and Arnald

It’s curious you should say that.

I discussed this language with someone whose opinion really matters to me last evening – my wife. I explained I used the term ‚Äòautistic’ in the context of the long standing discussion of post autistic economics – which has made me familiar with its use in such debate – but she objected to it.

We beat around the issues. We looked at the economics – neoclassical economics – as separate from the political application of that economics in the form of neoliberalism (yes, sweeping generalisations I know – but broad enough for use in this context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism ). That helped her, greatly. It let her describe the economics as ‚Äòincompetent’, ‚Äòsimply wrong’, false’ and ‚Äòclearly unhelpful’ – all because the assumptions on which it is based are so far removed from the reality that faces humans in the course of their lives. And yes, in the context of that economics she could understand the use of the term autistic – but still took objection to it.

The reason was the inevitable confusion that would arise with neo-liberalism. This she saw as the behavioural consequence of bad theory – and not as theory itself. The risk, she felt, was that the term autistic could be applied to his behaviour. But that would be wrong. Autism is not a choice of course, but neoliberal behaviour is a choice. To use the term in this context would therefore be wrong, was her argument. The behaviour chosen by neo-liberalism is not unfortunate, it is not even regrettably wrong – it is chosen because it is wrong. It is not an amoral choice – although the behaviour it promotes is amoral. It is a bad choice, where bad is deliberately chosen to describe a moral wrong.

This, she argued, gave rise to now appropriate medical analogy. The people making this choice are responsible for it. They are competent moral agents. The choices they make cannot be excused on the basis of a condition from which they suffer. They have to be condemned ethically.
It’s a good argument.

I agree.

I accept to use the term autistic – one I have got used to in an economic context – is wrong when used in that way as it shows insufficient respect. So I withdraw it.

I’ll just condemn the moral wrong instead.

@Arnald

The tax system has lots of exemptions. I am not a tax expert in the UK but did study it in my home country (Australia).

In Oz, there were (still are?) tax exemptions for all kinds of groups. Some of these were advocated by the left of politics (film making and authors come to mind), others from those on the right of politics (gold miners, farmers) whilst some had broad support across both sides (R&D breaks). Nobody was ever accused of ‚Äòlack of empathy’ or ‚Äòautism’. Indeed, both left and right would be guilty of it, if it were indeed a valid accusation. It was no more relevant than accusing them of having a sore thumb!

If I don’t get ‚Äòit’, then neither did 20 million of my compatriots! Maybe all 20 million of us are thick.

In the earlier post we were discussing how to encourage large lump sum payments of tax from wealthy people. I suggested offering an incentive. Maybe it is a silly idea, but the current idea from the left (i.e. a wealth tax without offering incentives) doesn’t seem to be happening any time soon, does it? Hell and ice skating come to mind.

Why not consider some new ideas, which might involve well-placed
incentives? But do it without silly slurs.

Do you understand the umbrella of autistic syndrome?

It doesn’t sound nice, but it is a tool that (maybe heavy-handedly in this case) describes symptomatic lack of empathy.

People with undeserved wealth, or wealth derived from exploitation, should not be given ‘special circumstances’.

That is what happens now.

Who are ‚Äòsome’? Anyone other than me, someone you have never met, let alone know whether I am far right or not? I don’t particularly identify as far right.

“I did so carefully and thoughtfully”

Your reference to me as autistic came in an earlier post about getting rich people to pay a wealth tax, in which I suggested the idea of letting the rich pay a large lump sum to meet their lifetime tax obligations. It was just an idea floated for discussion, done so with utmost politeness. Based on that alone (and no other information at your disposal), you apparently felt able to diagnose (quite incorrectly) that I was somehow suffering from a complex and tragic medical condition: autism. Strangely you maintain your diagnosis was carried out ‚Äòcarefully and thoughtfully’. If this constitutes ‚Äòcareful and thoughtful’ consideration (rather than the first thing that entered your head), I shudder to think how carefully you reach your other conclusions and conduct your work generally. Does your GP wife diagnose autism in patients she has never met?

