FYI - Against Autonomy (September 2013 book)


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

Fred Bartlett provided a link to this book in a post of his on RoR - post #68 on a thread titled "Predictions for America's Future."

The book is advertised on the website of Cambridge University Press - which press advertises itself in a header line as "The future of publishing since 1584."

link

Against Autonomy

Justifying Coercive Paternalism

AUTHOR: Sarah Conly

DATE PUBLISHED: September 2013

AVAILABILITY: Manufactured on demand: supplied direct from the printer

FORMAT: Paperback

ISBN: 9781107649729

Since Mill's seminal work On Liberty, philosophers and political theorists have accepted that we should respect the decisions of individual agents when those decisions affect no one other than themselves. Indeed, to respect autonomy is often understood to be the chief way to bear witness to the intrinsic value of persons. In this book, Sarah Conly rejects the idea of autonomy as inviolable. Drawing on sources from behavioural economics and social psychology, she argues that we are so often irrational in making our decisions that our autonomous choices often undercut the achievement of our own goals. Thus in many cases it would advance our goals more effectively if government were to prevent us from acting in accordance with our decisions. Her argument challenges widely held views of moral agency, democratic values and the public/private distinction, and will interest readers in ethics, political philosophy, political theory and philosophy of law.

> Questions standard values of democracy

> Argues for a new justification for paternalistic laws

> Takes contemporary studies in behavioural economics and social psychology and shows implications for governmental policy

Reviews & endorsements

"For generations paternalism has had a bad odor, and individual autonomy has reigned supreme. Sarah Conly's book will change all of that. She argues in favor of paternalism with rigor and gusto, and persuasively shows how shedding our reflexive aversion to paternalism will make people better off. Some will be persuaded and others not, but this book will forever change the nature of the debates about paternalism, autonomy, and the role of the state in individual well-being."

--Frederick Schauer, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In post #69 on the RoR thread, Fred copies the whole set of endorsements from the Cambridge University Press advertisement for Against Autonomy:

Predictions for America's Future based on reviews of Sarah Conly's "Against Autonomy: In Defense of Coercive Paternalism"

Reviews & endorsements

"For generations paternalism has had a bad odor, and individual autonomy has reigned supreme. Sarah Conly's book will change all of that. She argues in favor of paternalism with rigor and gusto, and persuasively shows how shedding our reflexive aversion to paternalism will make people better off. Some will be persuaded and others not, but this book will forever change the nature of the debates about paternalism, autonomy, and the role of the state in individual well-being."

--Frederick Schauer, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia

"Sarah Conly has written the best book about paternalism since Mill, and the best philosophical defense of paternalism we have to date. Tough-minded, resourceful, precise, and informed by knowledge of both psychology and the regulatory state, the book issues a challenge to which, from now on, anyone who objects to paternalistic government policies will have to respond. A marvelous achievement."

--Martha Nussbaum, Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago

"According to Mill, 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.' Sarah Conly disagrees. In this lively, accessible, sensible, and well argued book, Conly makes a case for coercive paternalism that critics of the 'nanny state' will have to take seriously."

--Alan Wertheimer, Professor Emeritus, University of Vermont

"...careful, provocative, and novel, and it is a fundamental challenge to Mill and the many people who follow him..."

--Cass R. Sunstein, The New York Review of Books

"...Sarah Conlys book Against Autonomy is the first full-length, philosophical exploration and defense of a much broader, and coercive, paternalism.... This is a well-written, thoughtful, informed, treatment of its topic. One test of the quality of a books argumentation is to see, when a doubt arises in ones mind about some claim, whether the author, at some point, addresses it. Conly passes this test with high marks...."

--Gerald Dworkin, University of California, Davis, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

"...a timely and important addition to the literature on paternalism.... this is a well-written, well-argued volume that will be of interest to undergraduates, graduate students, and researchers.... Highly recommended..."

--J.S. Taylor, The College of New Jersey, CHOICE

"...a concise and coherent argument worth considering by students and the lay public interested in the intersection of philosophy, politics, and psychology. It is written in plain language with minimal philosophical jargon, and is both accessible and eminently readable.... Overall, the book is coherent and generally very well-argued..."

