20
Nov
2014
The “Best” of Gruber In One Short Video
I’ve already shown the first and third clips on this blog (separately), but the middle one is new to Free Advice.
BTW, Steve Landsburg is cool with Gruber’s handling of the Cadillac tax stuff. I am collecting my thoughts before officially responding, but let’s just say I’m much more receptive to Jim Bovard’s take.
“For instance, the farm lobby has never lacked arcane models crafted by government agricultural economists proving that America benefits from paying farmers more than their crops are worth.”
Maybe it’s because I don’t work in policy… or close enough to the USDA-employed economists… but I’ve never seen such a model.
Ah, Bob, I had so hoped that you would link to my Grothendieck posts. But I’ll take what I can get!
I’m still processing them… they were awesome.
I printed out the paper you (Steve) referenced but am too intimidated to actually start reading it.
It’s ironic that Steve, a libertarian, is OK with what Gruber was discussing, while I find it morally objectionable. If someone is against X and for Y, and they’re not aware that X = Y (or the effect of X = the effect of Y), then it would be immoral to exploit their ignorance. If they would not support Y if they knew that X =Y, then the honest thing to do is to try to change their mind and make them support X, not trick them into supporting Y because they don’t understand that X = Y.
Keshav,
If a Hindu priest exploited the ignorance of a person, and fed them unintentional falsehoods, and those people ended up really truly believing in the falsehoods, to the point of being offended, dismissive or in strong disagreement with anyone who suggested they were misled, then what responsibility does anyone really have towards those the priest ends up convincing?
Would it be immoral for someone who doesn’t believe in Hinduism, to use Hinduist talk as a means to acquire money from you that you give voluntarily?
Or, would it be immoral for someone to accept what you give them if the reason you give it to them is a reason they regard as silly or nonsensical?
I am not trying to be a wise Alec here, I think it is something to debate in more detail because you are broadening the scope.
I know what Gruber did was wrong because his lies were for the purpose of getting majority support for a law that violates individual property rights. He only had to brainwash and/or convince a portion of the population, and democratic principles regard that as sufficient for it being moral and obligating us into obeying, and in most cases regard as a “duty”, and a crime for simply wanting to opt out of it.
But what if someone wants to pay another in exchange for lies? What if they pay not to get truths, but rather to hear a series of statements and talk that makes the buyer feel good? Would it be immoral for someone to meet that demand and offer the lies the buyers want? Would it be moral if the sellers believe in the lies themselves? Should ignorance be rewarded and intelligence be punished? Should it be immoral to not use reason but faith instead?
“If a Hindu priest exploited the ignorance of a person, and fed them unintentional falsehoods, and those people ended up really truly believing in the falsehoods, to the point of being offended, dismissive or in strong disagreement with anyone who suggested they were misled, then what responsibility does anyone really have towards those the priest ends up convincing?” Well, the beginning of your question is confusing, because I don’t see how someone who is unintentionally feeding someone falsehoods would be “exploiting” their ignorance. In any case, if your question is “do you have a moral obligation to go around correcting people’s false beliefs if they’re dismissive of your corrections”, that’s a species of a more general question “do you have a moral obligation to go around correcting people”s false beliefs?” That question is somewhat hard to answer. It’s certainly a good thing, but I’d have to think about whether it’s obligatory in general (it’s certainly obligatory in some cases).
“Would it be immoral for someone who doesn’t believe in Hinduism, to use Hinduist talk as a means to acquire money from you that you give voluntarily?” Yes, if for instance you thought there was no such thing as an afterlife, then it would be immoral to say “You should give me 5000 dollars so that you’ll have a good afterlife.” Because that involves tricking someone into giving you money by misrepresenting your beliefs.
“Or, would it be immoral for someone to accept what you give them if the reason you give it to them is a reason they regard as silly or nonsensical?” Well, it depends. If someone wants to buy a Roomba from you thinking it will do laundry for them, you definitely have an obligation to inform them that it’s not capable of doing laundry. But after that if they want to buy it anyway, is it morally permissible to sell it to them? That’s a tougher question that I’d have to think more about.
“I know what Gruber did was wrong because his lies were for the purpose of getting majority support for a law that violates individual property rights.” So do you think it’s morally permissible to deceive someone into following the non-aggression principle?
“But what if someone wants to pay another in exchange for lies? What if they pay not to get truths, but rather to hear a series of statements and talk that makes the buyer feel good? Would it be immoral for someone to meet that demand and offer the lies the buyers want?” Well, that wouldn’t rely be a case of lying, since the buyer is presumably aware that the statements you’re making are false. Whether it’s immoral to consume a service that’s concerned with falsity, and whether it’s immoral to offer such a service, is a tricky question. In the Middle Ages, for instance, actors were often treated as outcasts because their whole job was to utter falsehoods, something that was believed to be sinful by Christians.
“Would it be moral if the sellers believe in the lies themselves?” Well, I do think that believing false things is not a good thing. Whether it’s immoral in general is another thing that’s hard to answer (although it’s certainly immoral in some cases).
“Should ignorance be rewarded and intelligence be punished?” That’s a rather vague question. Punished by whom? The government? Divine powers?
“Should it be immoral to not use reason but faith instead?” No, it’s definitely not immoral to use faith instead of reason. I don’t think reason is the only reliable means of acquiring knowledge. Faith can also be a reliable means.