Home » Sowell vs. Piven

Comments

Sowell vs. Piven — 18 Comments

  1. I remember these programs. I don’t remember if it was on Friedman’s program or possible Cavetts’s where some liberal insinuated that Sowell didn’t understand blackness. He got pretty hot and not only destroyed them verbally, but left no doubt he was ready to get it on right there, right then.

  2. Dr Sowell is one of the greatest thinkers of any time. I have enjoyed reading and listening to him for years. He has the rare ability to tell his foe to go to hell, and they look forward to the trip.

  3. Roman:

    The way Piven looks at Sowell is priceless. You can tell she’s spitting mad at the fact that he’s a black conservative who’s brilliant, as she tries to lecture him on what black people think.

  4. Neo…

    She’s run into a Black Swan.

    I recommend Sowell’s Ethnic America.

  5. That look is what I got when jackasses up North were telling me about Hurricane Katrina and how much i did not know about it .. priceless

  6. I’m most struck by Friedman’s comment about there being “no question that equality of results if it comes about through a framework of freedom is a desirable result.”

    Seems to me that’s a formulation that would greatly benefit the Republicans in their discourse today. It shows humanity up-front.

  7. All of his books are worth reading. One of his best, which caused me to believe he was a younger version of F.A. Hayek, is Knowledge & Decisions.

  8. I too hold Dr. Sowell in high regard. He is a national treasure and IMO greatly under-appreciated. Were he a leftist, his fame would be off the charts.

    His combination of astuteness, articulateness and common sense (a quality in such short supply today) make him unique.

  9. There will never, there can never be equal outcomes. The nature of the world, and reality generally, prevent this result. This intrinsic limitation is not exclusively ordained by the natural order, which has seen fit to ensure finitely available and accessible resources. It is also a function of individual human beings, who do not all share the same dream.

    Our effort to deny the terms and circumstances of reality lead to progressive corruption, dysfunction, and eventually a conclusive convergence of each. At which point the cycle begins anew. Typically after violent and destructive upheavals.

    Anyway, as the concept of “progress” is inherently ambiguous, the concept of “equality” is inherently untenable, and each must be qualified in order to have meaning.

  10. As for some or many black Americans, good for them. Neither redistributive nor retributive change will engender positive progress. They recognize individual dignity, the intrinsic value of human life, and are capable of reconciling these two fundamental concepts with their own needs and desires, and the terms and circumstances of reality. Would there be more such people in this world, then there may yet be hope for achieving some semblance of harmony.

  11. n.n.:

    Yes, I wrote this re equal outcomes:

    The French rallying cry “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” sounds something like our “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but in actuality it was very different. Although originally the “equality” meant equality under the law, things soon changed [emphasis mine]:

    This identification of liberty and equality became problematic during the Jacobin period, when equality was redefined (for instance by Frané§ois-Noé«l Babeuf) as equality of results, and not only judicial equality of rights. Thus, Marc Antoine Baudott considered that French temperament inclined rather to equality than liberty, a theme which would be re-used by Pierre Louis Roederer and Alexis de Tocqueville, while Jacques Necker considered that an equal society could only be found on coercion.

    The third term, Fraternité, was the most problematic to insert in the triad, as it belonged to another sphere, that of moral obligations rather than rights, links rather than statutes, harmony rather than contract, and community rather than individuality.

    It is no coincidence that the French Revolution was marked by the Reign of Terror, and inspired both the Soviet and Chinese communist revolutions.

  12. Professor Sowell also wrote a guide to choosing a college that I found useful when my kids were approaching that age. Available online here. Published in 1989, so some of the details may be dated but the general discussion is still relevant.

  13. I was a bit surprised to hear Friedman say that about equality of results as well, but then I read this article in which an interesting case is made for him being “a compassionate libertarian,” based largely on his proposal for a negative income tax as a way to alleviate poverty:

    There is a certain tension in Milton Friedman’s views on the issue of freedom versus equality, which was much more nuanced than is commonly assumed. On the one hand, he argued that economic policy should focus on freedom as a primary value; stressing equality per se could lead to economic inefficiency as well as jeopardizing freedom itself. On the other hand, he famously advocated government-sponsored poverty alleviation by way of the negative income tax, a form of income redistribution that is inconsistent with his general theory of the free-market economy. His justification for this policy, however, was not on egalitarian grounds. Rather, his main motivation seems to have been compassion.

  14. neo-neocon:

    It is that clear insight which motivates my return to your site. I appreciate individuals who are capable of distinguishing between ideal and real outcomes, and use the former to develop the latter. I also care to observe and learn from your perspective, which I presume is substantially influenced by your area of expertise, psychology.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the good, bad. and ugly. I prefer the first, but we live in an imperfect world, so I will grudgingly tolerate the second and third; and perhaps share my own thoughts, which are remarkably similar to yours.

  15. Ann:

    I think the principal issue with any redistributive scheme is dissociation of risk. This dissociation is exacerbated when redistribution occurs through involuntary exploitation (e.g. taxation). This is a cause for corruption and must be closely monitored in order to prevent its progress. Another problem, which is peculiar to centralized, isolated organizations (e.g. government), is ensuring accountability.

    My preference would be to refocus societal assistance to emphasize rehabilitation. Also, close proximity of distance and relation is likely to ensure superior accountability.

    Anyway, Friedman is right to appreciate the value of compassion; but, it must be reconcilable and productive. From society’s perspective, there is value in promoting harmony. From the economy’s perspective, there is value in a diversified market, including producers and consumers. From humanity’s perspective, there is value to preserve individual dignity and the value of human life.

    Ideally, redistributive change will happen by two methods: economic exchange and charity, which are both voluntary forms of exploitation.

  16. Ann:

    As for income inequality, there are four considerations to its resolution.

    First, we must consider income inequality in a relevant context, which at minimum includes cost of living, and distinguish between necessities and luxuries.

    Second, we must consider that not everyone will enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii (i.e. natural resources are finitely accessible and available). It is the market’s (e.g. consumers) direction which sets the “fair” or “reasonable” pricing of products and services in the economy.

    Third, we must consider the value of each individual’s contribution. There is a reason why we reward risk more than labor, pioneers and entrepreneurs more than workers, etc.

    Fourth, we must consider creating dissociation of risk when compensation is uncorrelated with individual contribution.

    With any effort to deny these considerations, we must be wary of sponsoring corruption (e.g. institutional – IRS – discrimination) and unsustainable outcomes (e.g. trillion dollar deficits). While we cannot enslave the consumer in service of the producer, we also cannot enslave the producer in service of the consumer, no matter how comfortable the circumstances of their service. Their relationship must be reconcilable in order to preserve individual dignity, the intrinsic value of human life, and ensure harmony between individuals of different means.

  17. I recall from one of his videos that he was once a Marxist. Another changer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>