--Matthew A. Butkus, PhD, Assistant Professor, Philosophy, Dept. of Social Sciences, McNeese State University, Metapsychology

"...a thought-provoking contribution (in every sense of the word provoking) both to general practical philosophy and to biomedical ethics in particular.... this book is worth reading because it poses the right questions and does not shy away from consequences which may be drawn from this although violating political correctness at first sight.... should be studied by everyone who is interested in defending autonomy and liberty for finite human beings."

--Michael Quante, Munster, Germany, Short Literature Notices

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how the thesis can be that individuals can make poor decisions so we must leave it up to other individuals to make the decisions for us??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen:

It reproduced the feeling of looking underneath the porch of a beautiful summer home and finding termites. Lots of termites.

The original context was, the chokepoint of elitism that is the tiny, inbred Ivies; mandrels of thought. When you look at that list of reviews, that might seem a little contradictory. But the author of the book is a Princeton alum, and the backgrounds of the first four reviewers are all Harvard educated, right down to termite extraordinaire, Cass Sunstein. (The final reviewer regards it as an important read for the -defenders- of autonomy,)

Dean pointed out a good point, basically, the advocates of state centered coercive paternalism found a soft landing in the Ivies, who have not only embraced the concept with an institutional bias, but met it with candy and flowers.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original context was, the chokepoint of elitism that is the tiny, inbred Ivies; mandrels of thought. When you look at that list of reviews, that might seem a little contradictory. But the author of the book is a Princeton alum, and the backgrounds of the first four reviewers are all Harvard educated, right down to termite extraordinaire, Cass Sunstein. (The final reviewer regards it as an important read for the -defenders- of autonomy,)

Dean pointed out a good point, basically, the advocates of state centered coercive paternalism found a soft landing in the Ivies, who have not only embraced the concept with an institutional bias, but met it with candy and flowers.

regards,

Fred

You talk about that in your post #68 (on the RoR thread). I was tempted to quote the post in full. From long experience knowing many academics, I think your depiction is accurate. (It's wider-spread than the Ivies, although they're epitome and core examples.)

I don't understand what you're saying "might seem a little contradictory." Being against autonomy meshes with the elitism of the Ivies' faculty and alums considering themselves better qualified to make decisions for the non-initiated than those folks are to make decisions for themselves.

I noticed that the final reviewer describes the book as an important read for the defenders of autonomy, and I don't understand that comment. I'm intending to look into who that reviewer is, and to see if I can find the full review.

Possibly the person meant it in this sense: Having been alerted to the book (thanks for the alert), I am going to acquire it so my husband and I can peruse it as case study background for his forays in various academic battles. But something about the wording gives me a "double-speak" feel.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original context was, the chokepoint of elitism that is the tiny, inbred Ivies; mandrels of thought. When you look at that list of reviews, that might seem a little contradictory. But the author of the book is a Princeton alum, and the backgrounds of the first four reviewers are all Harvard educated, right down to termite extraordinaire, Cass Sunstein. (The final reviewer regards it as an important read for the -defenders- of autonomy,)

Dean pointed out a good point, basically, the advocates of state centered coercive paternalism found a soft landing in the Ivies, who have not only embraced the concept with an institutional bias, but met it with candy and flowers.

regards,

Fred

You talk about that in your post #68 (on the RoR thread). I was tempted to quote the post in full. From long experience knowing many academics, I think your depiction is accurate. (It's wider-spread than the Ivies, although they're epitome and core examples.)

I don't understand what you're saying "might seem a little contradictory." Being against autonomy meshes with the elitism of the Ivies' faculty and alums considering themselves better qualified to make decisions for the non-initiated than those folks are to make decisions for themselves.

I noticed that the final reviewer describes the book as an important read for the defenders of autonomy, and I don't understand that comment. I'm intending to look into who that reviewer is, and to see if I can find the full review.

