Social Democrats in the Wilderness

[The Minsky Moment]

Indeed, but I contend such is an artificial separation that, in itself, thrives on being "separated". Are institutions' mandates really that different from the day-to-day operations that "reflect" and hence, promote, the moral beliefs of the people within ? Is it likewise possible that individuals are not already fully formed when they join - if they join - collective endeavours, and are in turn shaped by them? Justice systems, for instance, might very well be historical constructions, they are still not free for alls and chaos. Sociologically, there are many ways to construct and reconstruct the coherence of a system, and no one remakes everything in each judgement. Can people differenciate between an individual and a collective morality ?

The danger is (as grumbler alluded to) that institutions can assume a life of their own, in a manner that the people who originally created them did not expect or anticipate.  That danger may be even greater where the institution is relatively unlimited in terms of means and authority and defined by an open-ended mission in the form of a moral imperative (e.g. a "committee of public safety") as opposed to an institution that is delineated more in procedural terms. (e.g. a "securities and exchange commission").  Where an institution is not saddled with particular procedural limitations and is defined by a high-sounded moral direction (uphold morals, liberate the massses, chastise the sinners, protect the Revolution, uproot heresy, etc), experience suggests trouble can easily follow.

If one wants to brush aside this question as nowadays irrelevant, then I contend we need a new way to conceptualize the collective. Can democracy survive by being purposeless ? I am not too sure. Historically, the form of the State has been tied in with the Common Good, leaving the definition of which the matter of politics, much to the absolutist monarchs' chagrin. If we remove the "Good" from the equation, how can we still think the "Common" (probably many ways, but many seem unsavory...)

I will respond with another question: can democracy survive notwithstanding the lack of clear agreement as to its ultimate purpose or the nature of the Good?  One could argue that not only can democracy survive such a condition, but indeed it actually requires its existence to thrive.  Where democracy has too strong a purpose and too much homogeneity in terms of notions of the Good, it is prone to degeneration to tyranny.  Perhaps one key difference between ancient and modern democracies is that the latter emphasizes pluralism whereas the former was hostile to it.

Once again, I much prefer to "think with" Yi, Sheilbh or you (good thinking partners in any way) than to argue for or against an already formed opinion.

That must be against some board rule, no? 
At the very least it strikes against the languish value system.  Luckily, we lack a moral mission statement.   

[Martinus]

I think the question of whether the law or the state policy should be inspired by morality is a fallacious one - since it always is to a degree.

I think the real question (and therein lies the difference between a communist regime or a theocracy on one hand and a liberal democracy on the other) is what vision of morality (in the meta-sense) the state adopts.

If the state wishes to enforce a maximalist morality then it creates a totalitarian state, where every moral choice becomes also a legal one.

If the state wishes to enforce only a minimalist, "basic" morality (leaving a significant part of moral questions up to the decisions of its citizens without a legal fiat) then it creates a pluralistic society.

Yes, this. However, I somewhat reject the idea that a "society" or a state can really have a morality of its own. IMO--morality is a property of the choices and actions of individuals. It doesn't really scale into collective action. A state can be an enforcer of moral values, but it holds no morality or virtue of its own. It's a reflection of the values of the individuals who created it. Not, the people ruled or governed by it, mind you, but those who created it.

I do disagree with the notion I think Yi mentioned that a non-interventionist state is lacking moral imperative. I think the non-interventionism is itself a moral reflection of the values of the individuals involved. ie--Deciding not to interfere in a gay guy's sex life is itself a choice with a moral component to it, and the individuals who make up the society he lives in, at least the majority of them or the decision-making portion of them, consider it a moral value to be non-interventionist in that area. In other words, not all morality is reflected through the actions that the state takes. Just as much is reflected by the action the state doesn't take.

Yeah I agree. But some baseline morality enforced through law (don't kill, don't steal, don't let people own each other, for example) is necessary or desirable to allow for a good running of the society (social cohesion).

The question, as always is where to draw a line - for some a moral society needs to enforce e.g. equal access to healthcare or education, for others it doesn't.

[Agelastus]

Social democracy is dead in Britain?

The latest figure I've seen is 52%.

It's quite noticeable that during the recession, while the private sector was shedding jobs rapidly, the public sector actually expanded. While you might expect this to be true of a sector of government whose workload has increased, such as the Employment Service, one would not expect the increase to be across almost every department as it has been.

[MadImmortalMan]

That must be against some board rule, no? 
At the very least it strikes against the languish value system.  Luckily, we lack a moral mission statement.   

That lack is our moral mission statement. 

[Oexmelin]

The danger is (as grumbler alluded to) that institutions can assume a life of their own, in a manner that the people who originally created them did not expect or anticipate.  That danger may be even greater where the institution is relatively unlimited in terms of means and authority and defined by an open-ended mission in the form of a moral imperative (e.g. a "committee of public safety") as opposed to an institution that is delineated more in procedural terms. (e.g. a "securities and exchange commission").  Where an institution is not saddled with particular procedural limitations and is defined by a high-sounded moral direction (uphold morals, liberate the massses, chastise the sinners, protect the Revolution, uproot heresy, etc), experience suggests trouble can easily follow.

