Why we disagree

Laurie Penny recently tweeted that it's easy to write young Tories off as "loathsome" without asking: why do humans behave like this?

Of course, some people on the right are loathsome racist sociopaths and snobs. But some are not, whilst some lefties are arrogant sanctimonious prigs. And tribalism, groupthink and the confirmation bias combine to increase both sides' fanaticism*.

I suspect that one under-rated reason for disagreement lies not just in differences in values or frames or in class interests, but rather in question of fact. For example:

- Is success in life due more to hard work and graft, or to luck?

- Are successful businessmen entrepreneurs who benefit society or rent-seeking exploiters?

- Is the state a force for oppression, or a means of enabling people to pursue their dreams by providing a welfare state, education and sports funding?

- Is market failure a greater problem than government failure?

- Is freedom restricted merely by the state, or by employers, in which case state intervention might be liberating?

- To what extent is state intervention rendered ineffective or counterproductive by problems of bounded rationality and limited knowledge?

These are, of course, all matters of degree. The difference between left and right is where they place the emphasis; I'd add (of course!) that the answers can be blurred by cognitive biases.

But here's the thing. We tend to think of empirical questions as ones that can be decided by evidence - as distinct from questions of values which are intractable. However, these empirical questions are, I suspect, intractable, simply because society and the economy are too complex to admit of simple answers. The fact-value distinction might not be as sharp as we think.

* Sometimes, (wilful) misunderstanding exacerbates the conflict.For example, it really irritates me when right libertarians equate "capitalism" with "free markets." And it's easy to read our opponents in the meanest and most exacting way possible, whilst giving our own side an easier ride.

Comments

[Anonymous]

I don't know what is meant by "free markets" and I don't think right wing libertarians do either. Most of them seem to have even less economics knowledge than I do. Does monopoly fit into their definition?

To what extent can monopoly be described as operating in a market given that a monopoly implies zero consumer choice for the product and no alternative suppliers? Monopoly is the ideal form for a capitalist whose sole purpose is to accumulate money

[Steve]

Definitions from Google:

free market:
An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

capitalism:
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

The two definitions seem to equate pretty nicely.

Frankly we already have the term "socialism" to describe a system where the corporations and government conspire together against the people. Why must you try and make capitalism mean the same thing?

[chris]

@ Steve - no they don't.
That definition of capitalism says nothing about competition. It's compatible with a bunch of monopolists carving things up among themselves.
And that definition of free market says nothing about who exactly owns businesses. If workers do so, we can have a free market without capitalism.

[McDuff]

I believe Steve believes that we're living in the most socialist of all times, because governments and corporations are conspiring more than ever, which means there must be more socialism around. Right?

Otherwise his entire comment would be utter bunkum.

[gastro george]

" ... we already have the term "socialism" to describe a system where the corporations and government conspire together against the people."

Is this a blatant troll or is the author just mad?

[Hidari]

' The fact-value distinction might not be as sharp as we think.'

Hilary Putnam is highly critical of the idea of a fact-value distinction.

http://www.philosophy.su.se/texter/putnam.htm

[Mike Killingworth]

Perhsps someone (probably not Professor Putnam) could explain to me in which contexts it is ethical of me to prefer my children to yours, and in which it is unethical. I really have no idea. I make it up as I go along.

[liverpool models]

some people have unusual views