In discussions with people about economic matters, I often face the claim that the middle of the road "interventionist" mode is the pragmatic approach and that adhering to either ideological extreme (either socialism or laissez faire) is simply dogmatic.
How do I respond to such a claim? It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Only extremists occupy ideological positions. Inevitably, they will be dogmatic about their beliefs. The pragmatist does not cling to any ideology, is willing to consider any proposal on it's own merits.
The pragmatist must be reasonable and right because he ocuppies the middle ground.
I suppose you could argue that "pragmatism" means that they are unprincipled and short-sighted.
http://mises.org/story/3014
By the way, the burden of proof is on whoever claims that the free market is not sufficient to meet the demands of society, not the other way around.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Well, actually the burden of proof is going to be on those who want to change from the status quo. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is.
Why are people often trying to avoid the burden of proof and trying to pass it on to someone else for whatever reason?
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Fried Egg: Well, actually the burden of proof is going to be on those who want to change from the status quo. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is.
Every time anyone acts it is a change of the status quo. This means that any form of government action has to be justified.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Because it is a nonsensical concept.
Fried Egg:In discussions with people about economic matters, I often face the claim that the middle of the road "interventionist" mode is the pragmatic approach and that adhering to either ideological extreme (either socialism or laissez faire) is simply dogmatic.
is it being dogmatically asserted that the 'pragmatic' approach is 'superior' to laissez-faire?
Fried Egg:Only extremists occupy ideological positions.
unless you are using a very particular technical definition of 'ideology' this sounds like a glaring howler to me. plus its open to the above response...
Fried Egg:The pragmatist must be reasonable and right because he ocuppies the middle ground.
this is some bizarre notion that if you hear passionate argument from two opposing sides and you have not the intellect to look for wherein the truth lies, one is certainly tempted to 'pragamtically' take a little from column a and a little from column b.
does this middle of the roadism apply to other concepts , like justice?
on the one hand there is judge A. he makes just decision the vast majority of the cases, only failing to be perfect by virtue of his human imperfectio.n here is jude B, he makes unjust decisions the vast majority of cases, only failing to be perfectly unjust by virtue of his human imperfection.
is Judge C who settles cases on the toss of a coin superior to both B , AND A ?
you can answer this question. i believe in you :-)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
It can be frustrating. It's nice to think that regulators are fighting an eternal battle against greed while still having faith in humanity.
I'd just point out how shifty it is to say that any fault that arises is due to a misbalance of the two, and say then pull out some historical economic slippery slope example.
nirgrahamUK: on the one hand there is judge A. he makes just decision the vast majority of the cases, only failing to be perfect by virtue of his human imperfectio.n here is jude B, he makes unjust decisions the vast majority of cases, only failing to be perfectly unjust by virtue of his human imperfection. is Judge C who settles cases on the toss of a coin superior to both B , AND A ?
No particular judge is superior to the other, what is important is the history of jurisprudence and the historical reference to it considering the culture and specificities of a society.
Rubén:No particular judge is superior to the other,
Don't be silly.
The only way to rank judges is within the system, appeals courts overrule regular courts, the Supreme Court overrules them all. Otherwise any judge's decision hold as if it were the decision of any other judge. The personal opinion of a citizen concerning the "score" or a judge within the judiciary system is irrelevant.
Rubén: The only way to rank judges is within the system, appeals courts overrule regular courts, the Supreme Court overrules them all. Otherwise any judge's decision hold as if it were the decision of any other judge. The personal opinion of a citizen concerning the "score" or a judge within the judiciary system is irrelevant.
i get the impression Ruben doesnt know what justice is unless someone with a monopoly on violence tells him
Fried Egg: In discussions with people about economic matters, I often face the claim that the middle of the road "interventionist" mode is the pragmatic approach and that adhering to either ideological extreme (either socialism or laissez faire) is simply dogmatic. How do I respond to such a claim? It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Only extremists occupy ideological positions. Inevitably, they will be dogmatic about their beliefs. The pragmatist does not cling to any ideology, is willing to consider any proposal on it's own merits. The pragmatist must be reasonable and right because he ocuppies the middle ground.
What is pragmatic about mixing in bad ideas with good ones? Successful People and organizations identify good ideas and strategies, and then execute them fully without reserve. The same is true with economic policy. Bad economic ideas create bad results, while good economic ideas executed properly create good results. The whole pragmatic moderate theory is an excuse to stop thinking and challenging ideas. Ideas that seem moderate today are extreme tomorrow and moderate the next. Today, in Russia, moderates believe government should control the media. Since government needs to control the media to function, only an impractical extremist would consider the idea of free and independent press. Moderate and extreme are relative terms and entirely subjective.
What is pragmatic about mixing in bad ideas with good ones? Successful People and organizations identify good ideas and strategies, and then execute them fully without reserve. The same is true with economic policy. Bad economic ideas create bad results, while good economic ideas executed properly create good results.
The whole pragmatic moderate theory is an excuse to stop thinking and challenging ideas. Ideas that seem moderate today are extreme tomorrow and moderate the next. Today, in Russia, moderates believe government should control the media. Since government needs to control the media to function, only an impractical extremist would consider the idea of free and independent press. Moderate and extreme are relative terms and entirely subjective.
Middle of the road economics? Between Socialism and Laissez Faire?
Look up information on Fascism. It was always about "getting things done" and "action", taking a pragmatic approach.
Socialism was the Middle of the Road between Capitalism and democratic communism/anarcho-sydicalism. Bismark was a Socialist so he could remain in power but still give the revolting masses what they wanted.
Mussolini was a Socialist before he started the Fascist Party
Pragmatism in economics usually leads to nationalism, because radical socialism was about universal revolt of workers across national borders, and in true Capitalism where you lived would not matter because unrestricted labor movement and immigration would rend borders pointless. between to principally different universal approaches, the middle would be nationalism/mercantilism, which is an abysmal failure.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap