I often chirp Stuart about his `love' for all things American. I am new to this whole blogging thing, but have been very quickly hooked by far more interesting reading than I am used to. I have never been a big written newspaper reader, but I do regularly check IOL. Not because it is good, but because I am used to checking it. I actually often find the writing very bad and feel disappointed since it takes articles from all South Africa's main stream English papers.
The quality of some of the blogs I have come across are on a different level.Megan McArdle is a good example. Reading this stuff makes me want to have opinions. It makes me want to question myself about what I believe, why I believe it and how I can rid myself of any biases I have. Bluntly, it makes me want to read more and write more.
Today she spoke of a few things I was interested in:
1)The problem of Free Riding, which is one of the main reasons I struggle to completely accept the idea that Government should be obliterated.
2)Willingness to fail, and accepting that failing more means learning more. She talks of Failure being the key to success.
3)She points out the stupidity of theI told you so way of gloating when you got something right and someone else got it wrong.
4) She discusses why she supported Alan Greenspan in calling for adjustable rate mortgages in America. Lot's of people are doing `I told you so's here in saying Greenspan was wrong. Megan doesn't think he was wrong. Neither do I. In South Africa, we only have ARMs (although I have seen a few fixed rate mortgages now being offered).
5)She offered an explanation of why she got the decision to support or reject the War in Iraq wrong. I was always an opponent of the war. That is not an `I told you so'... but I really appreciated this article where she quite clearly, honestly attempts to figure out why she made the mistake. Stu, I doubt you were a McArdle reader then... but I know you supported the war... you reckon she hit the mark here? I can't claim any superior insight here, and my reason for rejecting the war were what some would call naive. Firstly, my bar for justifying war is very high. Secondly, It was illegal.
Anyway... McArdle was pretty prolific today. There were three or four other articles too. Once you get into the swing of things, it seems the web can be quite a catalyst for creativity. I find these articles far more interesting than the often stodgy stuff you get in well edited journals.
Why the comment about America? Well, I see myself sinking into the trap I accused Stuart of unless I can quickly find some interesting South African blogs to read....
Because the choice McArdle vs. IOL is not a difficult one.
7 comments:
I like her post on the Iraq war.
"Secondly, It was illegal."
Hmmmm....
check this blog out
http://commentary.co.za/
"which is one of the main reasons I struggle to completely accept the idea that Government should be obliterated."
Why do you struggle thusly? Against whom?
Well, Prof. Visser believed it was illegal according to International Law... and I believe him. My major objection was the complete lack of attempt to get international consensus, and Bush's Sith Like `You are either with us, or against us'. The presumption that the US could do what it wanted without gaining security council approval also made the UN look silly. The subsequent attempt to discredit Kofi Annan also irritated me.
I still believe Government does have an important role to play. That its role can be deminished, but that certain admin tasks rather than power tasks are necessary.
I also like Commentary (mainly their one guy, Laurence).
As far as I can recall, the US did try to get UN approval for the war. But it was very clear that the effort was futile.
For me, the fact that the war was illegal is not a big deal, if by illegal you mean that there was no UN approval. With many things it is impossible to get security council approval because the permanent members have veto power. That doesn't necessarily make something wrong though. For example, say China decides to obliterate Taiwan. Must the US do nothing about it because any action is bound to be "illegal"?
I also don't understand your struggle. Who are these anarcho-capitalists that you're struggling against? To ask the question more directly: have you ever heard Stuart or I suggesting that government should be obliterated, or denying that the free rider problem (and others) means that some goods and services have to be provided by government?
Oh, I also like Megan McArdle, and agree that IOL is almost unbelievably crap.
No, I haven't.
The struggle is an internal one.
What Government Institutions/Admin do you think is necessary.
2 Examples I did not get:
The example of car licensing not being necessary.
Medical Doctors not needing licensing.
By illegal, I don't mean without UN approval.
By illegal I meant that there are certain principles in International Law, the same law used to judge War Criminals, which were not met here.
According to Prof. Visser there would have been a fairly strong case against GWB as a war criminal.
Post a Comment