Re: A Short Review of "Hard Heads, Soft Hearts"

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 12:32:44 MST


Technotranscendence wrote:
> A Short Review of _Hard Heads, Soft Hearts_
> by Bryan D Caplan bcaplan@gmu.edu
>
>
> People give merit its due in academic competition, athletic competition,
> artistic competition, and more. Why not economic competition? What is
> so hard about showing respect to the "winners," and expecting the
> "losers" to keep their disappointment to themselves?
>

More or less nothing is wrong with the above IF the competition
actually ends up rewarding the best of what you want to reward
and strengthen. If the losers include too much that you wish to
preserve and enable then the game must be called at least
partially in question. An important question is how to enable
many very important minds and projects that do not "win" in the
current competition or even necessarily acheive sustenance with
a bit of time/space to work and develop.

It is a very open quesiton whether the game is or has evolved
into something that truly is in our best interests. It cannot
be assumed automatically that it is.

> Blinder obviously has little sympathy for people who favor tax cuts for
> the rich and spending cuts for the homeless. They just seem "mean." To
> paraphrase a Deep Thought by Jack Handey, "If it is 'mean' to think that
> smart, productive people don't owe drunken beggars a living, then yes
> Mr. Softie, I am a Big Meanie."
>

Unfortunately a large number of the poor are neither "drunken"
or "lazy" or even undereducated. Or do we just forget about the
half million or so computer tech people put out of work in the
so-called "dot-com bust"? Now, I certainly am open to and tend
to believe arguments that most of that was due to government
interference in the economy BUT it is dishonest and highly
harmful to lump all "losers" together as a despicable and
worthless lot. This is the rhetoric of stupidity and prejudice
and detracts from the valid points made needlessly.
Nevertheless, it is an improvement over the supremacy of need
and inability that one often hears.

- samantha



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:30 MST