Possibly the person meant it in this sense: Having been alerted to the book (thanks for the alert), I am going to acquire it so my husband and I can peruse it as case study background for his forays in various academic battles. But something about the wording gives me a "double-speak" feel.

Ellen

Ellen:

All I meant by "seems a little contradictory" is that the bylines in the reviewers list don't explicitly list any Ivy League schools-- you need to know that the author came from PU and the first four reviewers were all educated at Harvard.

And yes, these self-serving ideas of coercive paternalism by elites have found lots of soft landing zones, not just the Ivies. But it is so -thick- in the Ivies-- so heavy handed, that I'm convinced they were once deliberately targeted. What I can't imagine is, what would have stopped such an attack? Not our non-police state. Not our open borders. Not our open campuses. Not the receptive, soft landing zones to be found. Not the benevolent feeling of goodwill towards the concept of freedom by our once global competitors. The Ivies are tiny, inbred, elite choke points-- mandrels of thought-- with long established four lane paved highways into the machinery of state, as well as the faculties of other institutions. All of that would have made them natural selective targets for a global competitor having a desire to kick the intellectual legs out from underneath freedom. What in the world was going to stop that attack from happening and largely succeeding(resulting in today's institutional bias?)

The very idea of freedom was used against it. Fair minded people were convinced that the greatest academic sin would be to freely study cancer with the goal of finding a cure, that instead, complete academic freedom demanded of us to actually embrace cancer and consider it as an alternative to health, only it wasn't cancer: it was Marxism/collectivism/statism in the context of a free nation.

What once was an external conflict has long morphed into an internal conflict.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen:

All I meant by "seems a little contradictory" is that the bylines in the reviewers list don't explicitly list any Ivy League schools-- you need to know that the author came from PU and the first four reviewers were all educated at Harvard.

Oh, I see. I did know the affiliations, so that interpretation didn't occur to me.

The very idea of freedom was used against it.

That remark takes me back to my first job in New York City. (I moved to NYC from the Midwest in early September, 1968.) I was still considering going to graduate school in psych. (I later made a couple abortive attempts at graduate school before ending up, happily, in publishing.)

The first job I got was on a project for Vassar - I think it was still Vassar College then. The administration at Vassar was planning to fund one or another of several candidate special programs, and various distinguished academics had been asked to present proposals for the respective possibilities. One possibility was an interdisciplinary program - science/humanities, bridging "the two cultures." The person hired to write that proposal was Charles Frankel, a noted Columbia philosophy professor who had been Under-Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs in John Kennedy's administration.

(The Wikioedia article about Frankel says Johnson's administration, but seems to me it was while Kennedy was alive that Frankel was appointed.)

Frankel asked the woman who had been his administrative assistant in Washington to do the actual organizing of arranging meetings with advisors and writing the basics of the proposal. I was hired to assist her and to type the manuscript.

During the time when the proposal was being put together there were numerous of the campus sit-in/take-over incidents, including one at Columbia. Frankel was terribly conflicted about the whole thing. On the one hand, "academic freedom," the students' say should be heard. On the other hand, such instincts of reason and academic honor as he had felt revolted and desirous of calling what was going on "evil." But he couldn't bring himself to say this in so many words. And, note, as a participant in the Kennedy Camelot dream of academics having a direct say in government policy, he was already contaminated himself by spores of the disease.

Among his many books, he wrote one on the campus confrontations called Education and the Barricades. The book reflected his being undecided, torn, unable to take a strong stand against the Marxist infiltration of student thought and the behavior of the student protestors.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen:

All I meant by "seems a little contradictory" is that the bylines in the reviewers list don't explicitly list any Ivy League schools-- you need to know that the author came from PU and the first four reviewers were all educated at Harvard.

Oh, I see. I did know the affiliations, so that interpretation didn't occur to me.

The very idea of freedom was used against it.

That remark takes me back to my first job in New York City. (I moved to NYC from the Midwest in early September, 1968.) I was still considering going to graduate school in psych. (I later made a couple abortive attempts at graduate school before ending up, happily, in publishing.)

