Sender: millershed@EARTHLINK.NET
Subject: Re: An Ideological Turing Test featuring arguments against Raddatz's "Cap and Priori
Date: Tue, May 20, 2014
Msg: 100999

I want to emphasize the importance of what Lawry brings up. I would also like to consider expanding it a bit to bridging the perspectives of religion, spirituality, AND science. In saying this, I understand that science is a root cause of the mechanistic worldview that Lawry refers to, and so might seem an unhelpful addition to the conversation. But I would like to propose that the science of complexity is non-linear, non-mechanistic, non-reductionistic, and non-deterministic. Some years ago I was at a talk of the Dalai Lama's where he said we need a secular ethics, rooted in science. I think complexity theory can contribute to both ethics and spirituality.

I would just add, to Michael S's question, that a complex systems approach makes me think in terms of self-organization, which makes me sympathetic to the idea that government is not the answer to all or even most of our problems. That said, ideally, government SHOULD be self-organizing, and so should have a constructive role to play. I think that (as now in the US) weak or missing feedback loops (as manifested by gerrymandering, the influence of vast amounts of money, two-party polarization, etc.) result in a situation where the great majority of citizens have lost faith in the responsiveness of government to their needs--so why would they want it to get bigger or trust it to wisely spend their tax dollars? And, just saying, I'm a progressive. . . .

John Miller
(952) 797-2302
Green Tea Party Movement  

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Chickering
Sent: May 18, 2014 9:52 AM
To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG
Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] An Ideological Turing Test featuring arguments against Raddatz's "Cap and Prioritize" proposal

Michael (S), 

I regard myself as a 'bleeding heart libertarian', and I have thoughts about 

supporting Raddatz's proposal.  Here goes: 

The vision of helping the disadvantaged that is currently dominant in our debate 

sees the problem as entirely an objective problem, which is 'solved' by resource 

transfers.  This vision (unfortunately) sees the disadvantaged only as objects, 

which is a pitifully limited view of human beings.  Worrying only about resource 

transfers to objects reduces human relationships to the level of the care 

and feeding of farm animals.  

Objective inequality exists in many dimensions, most of them unsolvable 

by resource transfers (it exists in all dimensions in terms of which people 

differentiate themselves -- besides wealth, intelligence, beauty, appreciation 

of art, etc, etc).  

Fifteen seconds' reflection will make it clear that 'progressives' preoccupation 

with objective equality is impossible as a policy objective.  The real challenge 

is the impulse to differentiate because the more equal one term of differentiation 

becomes, the more important others become (assuming constant need to 

differentiate).  

The really unfortunate thing about our current philosophical idiom is that 

objective equality is the gold standard principle of moral discourse.  I believe 

this is utterly bankrupt as a defining principle of our moral life.  The idea, 

ultimately, that everyone can be above average in everything is not only 

laughably (because logically) impossible; it is also brutally cruel because it 

steers masses of people to believe their lives are failures.  

I am here, of course, critiquing the order-left.  But many on the right are 

also guilty of a brutal (though different) focus on equality.  Many on the 

right argue that equal opportunity is the touchstone of justice: equal 

opportunity to 'get ahead' and achieve 'The American Dream'.  Why is this 

also brutal?  Because if you can only achieve The American Dream by 

being a 'winner', it follows that masses of people are cut out of The 

Dream; they are 'losers'.  

I believe both visions are unacceptable -- much worse than that, both 

visions are vile.  

People as Subjects

Let me try starting in a different place (in terms of what is important).  

Assume for the moment that people are more than farm animals.  Assume 

that we need to worry about more than people as objects; we also have to 

worry about them as subjects.  

A very wise man once told me that the key to joy is creation.  I would argue 

that the key to opportunities for creation is empowerment, and this -- I 

would argue -- should be the great principle underlying our political morality.  

Empowerment, I believe, is what connects your references to Mohammed 

Yunus, Hernando de Soto, etc., as well as my own program, Educate Girls 

Globally.  I believe that empowerment is the central value underlying 

everything that is working.  

Empowerment is a complicated concept, which includes both individualistic 

and collective elements (empowerment needs to liberate people to 'be 

themselves', but it also needs to do it understanding that connection -- 

to self, others, nature and cosmos -- are also important).

The central deficiency in our current idiom is its mechanistic, objectified 

core.  Empowerment depends on understanding that we live in a Connected 

World of subjects.  Unfortunately, we have no language that bridges the gap 

between the formal practices of traditional religion and informal spiritual 

practices.  The absence of such a language makes it impossible to have a 

coherent conversation about this subject.  [I would suggest that the search 

for such a language might begin by examining carefully the concepts of God 

that range from preconscious subjective (in The Garden) to increasingly 

conscious and objective (especially in institutionalized Christianity) to 

increasingly conscious and secular (Enlightenment and beyond) to 

increasingly conscious and (now) increasingly subjective and 'spiritual'.]

Please forgive this diversion from the subject at hand, which I could not 

avoid because I think engaging these issues is essential to get us away from 

the desiccated notion of people as objects that now strangles our debate.  

I believe that a major priority for the transpartisan movement should be 

to bridge this gap between 'religious' and 'spiritual', opening up a much 

wider subjective vision of human possibility that animates people and 

programs everywhere.   

People from other cultures often critique American culture with thoughts 

like: 'Is there anything Americans think they can't buy?'  The critique has 

important elements of truth in it, and one of them is in the vision of social 

justice that is preoccupied with resource transfers.  As long as our debate is 

dominated by this as a moral principle, we will never address the real 

challenge of justice, which has to do with people as subjects.  An important 

way to redirect our discourse is to cap the money we can spend.  For this 

reason I support Raddatz's proposal.  

Lawry Chickering

Educate Girls Globally

On May 17, 2014, at 15:11, Michael Strong <michael@FLOWIDEALISM.ORG> wrote:

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 <mb121wl@outlook.com> 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, click the following link:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1