After spending 10 posts (starting here) of Musa Al Garbi’s discussions in his book, we’ve never happened, so it’s time to move on to my assessment of those discussions. In my first post discussing this, I took up Al Garbi’s claim that overproduction in the elite is a key cause of “awakening.” Today I would like to explore how thinking about incentives and political coalitions can help me evaluate the algarbi explanation.
Bootleggers and Baptists
Another point of the Algarbi argument is that, in the guise of social justice activities, awakened activists promote politics that benefit themselves, but are harmful to poor and vulnerable people as a means of protecting their status. He shows that many policies related to today’s programmes (or awakening) were first introduced during the first great, great awakening. These include welfare and social assistance programs, educational requirements, increased and more strictly enforced regulations, licensing and certification laws, zoning and development regulations, and economic management of technocrats.
As Al-Gharbi points out, early progressive movements originally pursued Togeres’ policies, the means to raise social status of high status are kept out of reach of the “wrong” kind of people (particularly women and racial and religious minorities) as a means to bring eugenic eugenic goals.
This creates an interesting situation. The goals and motivations of modern progressives differ from the explicitly racist, classical, and Eussian goals of the early 20th century progressive movement. However, in order to pursue outcomes that are the opposite of those intended by early progressives, modern progressives tend to defend essentially the same set of politics.
There are several ways to square this circle. Most unchanging is suggesting that progressive goals remain unchanged, and the movement is still trying to keep “deplorable” in place. In other words, modern progressives are intentionally surprised about their goals.
Another explanation is the bootlegger and Baptist approach. Subprogressives were Baptists, for example, occupational licensing laws were beneficial online, and their absence was to have all sorts of terrible consequences. But others use licensing laws ironically to protect existing people and keep people out of upward mobility, as in the case of neck meadows.
Meadows was a widow of Baton Rouge, with little education and no resources, but she was skilled at creating flower arrangements that the grocery store hired her. The Louisiana Horticultural Commission has popped out.
He threatened to close the store as punishment for hiring Sensi flowers. Meadows failed to obtain a license. This involved writing exams and creating four four-hour flower arrangements. This is an arrangement judged by an authorized florist who acts as gatekeepers to restrict entry to competitions. The Pastor died of poverty after refusing to the recent denial of the occupation the government described her, but Louisiana was protected by the government from the threat of unlicensed flower arrangements.
But the explanation for Muse Al-Gharbi is that proverb pirates and Baptists are identical. Wake wants to move upwards socially and protect their status – their inner bootleggers. But they also want to bring the goal of egalitarianism – their inner baptism. When there is a conflict between their inner Bootreger and Baptists, Awakening acts like a Bootreger and speaks like a Baptist – and constructs stories to convince others, but most say that their own actions are baptism as well in their motivation.
I think this analysis adds up the truth. But how many variances does that explain? I’m still skeptical that modern progressives explain a lot about why they support police.
Originally and for a long time, it was considered a specific policy to maintain the minimum wage, as it was a groundwork for a barrier to maintaining the “unwanted” of racial minorities and unemployed women. As Thomas Leonard documented in his book Illiver Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in his book Illiver Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics, many economists are cited as one of the most harmful consequences of the minimum wage today – how it drives the most vulnerable people to disproportionate from work – was originally the main benefit of the progressive lowest wave. Today’s progressives continue to be particularly aggressive in their support of increasing the minimum wage, but it is not clear that their latest support for that policy is ultimately rooted in the initial justification.
Although Al-Gharbi is less clear in this regard, there is a handful of sentences in the book that say that I believe in supporting an increase in the minimum wage. But certainly, al-Garbi is not worthy of once again to support vulnerable people who are locked out of upward mobility.
Do you assume I’m right about Al-Gharbi’s support for increased licensing, certification, and educational requirements? And even if I was wrong about Al Garbi’s support for rising minimum wages, or against the goals originally submitted, it’s not hard to imagine why Progressive today supports that policy. Certainly, I simply don’t think that submitting the majority of progressives to drive away the poor and vulnerable people is the original goal of so many police that they support.
