Category: politics
Posted by: Gena
Viewed: 842 times
Here's an idea that Stanley Fish (a celebrated English professor in the US, now a columnist in New York Times) popularized and coined a name for it - crative adhoccery - by borrowing a phrase from a philosopher Charles Taylor. The idea is simple, tramples many social philosophy discussions including a handful of my favorite arguments, and it feels true, that's how our society actually works.

This is a description of the idea that I found on www.slate.com.


If there are no rules for living peacefully in an ethnically mixed society, what do we do now? Why, says Fish, we do what we have always done, since we have never really practiced multiculturalism. We improvise. We engage in something Fish calls, borrowing the phrase from a philosopher named Charles Taylor, "inspired adhoccery." We decide what to do on a case-by-case basis. When it makes sense to offer a major in Hindi studies, we offer a major in Hindi studies. When animal sacrifices become sufficiently offensive, we outlaw them. This, he adds, is not a recommendation. It is how we do things already, and the sooner we admit that, the better we'll get at it.


For some, Stanley Fish might be known through David Lodge's dramatization in Changing Places, Small World and Nice Works.

Discuss this in forum (seriously, people, give it a shot)

Category: politics
Posted by: Gena
Viewed: 1201 times
Попалась необычно горько-язвительная заметка Арнольда Клинга (экономист, успешный предприниматель) на тему политики, государственного контроля и государственных советников-экспертов. Видать, достали. Вот выдержка:


Is health care reform about health care? No, it is about seizing and retaining power. Was the stimulus about stimulus? No, was about seizing and retaining power. Is cap and trade about global warming? No, it is about seizing and retaining power.

...

Suppose you believe that regulators cannot possibly have the wisdom to direct human activity. Suppose you believe that politicians spending other people's money tend to choose less wisely than people spending their own money. If you want to get anywhere as a public policy adviser, keep those beliefs to yourself.


По-русски примерно так:

Ради здравоохранения ли [правительством планируется] реформа здравоохранения? Нет, она ради захвата и удержания власти. Был ли пакет стимулирования экономики ради стимулирования? Нет, он был ради захвата и удержания власти. Торговля эмиссионными квотами - ради глобального потепления? Нет, ради захвата и удержания власти.

...

Если ты веришь, что [правительственные] регуляторы не могут обладать достаточной мудростью чтобы управлять действиями людей, если ты веришь что когда политики тратят деньги людей, они склонны принимать менее мудрые решения, чем когда люди сами тратят свои деньги, и если ты при этом хочешь чего-то добиться как советник по общественной политике, держи эти соображения при себе.



Читайте все целиком.

Discuss this in forum (seriously, people, give it a shot)