Of course. But institutions already do exist despite their original purpose. This is why the "justice system" is not the only thing that is continuously built: institutions evolve all the time. Yet they are judged according to their mission.  Again, I would argue that the difference between procedural and moral imperative isn't as great as you portray it. Or rather, that institutions that openly display their moral imperatives are somewhat crude (and therefore easily spotted - perhaps more transparent, if one wants to portray it in a more positive way) while those that hide it under procedural routines are more successful yet no less moral. The case in point is the institution of the modern police, which is characterized with an especially wide-ranging realm of applicability (maintaining order), and a lack of specific method so as to be flexible enough to conform to any situation. A police state does not need to have  liberal moral guidelines to have an efficient police.

In other words, institutions vary depending on their place within or society. Institutions that are very much removed from the core of it, at the end of a long chain of relationships, can certainly appear to be neutral. That, in essence, is their strength, upon which we rightly build. However, institutions located more at the heart of our society already have, and still have, missions vaguely defined by moral imperatives. They can, however, branch out through a multitude of guises. The security and exchange commissions is one way of upholding the ideal of a just transaction, for instance.

I will respond with another question: can democracy survive notwithstanding the lack of clear agreement as to its ultimate purpose or the nature of the Good?  One could argue that not only can democracy survive such a condition, but indeed it actually requires its existence to thrive.  Where democracy has too strong a purpose and too much homogeneity in terms of notions of the Good, it is prone to degeneration to tyranny.  Perhaps one key difference between ancient and modern democracies is that the latter emphasizes pluralism whereas the former was hostile to it. 

Again, this is what I was getting at. Note that I was not arguing against the indeterminate nature of the Common Good, but the fact that we discard the notion of "Good" altogether. That we actively seek to remove it from the equation, rather than argue about what it means. That is what I meant: that the promotion of indifference results in an undermining of the political relationship.

And this is certainly something that separates ancient democracies from modern ones: the Ancient "started" with the idea of the City, that this link between men, was in itself moral. The idea that one man could reject the City was abhorrent to them. Our own myths start by as pseudo-histories, by which we think as collection of individuals forced to associate through external circumstances. The "natural sympathy" of Adam Smith is now long dead, and we are left with relationships that exist only externally, and which we have sought to a-moralize altogether. What value is there to the community ?

[crazy canuck]

Argument by assertion.

And logic, experience, wisdom and irrefutable observation.

What do you got?

Glad to see you restating your position.  We agree on this.

Your memory is failing you.  If you go back to my first post you will see this has been my position all along and you have been arguing for no purpose.  Shocking!

[grumbler]

And logic, experience, wisdom and irrefutable observation.

If you really believe that all of your experience tells you that the only way to cut costs is to cut services, I suggest you either lack any experience, or don't learn from it.

What do you got?

Logic, common sense, and the enormous number of examples throughout history in which costs have gone down while service has remained the same or improved.  Example:  long distance telephone service in the US.

Your memory is failing you.  If you go back to my first post you will see this has been my position all along and you have been arguing for no purpose.  Shocking!

If you are reverting to the "the only way to cut costs is to reduce service" mindset, then perhaps you are clinging to your untenable position.  Makes no difference to me, as I don't think you will find it easy to locate two other people on the planet that believes that this is true a priori. Maybe Hans, as he has all kinds of strange beliefs.

[Martinus]

Example:  long distance telephone service in the US.

Well, that's because of economies of scale and technological progress. Not sure either would be extremely useful in the penitentiary system (though I can imagine you could be reducing costs of prison operations via some panopticon-style computerization, but I don't think the business is lucrative enough to warrant R&D investments that would require that).

[crazy canuck]

If you are reverting to the "the only way to cut costs is to reduce service" mindset, then perhaps you are clinging to your untenable position.  Makes no difference to me, as I don't think you will find it easy to locate two other people on the planet that believes that this is true a priori. Maybe Hans, as he has all kinds of strange beliefs.

Grumbler, I appreciate your effort to ensure everyone understands what a strawman argument is by giving a perfect example.

But really, you can make a better Ad Hom attack then lumping me in with Hans.

I give you a C+.  Your first effort was quite good but it all fell apart to the end of the post.

[grumbler]

Grumbler, I appreciate your effort to ensure everyone understands what a strawman argument is by giving a perfect example.

  Dude, I am quoting you!  You cannot argue that my repeating you word for word is a strawman!

But really, you can make a better Ad Hom attack then lumping me in with Hans.

It is not an ad hom.  You need to learn the meaning of these logical fallacy terms before you use them.

I give you a C+.  Your first effort was quite good but it all fell apart to the end of the post.

Alas, you earned only an F yourself.  Two chances to use a term correctly, and whiffed both times.  Not even with new math can 0% correct become a passing score. 

