One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Civility is Important, But We Really Need
Feb 9, 2019 00:03:19   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
"Agreement-Without-Conformity"

It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

It is often noted that we live in times of much conflict and rancor, and we frequently hear pleas to raise the level of civility and thoughtfulness. Good advice, indeed. Perhaps the recent e******n will usher in better manners for political discourse—we shall see. Though maintaining civility is important, that alone is not enough to resolve this underlying conflict. It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

The late Milton Friedman noted that getting along with our fellow citizens is relatively easy if we have “agreement-without-conformity.” Conversely, settings with “conformity-without-agreement” are ripe for discord. How do we gain more of the former and reduce the latter? Actually, agreement-without-conformity is quite common. I buy black shoes and you buy brown ones. I have no problem with your shoe color, and you have none with mine. We agree that we can do things differently. Similar outcomes are common. I might listen to country and you to opera; I may prefer chicken to fish and you the opposite; I may read detective novels and you ancient history. But fundamentally, we agree that we each pursue our own desires, which often means non-conformity. This type of outcome is characteristic of market-based t***sactions. We each do with our money as we wish and, by and large, let others do the same.

Unfortunately, conformity-without-agreement is the usual outcome of political solutions. These tend to impose one-size-fits-all policies on everyone. Agree or not, your tax dollars pay for the politically-determined outcome. In this setting, minorities usually lose. Special interest lobbying can overcome this, but then special interests win. Losers must conform even though they object to the outcome. To obtain what one wants requires engaging in the political battle to impose your preferred outcome on everyone by defeating others’ favorites. No amount of civility changes this. Indeed, the nature of political competition exacerbates conflict. Losers are precluded from doing as they wish and go away unhappy. If the issues involved are substantial, discord is sure to follow. This contrasts starkly with market outcomes. It’s remarkable how much people vary in their purchases of cars, music, food, houses, clothing, books, etc. with barely a whimper of complaint. Compromise in a political conflict is possible, but then neither party gets what suits them. A political compromise over shoe color might give us black-and-brown striped shoes.

A high-stakes example of these ideas is health insurance. Some argue for politically determined health insurance and healthcare through single-payer or “Medicare for all.” Others advocate for a market-oriented system. The former allows essentially one insurance plan where a government agency determines coverage for treatments. It’s all paid for in your tax bill. Discontent would emerge similar to that seen in the individual health insurance market (the “exchanges”) from the Affordable Care Act mandates. Elderly couples often want a high-deductible plan without maternity benefits and the converse for young couples. People desire varying deductibles, co-pays, and coverage for vision, dental, chiropractic, contraception, prescription drugs, and so on. But regardless of your individual needs and desires, you pay taxes for a politically-determined collection of coverages. Many will get more coverage of things they don’t value and less of things they do. This is conformity-without-agreement in a big way. It’s no wonder why it’s so contentious.

With market-based health insurance, rather than paying taxes for the mandated plan, people use their money to buy a plan that suits them. Carefully choosing a plan is important, but prudent people vary widely in the insurance plan that is suitable for them. In a market-based system, we agree that we can buy different plans. This agreement-without-conformity greatly reduces the rancor.

Moreover, a healthcare safety net for the needy is a widespread aspiration. Though we want different types of health insurance for ourselves, people of most political views feel a desire to help the needy with private and government assistance. Recognizing this commonality and working toward it can unite us. There is no need to impose conformity on all health insurance and healthcare. This serves only to divide us.


Another important illustration of the contentiousness generated by politics is public schools. Localities regularly engage in harsh political battles regarding public schools over a host of issues. Prayer in school, dress codes, school attendance zones, sex education, emphasis on sports versus academics, support for various extracurriculars, lunch menus, items in school vending machines, curriculum content, textbooks, and school disciplinary methods is a short list. Many parents, dissatisfied with the political outcomes of these disputes, are saddled with a choice of sending their kids to an inappropriate public school or suffering the financial burden of paying private tuition plus the taxes for the public schools they do not use. This is bound to produce tension in the community and, instead of serving as a unifying force as advocates of education schools contend, the school system becomes a source of friction.

A wider embrace and availability of private schooling options avoids this problem. Parents choose schools for their kids, and there is no forced conformity everyone must pay for. Also, as with healthcare, there is a general desire to help low-income families with the schooling of their children. This is readily accomplished with voucher programs, charter schools, and educational savings accounts targeted toward the poor. In such systems, each family chooses their school, and agreement-without-conformity is attained. For some goods, “conformity” is unavoidable. For example, we all have the same US Army. Locally, the road system is identical for everyone. Insect abatement from the city spraying is the same for all. It’s impossible for you and me to have different national armies, different levels of insect abatement, or different road systems. Here, there is little alternative to government/political determination. However, these are special cases. The overarching point is that political solutions, through imposing conformity-without-agreement, by their nature generate conflict. With more outcomes decided by political means, conflict intensifies. This is worsened when strong interest groups, used to getting their way, face uncomfortable changes. They fight hard to maintain the status quo. With the escalation of government/political involvement in the economy during the Obama years and the current pushback, this is where America finds itself now.

