Paul Craig Roberts has a "response," but he seems to be unable to distinguish between me and Eugene Volokh--which is a remarkable, remarkable first. We are very easily distinguished.
Only a small piece of Roberts's bilge is worth responding to. He argues that American slaves before the Civil War were not "mistreated":
...If slaves had been generally mistreated, Lincoln would have succeeded in stirring up a slave revolt when the South’s men were away at war and only women and children were left on the plantations to control the slaves...
I assume that Roberts knows too little history to know that some 200,000 runaway ex-slaves joined the Union Army during the Civil War--that's about 20% of all male slaves of military age.
Posted by DeLong at February 2, 2004 08:49 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postObviously his logic doesn't stand up - it doesn't allow for how effective repressive measures could have been. You need to look at both sides.
But bearing in mind that "mistreated" is clearly being deliberately used to stand for something else than an unsatisfied desire for liberty, unfortunately Brad's reasoning doesn't address his restricted point either. We don't know from these figures how many runaways ran away to get away from mistreatment, as opposed to those who were running towards something.
Posted by: P.M.Lawrence on February 3, 2004 11:59 PMIt's hard to be a slave and not be 'mistreated' in some relevant sense.
Posted by: Brad DeLong on February 4, 2004 12:04 AMWhere did Roberts respond?
Posted by: Gary Farber on February 4, 2004 03:29 AMHuf. I didn't see this thread -- because I'm usually eager to see comments first!
I cannot understand for the life of me how any body could define freedom as getting to keep what you produce. I mean there are things to freedom that come way way way before that. Robinson Cruseo (spell?) got to keep every thing he could produce. Was he free? Of course not. And how far removed from that was a plantation owner in some remote location in early stages of colonialism? And one can extend that towards our day.
Freedom is to belong as an equal among equals to a community, society, of honest, competent, and well mannered people, highly productive and willing and able to provide for their own security.
I am 51 years old and that's my definition of freedom, and that's the kind of world I have a longing for. Unfortunately, that's not the directions in which the world appears to be headed at this time.
Posted by: Bulent Sayin on February 4, 2004 04:32 AM>>Where did Roberts respond?<<
You think I'm going to link and boost Donald Luskin's PageRank?
I am more careful with my whuffie than that!
:-)
Posted by: Brad DeLong on February 4, 2004 08:06 AMSmart too!
Posted by: bulent on February 4, 2004 08:33 AMChapeau, monsieur -- poorandstupid...
Posted by: bulent on February 4, 2004 09:03 AMzizka
You are asking me to believe that someone is going to read the original Weisman-Allen-Barbash article, form the opinion that the Bush budget is a good thing because they say Bush says so, refuse to consider any other input on the matter, vote for Bush, and end Western civilization.
I couldn't agree more. The questions once again are: who is to do this revision, and how will they do it, and how is truth to be ensured.
The previous answer has always been something like: start your own newspaper.
The answer we are generating at the moment is: the process we are all engaged in at this moment. I think Brad with this blog is on the right track.
Nationalizing the Washington Post probably won't work.
It could be we're in a Second-Best world
You’ll have to provide evidence, theoretic or factive, that any one fool of ANY throw-weight has been so snookered.
It was the first report of the unveiling of the Bush budget. Like it or not, Bush gets to have his say in that article, without much argument. This is how it has to work. How do you think we’re going to have a civilization otherwise?
It’s also politically counterproductive. Let’s say you have a moderate Republican who’s thinking of bolting from Bush. He sees a bunch of Democrats screaming about how the first article about the budget doesn’t hurt Bush enough. Think he wants to join the camp now?
It would be much smarter to make people laugh about it.
I never understood why Business Week carried him--to shut up some Reaganites on the editorial board? I just googled myself to the Luskin page and was aghast, again. Here intellect is atomized into the style found in a low-level psychopathy. These guys bring one paragraph to one conclusion, then bring another paragraph to another conclusion, then they combine those two conclusions to assert the phony preordained thesis (e.g., taxes are bad). Doesn't matter if they are apples and oranges. It's like some Monty Python caricature of the Scholastic process to drown witches. I especially admired the central contortion that (here I paraphrase, or not--) if you subtract productivity and living standard, modern Americans after taxes have only enough for subsistence and reproduction--to nearly the same proportion as the 19th-century slave! Grover Norquist must be salivating!
Posted by: Lee A. on February 4, 2004 09:04 AMWhen I put together the above, I realized there IS someone in the world who will be fooled by the Weisman WaPo article: Paul Craig Roberts! I concede the argument.
Posted by: Lee A. on February 4, 2004 09:07 AMThe lesser of two evils is still evil.
Posted by: Rosenthal Marc on March 17, 2004 08:59 PMFor every action there is an equal and opposite government program.
Posted by: Bielavitz Sarann on May 2, 2004 02:13 PMVirtue never stands alone. It is bound to have neighbors.
Posted by: Ries Amber on May 3, 2004 01:33 AMThe truth is outhere
Posted by: LeVine Paul on June 30, 2004 06:27 AMUltima ratio regum - The final argument of kings. (Inscription on French canons in the times of Louis XIV.)
Factum est illud, fieri infectum non potest - Done is done, it cannot be made undone. (Plautus)
Nihil est ab omni parte beatum - Nothing is good in every part. (Horace)
Abyssus abyssum invocat - Hell calls hell; one mistep leads to another
Lux et veritas - Light and Truth