> I guess my gripe with the interviewee is that he has a notion of how society should be, and argues toward forcing economic redistributions to make it happen ... decrying & denying the reality that the economy is what it is, on the whole, because it's the cumulation of free choices.
I'd say you're technically correct, but mostly because 'cumulation of free choices' is rather ambiguous.
The eight-hour work day and minimum wage, for example, are a result of the labor movements efforts, but these efforts often found their origins in the 'activism' of people like the interviewee.
Much of our current economy, one could argue, is not the result of the individual employer's or employee's 'free choices', but rather via 'notions of how society should be' developed by people like the interviewee.
> Force redistribution to impose the social structure & values the interviewee wants, and methinks most of us would rebel at the results; we're not living that way for a reason.
I guess my point is that we are, to greater or lesser extent depending on where we live, living with social structures and values that we would not individually rebel against. And much of that could be considered 'conditioning'. Here in Holland we have the government actively doing things that I suspect many Americans would rebel strongly against, ranging from health care to 'be nice to your neighbour' style government-funded advertising.
Now, it's a different discussion whether one agrees with forced redistribution as a specific implement (I'm not sure I do), but I'm just arguing that many of the reasons for way we live are precisely a result of that thing you have a gripe with.
(and, I guess, aside from using this to share my view, I'd be curious to hear where you would draw the line when it comes to 'notions of how society should be' -> 'imposing social structure and values')
I'd say you're technically correct, but mostly because 'cumulation of free choices' is rather ambiguous.
The eight-hour work day and minimum wage, for example, are a result of the labor movements efforts, but these efforts often found their origins in the 'activism' of people like the interviewee.
Much of our current economy, one could argue, is not the result of the individual employer's or employee's 'free choices', but rather via 'notions of how society should be' developed by people like the interviewee.
> Force redistribution to impose the social structure & values the interviewee wants, and methinks most of us would rebel at the results; we're not living that way for a reason.
I guess my point is that we are, to greater or lesser extent depending on where we live, living with social structures and values that we would not individually rebel against. And much of that could be considered 'conditioning'. Here in Holland we have the government actively doing things that I suspect many Americans would rebel strongly against, ranging from health care to 'be nice to your neighbour' style government-funded advertising.
Now, it's a different discussion whether one agrees with forced redistribution as a specific implement (I'm not sure I do), but I'm just arguing that many of the reasons for way we live are precisely a result of that thing you have a gripe with.
(and, I guess, aside from using this to share my view, I'd be curious to hear where you would draw the line when it comes to 'notions of how society should be' -> 'imposing social structure and values')