Skip to main content

*Freedom and Fairness*

I read this one on the advice of Tyler Cowen, and quite liked it. As Cowen says, it's an excellent introduction to New Zealand history, and worth reading for that alone. Kiwi history is actually really interesting, and the parallels were quite surprising at times. Here are the main things that jumped out at me:

1) Ideas matter. The way in which colonists of each country treated their native populations is instructive. In America, the Indians were treated with unconscionable viciousness and cruelty, up to and including genocide. In New Zealand, while relations between colonists and the Maori were strained, and at times deeply unfair and bloody, they were far, far more decent than here. Fischer explains this, convincingly, as the progress of Enlightenment ideals. New Zealand was founded about 200 years after America, and it made a huge difference.

2) The book could have used some more quantitative economic explanation. The US has a much higher GDP per capita, but also vastly higher poverty. What kind of implications does this have? How much of that extra GDP is going to finance and the super-rich? Has the Kiwi focus on fairness dented their standard of living? Fischer doesn't explain enough.

3) The US is a barbaric place. As a liberal, it was hard not to think boy, this New Zealand sure sounds nice! The US makes out like a dumpster by comparison. Time and again Fischer would make some comparison, ostensibly talking about the pluses and minuses of each country, and time and again the Kiwis won hands down. The Trail of Tears, slavery, Jim Crow, an enormous prison system, and galloping inequality...

Anyway, I thought for most of the book that the frame just didn't work. Sure, Kiwis are obsessed with fairness, and it seems like a reasonable, self-consistent belief, but the American obsession with freedom and liberty is a lot less coherent, bordering on sloganeering. The people that talk the most about freedom, like the Tea Party brigades, have a notion of it that couldn't withstand a fifth-grade discussion. Throughout history it has often explicitly meant things like "freedom to steal the freedom of others." It reminded me of an old Yglesias post:
Freedom-talk is an important influence in American rhetoric, but it—and especially its self-consciously antiquarian cousin liberty-talk—has nothing to do with any analytically respectable conception of freedom. It has to do with safeguarding the perceived self-interest, lifestyle, and social status of the right sort of people. This is a country where the free market position is that for-profit colleges should have a right to unrestricted government subsidies.
But Fischer pulled it out at the end, with a brilliant concluding chapter. It does again make New Zealand look better by comparison, but it's a great discussion of freedom, fairness, the pitfalls of each, and their interlocking and mutually supporting natures. Great book, and worth a read.


Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actually b

Varanus albigularis albigularis

That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard , a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here ). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment. When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves tha

The Conversational Downsides of Twitter's Structure

Over the past couple years, as I've had a steady writing job and ascended from "utter nobody" to "D-list pundit," I find it harder and harder to have discussions online. Twitter is the only social network I like and where I talk to people the most, but as your number of followers increases, the user experience becomes steadily more hostile to conversation. Here's my theory as to why this happens. First is Twitter's powerful tendency to create cliques and groupthink. Back in forum and blog comment section days, people would more often hang out in places where a certain interest or baseline understanding could be assumed. (Now, there were often epic fights, cliques, and gratuitous cruelty on forums too, particularly the joke or insult variety, but in my experience it was also much easier to just have a reasonable conversation.) On Twitter, people rather naturally form those same communities of like interest, but are trapped in the same space with differe