Thursday, July 2, 2009
Happy Independence Day
I don't have anything even remotely interesting to say about Independence Day and its significance this year, so let me wish everyone a safe and happy Fourth of July weekend by saying that I am conflicted about how, and even whether, to celebrate it. On the one hand, even the slightest display of nationalism is repugnant to me, especially the empty, flag-waving kind. On the other, I do feel very strongly that this is the absolutely best country in the world in countless respects and that I would not want to live anywhere else, and surely the creation of such a place ought to be celebrated, no? Happy grilling, everyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Bah, humbug!
Hey, I'm not disputing any of that, but show me a place -- a real place where I can move today -- that does not have these problems, or worse ones in their place.
Is my wife the perfect person, or even the perfect woman? No, of course not. But is there another woman I would, and could, realistically be married to now instead? No. Same kind of thing.
It's all well and good to be living in an imaginary world, but some of us have to get up every morning and go about our day, and I maintain that there is nowhere else I would rather do that.
I'm with Tony on this one. Nothing in Tamara K.'s snarkfest challenges his assertion that, despite everything, there's no better place to live. And what does it have to do with Independence Day? Would we be better off if we were subjects of Her Majesty the Queen? We wouldn't need those trigger locks, anyway.
The relative (and quickly equalizing) lack of vice is no virtue, and I don't really see "it could be worse" as a reason to celebrate.
And it's not much about independence any more; as Tony mentions, it's more about rah-rah nationalism and us being the best. Yeah, maybe, like HPV is better than herpes. The U.S. as originally conceived has been dead for at least 67 years; now they're just desecrating the corpse.
I mean, we've gotten to the point where a major party candidate for president can go on TV and say "this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation", and basically get a pass on it. And that was six years ago. What's left?
I was hoping not to be cornered into this line of argument, but alas. People who argue along Rasalom's lines have no point of reference. Having been born in the US and grown up in the US, in the luxury of being able to study fringe economics, they take many things for granted, having never had first-hand experience with any other place. Their father had never been dragged to the basements of the KGB, or denied work in his hometown for the simple reason that he wanted to leave the country. Their grandmother was never tortured by the police for the simple reason that she was Jewish and thus by definition had to have been hiding gold in her house, resulting in her spending the last eight years of her life as a quadruplegic. I could go on. And if the lack of that kind of vice is not a virtue, then I don't know what is. If Rasolom does not want to celebrate it, that's his prerogative, but that fact alone is worth celebrating, to me at least. Need I remind him that there are many places in the world where come celebration time, it is not optional -- you march down the street waving flag with a couple of hundred thousand of your closest friends, or you get thrown in jail as an anti-social element? And by jove, I'm going to grill myself a juicy burger (of the sort denied to many millions, if not billions of people, on this planet, by the way) and raise a glass to the fact that I no longer have to worry about it, my celebration marred only by the realization that people who lose focus of what's truly important in the grand scheme of things do far more damage to our social fabric than progressive taxation ever could.
"Could be worse" is no more praise than "could be better" (say, "Back in the Goodle Days") is condemnation. The point is that this country is better than any alternative, and no counterexample has been offered to dispute this.
And I don't buy the argument that the country is on an inexorable slide down a slippery slope of declining freedom. The Liberty Quotient per capita is inarguably higher today than it was in the days of institutionalized slavery. Moreover, the constantly improving standard of living (though not entirely attributable to the behavior of governing authorities) also allows for greater choice and freedom for the average resident.
I suspect that in any large society, there will be elements sympathetic to nannyism, and it is perhaps the nobler or luckier nation that keeps those tendencies in check. Whether or not this situation is worth celebrating is debatable. Congratulating yourself for being born under a particular flag seems insipid; feeling somehow pleased, if not quite proud, to be part of this enterprise seems entirely appropriate.
a few comments in reverse order:
--The point is not that progressive taxation is harmful - though of course it is - but rather that we have major political figures who consider it a founding principal of our country, instead of individual liberty, rule of law, limited government. And a populace that doesn't know any better than to go along with it. How the mighty have fallen.
--I kind of have a different view on losing sight of what's truly important. Seems to me that waving a flag and saying "at least we're better off than those guys" while we hemorrhage our freedoms fits that bill pretty well.
