<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Whole Hog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/</link>
	<description>Place. Limits. Liberty.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:57:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-7804</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-7804</guid>
		<description>@Matthew,

Thanks, that&#039;s an interesting point. There are also different kinds of uses with a pencil ... all with different strengths and weaknesses vis a vis hand-eye craft.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Matthew,</p>
<p>Thanks, that&#8217;s an interesting point. There are also different kinds of uses with a pencil &#8230; all with different strengths and weaknesses vis a vis hand-eye craft.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-7797</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:01:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-7797</guid>
		<description>Bob, okay...the right of the people to assemble for political purposes is guaranteed by the first amndmnt; and more generally, most common law (Blackstone) interps of the general right of liberty would allow an individual to form informal or formal associations with whomever he wished. Limited of course, by things like curfews, quarantine laws, etc.  And the general limitation against association for treasonous or criminal purposes.  As Judge Harlan says in Plessy v. Ferguson, the limitation of this individual liberty is part of the reason why the majority&#039;s decision allowing segregation laws is wrong, morally and constitutionally.  
But as to the range of formal associations allowed, that can get complicated.  Both marriage and limited-liability corporations are examples of formal (i,e. law-recognized) associations that do impose some costs upon other members of society (e.g., upon the non-marrying kind, and--most obviously in the second case--upon creditors), whatever the collective benefits they bring. And for some tyrannical liberals, even allowing the Boy Scouts to not hire gay scoutmasters is &quot;complicated.&quot;  That last issue, BTW, would not be complicated for the founders, for Tocqueville, nor for Berry.  If you can&#039;t organize a group that is permitted to govern itself, you are not free. 
 
How does this apply?  Deneen is &quot;against&quot; Taylorism.  This means we as a society should &#039;re-examine it&#039; and read books like Crawford&#039;s and see movies like MAC. It also means Deneen will NOT APPROVE OF YOU if you implement Taylorism in a company you own.  I will in many if not most cases join him in this DISAPPROVAL.  But would Deneen and I be ready to call for LAWS, local or federal, that would prohibit Taylorism? Or make it more difficult? Now I assume we both have no problem with laws that limit work  hours, demand safety regulations, etc.  We are willing to mess around with, i.e., give democratic majorities control over, the &quot;right to contract&quot;; that is, we do not think there can be a natural right of contract that allows anything voluntary under the sun to occur within a corporation.(Nor do we think such a right is implied by the 14th via the due process clause.) Absolute individual rights to contract are not a good way to negociate/determine the bounds of the individual&#039;s real right to liberty. 
Now, if a two-hundred-person company somewhere decides that, due to some unusual opportunity or crisis, it has to temporarily shift production into a basically Taylorist mode, note that any law on the books against Taylorist practices would prevent that.  And note that enforcing any law against Taylorism would insert either local or federal government officials into the company books and onto the company floor on a regular basis. I can hear the govt. agent now:  &quot;Uh, Mr. Manager, I notice that Joe here is spending 85% of his work time on one simple task, and that&#039;s not allowed acc. to section 17C of...&quot;

So probably, most conceivable laws against Taylorism would be impossibly harmful. And since some humans would always have good reasons for employing Taylorism, and many others, not-so-good reasons, this means that FPR preaching against it can only limit it so much.  Not that you stop such preaching, but your expectations do change.  Thus, it really might be the case that while many in FPR are officially &quot;against&quot; Taylorism, most will find they cannot be SERIOUSLY against it, since they cannot see how to prohibit it without ruining necessary liberties.  Moreover, since they will surely understand that many businesses that would like to do without it might feel obliged by the bottom-line to utilize it, even their moral disapproval of it might have to be adjusted. 
 