The first job I got was on a project for Vassar - I think it was still Vassar College then. The administration at Vassar was planning to fund one or another of several candidate special programs, and various distinguished academics had been asked to present proposals for the respective possibilities. One possibility was an interdisciplinary program - science/humanities, bridging "the two cultures." The person hired to write that proposal was Charles Frankel, a noted Columbia philosophy professor who had been Under-Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs in John Kennedy's administration.

(The Wikioedia article about Frankel says Johnson's administration, but seems to me it was while Kennedy was alive that Frankel was appointed.)

Frankel asked the woman who had been his administrative assistant in Washington to do the actual organizing of arranging meetings with advisors and writing the basics of the proposal. I was hired to assist her and to type the manuscript.

During the time when the proposal was being put together there were numerous of the campus sit-in/take-over incidents, including one at Columbia. Frankel was terribly conflicted about the whole thing. On the one hand, "academic freedom," the students' say should be heard. On the other hand, such instincts of reason and academic honor as he had felt revolted and desirous of calling what was going on "evil." But he couldn't bring himself to say this in so many words. And, note, as a participant in the Kennedy Camelot dream of academics having a direct say in government policy, he was already contaminated himself by spores of the disease.

Among his many books, he wrote one on the campus confrontations called Education and the Barricades. The book reflected his being undecided, torn, unable to take a strong stand against the Marxist infiltration of student thought and the behavior of the student protestors.

Ellen

Ellen:

I've ordered the book, thank you. The 'Boomers' starting to come of age in the 60s and 70s are sometimes today regarded as a monolithic thinking whole. I don't remember it that way at all; I think it was the first of increasingly divided generations of Americans. What was once an external struggle became an internal struggle, and although the seeds of that internal struggle were festering for most of the 20th century, it was the Boomer generation that saw that erupt into a widespread internal conflict. I'm sure there are a list of reasons for that a mile long, but ... cui bono? What were once fringe, radical ideas earlier in the century are today , well, holding titles such as the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs...brought to us by Carter on the way out the door, today carrying out the double-speak of Executive Order 12866, brought to us by Clinton. And yet, did any intervening GOP administration ever clean up this mess? (Or, was there ever anything so egregious as Nixon's 1970 Economic Stabilization Act?)

Read the following and just ... laugh? Cry? 1993...just 4 years after the visible global failure of centrally planned, command and control 'the economy' running, America was putting it in writing.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

#12866 REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW

The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such a regulatory system today.

With this Executive order, the Federal Government begins a program to reform and make more efficient the regulatory process. The objectives of this Executive order are to enhance planning and coordination with respect to both new and existing regulations; to reaffirm the primacy of Federal agencies in the regulatory decision-making process; to restore the integrity and legitimacy of regulatory review and oversight; and to make the process more accessible and open to the public. In pursuing these objectives, the regulatory process shall be conducted so as to meet applicable statutory requirements and with due regard to the discretion that has been entrusted to the Federal agencies.

Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.

  1. The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people. In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. Costs and benefits shall be understood to include both quantifiable measures (to the fullest extent that these can be usefully estimated) and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider. Further, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.
  2. The Principles of Regulation. To ensure that the agencies' regulatory programs are consistent with the philosophy set forth above, agencies should adhere to the following principles, to the extent permitted by law and where applicable:
    1. Each agency shall identify the problem that it intends to address (including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action) as well as assess the significance of that problem.
    2. Each agency shall examine whether existing regulations (or other law) have created, or contributed to, the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and whether those regulations (or other law) should be modified to achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively.
    3. Each agency shall identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    4. In setting regulatory priorities, each agency shall consider, to the extent reasonable, the degree and nature of the risks posed by various substances or activities within its jurisdiction.
    5. When an agency determines that a regulation is the best available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective manner to achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, each agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability, the costs of enforcement and compliance (to the government, regulated entities, and the public), flexibility, distributive impacts, and equity.
    6. Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.
    7. Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation.
    8. ) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative forms of regulation and shall, to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt.
    9. Wherever feasible, agencies shall seek views of appropriate State, local, and tribal officials before imposing regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect those governmental entities. Each agency shall assess the effects of Federal regulations on State, local, and tribal governments, including specifically the availability of resources to carry out those mandates, and seek to minimize those burdens that uniquely or significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent with achieving regulatory objectives. In addition, as appropriate, agencies shall seek to harmonize Federal regulatory actions with related State, local, and tribal regulatory and other governmental functions.
    10. Each agency shall avoid regulations that are inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative with its other regulations or those of other Federal agencies.
    11. Each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, including individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other entities (including small communities and governmental entities), consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations.
    12. Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.