If anything, it was no more than a slur.

OK, I can live with the insult, I have had worse. But to call a stranger ‚Äòautistic’ does suggest a level of respect you have for real autism sufferers and their carers.

If you want to get into this level of debate, fine, that’s up to you. But I am not sure you have the moral high ground to point fingers at others for bullying.

The fact they don’t know what it is they’re being accused of says it all.

Quoting Worstall, eh?

It’s a misguided ploy

The reality is that for precisely the reasons I outline there is a whole body of thought called Post Autistic Economics

See http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm

And as it shows – the implausible claim Worstall makes and which you quote is more than that – it’s just wrong

PAE shows just exactly why the neoclassical / neoliberal thinking you espouse is just as I describe it i.e autistic

And unsurprisingly some rather significant names buy the idea

So it’s neither absurd to think this – and faintly flattering but just wrong to think I might be alone in doing so

I’m not seeking to suppress anything bar playing the man, not the issue

And that seems fair to me

I have a strong suspicion in this case that boundary was crossed for unacceptable reasons

I don’t agree with Hague but I wish him well – Guido Fawkes does nothing but spout vile nonsense of no value and should be ignored.

As for thoughtfully calling people autistic, I think we should just leave that as a wonderful statement that so clearly represents the contempt with which we should regard you.

My experience of Spads too

And I’ve met a few

We also have a 25 year old MP now and a 26 year old – I’ve met both of them too

Sure they seem very young – but heck, I was once too

And was running companies by the time I was 27

Yes there’s an issue on judgement on sharing a room – no doubt – but I always recall the tales of a friend of mine now aged 93 who was a commercial traveller after the war. As he told me c=such guys shared not just rooms but beds in those days to save costs

I have not a shadow of a doubt he was not gay

Is Hague? I don’t care, candidly

But I do think some people need to do two things:

a) get a life

b) learn empathy

Yes – I have suggested some on the far right are on the autistic spectrum. I did so carefully and thoughtfully. Treating people as objects, showing no sign of empathy, being unable to put themselves in the other person’s shoes, acting without any sign of the impact their actions might have – yes, that appears to me to be on that spectrum

That condition is a difficult burden to carry – again, I know people who have it – but having insight into having it ameliorates it, and that is possible

I see no sign of that on the far right – and the result is corrosive

That corrosion is dangerous

I maintain it is right to say so

Society fundamentally depends on acceptance that we treat each other the way we wish to be treated

The right does not do that (and the far left did not either – and I’d be as critical except they appear to be almost absent these days, thankfully) and that’s the core of my concern

Is it too much to accept that people can act decently, honestly, openly, fairly, and respectfully? Even though none of those virtues have any value attached to them by neoliberal economics – which may be no coincidence?

But why anyone would want to read such homophobic rubbish is beyond me. I certainly don’t – and so I very rarely read the Fawkes blog. And maybe that’s the idea – scare off the left by offending them.

I think sometimes a bit of judicious censorship by a blogmaster works wonders. For example, this blog is a much more enjoyable read – and more popular too – since Richard started pressing delete on the right wing crazies.

The real question was about whether William Hague was appointing the man to the job NOT based upon his abilities and experience, but based upon their personal (sexual) relationship.

The circumstances seem odd. As Iain Martin of the Wall Street Journal points our: wealthy, hotel rooms are not in short supply and he should have been aware of the potential for misunderstanding.”

Hague has issued a long and detailed statement. In my view that will close the story down – unless further facts emerge to call his statement into question.

Staines was quite right to write about the issue. He has attacked both left and right when there has been a whiff of impropriety.

You seem to delight in pushing for more taxation and government spending. It would be nice if the money were well spent. I, for one, do not want the public payroll to be used as a cash cow to enrich politicians lovers – gay or straight.

Apologies Mr. Hague