And as with Taylorism, so with many other things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob, okay&#8230;the right of the people to assemble for political purposes is guaranteed by the first amndmnt; and more generally, most common law (Blackstone) interps of the general right of liberty would allow an individual to form informal or formal associations with whomever he wished. Limited of course, by things like curfews, quarantine laws, etc.  And the general limitation against association for treasonous or criminal purposes.  As Judge Harlan says in Plessy v. Ferguson, the limitation of this individual liberty is part of the reason why the majority&#8217;s decision allowing segregation laws is wrong, morally and constitutionally.<br />
But as to the range of formal associations allowed, that can get complicated.  Both marriage and limited-liability corporations are examples of formal (i,e. law-recognized) associations that do impose some costs upon other members of society (e.g., upon the non-marrying kind, and&#8211;most obviously in the second case&#8211;upon creditors), whatever the collective benefits they bring. And for some tyrannical liberals, even allowing the Boy Scouts to not hire gay scoutmasters is &#8220;complicated.&#8221;  That last issue, BTW, would not be complicated for the founders, for Tocqueville, nor for Berry.  If you can&#8217;t organize a group that is permitted to govern itself, you are not free. </p>
<p>How does this apply?  Deneen is &#8220;against&#8221; Taylorism.  This means we as a society should &#8216;re-examine it&#8217; and read books like Crawford&#8217;s and see movies like MAC. It also means Deneen will NOT APPROVE OF YOU if you implement Taylorism in a company you own.  I will in many if not most cases join him in this DISAPPROVAL.  But would Deneen and I be ready to call for LAWS, local or federal, that would prohibit Taylorism? Or make it more difficult? Now I assume we both have no problem with laws that limit work  hours, demand safety regulations, etc.  We are willing to mess around with, i.e., give democratic majorities control over, the &#8220;right to contract&#8221;; that is, we do not think there can be a natural right of contract that allows anything voluntary under the sun to occur within a corporation.(Nor do we think such a right is implied by the 14th via the due process clause.) Absolute individual rights to contract are not a good way to negociate/determine the bounds of the individual&#8217;s real right to liberty.<br />
Now, if a two-hundred-person company somewhere decides that, due to some unusual opportunity or crisis, it has to temporarily shift production into a basically Taylorist mode, note that any law on the books against Taylorist practices would prevent that.  And note that enforcing any law against Taylorism would insert either local or federal government officials into the company books and onto the company floor on a regular basis. I can hear the govt. agent now:  &#8220;Uh, Mr. Manager, I notice that Joe here is spending 85% of his work time on one simple task, and that&#8217;s not allowed acc. to section 17C of&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>So probably, most conceivable laws against Taylorism would be impossibly harmful. And since some humans would always have good reasons for employing Taylorism, and many others, not-so-good reasons, this means that FPR preaching against it can only limit it so much.  Not that you stop such preaching, but your expectations do change.  Thus, it really might be the case that while many in FPR are officially &#8220;against&#8221; Taylorism, most will find they cannot be SERIOUSLY against it, since they cannot see how to prohibit it without ruining necessary liberties.  Moreover, since they will surely understand that many businesses that would like to do without it might feel obliged by the bottom-line to utilize it, even their moral disapproval of it might have to be adjusted. </p>
<p>And as with Taylorism, so with many other things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Cheeks</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-7640</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Cheeks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-7640</guid>
		<description>Carl, &quot;right to associate?&quot; Are you going to expand on that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carl, &#8220;right to associate?&#8221; Are you going to expand on that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Gerken</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-7518</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Gerken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-7518</guid>
		<description>As usual, there&#039;s a relevant Wendell Berry essay in which he defends his decision to write with a pencil rather than a computer.  He notes that writing with paper and pencil allows him to see the whole process- the mistakes, the side notes, the corrections (both by you and by others), and the unique handwriting in a way that the computer, which leaves no record of change (unless, of course, you take pains to instruct it to do so).  If one is inclined to give weight to these distinctions, then there may very well be important ways in which writing may be more like working with our hands than, say, sitting in front of Microsoft Excel all day.  So perhaps it is best to think of these things in terms of a sliding scale.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As usual, there&#8217;s a relevant Wendell Berry essay in which he defends his decision to write with a pencil rather than a computer.  He notes that writing with paper and pencil allows him to see the whole process- the mistakes, the side notes, the corrections (both by you and by others), and the unique handwriting in a way that the computer, which leaves no record of change (unless, of course, you take pains to instruct it to do so).  If one is inclined to give weight to these distinctions, then there may very well be important ways in which writing may be more like working with our hands than, say, sitting in front of Microsoft Excel all day.  So perhaps it is best to think of these things in terms of a sliding scale.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-7387</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-7387</guid>
		<description>Nice essay, Pat.  I keep thinking of the wonderful J. Turturro film MAC.  
And, to be my annoying self, does anyone have ideas on the sorts of laws that could encourage non-Taylorist methods? Without, you know, interferring too much with right to property, the right to associate, and the proven-very-useful-if-not-one-demanded-by-right institution of the limited-liability corporation?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice essay, Pat.  I keep thinking of the wonderful J. Turturro film MAC.<br />
And, to be my annoying self, does anyone have ideas on the sorts of laws that could encourage non-Taylorist methods? Without, you know, interferring too much with right to property, the right to associate, and the proven-very-useful-if-not-one-demanded-by-right institution of the limited-liability corporation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-7139</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:26:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-7139</guid>
		<description>Thanks Ken, some interesting distinctions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Ken, some interesting distinctions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Harris</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-6776</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:02:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-6776</guid>
		<description>@Anthony: I feel differently about emails I&#039;ve written explaining solutions to problems and working in my yard. When the email is gone and that problem is solved, I don&#039;t feel emotionally connected to my work. When I&#039;ve finished planting or mowing or moving dirt and laying a path, I feel my work in my bones and flesh and understand (and am satisfied with) my fatigue at the end of the day. 