You know, like the ACA. The lament today by the Progressives is that OIRA and 12866 are too limited in scope. Their desired scope of action is much broader than that Jell-o goo. So much for the concept of 'limited government.' Limited by what? Our imaginations?

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how the thesis can be that individuals can make poor decisions so we must leave it up to other individuals to make the decisions for us??

Rightly or wrongly, that happens frequently.

Examples:

parent -- child

teacher -- student

doctor -- patient (I, being irrational, don't take orders from doctors but most people do.)

the Pope -- catholics

policeman -- law abiding citizen

In addition to one individual making a decision for another individual, it is common for people to follow the crowd instead of making decisions.

Examples:

Why do people start smoking? -- Other people smoke. Monkey see, monkey do.

Why do people start drugs? -- Other people do.

How do people choose a religion? -- Usually they accept the religion that is chosen for them.

Choice of food? -- Whatever other people are eating.

Taste in music? -- Whatever is popular. Doesn't matter how bad it is.

What books to read? -- Whatever is popular.

Most common argument used by doctors. -- Not generally accepted. (Doesn't matter whether it is true.)

It seems many people suffer from a psychological need to conform. I agree with John Stuart Mill's statement that people should cultivate individuality even to the point of eccentricity. I do not think highly of people who are afraid to be different.

It is important to distinguish between:

1. Letting other people make a decision for you.

2. Getting knowledge/insight/advice from people who have special knowledge or experience or smarts for the purpose of making the right decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how the thesis can be that individuals can make poor decisions so we must leave it up to other individuals to make the decisions for us??

Rightly or wrongly, that happens frequently.

Examples:

parent -- child

teacher -- student

doctor -- patient (I, being irrational, don't take orders from doctors but most people do.)

the Pope -- catholics

policeman -- law abiding citizen

In addition to one individual making a decision for another individual, it is common for people to follow the crowd instead of making decisions.

Examples:

Why do people start smoking? -- Other people smoke. Monkey see, monkey do.

Why do people start drugs? -- Other people do.

How do people choose a religion? -- Usually they accept the religion that is chosen for them.

Choice of food? -- Whatever other people are eating.

Taste in music? -- Whatever is popular. Doesn't matter how bad it is.

What books to read? -- Whatever is popular.

Most common argument used by doctors. -- Not generally accepted. (Doesn't matter whether it is true.)

It seems many people suffer from a psychological need to conform. I agree with John Stuart Mill's statement that people should cultivate individuality even to the point of eccentricity. I do not think highly of people who are afraid to be different.

It is important to distinguish between:

1. Letting other people make a decision for you.

2. Getting knowledge/insight/advice from people who have special knowledge or experience or smarts for the purpose of making the right decision.

Dead on. To the point, I wonder sometimes if that need isn't deeply embedded in some vs others, like dominant herd mentality genes?

I'd extend getting "knowledge/insight/advice" with "inspiration," still with the important distinction of your #1. Steve W. over in RoR posted a great interview with Virginia Postrel discussing her book "The Power of Glamor," where she describes glamor as the reception in others to the inspiration of an image or idea. She distinguishes that from charisma, which she identifies as an attribute of a person, an individual; an attractor of the attention of others.

The power of glamor is neutral; the projection of glamorous imagery can't insure a glamorous reaction in any single individual, but it can be directed at populations with agendas, where the goals are not to evoke the glamor response in any one individual, but in 'enough' individuals. Hollywood, Madison Ave, and politicians do not target individuals, they target enough individuals to meet their goals.