Though civility and polite discourse are always important, no amount of it can overcome the fundamental conflict that conformity-without-agreement entails. Civility allows us to say what we wish. But agreement-without-conformity allows us to do what we wish. There’s a big difference. Thus, for conflict to lessen, it’s critical to stop forcing conformity-without-agreement and political solutions where they need not go. As noted above, there are cases where there is no good alternative. Stick to limiting government/political action to these cases. Work to establish laws and find public officials who enable “agreement-without-conformity” rather than imposing more “conformity-without-agreement” on society.

By: John Garen

(He is the BB&T Professor of Economics in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky and is the founding director and an affiliate of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise.)

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 00:29:03   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
"Agreement-Without-Conformity"

It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

It is often noted that we live in times of much conflict and rancor, and we frequently hear pleas to raise the level of civility and thoughtfulness. Good advice, indeed. Perhaps the recent e******n will usher in better manners for political discourse—we shall see. Though maintaining civility is important, that alone is not enough to resolve this underlying conflict. It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

The late Milton Friedman noted that getting along with our fellow citizens is relatively easy if we have “agreement-without-conformity.” Conversely, settings with “conformity-without-agreement” are ripe for discord. How do we gain more of the former and reduce the latter? Actually, agreement-without-conformity is quite common. I buy black shoes and you buy brown ones. I have no problem with your shoe color, and you have none with mine. We agree that we can do things differently. Similar outcomes are common. I might listen to country and you to opera; I may prefer chicken to fish and you the opposite; I may read detective novels and you ancient history. But fundamentally, we agree that we each pursue our own desires, which often means non-conformity. This type of outcome is characteristic of market-based t***sactions. We each do with our money as we wish and, by and large, let others do the same.

Unfortunately, conformity-without-agreement is the usual outcome of political solutions. These tend to impose one-size-fits-all policies on everyone. Agree or not, your tax dollars pay for the politically-determined outcome. In this setting, minorities usually lose. Special interest lobbying can overcome this, but then special interests win. Losers must conform even though they object to the outcome. To obtain what one wants requires engaging in the political battle to impose your preferred outcome on everyone by defeating others’ favorites. No amount of civility changes this. Indeed, the nature of political competition exacerbates conflict. Losers are precluded from doing as they wish and go away unhappy. If the issues involved are substantial, discord is sure to follow. This contrasts starkly with market outcomes. It’s remarkable how much people vary in their purchases of cars, music, food, houses, clothing, books, etc. with barely a whimper of complaint. Compromise in a political conflict is possible, but then neither party gets what suits them. A political compromise over shoe color might give us black-and-brown striped shoes.

A high-stakes example of these ideas is health insurance. Some argue for politically determined health insurance and healthcare through single-payer or “Medicare for all.” Others advocate for a market-oriented system. The former allows essentially one insurance plan where a government agency determines coverage for treatments. It’s all paid for in your tax bill. Discontent would emerge similar to that seen in the individual health insurance market (the “exchanges”) from the Affordable Care Act mandates. Elderly couples often want a high-deductible plan without maternity benefits and the converse for young couples. People desire varying deductibles, co-pays, and coverage for vision, dental, chiropractic, contraception, prescription drugs, and so on. But regardless of your individual needs and desires, you pay taxes for a politically-determined collection of coverages. Many will get more coverage of things they don’t value and less of things they do. This is conformity-without-agreement in a big way. It’s no wonder why it’s so contentious.

With market-based health insurance, rather than paying taxes for the mandated plan, people use their money to buy a plan that suits them. Carefully choosing a plan is important, but prudent people vary widely in the insurance plan that is suitable for them. In a market-based system, we agree that we can buy different plans. This agreement-without-conformity greatly reduces the rancor.

Moreover, a healthcare safety net for the needy is a widespread aspiration. Though we want different types of health insurance for ourselves, people of most political views feel a desire to help the needy with private and government assistance. Recognizing this commonality and working toward it can unite us. There is no need to impose conformity on all health insurance and healthcare. This serves only to divide us.


Another important illustration of the contentiousness generated by politics is public schools. Localities regularly engage in harsh political battles regarding public schools over a host of issues. Prayer in school, dress codes, school attendance zones, sex education, emphasis on sports versus academics, support for various extracurriculars, lunch menus, items in school vending machines, curriculum content, textbooks, and school disciplinary methods is a short list. Many parents, dissatisfied with the political outcomes of these disputes, are saddled with a choice of sending their kids to an inappropriate public school or suffering the financial burden of paying private tuition plus the taxes for the public schools they do not use. This is bound to produce tension in the community and, instead of serving as a unifying force as advocates of education schools contend, the school system becomes a source of friction.