Crafting code and words are work, difficult work, but they are the work of the mind, for the mind. That work does not exercise the body in the same way that a landscaper or factory work might. Again, I know that such work IS work and IS tiring, but the feel of it is different. (Not better or worse, just different.)

I also wonder if the difference for me lies in the visual changes that I have made to the world at the end of the day. At work, I type emails and replace parts and solve technical problems. But at the end of the day, there is no visual indication that my work has changed or improved my world. Sometimes it is exactly the opposite; my work is to keep things running in the same manner as they were yesterday, with (perhaps) the only change being that things are done more quickly.

If I mow my lawn or build a fence or help to build a house, it results in an observable change in my environment that is good for the soul. I can see my work and feel it in my body. Rest is deserved as much as it is needed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Anthony: I feel differently about emails I&#8217;ve written explaining solutions to problems and working in my yard. When the email is gone and that problem is solved, I don&#8217;t feel emotionally connected to my work. When I&#8217;ve finished planting or mowing or moving dirt and laying a path, I feel my work in my bones and flesh and understand (and am satisfied with) my fatigue at the end of the day. </p>
<p>Crafting code and words are work, difficult work, but they are the work of the mind, for the mind. That work does not exercise the body in the same way that a landscaper or factory work might. Again, I know that such work IS work and IS tiring, but the feel of it is different. (Not better or worse, just different.)</p>
<p>I also wonder if the difference for me lies in the visual changes that I have made to the world at the end of the day. At work, I type emails and replace parts and solve technical problems. But at the end of the day, there is no visual indication that my work has changed or improved my world. Sometimes it is exactly the opposite; my work is to keep things running in the same manner as they were yesterday, with (perhaps) the only change being that things are done more quickly.</p>
<p>If I mow my lawn or build a fence or help to build a house, it results in an observable change in my environment that is good for the soul. I can see my work and feel it in my body. Rest is deserved as much as it is needed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casey Khan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-6636</link>
		<dc:creator>Casey Khan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-6636</guid>
		<description>&quot;The argument about our growing more stupid applies equally to blue collar industrial production line workers as it does to white collar office workers who effectively work under a Taylorian form of scientific management.&quot;

