« Money Enough | Main | Meaning in Life and Why It Matters »

March 30, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, I guess that settles it, then. ;)

(Going back to 1792 to find a relevant parallel is almost the definition of an exception that proves the rule, isn't it?)

I stand corrected.

I should not have said the mandate represented a *new* relationship between the American government and the American people.

Instead I should of said the mandate represented a return to a type of relationship between the American government and the American people not seen since the US was a unstable republic that had to put down rebellions in its own backyard.

:)

The second I hit post I realized the "rebellions in it's own backyard" snark might be seen as a reference to the Hutaree. I assure you it wasn't.

When it is convenient, commentators call on the “founding fathers” for inspiration, such as when it comes to limiting government. Hence, commentators all over the blogosphere insist that a health mandate is suspect because it isn’t part of what we agreed to back when we formed the constitution way back. But when historical data is presented to show just the opposite, it is interesting that no one wants to say... hmmm... perhaps I was wrong.

Jonathan Haidt, at UVA, has done extensive fMRI work that shows why people rarely change their minds based on rational arguments: it is because moral judgments (of right and wrong) are based on instantaneous emotional tags. Later, people come up with a rationalization to support their predetermined viewpoint. If one rationalization doesn’t work out, they’ll come up with another, and another. :)

So, dear readers, is there any evidence or argument that could change anyone’s mind on the health mandates?

I see your point about appeals to the authority of the founding fathers, Jonathan, but I've never done that (in part because you can always find one of them to support almost any view you might have!).

And there are many simple explanations for why rational arguments don't change people's moral opinions--they are based on values, which for the most part aren't dependent on empirical circumstances, and much be debated on the level of values. But most so-called rational arguments take their own value judgments for granted, so people just end up arguing past each other.

Jonathan, you are right, in this debate I have appealed to Constitutional authority and it does appear that I was wrong to do so in this case.

However, it should be noted that - even if Constitutional - an individual mandate operates on a logic different from the vast majority of regulation enacted and enforced in living memory.

I am explicitly not saying this is the first step to Maoism or even that the mandate is a bad thing. The fact that this precedent has existed for over 200 years without being abused shows that the slippery slope might not hold.

But in the spirit of compromise, proponents should admit that this is something exceptional, even if not unique. I guess I am equivocating, just like Haidt's research would suggest. :)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

OUR BOOKS
Accepting the Invisible Hand: Market-Based Approaches to Social-Economic Problems, Mark D. White (ed)

Beyond Social Capital: A Critical Approach, Irene van Stavern and Peter Knorringa (eds)

Economics and the Mind, Barbara Montero and Mark D. White (eds)

Ethics and Economics: New Perspectives, Mark D. White and Irene van Staveren (eds)

Ethics in Economics: An Introduction to Moral Frameworks, Jonathan B. Wight

The Feminist Economics of Trade, Irene van Staveren et al (eds)

Handbook of Economics and Ethics, Jan Peil and Irene van Staveren (eds)

The Illusion of Well-Being: Economic Policymaking Based on Respect and Responsiveness, Mark D. White

Kantian Ethics and Economics: Autonomy, Dignity, and Character, Mark D. White

Law and Social Economics: Essays in Ethical Values for Theory, Practice, and Policy, Mark D. White (ed.)

The Manipulation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism, Mark D. White

Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy, Mark D. White (ed.)

Saving Adam Smith: A Tale of Wealth, Transformation, and Virtue, Jonathan B. Wight

Street Porter and the Philosopher: Conversations on Analytical Egalitarianism, Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy (eds)

Teaching the Ethical Foundations of Economics, Jonathan B. Wight and John S. Morton et al

Theoretical Foundations of Law and Economics, Mark D. White (ed.)

The Thief of Time: Philosophical Essays on Procrastination, Chrisoula Andreou and Mark D. White (eds)

The Values of Economics: An Aristotelian Perspective, Irene van Staveren

The Vanity of the Philosopher: From Equality to Hierarchy in Postclassical Economics, Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy