Policy Analysis, Tory Style
Principle Based Policy Making.
“Have had time to think about the new Mexican visa situation. I can make money from this. This will help my business in the long term.”
R. Jago
Kinda says it all, dunnit?
Principle Based Policy Making.
“Have had time to think about the new Mexican visa situation. I can make money from this. This will help my business in the long term.”
R. Jago
Kinda says it all, dunnit?
Designed by Gabfire slightly modified by stageleft
Yep that really sums it up… its not about what is good policy, what is principled and fair, itas all about how it can be used to enrich their friends, supporters and sycophants.
Anyone that is willing to use the coercive violent power of the state to enrich himself is not an true entrepreneur, but an authoritarian coward – a mooch as Ayn Rand would say.
Would bringing the idea that Robert is a business owner make any difference to the discussion? Or does the fact that he’s a Conservative take centre stage?
– and if his political leanings are the primary anchor that we forevermore link all his business decisions and dealings to, does that philosophy work for all entrepreneurs of any political stripe?
At the extreme end of the entrepreneurial spectrum, arms dealers and paid assassins are simply addressing a market need.
Every honest businessman assesses new federal policy in light of its potential impact on their business. Is that the lens by which a business owner should judge government policy?
It’s easy to condemn at the extremes–nobody admires a chortling beggar-thy-neighbour character–, but is this any different that a mother judging educational policy through the prism of her child’s education or a civil servant judging cutbacks on how they affect his job? Certainly union leaders aren’t known for the breadth of their perspective on public policy. The difficult question becomes what should you judge policies on once you have deligitimized self-interest? Plus what is wrong with a citizen looking to government to look out for him or her? “What’s good for General Motors is good for the nation” may have been a crock, but it’s converse–”What’s bad for General Motors is bad for the nation” is a lot trickier.
This one seems to be a real challenge for the left, which always seems to be looking for remote collectives and sweeping abstract principles to hang it’s hat on. There can be honour in that, but dangers too. A classic example is the bombing of Kosovo, which was a popular cause among the left precisely because there was no apparent strategic self-interest–a selfless sacrifice for human rights all around. Of course, what happened was that the public took a grossly oversimplified and ahistorical perspective, declared good guys and bad guys and let ‘er rip in good conscience. I’m not sure the targets on the ground appreciated the admirable contrast with “all about oil” wars..
“The difficult question becomes what should you judge policies on once you have deligitimized self-interest?”
Ain’t nobody here “delegitimizing” self-interest; it’s one of several essential inputs in every individual’s assessment of any public policy – the aggregate of those individual self-interests are the vox populi, and the art of politics is finding the path that addresses as many of them as possible.
If it’s your only lens, however, it’s not a great principle.