This is true.  One of the great problems with Enron is that it was Taylorism run amok.  Here you had a company filled with highly paid, highly skilled traders, analysts, quant PhDs, and yet none of them had a coherent understanding as to how the whole entity worked.  It took short-sellers with a big picture view, who were maligned as charlatans by Enron and the mainstream media, to show us just how diabolically fraudulent the enterprise was.  Meanwhile the brilliant traders, analysts, and quant PhDs, all with top pedigrees, had their 401k&#039;s maxed out, losing big time on Enron stock.  Even the white collar, intellectual elites, are still mere cogs in the machine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The argument about our growing more stupid applies equally to blue collar industrial production line workers as it does to white collar office workers who effectively work under a Taylorian form of scientific management.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is true.  One of the great problems with Enron is that it was Taylorism run amok.  Here you had a company filled with highly paid, highly skilled traders, analysts, quant PhDs, and yet none of them had a coherent understanding as to how the whole entity worked.  It took short-sellers with a big picture view, who were maligned as charlatans by Enron and the mainstream media, to show us just how diabolically fraudulent the enterprise was.  Meanwhile the brilliant traders, analysts, and quant PhDs, all with top pedigrees, had their 401k&#8217;s maxed out, losing big time on Enron stock.  Even the white collar, intellectual elites, are still mere cogs in the machine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-6353</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-6353</guid>
		<description>One thing I don&#039;t understand. When I work with a computer, or when I am writing something with a pencil, I am working with my hands. When I write code, it is a craft. Similarly with writing. It is also a craft, and requires use of the hands.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing I don&#8217;t understand. When I work with a computer, or when I am writing something with a pencil, I am working with my hands. When I write code, it is a craft. Similarly with writing. It is also a craft, and requires use of the hands.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Deneen</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-6349</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Deneen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:06:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-6349</guid>
		<description>Thanks Russell - it means a lot, especially coming from someone with as many books behind your head.  

Just kidding - I look forward to reading your post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Russell &#8211; it means a lot, especially coming from someone with as many books behind your head.  </p>
<p>Just kidding &#8211; I look forward to reading your post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russell Arben Fox</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-6327</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell Arben Fox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:35:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-6327</guid>
		<description>Patrick, this is the best review of the book I&#039;ve read yet. My (unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, quite lengthy) engagement with the book dances around some of the same central questions, but by latching onto Crawford&#039;s indictment of &quot;Taylorism,&quot; and what that has to say about the &lt;i&gt;scale&lt;/i&gt; of our economic relations with one another, really is the key that opens up his whole multifaceted argument. I wish I&#039;d realized that before I&#039;d read it and thought through my own response to the book. Great job!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrick, this is the best review of the book I&#8217;ve read yet. My (unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, quite lengthy) engagement with the book dances around some of the same central questions, but by latching onto Crawford&#8217;s indictment of &#8220;Taylorism,&#8221; and what that has to say about the <i>scale</i> of our economic relations with one another, really is the key that opens up his whole multifaceted argument. I wish I&#8217;d realized that before I&#8217;d read it and thought through my own response to the book. Great job!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: motorcycles tools &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Whole Hog &#124; Front Porch Republic</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-6262</link>
		<dc:creator>motorcycles tools &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Whole Hog &#124; Front Porch Republic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:18:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-6262</guid>
		<description>[...] is t&#173;h&#173;e&#173; o&#173;r&#173;iginal&#173; po&#173;st&#173;: T&#173;he W&#173;ho&#173;le Ho&#173;g &#124; F&#173;ro&#173;n&#173;t&#173; P&#173;o&#173;rch Rep&#173;ubl...   Share and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is t&#173;h&#173;e&#173; o&#173;r&#173;iginal&#173; po&#173;st&#173;: T&#173;he W&#173;ho&#173;le Ho&#173;g | F&#173;ro&#173;n&#173;t&#173; P&#173;o&#173;rch Rep&#173;ubl&#8230;   Share and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: An FPR Symposium: Shop Class as Soul Craft, by Matthew Crawford &#124; Front Porch Republic</title>
		<link>http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/07/the-whole-hog/#comment-6217</link>
		<dc:creator>An FPR Symposium: Shop Class as Soul Craft, by Matthew Crawford &#124; Front Porch Republic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4711#comment-6217</guid>
		<description>[...] Posts:  Patrick Deneen and Matt [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Posts:  Patrick Deneen and Matt [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

