Birmingham is the Midlands. But I’ll happily take you on a tour of the north as well.

Shoddy? I think not.

That’s all very well, but have you bought any Waterford-Wedgewood shares in recent years? I reckon the directors ought to be frummagem’d.

I encourage anyone interested to read both the original post and the follow-up, along with the attached comments threads. In both cases, Adam Stephanides’ objections strike me as conclusive. (And no, I am not him, and do not even know him).

The second post does not add any new textual evidence for the proffered interpretation of Frum’s position – but that doesn’t seem to have been the point.

Anyway, I doubt that anyone here is going to say anything that advances the discussion beyond the state of play at the end of the second thread. Certainly not me, tonight.

I will only note that there is something weirdly paradoxical about the idea that Frum ought to object to individuals buying their own insurance on the grounds that having it might lead them to act imprudently, when buying one’s own insurance is precisely the sort of prudent behavior that conservatives like Frum want to encourage. Is the prudent individual the one who insures himself against risk? Or the one who refuses to do so for fear that he might lose control of his own risky behavior? If there is a problem here, it is with the application of the concept of prudence to the case of insurance in general, and not Frum’s view in particular.

OK?

But, so far, I must admit that I am baffled. It may be that Frum’s position is so far outside your conceptual repertoire that it is simply impossible to communicate it to you. Your suggested alternative, “everyone should bear their own risks, unless they have enough money to pass those risks onto others” is so far off base that I fear that may be the case.

Thank you for your remarks.

I have read your original piece more than once. I realize that you think, or at least say that you think, that Frum was “saying…that people ought to be less well off, because it is character-building.”

That much was clear.

What is not clear is why you believe this – because your piece utterly failed to build any sort of serious case for this interpretation.

Let me offer just one example:

You quoted Frum as follows:

“The great, overwhelming fact of a capitalist economy is risk. Everyone is at constant risk of the loss of his job, or of the destruction of his business by a competitor, or of the crash of his investment portfolio. Risk makes people circumspect. It disciplines them and teaches them self-control. Without a safety net, people won’t try to vault across the big top. Social security, student loans, and other government programs make it far less catastrophic than it used to be for middle-class people to dissolve their families. Without welfare and food stamps, poor people would cling harder to working-class respectability than they do now?.”

You then paraphrased him like this:

“…the thing that makes capitalism good is that, by forcing people to live precarious lives, it causes them to live in fear of losing everything and therefore to adopt – as fearful people will – a cowed and subservient posture: in a word, they behave ‘conservatively’. Of course, crouching to protect themselves and their loved ones from the eternal lash of risk precisely won’t preserve these workers from risk. But the point isn’t to induce a society-wide conformist crouch by way of making the workers safe and happy. The point is to induce a society-wide conformist crouch. Period. A solid foundation is hereby laid for a desirable social order.”

Now, I’m sorry, but this is not serious criticism. It is grotesque parody. Struggling to hold one’s family together = a “cowed and subservient posture?” Clinging to working-class respectability = a “conformist crouch?”

And it’s all down hill from there. (Let’s not even get started on the attempt at an argument in the following few paragraphs – unless you really want to, of course).

I also realize that you said, “months and months ago,” that you were going to address the criticisms of (especially) Adam Stephanides, in the comments thread attached to your original post – but when did you ever actually do so?

Was there a later post that I missed? If so, could you give me the date? I would read it with the deepest interest.

I think what bothers you about the government-as-insurance company model is not that it is benefiting citizens by lifting unwanted risk from their shoulders but because it has a double function. It also serves to progressively redistribute wealth. Poor people pay cheap premiums for quality coverage, rich people pay expensive premiums and don’t really need some of the coverage. (We are assuming, for argument purposes, that the programs are tolerably well-designed and efficient, since Frum’s argument is not against the possibility of that.) In my post I made a point of saying: we can have this argument about the justice of redistribution. But Frum says nothing about this issue in his book. His objection, officially, is that this model would lift unwanted risk. And this would damage character. (Again, I don’t think he believes it. It’s just his argument. That’s all.)

The second involved ignoring the meaning of the English words “bear” and “risk”. This is not a matter of opinion: if you don’t believe me, look the words up.

The third was circular.

The problem, though, is not with your “terminology”. The problem is that you still haven’t explained what you think Frum means, in a way which is neither obviously false nor circular.

But I’ll try and help you out. Perhaps what you mean is:

Everyone should bear their own risks, unless they have enough money to pass those risks onto others

Any better?

He isn’t making the Ned Flanders point, but his point is equally odd. He is saying (if he is saying anything) that people ought be less well off, because it is character-building. And that capitalism fits with conservative traditionalism because it is an engine for the destruction of wealth (on the assumption that wealth that may cease to exist is worth less than wealth that won’t.) As I said in the post, it’s so odd that I don’t think Frum believes it. It’s an argument that dissolves on a moment’s examination, but it is Frum’s argument in the book.

If, on the other hand, you can point out how – in my two posts – I have misrepresented or distorted Frum’s writings, I am humbly amenable to correction. Your complaint was made by others and I tried to address it as best I could months and months ago.

I would mark that difference by saying that the former is bearing her/his own risk while the latter is not.

That, and only that, is the sense in which Frum (and I) think that that people ought to “bear their own risk.”

Apparently you feel quite strongly that this is not an apt way to mark the distinction.

But nothing – I mean, really, nothing, hangs on the terminological point. If you would rather mark the distinction in some other way, please offer me a reasonable, non-contentious alternative phrase, and I will be happy to adopt it when attempting to communicate with you.

The serious substantive point here is that Ned Flander’s putative position is an absurd red herring that serves only to distract attention from Frum’s.

I hope that was not your purpose in bringing it up.