I can’t help but think that there may be a potentially simple explanation below it. But first, a side note to another Scott Alexander Post.
In a post I have in mind, Scott Alexander explains the theory that (not needing) the fear of illness is the root of all conservatism. This elaborate theory points out that there is a lot of flashy research that actually supports it.
There has been a really good evolutionary psychology of how pathogen stress affects political opinions. A sub-of-this is done at a social level, and societies with higher reproduction volumes can be found to be more authoritarian and conservative. This study can be followed as any distance, but isn’t it interesting that the most liberal societies in the world are high? Those who see similar effects within the country also differ from the fact that states in the Northern US are liberal and southern states are vry conservative. OTER research focuses on individual differences within society.
He also proposes another “magnificent story” idea that underlies conservative thinking about social policy.
The story goes, “We America are just right-minded people with a completely wonderful culture. But there are also scary foreigners who hate our freedom and want us to make it worse for us to support foreigners who are more refined than Americans.”
Both these grand and complex theories proposed by Alexander were intended to explain specific questions. Specifically, the differences between Republicans and Democrats regarding the issue of how to deal with the possible 2014 disease Ebola outbreak should be contained through travel restrictions and strict quarantine for potentially exposed people. And the position among the Democrats was that even suggesting that even the limited use of quarantine or lockdowns to be suppressed would change, was a negative violation of civil liberty, harmful to poor and vulnerable people, and was inherently racist. As Alexander said,
Additionally, everyone who supports quarantine is on the right and against the left. Oddly, so many people suddenly felt strong feelings about complex epidemiological issues.
What’s interesting is that this was written in 2014. This means that I am a dear reader and wrote about the half BC (before Covid). And then, when Covid comes, suddenly, partisan divisions turn over, and Democrats overwhelmingly want to embrace the lockdown and even quarantine of Wides Pretad, and the Republic is seeing dissent. (In contrast, the libertarian is constant on the “separate” side of its octation.) This is very difficult to square with the Eisher of Alexander’s grand theory. However, in the same post he suggests that there may be a simpler explanation.
Is it random? As a few republics were the first people to be isolated, other republics felt they needed to stand in the baim, and then Democrats opposed it and felt that they had to make such an esplado outside the wine more widely? And if by chance Democrats had proposed quarantine before Republicans, would the situation have made it clear to themselves? It may be.
I think this is a much stronger explanation in the end than a flashy theory. And to put a little more body on this, there were a lot of screams and screams among the very online crowd in 2014, but the entire episode was pretty short-lived and had little impact on most people’s lives. (I think many people reading this post today have forgotten that there was an Ebola controversy in 2014.) As a result, neither position has actually “taken” as the “official position” of the Esar Party. However, Covid had an overwhelming social impact and no one left behind life. As a result, when the event occurred, many issues that were previously unbalanced politically were dramatically coded as “conservative” or “false” views.
Similarly, a simpler explanation is that progressives are initially recommended for a variety of social and economic policies for certain reasons. However, over time, these policy positions themselves were coded into Drabies as “progressive.” And for decades, those who considered themselves progressive simply adopted appropriate political courage and coded policies. They supported progressive policies because they consider themselves to be progressive and therefore support horse policies. As Arnold Kling says, we choose what we should believe based on who we believe.
I think most people don’t support ideology, they support police, which are coded as favoring political ideology. Because it emphasizes the history and impact of Valyas’ policy related to shit ideology, or how it will personally look.
To be clear, this does not mean that I think Al Garbi’s explanation is completely wrong. But I think it at least explains the sub of dispersion, and it represents a real contribution to underestimating how the world works. I don’t know if I am convinced that my desire to protect my social class is a territorial factor compared to my desire to protect a coded police favored by political ideology.
In my next post I will look into the subject of Al Garbi’s commentary on economics and economic policy.
As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns it from qualified purchases.
Source link
