28 Jul 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeI vote yes.
"The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones."
J.M. Keynes
Was Keynes, on balance, right to make this claim?
This may seem an attack on conservatism, but I think it's an issue that plagues all sides of the political spectrum.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't see why without knowing more, we should assume we are rejecting good new ideas because we keep old bad ideas. Isn't the real problem good idea/ policy vs. bad idea/ policy and not new vs. old?
I vote yes.
This may seem an attack on conservatism, but I think it's an issue that plagues all sides of the political spectrum.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackNo, the bigger problem are established interests and narrow outdated worldviews that are often mistaken as consistency.
I don't see why without knowing more, we should assume we are rejecting good new ideas because we keep old bad ideas. Isn't the real problem good idea/ policy vs. bad idea/ policy and not new vs. old?
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaNew is not a proxy for good; established is not a proxy for bad. In fact, it is hard for to believe that too many people think otherwise.
No, the bigger problem are established interests and narrow outdated worldviews that are often mistaken as consistency.
Ideas aren't like a carton of milk which goes bad because it is outdated. Ideas either make sense or they don't. It is far more productive to discuss concepts on their merits, not on whether they are new or old.
28 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaConservatives tend to be astute students of the past. For example, what type of track record does Marxism have? Those on the left may argue that they can make it work this go round if only given another chance. Does this mean they adhere to "outdated" ideas? Not necessarily.
No, the bigger problem are established interests and narrow outdated worldviews that are often mistaken as consistency.
Also, we all have ideas that might work, but do we know for sure? No. That is why I cringe at centrailzed planning of any sort. It may work and it may not, but don't put all your eggs in one basket. What is preferable are a myriad of experimentory labs testing which ideas are better than others. It works in science but apparently not in the political arena.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackWow, thanks for the obvious. Are you being deliberately thick? The question is whether the risk of the new or the anchor of the established is the bigger issue.
New is not a proxy for good; established is not a proxy for bad. In fact, it is hard for to believe that too many people think otherwise.
Ideas aren't like a carton of milk which goes bad because it is outdated. Ideas either make sense or they don't. It is far more productive to discuss concepts on their merits, not on whether they are new or old.
28 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyAh, the "not necessarily" retort. No, not many things are necessarily so. And? See post above.
Conservatives tend to be astute students of the past. For example, what type of track record does Marxism have? Those on the left may argue that they can make it work this go round if only given another chance. Does this mean they adhere to "outdated" ideas? Not necessarily.
Also, we all have ideas that might work, but do we know for sure? No. That i ideas are better than others. It works in science but apparently not in the political arena.
28 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI think his answer is that it depends if the new idea is any good or not. New does not mean good. If the new idea is good and better than the old, then of course the old idea is going to hold you back. If the new idea is bad, then the old idea will keep you from screwing up.
Wow, thanks for the obvious. Are you being deliberately thick? The question is whether the risk of the new or the anchor of the established is the bigger issue.
I suppose that means that the claim is wrong. It is too simplistic.