Philosophy

The Antiplanner has posted on James J. Hill and the beginnings of the Great Northern Railway. Hill was surely proof the American Dream can be realized. Few are so gifted and so driven to achieve Hill’s level of riches. But remember, the dream is not about dollars and motorcars. It is to be allowed to attain according to capacity, without confinement to class or caste.

The idea of the American Dream is evoked so often, from so many quarters, I decided I was no longer sure we all agreed on just what the dream is.

From Wikipedia, quoting James Truslow Adams:

Megan McArdle summarizes my resistance to one tenet of the Austrian School’s economic philosophy. The Austrians prefer “sound money”, with currency tied to gold and no fractional-reserve banking.

The talking heads amplify politicians who exclaim, “See, the greed-driven free market has killed us again. We need more regulation!”

Will Wilkinson says, “Hold on there, Senator Foghorn. I remember you justifying your job with the assertion that ‘free’ markets would not exist without a government framework of regulation and enforcement.”

Actually, Wilkinson says this:

As usual, I'm with Travis:

Q: Yes, but can we assume that Travis, as a libertarian / anarchist, is against government intervention?

A: Surprisingly, no, my stance isn’t that simple. The first point I have to make is that despite the above, I don’t understand squat about all of this. Which is much less than most of the folks involved, even if what we have in common is that none of us knows enough to really know all the details.

At odd intervals I've been shown snapshots from a land presided over (or 1/2 presided over) by Arnold Kling. I think the NRR may need to build a permanent spur to EconLog. Here’s a quick glimpse:

It's not the sinners the world is afraid of— it's the saints.

The Government is not the same as Our Society.

In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge spoke in Philadelphia on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Known as “Silent Cal” for his reserve and discretion in his personal life, Coolidge was an effective orator. His remarks stand as a clear enunciation of the spirit and intent upon which the United States was built.

I'm in the midst of sorting through a controversial issue. It seems that some of the controversy arises from each side forming an opinion of the opposition without any direct interaction. If they just talked, they still might not agree, but would at least have a better understanding of their differences. This could open the path to some sort of compromise and avoid catastrophe.

Entering a discussion looking for compromise, I imagine my uncle telling me, is looking for defeat. If one is willing to sacrifice a belief so readily, is that belief (or that person) even worth defending?