A wider embrace and availability of private schooling options avoids this problem. Parents choose schools for their kids, and there is no forced conformity everyone must pay for. Also, as with healthcare, there is a general desire to help low-income families with the schooling of their children. This is readily accomplished with voucher programs, charter schools, and educational savings accounts targeted toward the poor. In such systems, each family chooses their school, and agreement-without-conformity is attained. For some goods, “conformity” is unavoidable. For example, we all have the same US Army. Locally, the road system is identical for everyone. Insect abatement from the city spraying is the same for all. It’s impossible for you and me to have different national armies, different levels of insect abatement, or different road systems. Here, there is little alternative to government/political determination. However, these are special cases. The overarching point is that political solutions, through imposing conformity-without-agreement, by their nature generate conflict. With more outcomes decided by political means, conflict intensifies. This is worsened when strong interest groups, used to getting their way, face uncomfortable changes. They fight hard to maintain the status quo. With the escalation of government/political involvement in the economy during the Obama years and the current pushback, this is where America finds itself now.

Though civility and polite discourse are always important, no amount of it can overcome the fundamental conflict that conformity-without-agreement entails. Civility allows us to say what we wish. But agreement-without-conformity allows us to do what we wish. There’s a big difference. Thus, for conflict to lessen, it’s critical to stop forcing conformity-without-agreement and political solutions where they need not go. As noted above, there are cases where there is no good alternative. Stick to limiting government/political action to these cases. Work to establish laws and find public officials who enable “agreement-without-conformity” rather than imposing more “conformity-without-agreement” on society.

By: John Garen

(He is the BB&T Professor of Economics in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky and is the founding director and an affiliate of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise.)
b "Agreement-Without-Conformity" /b br... (show quote)


Road systems are hardly the same between high income and low income neighborhoods, the higher income areas tend to have much better maintained roads.

Where public schools, private schools and charter schools are concerned, there is great fear that if we went with the voucher system, those with means will of course put their kids into the best school they can and public schools will be left with the remaining kids from families that can't swing the funds for a better school. Vouchers will not likely cover the entire cost of the better schools and even if they did, can you imagine the ridicule the children from the poorest families would receive? That would leave the public schools with only the poorest of students (much like the inner city public schools currently) and would likely receive even less funding so the current quality of education that they enjoy currently will likely be reduced.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 01:29:55   #
sisboombaa
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
"Agreement-Without-Conformity"

It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

It is often noted that we live in times of much conflict and rancor, and we frequently hear pleas to raise the level of civility and thoughtfulness. Good advice, indeed. Perhaps the recent e******n will usher in better manners for political discourse—we shall see. Though maintaining civility is important, that alone is not enough to resolve this underlying conflict. It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

The late Milton Friedman noted that getting along with our fellow citizens is relatively easy if we have “agreement-without-conformity.” Conversely, settings with “conformity-without-agreement” are ripe for discord. How do we gain more of the former and reduce the latter? Actually, agreement-without-conformity is quite common. I buy black shoes and you buy brown ones. I have no problem with your shoe color, and you have none with mine. We agree that we can do things differently. Similar outcomes are common. I might listen to country and you to opera; I may prefer chicken to fish and you the opposite; I may read detective novels and you ancient history. But fundamentally, we agree that we each pursue our own desires, which often means non-conformity. This type of outcome is characteristic of market-based t***sactions. We each do with our money as we wish and, by and large, let others do the same.

Unfortunately, conformity-without-agreement is the usual outcome of political solutions. These tend to impose one-size-fits-all policies on everyone. Agree or not, your tax dollars pay for the politically-determined outcome. In this setting, minorities usually lose. Special interest lobbying can overcome this, but then special interests win. Losers must conform even though they object to the outcome. To obtain what one wants requires engaging in the political battle to impose your preferred outcome on everyone by defeating others’ favorites. No amount of civility changes this. Indeed, the nature of political competition exacerbates conflict. Losers are precluded from doing as they wish and go away unhappy. If the issues involved are substantial, discord is sure to follow. This contrasts starkly with market outcomes. It’s remarkable how much people vary in their purchases of cars, music, food, houses, clothing, books, etc. with barely a whimper of complaint. Compromise in a political conflict is possible, but then neither party gets what suits them. A political compromise over shoe color might give us black-and-brown striped shoes.

A high-stakes example of these ideas is health insurance. Some argue for politically determined health insurance and healthcare through single-payer or “Medicare for all.” Others advocate for a market-oriented system. The former allows essentially one insurance plan where a government agency determines coverage for treatments. It’s all paid for in your tax bill. Discontent would emerge similar to that seen in the individual health insurance market (the “exchanges”) from the Affordable Care Act mandates. Elderly couples often want a high-deductible plan without maternity benefits and the converse for young couples. People desire varying deductibles, co-pays, and coverage for vision, dental, chiropractic, contraception, prescription drugs, and so on. But regardless of your individual needs and desires, you pay taxes for a politically-determined collection of coverages. Many will get more coverage of things they don’t value and less of things they do. This is conformity-without-agreement in a big way. It’s no wonder why it’s so contentious.