--Enjoy that burger while you can. You'll be joining those billions soon enough.
--I'm perfectly willing to celebrate people moving from more repressive societies to less; in fact, I can't think of much I love more than people gaining more freedom and independence. What I won't celebrate is once-free societies slowly turning into soul-crushing hives.
--I don't think I have any fringe economic ideas - not sure where that came from, anyway - although I do tend to apply neo-classical economics more broadly than most people think to. My concept of what a just, prosperous and desirable society would be like is kind of fringey, but it would have been a good deal less so in 1776.
The point is that this country is better than any alternative, and no counterexample has been offered to dispute this.
Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand. Of course, economic freedom is not the only index, but I think the burden is on the claimant to prove that other considerations are more important.
Anyway, so what? What's great about being the best, even if we are? I only care about absolute position, not relative.
The Liberty Quotient per capita is inarguably higher today than it was in the days of institutionalized slavery.
Ah, ah, no cherry picking. 1865 was a local maximum; I think you'll see a pretty monotonically decreasing slope from say 1870 to today. Maybe a tiny uptick in the 1980s.
Moreover, the constantly improving standard of living (though not entirely attributable to the behavior of governing authorities) also allows for greater choice and freedom for the average resident.
This would be true regardless of the level of government intervention and nanny-statism, unless it grew to, say, North Korean proportions. In fact, the slope of that improvement is dampened the more freedom is eroded; not sure that argument supports your side at all.
feeling somehow pleased, if not quite proud, to be part of this enterprise seems entirely appropriate
Certainly. As does being disappointed it never lived up to its promise.
Anyway, so what? What's great about being the best, even if we are? I only care about absolute position, not relative.
I think that sums up the difference between Rasalom's position and mine, and demonstrates why we could not come to an agreement or even a compromise even if we brought Blogger down to its knees with comments. It does occur to me that someone who cares only about the absolute position is destined to dwell in a state of permanent disappointment.
"I only care about absolute position, not relative."
Does Rasalom also believe that life is always fair? I never thought that I would see dichotomous thinking more extreme than my husband's!
Thanks, honey :)
I hate to risk getting contentious again now that peace is reigning and all, but I'm honestly a little confused by these responses.
I think that sums up the difference between Rasalom's position and mine
I guess. It never occurred to me that anyone would disagree with that sentiment. Are you saying, e.g., you'd rather live in a dirt-floor shack and eat half a bowl of rice a day, as long as everyone else was just a little worse off, than live in a large home with every comfort you could want but have all your neighbors a little better off? That you'd rather live in chains 23 hours a day, as long as everyone else wore them 23 and a half, than live free 364 days out of the year with everyone else being free year-round? Doesn't preferring relative to absolute status require those positions?
Does Rasalom also believe that life is always fair?
Uh, wha'? Complete non-sequitur. I don't understand how that's supposed to relate. All I'm saying is I don't take any comfort in the idea that others are less free than I am, nor any joy in being better off than the next guy.
I'd be perfectly happy to be the poorest person in the world, as long as my standard of living were the same as it is now (or higher). And, keeping our level of prosperity/freedom/etc. in the U.S. constant, I'd much rather that we be the worst in the world than the best. Wouldn't you? Doesn't the opposite position imply that you want others to be worse off out of . . . I don't know, spite, narcissism, schadenfreude? If I'm stuck with what I've got, I'd take comfort in others being better off, not worse. Not to mention that if every other country was better one could probably improve one's situation by emigrating.
Are you saying, e.g., you'd rather live in a dirt-floor shack and eat half a bowl of rice a day, as long as everyone else was just a little worse off, than live in a large home with every comfort you could want but have all your neighbors a little better off? That you'd rather live in chains 23 hours a day, as long as everyone else wore them 23 and a half, than live free 364 days out of the year with everyone else being free year-round? Doesn't preferring relative to absolute status require those positions?
No, it does not. Well, I suppose on a purely rhetorical level, it does, but that's precisely my point -- we do not live in a purely rhetorical world. If the choice is between wearing chains for 23 hrs./day vs. 23.5, then of course I would choose 23. Wouldn't you? Yes, of course myself and everyone else being free 24/7/365 is preferable, but the truth is, no on is, and will not be except in theory. Therefore, I am choosing the least of all available evils, because practically speaking, in the real world in which we live, that is the best that is available to me.
