[Michael Munger on the Perfect vs. the Good - Econlib](https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-the-perfect-vs-the-good/) tl;dr: The podcast discusses the infighting between proponents of free markets and less government intervention along with the distinction between "directionalists" and "destinationists," arguing that a focus on the moral perspective is necessary for effective policy influence. In this podcast, Mike Munger highlights the differences between "directionalists" and "destinationists" when it comes to advocating for free markets and less government intervention. Directionalists accept the current political system and aim to make marginal improvements, while destinationists focus on their ideal system and advocate for policies that lead to that goal. The infighting between these factions reduces their ability to influence policy and compete in elections. Both Russ Roberts and Munger argue that focusing on the moral perspective, rather than just pragmatic arguments, is essential for influencing policy in areas like minimum wage and rent control. They emphasize the importance of individual liberty and a society where people can choose their own path, and suggest that operating at both the destinationist and directionalist levels is necessary for progress. Notes: - Mike Munger distinguishes between "directionalists" and "destinationists" - Directionalists accept the current political system and seek to make marginal improvements towards their preferred destination - Destinationists are more concerned with their view of the ideal system and advocate for policies that aim towards that goal - The infighting between directionalists and destinationists on the same side reduces their ability to influence policy and compete in elections - Munger acknowledges that the reason we can't have nice things may not be due to the infighting but rather a failure to argue the moral position effectively - Russ Roberts disagrees with Munger, arguing that as evidenced by Friedman's book "Capitalism and Freedom," radical ideas can be effective in influencing policy. - Advocates for free markets and less government should focus on arguing for a moral perspective rather than a purely pragmatic one - The debate around the minimum wage should include the moral argument of interference with freedom of contract - The infighting between proponents of free markets and less government along a directionalist or destinationist framework decreases their ability to influence policy and elections - The failure to argue the moral perspective effectively may be the reason why radical ideas have not been effective in influencing policy. - Advocates for free markets and less government should focus on arguing for a moral perspective rather than a purely pragmatic one - The debate around the minimum wage should include the moral argument of interference with freedom of contract - Infighting between proponents of free markets and less government along a directionalist or destinationist framework decreases their ability to influence policy and elections - Failure to argue the moral perspective effectively may be the reason why radical ideas have not been effective in influencing policy. - Example of successful directionalist argument against rent control by George Stigler and Milton Friedman, which focused on the moral argument of interference with the pricing mechanism and quality of housing stock rather than a purely pragmatic argument. - Infighting between proponents of free markets decreases their ability to influence policy and elections - Failure to argue the moral perspective effectively may be the reason why radical ideas have not been effective in influencing policy - Example of successful directionalist argument against rent control by George Stigler and Milton Friedman, which focused on the moral argument of interference with the pricing mechanism and quality of housing stock rather than a purely pragmatic argument - Stigler viewed the world as a circus for entertainment, while Friedman was an activist who wanted to make the world more like the world he wanted it to be - The decline of philosophical argumentation in modern politics and the lack of argumentation based on principle rather than pragmatism. - Stigler and Friedman made a successful directionalist argument against rent control based on the moral argument of interference with the pricing mechanism and quality of housing stock - Stigler viewed the world as a circus for entertainment, while Friedman was an activist trying to shape the world in his vision - Philosophical argumentation in modern politics has declined, and there is a lack of arguments based on principle rather than pragmatism - Stigler and Friedman successfully argued against rent control using directionalism and the moral argument of interference with pricing and quality of housing stock - Stigler viewed the world as a circus for entertainment, while Friedman was an activist trying to shape the world in his vision - There is a decline in philosophical argumentation in modern politics and a lack of arguments based on principle rather than pragmatism - The speaker pondered on the moral argument for private property and the idea that it is a fundamental right that allows individuals to achieve the life they choose and deserve - The speaker challenges listeners to look beyond themselves and their own experiences to consider those who suffer under interventions such as the public school system and the drug war - The speaker has become less dogmatic and has realized that despite the world being good for many people, there are still those whose lives are worse due to intervention - There is still a little dogmatist left in the speaker when it comes to pure economic liberty. - The importance of individual liberty and its role in achieving a fulfilling life - Need to look beyond our own experiences and consider those who suffer under interventions such as the public school system and drug war - The speaker has become less dogmatic and now recognizes that there are still those whose lives are worse due to intervention - The importance of rules rather than outcomes and creating a society where people can choose their own path and achieve flourishing on their own terms - The need to operate at both the destinationist and directionalist levels to achieve progress while also recognizing the importance of personal relationships and not solely focusing on economic outcomes