With market-based health insurance, rather than paying taxes for the mandated plan, people use their money to buy a plan that suits them. Carefully choosing a plan is important, but prudent people vary widely in the insurance plan that is suitable for them. In a market-based system, we agree that we can buy different plans. This agreement-without-conformity greatly reduces the rancor.

Moreover, a healthcare safety net for the needy is a widespread aspiration. Though we want different types of health insurance for ourselves, people of most political views feel a desire to help the needy with private and government assistance. Recognizing this commonality and working toward it can unite us. There is no need to impose conformity on all health insurance and healthcare. This serves only to divide us.


Another important illustration of the contentiousness generated by politics is public schools. Localities regularly engage in harsh political battles regarding public schools over a host of issues. Prayer in school, dress codes, school attendance zones, sex education, emphasis on sports versus academics, support for various extracurriculars, lunch menus, items in school vending machines, curriculum content, textbooks, and school disciplinary methods is a short list. Many parents, dissatisfied with the political outcomes of these disputes, are saddled with a choice of sending their kids to an inappropriate public school or suffering the financial burden of paying private tuition plus the taxes for the public schools they do not use. This is bound to produce tension in the community and, instead of serving as a unifying force as advocates of education schools contend, the school system becomes a source of friction.

A wider embrace and availability of private schooling options avoids this problem. Parents choose schools for their kids, and there is no forced conformity everyone must pay for. Also, as with healthcare, there is a general desire to help low-income families with the schooling of their children. This is readily accomplished with voucher programs, charter schools, and educational savings accounts targeted toward the poor. In such systems, each family chooses their school, and agreement-without-conformity is attained. For some goods, “conformity” is unavoidable. For example, we all have the same US Army. Locally, the road system is identical for everyone. Insect abatement from the city spraying is the same for all. It’s impossible for you and me to have different national armies, different levels of insect abatement, or different road systems. Here, there is little alternative to government/political determination. However, these are special cases. The overarching point is that political solutions, through imposing conformity-without-agreement, by their nature generate conflict. With more outcomes decided by political means, conflict intensifies. This is worsened when strong interest groups, used to getting their way, face uncomfortable changes. They fight hard to maintain the status quo. With the escalation of government/political involvement in the economy during the Obama years and the current pushback, this is where America finds itself now.

Though civility and polite discourse are always important, no amount of it can overcome the fundamental conflict that conformity-without-agreement entails. Civility allows us to say what we wish. But agreement-without-conformity allows us to do what we wish. There’s a big difference. Thus, for conflict to lessen, it’s critical to stop forcing conformity-without-agreement and political solutions where they need not go. As noted above, there are cases where there is no good alternative. Stick to limiting government/political action to these cases. Work to establish laws and find public officials who enable “agreement-without-conformity” rather than imposing more “conformity-without-agreement” on society.

By: John Garen

(He is the BB&T Professor of Economics in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky and is the founding director and an affiliate of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise.)
b "Agreement-Without-Conformity" /b br... (show quote)


Very nice post. This essay by John Garen shows why socialism doesn't work and never will. It is an essay I will reread several times and pass it on to those who I feel will benefit from it. Thank you Critical Critic.

Reply
 
 
Feb 9, 2019 02:51:04   #
Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Road systems are hardly the same between high income and low income neighborhoods, the higher income areas tend to have much better maintained roads.

Where public schools, private schools and charter schools are concerned, there is great fear that if we went with the voucher system, those with means will of course put their kids into the best school they can and public schools will be left with the remaining kids from families that can't swing the funds for a better school. Vouchers will not likely cover the entire cost of the better schools and even if they did, can you imagine the ridicule the children from the poorest families would receive? That would leave the public schools with only the poorest of students (much like the inner city public schools currently) and would likely receive even less funding so the current quality of education that they enjoy currently will likely be reduced.
Road systems are hardly the same between high inco... (show quote)


Trying to fundamentally change the culture of America is the main problem here. It will never work. The road most travelled is the road that leads to Destiny for all people. Right now there are too many politicians holding detour signs that lead only two streets with personal gains on every corner. Biig Mistake.
Right now our number one leader is President Trump. Follow the leader. His path is clear, and fights for laws that are already on the books.
Why people are fighting against the simple t***h is beyond me.
Make America Great! It is that simple.
We have to many professors and not enough teachers.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 04:50:27   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Road systems are hardly the same between high income and low income neighborhoods, the higher income areas tend to have much better maintained roads.

