opposite of obvious

just one more observation on the left-right split as represented by people like frank or robin: perhaps it seems obvious that it is in the interests of poor people to have an extremely powerful and pervasive state; perhaps it seems obvious that it is in the interests of rich people to have a tiny powerless state. however, looking at the thing squarely, this is the opposite of obvious. it seems obvious because people keep repeating it or always conceive the terrain this way. but it's just wackily false with regard to reality. who needs the state more: you know, robert rubin or rodney king? the idea that robert just wants to be left alone while rodney wants to be constantly entwined in police and welfare programs seems rather odd. or: which of these people needs to be left alone, and which coddled or beaten? when the state leaves robert rubin alone, he'll be broke. when it leaves rodney king alone, he'll have better brain scans.

now tom frank or corey robin believe that the road to equality is the non-stop growth of a hierachy of power: the state is the representative of the poor. now, what in the world could be the empirical basis for a belief this ridiculous or even contradictory (create equality by distributing power hierarchically)? i figure they must have been brainwashed by george soros or something, or that they're still hypnotized by marxism. i don't know how to relieve their ignorance and mental illness; perhaps we can institute a bureaucracy to supervise their little prep schools or something. we need to train people like that more carefully in critical thinking.

Comments

[CB]

Couldn't agree more with this post, except this particular line:

"the state is the representative of the poor. now, what in the world could be the empirical basis for a belief this ridiculous or even contradictory (create equality by distributing power hierarchically)? i figure they must have been brainwashed by george soros or something, or that they're still hypnotized by marxism."

"Thus, while the refugee serfs only wished to be free to develop and assert those conditions of existence which were already there, and hence, in the end, only arrived at free labour, the proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as individuals, will have to abolish the very condition of their existence hitherto (which has, moreover, been that of all society up to the present), namely, labour. Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State."
-Marx, German Ideology

[adamcrazypants]

political bias is how we flatter ourselves with having an opinion considered worth listening to, about things which none of us have any control over. it's all vanity, vanity, vanity. most of us do not have opinions worth acknowledging.

[Lisa Simeone]

See, that's the problem with Marx, CB. The syntax is so tortured, you have to reread the damn passage three times before a glimmer of understanding starts to shine. God knows I read enough of him in college. Same problem then.

[CB]

Eh depends. I really think that applies to a gratuitously large amount of philosophers (especially German). Once you get used to their writing style though, you don't find it any harder than out communications.

For instance, I send my father a blog post by Crispy once. My Dad is well read. He's read at least a few thousand books, albeit mostly novels. He couldn't make heads of tails of a word Crispy was saying, and had to have me break it down for him.

He has moments of absolutely clarity:
"A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain."

And moments of tortuous writing too.

[brian]

i read marx for the lulz

[Stephen]

Well said... We do not have a free market. We have a large government system geared towards keeping rich people rich. Drug patents, professional protectionism for doctors, lawyers, etc are just two examples.

[Karl]

CB scrapes the bottom of the barrel again, defending horrible writing and alleging that non-fiction is where reality is truest.

The arrogance displayed by CB is outdone only by that of the dead fake-genius he worships (Marx)!