[crazy canuck]

Sorry Grumbler,

appealing your grade will not work.  The only reason I gave you as high as a C+ is so you wouldnt have to repeat my course.  But I will not give you a higher mark no matter how much you complain.

[grumbler]

Sorry Grumbler,

appealing your grade will not work.  The only reason I gave you as high as a C+ is so you wouldnt have to repeat my course.  But I will not give you a higher mark no matter how much you complain.

  I am guessing that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.  I appeal nothing.  I do assign grades just as you do, though.  It is just that i have specific justification for my grades, and you just have arbitrary grades. 

Don't worry.  No one expects you to know any more about grading than about, say, reading, or the law, or economics.  Those are pretty specialized subject that require some education and a certain amount of ability.

[Sheilbh]

Again, this is what I was getting at. Note that I was not arguing against the indeterminate nature of the Common Good, but the fact that we discard the notion of "Good" altogether. That we actively seek to remove it from the equation, rather than argue about what it means. That is what I meant: that the promotion of indifference results in an undermining of the political relationship.

And this is certainly something that separates ancient democracies from modern ones: the Ancient "started" with the idea of the City, that this link between men, was in itself moral. The idea that one man could reject the City was abhorrent to them. Our own myths start by as pseudo-histories, by which we think as collection of individuals forced to associate through external circumstances. The "natural sympathy" of Adam Smith is now long dead, and we are left with relationships that exist only externally, and which we have sought to a-moralize altogether. What value is there to the community ?

I'll return to this thread some time, but I just want to say I agree with this.  My own politics are on the left and so I think we on the left should be making an argument of communal moral purpose: to reduce equality in our society.  What the right say is their own business.  I think Judt's argument also is aimed at the left - it's a polemic for his own side and an attempt at a rallying cry.

My worry, more generally, is that the commonalities of our society (and politics) are dying out.  That we increasingly lack the sympathy required to address and understand each.  I think we increasingly are leading self-selecting lives that mean there's very little tying the white working class family and liberal metropolitan, or the second generation immigrant and the shires Tory; we've lost not just a sense of purpose but a story to tell ourselves about ourselves.  Thatcher was right.  There is no such thing as society, there's only individual families and people - but that's not basis enough for a nation. 

Instead our politics has reduced to different versions of management consultancy and our society has stopped caring about much at all really.  I mention religion not in the sense of Holy Rollers but as something that tied many different sorts of people together in an inoffensive hypocrisy.  I think the sense of purpose that you had with earlier parts of this century such as building a New Jerusalem to some extent replaced that so it wasn't until the Thatcher revolution that the Church shaped hole (decidedly not the God shaped one; he is, at best, a bit player) appeared.

To return to myself and the left I think the left has always had a moral purpose.  As Harold Wilson said Labour is 'nothing if not a moral crusade'.  It's story is one of sharing of burdens to build a more equitable and fair society, but it's forgotten how to tell that story.  I think the Tories have forgotten theirs too.  But this reflects a wider social problem where all we have is ourselves and our goods, our debts, our desires endlessly provoked.

I think Americans may be more relaxed about this because the atmosphere and feeling I have of this country now seems to me like the sort of thing you'd have in the prelude to the culture wars.  I think it's more fundamental than previous debates within our society because right now I feel like we're all looking at a different picture, watching a news show about a different country - that's how wide the gap seems to be.

[MadImmortalMan]

My own politics are on the left and so I think we on the left should be making an argument of communal moral purpose: to reduce equality in our society.

A Freudian slip, perhaps? 

[Martinus]

You don't understand what my topic is, I think.  The issue isn't who is paying for a good or service, but rather what you hope to accomplish by purchasing that good or service.  Some of the things you would hope to accomplish are things that government alone would want to do (e.g. put people in prison) while others are things that both governments and non-governmental actors would want to do (eg drive from point A to point B).  Where possible, you would like to determine the best way to accomplish the goal via competing ideas or implementations of an idea (eg "should I buy a Ford or a Chevy?").  That is more difficult in the case of prisons not because there is some government subsidy involved, but because there is little competition for the job and there are non-quantifiable  variables involved (eg cost versus escape rates).  The latter is what makes some tasks unsuitable for the private sector, not the fact that competing private sector firms will not be more efficient.

I think this dichotomy may be unwarranted, for a number of reasons.

First, only because the state is the only or a main customer for some type of good or service does not need to mean there can't be a teeming competitive market for that good or service, especially when the nature of the good or service does not force a natural supplier monopoly. Prisons are an example of this. So is the military armament industry.

Second, when the state is purchasing or providing a service, even one that is already being provided by a private actor, it may have different goals or priorities than the private actor. Transport is actually a prime example of this (as is postal service) - the interest of the state is to provide an uninterrupted service on a most complete possible catchment area, whereas the interest of a private provider would be to focus on the most profitable areas and abandon the rest (this is why most states maintain state/community run bus service or postal service - because if it privatized everything, some remote place would not be getting any service at all).