NYU's, and ThinkMarkets', Mario Rizzo makes a powerful case for reasonable ideology. Here's his conclusion:
An
ideology can serve as a rough guide to ethical considerations. For
example, some people believe that it is immoral to “reward” people for
irresponsible economic behavior. Maybe a policy wonk disagrees because
he thinks that systemic effects are all that matter. Is the citizen to
be faulted for acting or evaluating on the basis of this belief ? In
general, the belief makes good sense. As a long-run rule of behavior,
the idea that economic actors should bear both upside and
downside risk would have saved us, for example, from the Fannie-Freddie
over-expansion in the first place as shareholders would not have
believed in implicit guarantees. Is this an idea we want people to give
up without resistance? I do not think so.
Ideology
is okay. It is fine to be ideological. It is indispensible to effective
analysis of the world. Just make sure that the ideology makes real
sense.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 8 comments }
Mario Rizzo makes a good point. However his point hinges on the word reasonable.
My reasonable ideology might not be your reasonable ideology, and in that little tidbit of wisdom is all the ideological conflicts of the ages.
Unless we can find some way to agree on what is a "reasonable" ideology we are doomed to continue that conflict.
I need to do no more than point out the ideological difference between muirduck and vidyohs.
There is no mutually acceptable ground and never will be because in the case of both there is no room for compromise.
Vidyohs sees nothing to gain in a compromise with socialism, if there is no gain, then there is no compromise; because, both parties have to benefit in some way in order to have a compromise. Socialism has nothing to benefit a T-Brazorian.
I am confident that muirduck would echo my sentiments, but from the exact opposite compass point.
I certainly cannot compromise with any ideology that forces me to pay for something that I don't want.
The word 'reasonable' means 'able of reason'. Ideologies are not reasonable or unreasonable, people are, or at least we hope they are. And common ground is not necessary for someone who is reasonable.
Lee,
Re: your post.
"And common ground is not necessary for someone who is reasonable.
Posted by: Lee Kelly | Mar 20, 2009 10:06:50 AM"
"and in that little tidbit of wisdom is all the ideological conflicts of the ages."
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 20, 2009 9:19:33 AM
See what I mean?
What is reasonable? Lee, Muirduck, Randy, Brotio, Gil, STrUmPiT et.al.?
How about:
reasonable ideologue
or
rational ideology
In the end the clash of my reasonable ideology against muirduck's self-proclaimed "reasonable" ideology is a civil war in America. There is no other way. Probably will result in a 10-20% population reduction.
Crusader–
Interesting thought experiment. What do you think Obama & Congress would do if, say, Alaska, or Oklahoma, announced that it would begin formal proceedings to peacefully secede from the Union?
vikingvista – they would bring Federal troops in and spark a Civil War.