Walter Block at LRC:
“It is not at all the case that newer is necessarily better than older. Murray N. Rothbard has characterized this as the Whig fallacy. Yes, certainly, in some arenas, many of them, we have made great progress. Transportation, communication, medical practice, all readily come to mind in this regard. But it cannot be denied that in other areas, we have retrogressed.
[Lila: I think I’ll add medical practice also to the things that have regressed…]
We no longer have the technology or the skills to manufacture Stradivarius quality violins. Although this is of course subjective, I and many others would argue that modern music is vastly inferior to that of Bach, Mozart and Handel.
And so it is with our Founding Fathers (apart from slavery, of course). Their foreign policy was arguably better than that of Bush and Obama. Just because it is historical, does not render it fallacious, as critics of Ron Paul all too often “argue.”
[Lila: Actually, slavery is the condition of vast numbers of people even today, as a direct result of our aggressive foreign policy and global currency manipulation. Enslavement of foreigners is surely not an improvement over enslavement of native populations]
Similarly, Congressman Ron Paul sees our drug policies pre 1914 as far more humane and beneficial than our present drug war. It will not suffice to prove him wrong to note that he is living in the past. No, these things have to be argued out on their merits. It is simply fallacious to maintain that since this policy was once tried and then rejected (with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914), it is inferior to present day practices.
[Lila: Worship of the young at the expense of the old, indeed, the invention of whole categories of young – teens, pre-teens, teeny-boppers, bobby-soxers – has always been characteristic of twentieth-century mass culture, the purpose of which is simply to create a consumer market aligned with hormones, an unbeatable combination, if the number of fortunes it has generated is any proof.]
As far as economics is concerned, the move from Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard to the likes of Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Ben Bernanke was one of retrogression, not progress.
By going “forward,” we have lost, not gained.”
I agree with thr gist of this. Overall, I think mankind devolves, not evolves. Population grows. We turn matter/energy into new human beings at an increasing rate. Physical and intellectual capital evolve due to the ability of intelligence to order and record and reproduce info in durable media so as to counteract entropy. But since I believe man was created genetically perfect , the race itself has gone down, not up. So, I think we are dumber even as our technology gets smarter (further accelarating the dumbness). And paradoxically, the evolved tech/knowledge is largely used to steal, kill and destroy rather than give and sustain life and build.
It does also seem there were earlier ages more technologically advanced than our own, wiped out by cataclysm.
7 years ago I had an idea for a book, “Pyrrhic Progress.” I started writing, but shelved it as it seemed others were already covering those themes well enough.
Medical practice? Definitely regressed if you consider that Hippocrates knew food is medicine, and the physician should “first, do no harm.” Heroic interventions and high tech “treatments” are no substitute for wellness. But as we know, well doesn’t sell…
“Although this is of course subjective, I and many others would argue that modern music is vastly inferior to that of Bach, Mozart and Handel.”
This is subjective, but I’ll say the guy is taking a point too far, putting himself in a depressingly narrow box (almost a coffin). I say that as someone who has sung Bach, Handel and Mozart in three languages.
Rhythm and perc are part of music too, and there were lots of rhythms, modes, chords, progressions, etc that the baroque/classical guys apparently could never have imagined (or if they did, would never have been allowed to play in public; “evil” intervals and whatnot). Not to mention, many instruments and other tech they might have appreciated had they lived a few centuries longer and experienced the contributions of Africa, Latin America, Asia…
I mean, which is better: Johann Bach or John Williams? Friedrich Handel or Freddie Hubbard? Mozart or Mos Def? (Or an Esperanza Spalding? Can’t think of an alliteration there.) It’s apples to kiwifruits.
They are doing different things.
B, H and M were great in the sense of a great painter who does awesome things with only two colors. Think if they had had a full palette.
Quantitatively, there’s such a dazzlingly greater amount and variety of music available today, way beyond the dumbed-down pop with major marketing, it’s meaningless to claim all the good music happened 4+ centuries ago even if one came up with some sort of objective criteria for quality.
I do think we reached sort of a zenith where skill, historical depth, cultural sophistication, technology and commerce all converged from, say, the 50s through the 80s. Then, even top 40 pop had a degree of sophistication. Since then, several currents have reversed to dumb down the market and the music, but creativity and new technology and cross-cultural fusion have taken up some of the slack.And there are lots of little eddies where pop artists are trying to pick up the legacy of good music that was dropped in the 90s and 00s.
