Comments on: Rubber Duckies http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2003/09/17/rubber-duckies/ Sociology and other distractions Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:33:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John Isbell http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2003/09/17/rubber-duckies/comment-page-1/#comment-2237 John Isbell Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.kieranhealy.org/wordpress/?p=512#comment-2237 It strikes me that the argument for raising tax burdens on the poor to integrate them more fully into the American economy, via their sacrifice, may derive from an older, but routine, and analogous argument: universal conscription (I'm leaving aside Greek positive liberty). How can we expect the rich to be truly invested in America's armed forces and American military success when they and their children never serve a day in uniform? I feel that I have here a rather elegant scalpel to apply to the WSJ and TNR. A rather bloodier scalpel than their one. I propose universal service with no deferments, and I look forward to the distinctions they'll draw, sat on their fat asses, to their little soak the poor civics experiment. It strikes me that the argument for raising tax burdens on the poor to integrate them more fully into the American economy, via their sacrifice, may derive from an older, but routine, and analogous argument: universal conscription (I’m leaving aside Greek positive liberty).
How can we expect the rich to be truly invested in America’s armed forces and American military success when they and their children never serve a day in uniform? I feel that I have here a rather elegant scalpel to apply to the WSJ and TNR. A rather bloodier scalpel than their one. I propose universal service with no deferments, and I look forward to the distinctions they’ll draw, sat on their fat asses, to their little soak the poor civics experiment.

]]> By: Tom O'Bedlam http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2003/09/17/rubber-duckies/comment-page-1/#comment-2238 Tom O'Bedlam Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.kieranhealy.org/wordpress/?p=512#comment-2238 I don't understand the following comment: Now, I don’t believe that’s the right way to read the “Lucky Duckies” editorial. But that’s because I believe it to be a piece of ideology — something written by smart but disingenuous people in order to mislead readers about what’s there in the data. For that reason, I don’t think it’s worthy of the subtle tools Jacob brings to bear on it, and it also makes me less inclined to follow the dialogue that’s going to develop between Jacob and Russell Arben Fox..." Perhaps more accurately, I don't understand the mindset behind the comment. Is Mr. Healy saying we should only argue with those of similar ideology, because that's the only way one can have a fruitful discussion, that might actually make some progress? If he's not saying that, it's not clear to me what he's saying. And if he is saying that, it seems to me just wrongheaded. What Mr. Levy is doing strikes me as the most worthwhile sort of argumentative enterprise -- that is, he is (I think) trying to clear out the misleading ideology, focus on the data, and start a discussion that people of any ideology can participate in, at the cost of having their ideological biases made clear. Reading that sort of discussion is how people like me -- who am not an economist -- really might have an opportunity to learn something. At least I start to understand what sort of ideological biases I'm buying into when I accept a given argument. I don’t understand the following comment:

Now, I don’t believe that’s the right way to read the “Lucky Duckies” editorial. But that’s because I believe it to be a piece of ideology — something written by smart but disingenuous people in order to mislead readers about what’s there in the data. For that reason, I don’t think it’s worthy of the subtle tools Jacob brings to bear on it, and it also makes me less inclined to follow the dialogue that’s going to develop between Jacob and Russell Arben Fox…”

Perhaps more accurately, I don’t understand the mindset behind the comment. Is Mr. Healy saying we should only argue with those of similar ideology, because that’s the only way one can have a fruitful discussion, that might actually make some progress? If he’s not saying that, it’s not clear to me what he’s saying. And if he is saying that, it seems to me just wrongheaded.

What Mr. Levy is doing strikes me as the most worthwhile sort of argumentative enterprise—that is, he is (I think) trying to clear out the misleading ideology, focus on the data, and start a discussion that people of any ideology can participate in, at the cost of having their ideological biases made clear. Reading that sort of discussion is how people like me—who am not an economist—really might have an opportunity to learn something. At least I start to understand what sort of ideological biases I’m buying into when I accept a given argument.

]]> By: OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2003/09/17/rubber-duckies/comment-page-1/#comment-2239 OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.kieranhealy.org/wordpress/?p=512#comment-2239 <strong>THOSE LUCKY POOR</strong> Kieran Healy has a superb discussion, sparked by an old WSJ editorial and ensuing commentary thereon by Jacob Levy, Kevin Drum, and Paul Krugman. WSJ... THOSE LUCKY POOR

Kieran Healy has a superb discussion, sparked by an old WSJ editorial and ensuing commentary thereon by Jacob Levy, Kevin Drum, and Paul Krugman. WSJ…

]]>