But imagine a neutral 'Library of Glamorous Imagery.' (By neutral I mean, agenda free.) Individuals perusing this Library of Glamorous Images could freely choose their inspirations to guide their personal meander. The reception to those images that is 'glamor' is still within their bounds of control. I think, even with the addition of agendas, plural, and biases, plural, Hollywood's products largely succeed at being a kind of 'Library of Glamorous Imagery.'

So, when we respond to the Library of Glamorous Imagery, is our response primarily decided by the responses of others, or are we neutrally responding to what we individually find glamorous? Still not the same for each of us. Rand's romantic art is an example of imagery which some, not all, respond to, and in fact, those of a certain bent will respond negatively precisely because of their intense fealty to social conformity.

Your smoking example is a great example. We were all 14 once. Many of us tried smoking because we saw others apparently enjoying the activity. We each then made a personal decision; to continue the activity, or not.

a] Some enjoyed the practice and continued. It brought them pleasure, joy, fulfillment, or value.

b] Some did not enjoy the practice and discontinued it. Did not bring them pleasure, joy, fulfillment, or value.

c] Some enjoyed the practice but discontinued it, acceding to arguments against, or, for economic reasons. Insufficient value.

d] Some did not enjoy the practice particularly, but continued it because of the way they perceived themselves in the eyes of others, sought the acceptance of others seeking validation for the parking of their own receptions. Displaced 'social' value.

Madison Ave might have helped with the projection of imagery; the reception and evaluation was still in our hands.

I was a b]. Rand, apparently, was an a]. She could easily, as well, have become a c], but not me, because it brought me no value at all. I could have been a d], but only if I had been delivered a massive blow to the head, or, if I had an addict's fealty to my atavistic herd mentality genes.

It is the d]s that are the dangerous cancer running loose in world.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the term 'meander' without really defining it. It is a process that differs, I think, from some of Rand's romantic vision, of what her idealized driven heroes do. Her romantic imagery describes man as navigating in a straight line from where they are, directly to their goals, which they see clearly. She very effectively creates that imagery, and that imagery evokes a glamorous response in some. It inspires some to be more 'navigational' in their choices. I am an admirer, and her romantic visions certainly inspired me.

But in observing nature, the universe as it is, I (and others who I've been inspired by) have also noticed the strategy of 'meander.' Meander is still goal driven, but it is goal driven in a reality of imperfect knowledge. In order to navigate directly to our goals, we not only need perfect knowledge of our goals/destinations, but of the entire route along the way. In many domains and contexts, there is no such perfect knowledge, and so, a strategy to cope with that is 'meander.' We move in a direction, based on our imperfect knowledge -- our best informed rational guess -- and then we constantly re-evaluate. Better, worse, new information? We refine our goal, as well as our path to our goal. We 'meander' to our destinations, and even, sometimes along the way, change our destinations. This is a strategy for seeking value among the Universe's gradients without perfect knowledge.

Here is a concrete example: Dupont's Teflon. Wildly successful product. In Rand's romantic vision, the inventor of 'Teflon' was driven clearly by a vision, armed with knowledge of chemistry and materials science, and strained with incredible focus to reach that goal. In reality, DuPont was working on refrigerant compounds and trying many of them. A rail road tanker car full of one formulation sat out under the hot Sun down in Delaware, heating up, and cooked what was inside. [Wiki has a different detail here; I am repeating the story as told to me in the early 70s as to how the result came about.] When the researchers opened up the valves, nothing came out. Inside the tank, they found some 'goo.' The 'goo' had interesting properties, which they applied reason and new knowledge to uncover, and the goo became Teflon. Rational men of science, straining to apply imperfect knowledge and create a new refrigerant, meandered to Teflon via their intelligent efforts.

Natural processes in the Universe are filled with examples of meander. It is what we often do. That isn't an either/or to Rand's romantic vision, that is an extension of it. I don't regard meander as a flaw; I regard it as an acknowledgement of the Universe, as it is, and man within it, intelligently dealing with a boundary condition of imperfect knowledge about that Universe and its gradients.

