Omar: Let's compare: those who advocate gun holding rights in the US say nothing when the Fins are denied the right to carry weapons. Or, those who advocate lowering the taxes in the U.S. are strangely silent about the high taxes in the Netherlands. Does this invite charges of betrayal and bankruptcy?
EY: That's a good objection. However, the rights of women to equality and dignity are *not* on the same level as issues like gun control or taxation. I take the former issue to be central to the ideal of maximizing human potential for growth, happiness, and evolution. By contrast, the latter issues of taxes and guns are, if not nugatory, at least much further down the strands of human concerns.
Omar: If one actively advocated opposite values in other countries from those one upholds in one's own country, this could perhaps justify charges of hypocrisy. (For example, when the U.S. Gov. advocates free markets across the globe, but applies 'bailout' for big companies at home.)
Eric: Levy's speech on Google Talks is addressed to individual members of the politically-vocal Left (of whom he considers himself a member) and invites an individual response from them.
Further, your example of the US about-face on regulation shows the resilience of democracies, their ability to correct their own excess of stubbornly clinging to inadequate economic strategies. Rather than viewing it as hypocritical, one may also view the bailouts as a humbling of savants and their forced recognition of limits to the Milton Friedman models.
Context also matters. If the US is addressing a society like North Korea and advocating free markets, there is no collective US hypocrisy, regardless of the number of bailouts.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