Where public schools, private schools and charter schools are concerned, there is great fear that if we went with the voucher system, those with means will of course put their kids into the best school they can and public schools will be left with the remaining kids from families that can't swing the funds for a better school. Vouchers will not likely cover the entire cost of the better schools and even if they did, can you imagine the ridicule the children from the poorest families would receive? That would leave the public schools with only the poorest of students (much like the inner city public schools currently) and would likely receive even less funding so the current quality of education that they enjoy currently will likely be reduced.
Road systems are hardly the same between high inco... (show quote)

I'm not sure how much more the education they currently "enjoy" COULD be reduced and still be called an education while maintaining a straight face and verisimilitude of probity.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 05:21:41   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
"Agreement-Without-Conformity"

It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

It is often noted that we live in times of much conflict and rancor, and we frequently hear pleas to raise the level of civility and thoughtfulness. Good advice, indeed. Perhaps the recent e******n will usher in better manners for political discourse—we shall see. Though maintaining civility is important, that alone is not enough to resolve this underlying conflict. It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

The late Milton Friedman noted that getting along with our fellow citizens is relatively easy if we have “agreement-without-conformity.” Conversely, settings with “conformity-without-agreement” are ripe for discord. How do we gain more of the former and reduce the latter? Actually, agreement-without-conformity is quite common. I buy black shoes and you buy brown ones. I have no problem with your shoe color, and you have none with mine. We agree that we can do things differently. Similar outcomes are common. I might listen to country and you to opera; I may prefer chicken to fish and you the opposite; I may read detective novels and you ancient history. But fundamentally, we agree that we each pursue our own desires, which often means non-conformity. This type of outcome is characteristic of market-based t***sactions. We each do with our money as we wish and, by and large, let others do the same.

Unfortunately, conformity-without-agreement is the usual outcome of political solutions. These tend to impose one-size-fits-all policies on everyone. Agree or not, your tax dollars pay for the politically-determined outcome. In this setting, minorities usually lose. Special interest lobbying can overcome this, but then special interests win. Losers must conform even though they object to the outcome. To obtain what one wants requires engaging in the political battle to impose your preferred outcome on everyone by defeating others’ favorites. No amount of civility changes this. Indeed, the nature of political competition exacerbates conflict. Losers are precluded from doing as they wish and go away unhappy. If the issues involved are substantial, discord is sure to follow. This contrasts starkly with market outcomes. It’s remarkable how much people vary in their purchases of cars, music, food, houses, clothing, books, etc. with barely a whimper of complaint. Compromise in a political conflict is possible, but then neither party gets what suits them. A political compromise over shoe color might give us black-and-brown striped shoes.

A high-stakes example of these ideas is health insurance. Some argue for politically determined health insurance and healthcare through single-payer or “Medicare for all.” Others advocate for a market-oriented system. The former allows essentially one insurance plan where a government agency determines coverage for treatments. It’s all paid for in your tax bill. Discontent would emerge similar to that seen in the individual health insurance market (the “exchanges”) from the Affordable Care Act mandates. Elderly couples often want a high-deductible plan without maternity benefits and the converse for young couples. People desire varying deductibles, co-pays, and coverage for vision, dental, chiropractic, contraception, prescription drugs, and so on. But regardless of your individual needs and desires, you pay taxes for a politically-determined collection of coverages. Many will get more coverage of things they don’t value and less of things they do. This is conformity-without-agreement in a big way. It’s no wonder why it’s so contentious.

With market-based health insurance, rather than paying taxes for the mandated plan, people use their money to buy a plan that suits them. Carefully choosing a plan is important, but prudent people vary widely in the insurance plan that is suitable for them. In a market-based system, we agree that we can buy different plans. This agreement-without-conformity greatly reduces the rancor.

Moreover, a healthcare safety net for the needy is a widespread aspiration. Though we want different types of health insurance for ourselves, people of most political views feel a desire to help the needy with private and government assistance. Recognizing this commonality and working toward it can unite us. There is no need to impose conformity on all health insurance and healthcare. This serves only to divide us.


Another important illustration of the contentiousness generated by politics is public schools. Localities regularly engage in harsh political battles regarding public schools over a host of issues. Prayer in school, dress codes, school attendance zones, sex education, emphasis on sports versus academics, support for various extracurriculars, lunch menus, items in school vending machines, curriculum content, textbooks, and school disciplinary methods is a short list. Many parents, dissatisfied with the political outcomes of these disputes, are saddled with a choice of sending their kids to an inappropriate public school or suffering the financial burden of paying private tuition plus the taxes for the public schools they do not use. This is bound to produce tension in the community and, instead of serving as a unifying force as advocates of education schools contend, the school system becomes a source of friction.

