Ranting to /dev/null

Ryan, you're a brilliant, brilliant man.

This argument doesn't make you individualistic at all. It simply means you don't think people should be allowed to use force to bring about the results that they happen to think would be nice. If anything, it means that you think free healthy _communities_ should be the source of such value judgments, rather than top-down coercion at gun point.

"The market" is nothing more than a bunch of people making free choices _in community_.

Where do you find the time to write this stuff?

Ryan, while I agree with the conclusion of your argument, I do disagree with the following points. Both are not, I don't think, central to your argument, but they're important nonetheless I think.

I think its dangerous, and would argue without a massive amount of unhealthy self-denial, to divorce ones moral sense of how things should be economically. It's not arrogant, that is, its not arrogant insofar as any moral assertion is seen as arrogant from a nietzchean (forgive the bad spelling) perspective, and you know that I know that you're thinking on this matter is influenced by that line of thinking (i.e. nietzch's, dang, hate that spelling).

My point though isn't to argue that our code of morality should (like theonomists) generate our economic system simply because its impossible for us to divorce our moral sense as "a bunchof people making free choices in a community" engaged in the nebulous "marketplace." Its only that one way or another, "how it is" is that a bunchof ontologically moral beings are engaged in economics, to not include subject-rooted morality is an incomplete exercise, in my opinion anyway.

I have more thoughts, but my wife wants to have a smoke.

Nick: I write at work, mostly. I work at a call center. I'm probably only working 15-25 minutes out of every 60. I have probably read 15 books since I started working the floor in March. I'm currently reading The Gulag Archipeligo, which looks as if it's going to take a while.

Josiah: There's a difference between divorcing one's sense of morality from the way one values things economically on one hand and thinking so highly of one's own moral sense that one is willing to force that judgment on others. On the contrary: one's moral sense should affect the way one uses one's money, causing one to value certain things over others. But that's simply one aspect up in the market expressing values. Cue stewardship, stage left. This is a far different thing than believe so strongly in one's own correctness that one is willing to completely ignore and overrule the moral nature of others by denying them choice. If anything, free markets are a declaration of the humanity of the participants, by allowing all parties involved to be fully operational moral agents, while socialism/communism/modern liberalism are inherently dehumanizing by denying the vast majority of people the chance to exert their moral nature. Granted: most people make mostly bad choices most of the time. But at least they're free.

All well put, as usual, Ryan.

But:

Assumption to be plugged in #1:

"The market is not a just method for determining value or, at best, it is sub-optimal, and that certain professions have inherent worth."

Honestly, that was hopefully less of an assumption and more something I was pointing towards, but whatever its status in the train of thought, it was definently unstated but present. I think I will, for the present time, let this one stand as a reasonable addition to the train of thought.

Assumption to be plugged in #2:

"this inherent worth should for moral reasons be compensated with wealth appropriate to its moral value."

Here, however, I would have a different assumption, although this is one reasonably reasonable link. My assumption would look more like this:

This inherent worth should be recognized and compensated properly where the failure to do so will be determinental to the ability of society to function smoothly and provide for the basic needs of its members (Assumption: society's purpose, laying aside historical and formative reasons for its being, should be to provide better for the basic needs of its members than those members would be able to provide for themselves on their individual merits and capacities). Thus, I would say not that "teachers and social workers should be paid more because their work is morally good", but that "teachers and social workers should be paid more because the ability of society to fulfill its purpose is compromised by the current state of affairs." This, I believe, is a sort of change that we could provide quantitative reasons for and against; in fact, I think it would be difficult to say that we do not already do this as a society to some degree (if we subsidize it with taxes, then we're saying that we don't think the market is doing an adequate job of compensating that sector of society for its function).

Many more thoughts (one regarding the failure of the market to adequately compensate for sin nature despite the fact that it does so much better than its opposite and conclusions drawn from that), but I'd be curious to see your take on the modification of the assumption (do you find it palatable?)

Your offer to "gladly surrender my right to tell you how to live if you can’t tell me how to live," is generous. But then, you're talking to your peers. Try using that line in court. As it is, I'm not convinced by your argument. It doesn't go back far enough. That the goverment has the power to involve itself in economics is indisputable: it's been done before. You need to make the case that it has no moral authority to do this; otherwise, your claim -that it is arrogant for one to allow his moral value of things to determine the way things are- is invalid. On the contrary, it would be irresponsible for someone with the authority and the power to do so not to determine the way things are by his moral values. Despite Nick's consitent objections to coercion at gun point, this is precisely what God has ordained governments to do. All that biblical stuff about not bearing the sword in vain. Government, in whatever form it may take, essentially is this: God gives a few people some guns so that they can have their way. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that economic matters do not lie within the scope of a government's legitimate coercive powers. And, since you've already come down on the side of justice of means, you're not allowed to point to the stellar economic performances of communist and socialist states.

I'm with Kevin and all that, and I know I'm marching down a tangent, BUT...

Ryan, I can't help but feel that your "portrait of a tyrannical government as a young man", is, well, a clever yet profoundly unhelpful rhetorical flourish. Again, accusing somebody, lets say an economist, of wanting to extend his personal-morality infused economic system to others isn't inherently arrogant, if anything its understandable. I think it's a fairly Christian viewpoint to consider that the very evil-ness (arrogance in this situation) of an act is party in a very real way determined by the *position* of the being doing acting. Hence, the economist could be arrogant, he could not be, and I certainly don't think he's arrogant for posturing an economic system explicitly infused by his morality, in fact, I'd think he was a little wierd for doing otherwise.

But again, remember that we essentially desire the same economic environment, I just think this line of thinking on your part is unhelpful, if only because if you start wipping it out here and there, well, folks will just think you're being a bit of a jerk (although I don't think you're being a jerk). If the emperor isn't claiming to be wearing any clothes to being with, why bother to make a point of it? He knows he's naked, you know he's naked, he aint lyin', he's letting it all hang out. Pun very much intended.

A question of arrogance or a question of authority?

It would indeed be arogant to claim that my own sense of the moral value of things ought to determine the way things are. This is like saying my sense of sight should determine how things are, as if the things I see are there because I see them. But no one holds this (except for the people who do, having been corrupted by philosophy, but they aren't the sort of people we're talking about). And no one thinks his own moral sense should determine how things are. My moral sense tells me how things ought to be just as my sense of sight tells me how things are.

There is nothing arrogant about saying that moral truth should determine how things are, and that my moral sense in fact corresponds with moral truth, not because moral sense determines moral truth, but because it submits to it, just as my sense of sight corresponds to visible reality by submitting to the light.

This is not a question of arrogance, but a question of authority. It is one thing to say "It is immoral or imprudent for John Doe to spend his money in this way" and quite another to say "It is moral and prudent for me to force John Doe not to spend his money in this way."

If your 9 yr old child wants to use his own money to buy a huge stash of candy to eat instead of regular meals, is it moral and prudent for you to to force him not to? If your adult neighbor wants to do the same, is it moral and prudent for you to force him not to? It is a question of authority.

I take it for granted that governments do in fact have some degree of authority over citizens. It may be moral for the government to interfere in the market. The question remains, is it prudent?

My response is in the next post.