THE MOST COMMON AND THE BEST: This post and the next two are cross-posted at Questions for Objectivists.

My main problem with Diana Hsieh’s essay/lecture “The Philosophical Underpinnings of Capitalism” actually doesn’t have anything to do with capitalism, or libertarianism, or even underpinnings. It’s instead a problem of method, though I do think this method-problem affects the philosophy. (Since this post has some fairly pointed criticism, I should note up front that I got some good, chewy food for thought out of the atheism lecture discussed below.)

Throughout the lecture, Hsieh makes claims about her philosophical opponents that strike me as wildly out-there: “The committed paternalist likely knows that banning drugs and gambling creates and encourages violent crime, but argues that such is a small price to pay for protecting our children.” “Again, the economics of redistribution is unimportant for many egalitarians. Even if the egalitarian state makes us all poorer, at least we are all equally miserable.” “Intellectual and spiritual matters are considered [by proponents of various kinds of regulation of businesses] to be wholly separate from and far more important than simple materialistic concerns. So the government recognizes rights and freedoms in the intellectual and spiritual realms, but not in the materialistic realms of business and property. The regulation of the material world of business, as with affirmative action or environmental regulations, is justified on the grounds that it serves a higher spiritual and moral purpose, such as a colorblind society or a healthy earth.”

Hsieh doesn’t actually quote anyone who disagrees with her; she doesn’t find representatives of the arguments she opposes. She doesn’t allow her opponents to present their case in their own words. I think this makes her essay much less convincing. The actual socialists I know (for example) would read her descriptions of their beliefs and exclaim, “Wait now hey now! That’s not what I believe! Don’t go setting up that old straw man!”

In order to responsibly address a philosophical argument you disagree with, I think you have to at least attempt to refute: 1) the most common reasons for the position you disdain. You may think, “But ten children die each day in the US because of guns!” is a lousy argument for gun control, but if it’s popular you should address it.

2) the best arguments for the position you oppose. This is one of the reasons I wanted to work for the Register: I was impressed by how often they quoted anti-Catholic spokespeople saying sensible or at least understandable, intelligent, or sympathetic things.

In order to do both 1) and 2) it’s necessary, or at least extremely helpful, to quote your opponents directly rather than relying on your own ability to summarize their positions or understand their psyches. That way you’ll get a better sense of what they believe, and they won’t be able to claim that you’re just setting up a straw man (assuming you’re quoting with sensitivity to context, of course).

Relying on secondhand accounts and impressions of what “the opposition” thinks means you often get it wrong. Like I said, none of the socialists I know would agree with Hsieh’s characterizations of their views. They would charge her with creating straw men. Self-proclaimed egalitarians like Matthew Yglesias and Ampersand simply don’t think what Hsieh says they think. (For example, they don’t think that equality is the only good!) Hsieh may argue that Yglesias and Ampersand don’t represent the most common arguments for egalitarianism; OK, but she should show us who does make the arguments she thinks are most common. (Ralph Nader? John Rawls? Karl Marx? Bueller? Bueller?)

And again, even if the “equality is one good among others, and some equality can be sacrificed to promote prosperity just as some prosperity can be sacrificed to promote equality” (sorry for cartoonish simplification there) position isn’t popular, it’s fairly obviously a better argument than “I don’t care if everyone starves as long as we’re all starving TOGETHER!” And so it would be useful to know which arguments against her position Hsieh thinks are non-insane or non-idiotic or non-laughable (though wrong).

Anyway, so arguing against positions that are neither the most common nor the best statements of the Opposition leads to two problems: 1) You get it wrong, thus you don’t convince anyone who doesn’t already mostly agree with you. You’re preaching to the choir.

2) You get it wrong, thus you think your opposition is stupider or baser than they are, which is a depressing thing to believe. If the people arguing for a rise in the minimum wage actually don’t care if we all suffer and want as long as we suffer and want equally, that really sucks, that’s just an awful view of the world and it would be saddening if there were this organized bloc of people who thought that way. Note the use of the subjunctive; such a bloc does not exist.

The atheism essay is better but would still benefit a lot from direct quoting of the Bad Guys.