A wider embrace and availability of private schooling options avoids this problem. Parents choose schools for their kids, and there is no forced conformity everyone must pay for. Also, as with healthcare, there is a general desire to help low-income families with the schooling of their children. This is readily accomplished with voucher programs, charter schools, and educational savings accounts targeted toward the poor. In such systems, each family chooses their school, and agreement-without-conformity is attained. For some goods, “conformity” is unavoidable. For example, we all have the same US Army. Locally, the road system is identical for everyone. Insect abatement from the city spraying is the same for all. It’s impossible for you and me to have different national armies, different levels of insect abatement, or different road systems. Here, there is little alternative to government/political determination. However, these are special cases. The overarching point is that political solutions, through imposing conformity-without-agreement, by their nature generate conflict. With more outcomes decided by political means, conflict intensifies. This is worsened when strong interest groups, used to getting their way, face uncomfortable changes. They fight hard to maintain the status quo. With the escalation of government/political involvement in the economy during the Obama years and the current pushback, this is where America finds itself now.

Though civility and polite discourse are always important, no amount of it can overcome the fundamental conflict that conformity-without-agreement entails. Civility allows us to say what we wish. But agreement-without-conformity allows us to do what we wish. There’s a big difference. Thus, for conflict to lessen, it’s critical to stop forcing conformity-without-agreement and political solutions where they need not go. As noted above, there are cases where there is no good alternative. Stick to limiting government/political action to these cases. Work to establish laws and find public officials who enable “agreement-without-conformity” rather than imposing more “conformity-without-agreement” on society.

By: John Garen

(He is the BB&T Professor of Economics in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky and is the founding director and an affiliate of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise.)
b "Agreement-Without-Conformity" /b br... (show quote)


Very good article and made a lot of sense to me. Thanks!


Reply
Feb 9, 2019 05:29:16   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
Smedley_buzk**l wrote:
I'm not sure how much more the education they currently "enjoy" COULD be reduced and still be called an education while maintaining a straight face and verisimilitude of probity.


I don't think they care much for being able to keep a straight face to be honest. As we all know, costs rise with each year, here in our state, the recommended minimum education increases mandated by education consultants, they take that amount recommended to increase the educational budget minimum, they consider that the high side and typically increase the budget by half of that recommended figure, maybe soon enough the ones making the recommendation will get wise and double or triple their estimate.

Reply
 
 
Feb 9, 2019 05:41:15   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
I don't think they care much for being able to keep a straight face to be honest. As we all know, costs rise with each year, here in our state, the recommended minimum education increases mandated by education consultants, they take that amount recommended to increase the educational budget minimum, they consider that the high side and typically increase the budget by half of that recommended figure, maybe soon enough the ones making the recommendation will get wise and double or triple their estimate.
I don't think they care much for being able to kee... (show quote)

When I was quite young I attended a very small rural school that actually had first and second grade, and third and fourth combined. When my family moved and I began attending a nice, new, well funded "modern" school with all the bells and whistles, I was surprised to find that I was about a half year ahead of the students who had supposedly benefited from all this largesse. Most of the kids from that little country school I first attended could have said the same.

Reply
Feb 9, 2019 05:56:41   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Road systems are hardly the same between high income and low income neighborhoods, the higher income areas tend to have much better maintained roads.

Where public schools, private schools and charter schools are concerned, there is great fear that if we went with the voucher system, those with means will of course put their kids into the best school they can and public schools will be left with the remaining kids from families that can't swing the funds for a better school. Vouchers will not likely cover the entire cost of the better schools and even if they did, can you imagine the ridicule the children from the poorest families would receive? That would leave the public schools with only the poorest of students (much like the inner city public schools currently) and would likely receive even less funding so the current quality of education that they enjoy currently will likely be reduced.
Road systems are hardly the same between high inco... (show quote)


Back before busing and desegregation, poor schools still had great teachers. No one likes being at the bottom of the stats. Schools were controlled by local school boards. There was no Dept. of Education and only a few unionized teachers. Kids learned and were mostly civil and respected their teachers. The biggest problem was kids chewing gum in class. Then somehow envy entered in and the government tried to make everything equal. Things only became worse. If you have some control of your destiny and want to improve, you will. You could have bake sales and do other things to improve your situation. Now you can't even sell lemonade in your driveway, the health department has to inspect the food first and usually say, no way. You are not even allowed to feed the poor in some places. Way too much Big Brother telling everyone what they can and can't do. The more freedom and less control, the better things work. Wackos and weirdos were shunned until they conformed or moved. The majority rules system worked pretty well. You just v**ed yea or nay and it was so. The poor and better off will always exist. With freedom, you can decide which one you want to be.

Reply
Feb 10, 2019 01:51:03   #
JW
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
"Agreement-Without-Conformity"

It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

It is often noted that we live in times of much conflict and rancor, and we frequently hear pleas to raise the level of civility and thoughtfulness. Good advice, indeed. Perhaps the recent e******n will usher in better manners for political discourse—we shall see. Though maintaining civility is important, that alone is not enough to resolve this underlying conflict. It is critical not just to hear one another’s differences but also to let one another do things differently.