How many people do you know who are, 20 years out of university, still working in their once area of study? Some are, many are not. They have meandered.

I think this extends beyond professional considerations; I think this is often what happens in our personal lives. It takes perfect knowledge, or luck, to navigate directly and deliberately to personal happiness. (Entire industries have sprung up claiming to offer navigation aids.) But for those of us mortals lacking that perfect knowledge, there is hope, and reason not to despair. We can still use the strategy of meander, and often do. Gradients drive everything in the Universe, and 'love' is an example of one of the most intense gradients there is. The social exhortations to 'love all equally' is really a request to not love at all. The essence of love is the intense inequality of it, usually one more than all others, or, in the case of polygamists, maybe five, tops.

Glamor can serve that meander. Here is an image of what appears to be happiness; that is invoked within us, is our reception. So we can assess the image that invoked a feeling of glamor within us, of happiness, and ask, how is that obtained? What is the path there? Is it real or faked? And even if faked, totally artificial, is the fact that I responded to that image of glamor informing me of something within myself?

Rand's romantic art is one source of possible imagery that can evoke the glamor response. That is the purpose of her romantic novels. That is what initially attracts others to read her essays-- her romantic imagery, and our response to it. When we think back to how we discovered that initial attraction, did we navigate there, or did we meander there?

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can meander into cul de sacs which won't get us to our goals. When we do, the path to our goals is to back out and try again on another direction. FDR himself used this argument to sell away freedom.

Since the early 1900s, America has meandered into the cul de sac of increasingly centralized state control.

It is long past time to back out of the cul de sac. Books like "Against Autonomy: In Defense of Coercive Paternalism" are exhortations to ignore the flames around us in this cul de sac and stay the course.

No thanks.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how the thesis can be that individuals can make poor decisions so we must leave it up to other individuals to make the decisions for us??

Rightly or wrongly, that happens frequently.

Examples:

parent -- child

teacher -- student

doctor -- patient (I, being irrational, don't take orders from doctors but most people do.)

the Pope -- catholics

policeman -- law abiding citizen

In addition to one individual making a decision for another individual, it is common for people to follow the crowd instead of making decisions.

Examples:

Why do people start smoking? -- Other people smoke. Monkey see, monkey do.

Why do people start drugs? -- Other people do.

How do people choose a religion? -- Usually they accept the religion that is chosen for them.

Choice of food? -- Whatever other people are eating.

Taste in music? -- Whatever is popular. Doesn't matter how bad it is.

What books to read? -- Whatever is popular.

Most common argument used by doctors. -- Not generally accepted. (Doesn't matter whether it is true.)

It seems many people suffer from a psychological need to conform. I agree with John Stuart Mill's statement that people should cultivate individuality even to the point of eccentricity. I do not think highly of people who are afraid to be different.

It is important to distinguish between:

1. Letting other people make a decision for you.

2. Getting knowledge/insight/advice from people who have special knowledge or experience or smarts for the purpose of making the right decision.

Simple answer, altruism. Everything you've listed (in the second set of examples), at all levels is altruistic. People not thinking for themselves.

It covers all bases, psychological to ethical to social.

You also bring up an essential, which is understanding the difference between authority-as-expertise, and authority as Authority. Mostly, to a majority of people, either one evokes the other, with zero differentiation. That is where most troubles in the world originate. Thoughtful post. {Frediano expanded on it very well too}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how the thesis can be that individuals can make poor decisions so we must leave it up to other individuals to make the decisions for us??

Simple. The "other individuals," having acquired the right credentials, have magically become exempt from the incapacities for intelligent deciding they claim to have demonstrated in the general populace. They've become a priesthood elect.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen:

I've ordered the book, thank you. The 'Boomers' starting to come of age in the 60s and 70s are sometimes today regarded as a monolithic thinking whole. I don't remember it that way at all; I think it was the first of increasingly divided generations of Americans. What was once an external struggle became an internal struggle, and although the seeds of that internal struggle were festering for most of the 20th century, it was the Boomer generation that saw that erupt into a widespread internal conflict.