Does Rasalom also believe that life is always fair?
What Anonymous is trying to say is that Rasalom's approach is not pragmatic, not realistic, and not fit for successful functioning in an imperfect everyday world. There are no absolutes in real life, as much as we might want it to be otherwise.
I should probably also add that if the choice is between living in a dirt-floor shack and eating half a bowl of rice a day while being able to speak freely, and living in a mansion with a luxury car while having to watch my every word, I would choose the former every time.
Therefore, I am choosing the least of all available evils, because practically speaking, in the real world in which we live, that is the best that is available to me.
Well, sure. But it doesn't follow that I can't argue that it should be better and point out what I see as ... let's say, "areas for improvement". And I don't think it follows that if I think the best still leaves a lot to be desired I should keep quiet about it because everything else is even worse.
What Anonymous is trying to say is that Rasalom's approach is not pragmatic, not realistic, and not fit for successful functioning in an imperfect everyday world.
Suggesting that bad policies should change is not practical or realistic? Successful functioning requires that everyone accept the status quo at all times? Henh?
Maybe you and she thought I meant absolute as in "100% pure"? I thought the context made it clear that I meant "I only care about how well off we are on a fixed scale, not how good we have it compared to the rest of the world." So if my country is lower on the scale than I'd like, I feel like I should point that out (although I'll pick a better time and place for it in the future - sorry about that. Happy belated Fourth, Mr. Cratchit - have a <del>prize turkey</del> hot dog with everything, on me).
And I don't think it follows that if I think the best still leaves a lot to be desired I should keep quiet about it because everything else is even worse.
I never said anyone should keep quiet about anything. All I said that I felt our circumstances deserve to be celebrated despite the fact that they leave a lot to be desired.
Maybe you and she thought I meant absolute as in "100% pure"?
That is exactly what we thought.
I thought the context made it clear that I meant "I only care about how well off we are on a fixed scale, not how good we have it compared to the rest of the world."
The context did not make that clear, but that's beside the point. It boils down to the same thing if the fixed scale is such that nothing short of 100% pure is considered satisfactory.
Wait, what? Why would you be satisfied when there are things that could be better? Why not, at the very least, say, "hey, these things could and should be better".
All I said that I felt our circumstances deserve to be celebrated despite the fact that they leave a lot to be desired.
And all I said is that they I felt they don't.
I never said anyone should keep quiet about anything.
No, you just said that not keeping quiet about it is "impractical, unreasonable and not fit for successful functioning."
That is exactly what we thought.
I honestly can't imagine how. But even so, now that I think about it, it really wouldn't change anything even if that is what I meant. As long as there are things about the society you you live in that you think should change for the better, no matter how small, what in the world could possibly be wrong with pointing them out?
Let's review the facts:
Not only do I believe that certain things about the U.S. are bad and should change, I even go so far as to say so.
But it doesn't end there! Incredibly, I even maintain these beliefs in the face of multiple assertions that other countries are not even as well off as we are.
Clearly, even the simplest urchins in the streets can easily conclude that this behavior is impractical and unreasonable, and that I must be completely unable to function in society.
But - against all odds - I seem to function quite well. I seem to be able to achieve my goals in a very practical manner, and interact quite reasonably with others. How could this happen? It's almost like there's some kind of . . .flaw . . . in your analysis.
I understand that my approach of arguing against policies I consider detrimental to myself and others might seem unorthodox - even extreme - to some, but I'm not sure which goal my approach is supposed to be unrealistic and impractical for achieving.
I mean, it's almost like you think I meant "If things aren't exactly the way I want, I'm going to refuse to exist in that society and somehow hold myself outside of space and time until my ideal society emerges, and probably hold my breath while I'm doing it" instead of "If I believe there are areas where society could be improved, I'm going to point out what they are, and maybe I might not celebrate too hard until those things change".
Surely that can't be right, but I just don't see anything unreasonable, impractical or dysfunctional about the latter.
Post a Comment