The late Milton Friedman noted that getting along with our fellow citizens is relatively easy if we have “agreement-without-conformity.” Conversely, settings with “conformity-without-agreement” are ripe for discord. How do we gain more of the former and reduce the latter? Actually, agreement-without-conformity is quite common. I buy black shoes and you buy brown ones. I have no problem with your shoe color, and you have none with mine. We agree that we can do things differently. Similar outcomes are common. I might listen to country and you to opera; I may prefer chicken to fish and you the opposite; I may read detective novels and you ancient history. But fundamentally, we agree that we each pursue our own desires, which often means non-conformity. This type of outcome is characteristic of market-based t***sactions. We each do with our money as we wish and, by and large, let others do the same.

Unfortunately, conformity-without-agreement is the usual outcome of political solutions. These tend to impose one-size-fits-all policies on everyone. Agree or not, your tax dollars pay for the politically-determined outcome. In this setting, minorities usually lose. Special interest lobbying can overcome this, but then special interests win. Losers must conform even though they object to the outcome. To obtain what one wants requires engaging in the political battle to impose your preferred outcome on everyone by defeating others’ favorites. No amount of civility changes this. Indeed, the nature of political competition exacerbates conflict. Losers are precluded from doing as they wish and go away unhappy. If the issues involved are substantial, discord is sure to follow. This contrasts starkly with market outcomes. It’s remarkable how much people vary in their purchases of cars, music, food, houses, clothing, books, etc. with barely a whimper of complaint. Compromise in a political conflict is possible, but then neither party gets what suits them. A political compromise over shoe color might give us black-and-brown striped shoes.

A high-stakes example of these ideas is health insurance. Some argue for politically determined health insurance and healthcare through single-payer or “Medicare for all.” Others advocate for a market-oriented system. The former allows essentially one insurance plan where a government agency determines coverage for treatments. It’s all paid for in your tax bill. Discontent would emerge similar to that seen in the individual health insurance market (the “exchanges”) from the Affordable Care Act mandates. Elderly couples often want a high-deductible plan without maternity benefits and the converse for young couples. People desire varying deductibles, co-pays, and coverage for vision, dental, chiropractic, contraception, prescription drugs, and so on. But regardless of your individual needs and desires, you pay taxes for a politically-determined collection of coverages. Many will get more coverage of things they don’t value and less of things they do. This is conformity-without-agreement in a big way. It’s no wonder why it’s so contentious.

With market-based health insurance, rather than paying taxes for the mandated plan, people use their money to buy a plan that suits them. Carefully choosing a plan is important, but prudent people vary widely in the insurance plan that is suitable for them. In a market-based system, we agree that we can buy different plans. This agreement-without-conformity greatly reduces the rancor.

Moreover, a healthcare safety net for the needy is a widespread aspiration. Though we want different types of health insurance for ourselves, people of most political views feel a desire to help the needy with private and government assistance. Recognizing this commonality and working toward it can unite us. There is no need to impose conformity on all health insurance and healthcare. This serves only to divide us.


Another important illustration of the contentiousness generated by politics is public schools. Localities regularly engage in harsh political battles regarding public schools over a host of issues. Prayer in school, dress codes, school attendance zones, sex education, emphasis on sports versus academics, support for various extracurriculars, lunch menus, items in school vending machines, curriculum content, textbooks, and school disciplinary methods is a short list. Many parents, dissatisfied with the political outcomes of these disputes, are saddled with a choice of sending their kids to an inappropriate public school or suffering the financial burden of paying private tuition plus the taxes for the public schools they do not use. This is bound to produce tension in the community and, instead of serving as a unifying force as advocates of education schools contend, the school system becomes a source of friction.

A wider embrace and availability of private schooling options avoids this problem. Parents choose schools for their kids, and there is no forced conformity everyone must pay for. Also, as with healthcare, there is a general desire to help low-income families with the schooling of their children. This is readily accomplished with voucher programs, charter schools, and educational savings accounts targeted toward the poor. In such systems, each family chooses their school, and agreement-without-conformity is attained. For some goods, “conformity” is unavoidable. For example, we all have the same US Army. Locally, the road system is identical for everyone. Insect abatement from the city spraying is the same for all. It’s impossible for you and me to have different national armies, different levels of insect abatement, or different road systems. Here, there is little alternative to government/political determination. However, these are special cases. The overarching point is that political solutions, through imposing conformity-without-agreement, by their nature generate conflict. With more outcomes decided by political means, conflict intensifies. This is worsened when strong interest groups, used to getting their way, face uncomfortable changes. They fight hard to maintain the status quo. With the escalation of government/political involvement in the economy during the Obama years and the current pushback, this is where America finds itself now.

