, loss of species and habitat, dead > zones in our coastal waters due to excessive pesticide and fertilizer > usage, etc. Finally our public goods are undersupplied: our > infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are broken, our universities are > underfunded, we are at risk of falling behind globally due to cuts in > research, etc. > > > We believe that it is self-evident to a moral human being that once one's > basic needs have been met, most of the rest of one's wealth and income > should be devoted to helping those in need. Thus over some income > threshold, most additional income should be taxed to support programs to > help those in need. Additional funds should be devoted to preserving our > ecosystem and financing public goods. > > > Therefore because of: > > > 1. The scale of need among the disadvantaged. > > 2. The urgency of ecosystem preservation. > > 3. The need to finance our public goods properly. > > 4. The clear evidence that additional wealth does not increase happiness. > > > We therefore resist any notion that "government is too large" or that > "government spends too much." Indeed, any artificial limit to the > financing of public needs is immoral. Instead of setting arbitrary "limits > to government," such as are proposed by Rick Raddatz's > "cap-and-prioritize," those of us who live comfortable lives should all > willingly devote whatever it takes to solving the other important problems > faced by our nation. As a consequence, we should wisely implement whatever > policies are needed to create a better America, and we should proudly pay > whatever level of civic contribution is needed through our taxes in order > to do so. "Cap and Prioritize" is therefore a misguided policy proposal > insofar as it aspires to set limits on what Americans can or should do for > their fellow citizens, for their country, and for the world. > > -- > Michael Strong > CEO and Chief Visionary Officer > FLOW, Inc. > www.flowidealism.org > > For the definitive Conscious Capitalism book, see Be the Solution: How > Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World's Problems, > by Michael Strong with John Mackey, CEO Whole Foods Market, Muhammad Yunus, > founder of Grameen Bank and 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Hernando de > Soto, Co-Chair of the U.N. Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor, > and others, and listen to John Mackey's audio CD Passion and Purpose: The > Power of Conscious Capitalism, both available at amazon.com or > www.flowidealism.org. > > Liberating the Entrepreneurial Spirit for Good > > When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with > your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will > always long to return. > > Leonardo Da Vinci > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 >

-- Michael Strong CEO and Chief Visionary Officer FLOW, Inc. www.flowidealism.org

For the definitive Conscious Capitalism book, see Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World's Problems, by Michael Strong with John Mackey, CEO Whole Foods Market, Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank and 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Hernando de Soto, Co-Chair of the U.N. Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor, and others, and listen to John Mackey's audio CD Passion and Purpose: The Power of Conscious Capitalism, both available at amazon.com or www.flowidealism.org.

Liberating the Entrepreneurial Spirit for Good

When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.

Leonardo Da Vinci

############################

To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1