I didn’t intend to write a book on music history though…
Just because it is historical, does not render it fallacious…
CS Lewis had some good observations about the fallacy that the new is always superior.
On slavery
America has never made an honest living. Chattel slaves, sharecropper slaves, wage slaves, overseas slaves. It’s a shame since this land was/is so naturally rich that it could have produced prosperity for all. But beginning with land grabbing, the elites took the path of fear and pathological greed.
“invention of whole categories of young – teens, pre-teens, teeny-boppers, bobby-soxers … create a consumer market aligned with hormones, an unbeatable combination, if the number of fortunes it has generated is any proof.]
Exactomundo!
The machine runs on money, of course, but also a kind of vampirism of adolescent (especially female) energy. Really, I would not send my preteen or teen daughter (if I had one) to some show to get whipped into a screaming, crying hysteria by American idols like Justin Bieber or Chris Brown or whoever. It’s almost a form of psychic statutory rape. (I don’t think Bieber is over 18 yet, but the people he works for definitely are.)
That energy is a vital natural resource. It should be employed productively, not left to the Bieber.
the move from Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard to the likes of Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Ben Bernanke was one of retrogression, not progress.
Stiglitz knows much more than he let’s on. He has published work validating Henry George (who was all about defending the free market, albeit on a true level playing field where land/resource monopoly is neutralized so labor/capital could do its thing) so he knows well the market is not “flawed”–it’s broken, sabotaged, distorted by mechanisms he knows well how to fix. When I met him and chatted with him last year during his book tour, he expressed sympathy for George. Yet for popular consumption he continues with the Keynesianism and market-bashing. Disappointing. He did after all admit that economists say what sells, not necessarily what’s true.
Looks like I did write a book. I apologize.
Also, had meant to put your comments and Block’s in italics, but that didn’t work too well, it seems.
No problem.
I think music has gone down from the pinnacle, but the overall quality of popular music is pretty high, at least until a couple of decades ago..
But I’m very sympathetic to the view that things have been degenerating rather than evolving, in many areas..maybe physically as well – over a wide time span.
I like Stiglitz..I don’t put him in the same class as Krugman. I think he has to say what he has to say in public. That’s how these things go.
He did call the crisis correctly though. One of the few non-libertarians to, I believe.
I agree with George..don’t know if I’d call myself a Georgist..but he makes sense.
I go by when most mainstream pop radio became unlistenable to me, and that began 10- 15 years ago! I still listen to new stuff–it’s just most of it is independent.
I think the pinnacle of skill in composition and performance, generally, was from the 50s-90s. That was really the age of jazz. Even though rock’n’ roll tends to hog all the glory, when you weren’t hearing rock (or even sometimes when you were), you were likely hearing something jazz-influe nced. Well you know this, you’ve taught music history.
But then came electronics and MTV and record biz/radio consolidation. All the tech enables people to do really cool things, but it also helped the industry to dumb down the product and jack up the profits.
The stylistic innovations and cultural mashups are continuing and that’s good (like, say, East Indian meets West Indian meets …. Lynyrd Skynyrd? An old HS classmate of mine is in that band).
But there’s still been this drain of intelligence in how to put notes together. And the tech may actually help erode it…
Re George: I thought I saw you leaning in that general direction.
I happen to be a near-grad (that’s 7 or 8 courses, I forget) of the uber- prestigious Henry George School. I’ve also been working with them and sister orgs in a few capacities. I’ve been to three Georgist conferences. Could I be a Georgist?
I think I might be!
Really, Georgism is just classical liberalism, or Jeffersonianism, within a mechanism that actually works.
Nowadays, no one bothers to remember that “laissez-faire” comes from the Physiocrats, from whom George borrowed the Single “Tax” idea . The original context was: let it (the free market) go — but on a level field, where differences in natural opportunity are accounted for. (They focused on agricultural land, whereas George recognized that urban land value also must be shared.)
Also, nowadays some economists talk a lot about “rent-seeking,” in the secondary sense, but they don’t have anything to say about rent in the original, literal sense, as in ground rent, absorbed via a state-granted license called a “title.” Strange, no?
I’m curious as to what you have read on George — his own work? Modern-day guys like Gaffney, Foldvary, Sullivan, others? Have you seen Gaffney + Harrison’s “The Corruption of Economics”?
I know you’re shutting this down for awhile but I wanted this post to be for public view whenevr you decide to re-open your doors. Reply by email if you like.