Though civility and polite discourse are always important, no amount of it can overcome the fundamental conflict that conformity-without-agreement entails. Civility allows us to say what we wish. But agreement-without-conformity allows us to do what we wish. There’s a big difference. Thus, for conflict to lessen, it’s critical to stop forcing conformity-without-agreement and political solutions where they need not go. As noted above, there are cases where there is no good alternative. Stick to limiting government/political action to these cases. Work to establish laws and find public officials who enable “agreement-without-conformity” rather than imposing more “conformity-without-agreement” on society.

By: John Garen

(He is the BB&T Professor of Economics in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky and is the founding director and an affiliate of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise.)
b "Agreement-Without-Conformity" /b br... (show quote)


Human beings have a problem. It is that we interfere in the natural order of things as a matter of the course of our everyday lives. Each time we attempt to act in any arena not governed by nature, we come into conflict with nature. We are denizens of a universe designed by competition; we are designed for competition trying to live as if competition can be discounted or even negated.

This universe exists only because of a ubiquitous competitive paradigm. It is competition between the sun and the [speed of the] planets that maintains the solar system. That same competitive schema exists at the atomic level in the push and pull of subatomic particles as well as on the macro level where we humans reside.

Speaking only on a cursory level, it is the competition between the employer's desire to keep his money and his need for help that establishes wage rates for a given job. Likewise, it is the availability of a person’s marketable sk**ls and the employers’ need for those sk**ls that determines who gets the job. Competition is at the core of a man's desire for a woman and her desire for a man that determines c**pling [speaking generally].

That competitive drive makes living together as equals impossible. The rise of warlords and kings among humans is no different than the ascension of the dominant male [or female among hyenas] in any social hierarchy in the animal world. We have created what we call government as a method of mediating our social conflicts and protecting us from the tyranny of the dominance system of the wilderness.

The theory of government is that we surrender some of our natural rights to the group and in return the group ensures a standard of personal security. There is a limit to what the group can demand for that security and that security must be absolute [which it never is] and beneficial [which it sometimes is].

Mandating how we live in our personal domain and how we interact publicly requires two very different scenarios. The power of the American social establishment, i.e. government, has always been successful because we have always drawn a clear line between the two. We all conform to the agreed social mandates and we are left alone to run our own lives.

That, unfortunately, means that there will be casualties from the competition we engage in, in the public arena. Some will get rich and others will not. Some will get sick and others will not. Some will win and some will lose. That is the natural state of public interaction. How restrictive the governing agency becomes depends in part on the accepted system of government and on the complexity of the society. Complexity is a function of size and expanse, therefore, of population and technology.

Competition rewards greed, bellicosity and prowess, all of which t***slate to power. Some people naturally resent that while some naturally abuse it and we assume that government can remedy the disparities and the abuses. That requires that the government interferes in the personal domain of its citizens and it is that interference in the personal affairs, the non-public life of the citizenry, that result in bloody revolutions... ultimately, 100% of the time... without fail, always have, and always will. Think of the slogan, ‘no taxation without representation’. If you demand a portion of my labor, I expect something in return.

America's strength has been its limitation of those governmental incursions into the personal orbit of the individual citizen. We have begun allowing the government of the United States to exceed the authority of the social grant of power it was given. Better stated, the government has begun presuming a greater authority than it has been granted by the Constitution. It has t***smuted the Constitution from a statement of limits on governance to a charter of control of the citizenry. That is a dangerous step with entirely predictable results.

If you understand this mechanism, competition, then you will understand why government can mandate homosexual unions but cannot call it marriage; can require a business to service to all members of the public but cannot demand personal service to any one; can set limits on a******n but cannot outlaw it; and why socialism never works, anywhere, at any time and cannot work.

Reply
Feb 10, 2019 02:31:13   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
Interesting but I can't agree with all you've posted. You left out the spiritual factor altogether. I'll trust the Biblical explanation.

Reply
 
 
Feb 10, 2019 02:42:48   #
JW
 
Peewee wrote:
Interesting but I can't agree with all you've posted. You left out the spiritual factor altogether. I'll trust the Biblical explanation.


If people believe in God then God is a real factor in social interaction but only in that it adds to the rules governing society. Not everyone is a believer so not everyone is governed by the religious system within the society. They are, however still members of the society.

There is much wisdom in the Bible. For example, the Ten Commandments lay out the minimum necessary to form a preliminary government. The Commandments lay out the people's obligations and the rewards for following them. They lay out the basic rules for community and they establish the supreme authority of the governors. In that particular case, the authority of the priesthood.

Reply
Feb 10, 2019 03:38:07   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
That makes sense to me. Love God and love one another. Sums up what the Bible teaches from cover to cover. It's the only way there can be peace. Some obey God and most don't. So until the Messiah comes and rules and reigns we are in a way, marking time. We do the best we know how and wait for the return to Eden. We still have to protect our families, nation, and property. Others will still try and take it from us by force. Sadly, that will continue until the end of days.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.