I was surprised to discover that Education and the Barricades is still in print. I'll take a look at it again myself.

I likewise don't remember the 60s and 70s as displaying "monolithic thinking." The era seems to me a time of splintering - Yeats' "Second Coming" - anything approaching a unified world view falling apart.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer:

The quote is from article.

Ellen did not write this.

"In this book, Sarah Conly rejects the idea of autonomy as inviolable."

Of course she would.

Females generally tend to think collectively more than males do. This is why the feminized collectivist ideology of liberalism attracts more females than the individualistic masculine ideology of conservatism. And the males that collectivism does attract think like females.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how the thesis can be that individuals can make poor decisions so we must leave it up to other individuals to make the decisions for us??

Simple. The "other individuals," having acquired the right credentials, have magically become exempt from the incapacities for intelligent deciding they claim to have demonstrated in the general populace. They've become a priesthood elect.

Ellen

Ellen,

I was going to say elite class and lower class. And guess which class the authors want to belong to?

I haven't even looked at the book and I already know this is dictatorship by technocrat crap.

Paternalism?

The guild of the elite for now, but pretty soon they will start talking about Führer.

They're not even hiding it anymore.

And here I was having fun with Cass Sunstein and Richard Thayler's boneheaded notion of “libertarian paternalism.” :)

Nudge in practice (even for the Chosen Ones) means: Nudge!... Shove!... Shoot!

I would see it as comedy: Ready!... Fire!... Aim!..., if it were not so toxic.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Females generally tend to think collectively more than males do. This is why the feminized collectivist ideology of liberalism attracts more females than the individualistic masculine ideology of conservatism. And the males that collectivism does attract think like females.Greg

You mean like Nazis, Communist dictators and thugs, Pol Pot and minions, Mao ditto, the Spartans,...?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

LOL...

Don't you know that male and female are gender-neutral?

:smile:

I quip, but I've already seen this argument.

If you think in terms of yin and yang with a twist or something like that instead of male and female, Greg's concept starts making more sense. Complementary but distinct universal forces that are projected onto humans. In other words, a male human may have a female (universal) propensity and vice-versa. Then mush it up a little. :)

Not that you may agree or disagree with this, but at least it becomes intelligible. He employs a quirky use of words at times and that throws people off. God knows what the source is for this particular quirk, but I don't think he made it up himself.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Females generally tend to think collectively more than males do. This is why the feminized collectivist ideology of liberalism attracts more females than the individualistic masculine ideology of conservatism. And the males that collectivism does attract think like females.Greg

You mean like Nazis, Communist dictators and thugs, Pol Pot and minions, Mao ditto, the Spartans,...?

Ellen

Obviously Greg's never been on a panty raid.

--Brant

or in a lynch mob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think in terms of yin and yang with a twist or something like that instead of male and female, Greg's concept starts making more sense. Complementary but distinct universal forces that are projected onto humans. In other words, a male human may have a female (universal) propensity and vice-versa. Then mush it up a little. :)

Not that you may agree or disagree with this, but at least it becomes intelligible. He employs a quirky use of words at times and that throws people off. God knows what the source is for this particular quirk, but I don't think he made it up himself.

Michael

I've read a bit of Jung in my day. :smile:

I don't think it works, however, by any meaning of "male," "female" as universal forces, etc., to see highly masculinized warrior ethos as actually representatives of the "feminine." (Nor did Jung see those ethos in that fashion.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Females generally tend to think collectively more than males do. This is why the feminized collectivist ideology of liberalism attracts more females than the individualistic masculine ideology of conservatism. And the males that collectivism does attract think like females.Greg

You mean like Nazis, Communist dictators and thugs, Pol Pot and minions, Mao ditto, the Spartans,...?

Ellen

You're right, Ellen.

I neglected to include the usual disclaimer that I'm not talking about the dead past in other countries, but am speaking of America right here and right now. Today the Democratic party appeals far more to single (or divorced) liberal females than do all of the conservative parties combined.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now