tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post8297245430646262655..comments2024-03-28T17:44:11.289+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Three deep questions for evaluating policyBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-28900906325269216642015-11-11T04:05:05.806+00:002015-11-11T04:05:05.806+00:00Pavel Petrovich wrung his hands. "After that ...Pavel Petrovich wrung his hands. "After that I don't understand you. You insult the Russian people. I don't see how it's possible to reject principles and rules! On what basis can you act?"<br /><br />"I've already told you, Uncle, we don't accept any authorities," Arkady intervened.<br /><br />"We act on the basis of what we recognize as useful," Bazarov replied. "Nowadays the most useful thing of all is rejection -- we reject."<br /><br />"Everything?"<br /><br />"Everything."<br /><br />"What? Not only art and poetry . . . but even . . . it's too awful to say . . ."<br /><br />"Everything," Bazarov repeated with indescribable composure.<br /><br />Pavel Petrovich stared at him. He hadn't expected this, and Arkady even blushed with delight.<br /><br />"But allow me,"Nikolai Petrovich began. "You reject everything, or, to put it more precisely, you destroy everything . . . But one must also build."<br /><br />"That's not for us to do . . . First, the ground must be cleared."<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />"Well , then? Are you taking action or what? Are you preparing to take action?"<br /><br />Bazarov made no reply. Pavel Petrovich gave a little shudder, but then gained control of himself.<br /><br />"Hmmm! To act, destroy . . .," he continued. "But how can one destroy without even knowing why?"<br /><br />"We destroy because we're a force," Arkady observed.<br /><br />(from Turgenev's <i>Fathers and Sons</i>)Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-38577093243681951732015-11-10T21:51:56.706+00:002015-11-10T21:51:56.706+00:00"(This comes from Thomas Sowell)"
Actua..."<i>(This comes from Thomas Sowell)</i>"<br /><br />Actually, it comes from Henry Hazlitt's <i>Economics in One Lesson</i>, who in turn took the idea from the <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html" rel="nofollow">French economist Frederic Bastiat</a>. But you likely may have known that already.<br /><br />"<i>Nobody actually regards abortion as a Good thing - a cause for celebration; something to be promoted, maximized, done as much as possible, in as many situations as possible, as the basis of a good and healthy and admirable society. (Or, at least, those who do believe this never admit to it.)</i>"<br /><br />This is plainly false; please see for example the article <a href="https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/no-one-is-for-abortion/" rel="nofollow">"No-one is for abortion!"</a> (part of François Tremblay's <a href="https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/introduction-to-the-pro-abortion-position/" rel="nofollow">Pro-Abortion Series</a> (not to be confused with the Pro-Choice position)), as well as <i>Chapter 5. Abortion: The 'Pro-Death' View</i> in Prof. David Benatar's book <a href="http://vk.com/doc151440227_220518152" rel="nofollow"><i>Better Never To Have Been</i></a> (Oxford University Press, 2006).EVIListnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-30749236769718054442015-11-10T16:24:56.597+00:002015-11-10T16:24:56.597+00:00@Adrian - Well, that's one interpretation, but...@Adrian - Well, that's one interpretation, but I don't want to get into specifics. With law it is only slightly what is on the books, and mostly how the law is implemented - eg. current immigration 'laws'. A change in law often precedes the statutes. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-6966338884939234962015-11-10T15:31:57.026+00:002015-11-10T15:31:57.026+00:00Great post. One nitpick, though: no-fault divorce ...Great post. One nitpick, though: no-fault divorce was preceded and driven by the increasing divorce rate, rather than vice versa. In a certain sense no-fault divorce was a pragmatic way to handle the overwhelming load of divorce cases that were clogging the courts (at least in the US).Adrian Hnoreply@blogger.com