Is this Venezuela Now?
Tibor R. Machan
It doesn't matter if Fox TV News is unbalanced, biased, partisan or whatever. All newspapers, magazines, journals and such have leanings--they are produced, managed and edited by individuals who have agendas and however much they wish this had no influence on them, that just isn't realistic.
Of course, even if a news reporter, producer, editor or such is allowing his or her political, religious or ethical ideas to make a difference in the materials being reported, the report need not be useless, even distorted. All those many religious radio stations around the country are perfectly able to give objective, nonpartisan reports of the facts that they regard important to report on. It is their selection of their materials that is biased, not the reporting itself. And that is certainly not objectionable--a free country would naturally have a media that's full of diverse viewpoints.
Do you believe that The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is non-partisan? Bunk. The guests being selected to comment on world and national affairs indicate clearly what the programs producers want people to learn from watching them. Do you think having a bunch of reporters and commentators with lukewarm ideas, without an edge to their spiel, does not contain a perspective? If you do you need a lesson or two in the immense variety of ways that people can approach human affairs.
For the White House to actually attack Fox TV News is tacky, to say the least. How scared must the president and his team be to stoop so low as to single out Fox TV for special notice? (Never mind that such is the way to making Fox even more popular and rich than it otherwise would be.)
I watch news all the time; I read it in papers ranging from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Orange County Register all the way to some of the small throwaways around my neighborhood. None of the agendas they push influences me one bit at this time of my life. Now and then some columnists may convince me of a small point. Reporters, however partisan they are, manage only to inform me but, of course, selectively, which is the way of humanity. All of us have values and ideas of right versus wrong, in ethics, politics, art, and so forth, and when we discuss things, even as fiercely non-partisan scientists, we show how we stand on certain matters. As noted, this is so if only because what we focus upon and thus show we deem important will vary greatly, even if after that our reportage is meticulously accurate.
It is folks like Venezuela's demagogue Hugo Chavez, and such predecessors of his as Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao, who have been most intense about censoring news reports, science, and education, because the truth, however, messy it might be, threatened them to no end. Are we to come to this conclusion about President Obama and his White House staff? Are they really scared about the bit of diversity Fox injects into the largely hegemonic mainstream media? Has Mr. Obama gotten so spoiled by his massive electoral victory that he will not abide the barrage of opposition opinions broadcast on Fox?
Again, the news on Fox is no different from the news on any other media outlet, only perhaps not so refined and thus not so sneakily biased as on NPR. (And while I am mentioning NPR I should point out that that organization is far more insidious in its partisanship than Fox could ever be since they actually use taxpayers' funds to support their welfare statist propaganda, while Fox is not operated by means of confiscated, extorted funds.)
If Mr. Obama wants to disspell the idea that he is pushing the country toward becoming a socialist state he ought to lay off Fox immediately, indeed, volunteer to go and be interviewed there ASAP. Otherwise it will be evident to nearly everyone that he is in fact aspiring to become a socialist dictator. He will no longer be able to ridicule those who charge him with this, nor will his supporters be able to placate the opposition as mere right-wing fanatics. They will have been proven correct through and through.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Vital Ideas in Conflict—Sen versus Bauer
Tibor R. Machan
A most influential book by Harvard Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen
is Development as Freedom (Knopf, 1999). At first glance the title
suggests that Sen shares the late Peter Bauer’s ideas who argued that
global free market policies would best help the poor everywhere. But that
isn't Sen's message at all. What Sen means by freedom is the capability
of people to take active part in politics so they can demand support for
their various needs and projects. This is the democratic welfare state.
Sen holds that the legal infrastructure of a country is to be decided upon
by way of a national conversation. In other words, there are no
principles such as the American Founder’s believed in, basic individual
rights governments must secure. The principles, if we can even call them
that, are conventional, decided upon in a national dialogue. This is in contrast to
natural rights or natural laws that are supposed to be discovered and on
which the law ought to rest. This vital idea of the American Founders is absent
from Sen’s position. Fro him everything is open for debate and discussion and only
after the discussion has ended can we talk of constitutional principles,
fundamental laws, justice and the like. As he puts it,
“Indeed, the connection between public reasoning and the formulation and
use of human rights is extremely important to understand. Any general
plausibility that these ethical claims, or their denials, have is
dependent, on this theory, on their survival and flourishing when they
encounter unobstructed discussion and scrutiny, along with adequately wide
informational availability.” (“Elements of a Theory of Rights,” Philosophy
& Public Affairs 32.4 [2004] p. 349.)
Now, this idea sounds coherent until one digs a bit into some of
what is presupposed in Sen’s position. One thing, for example, that does
not appear to rest on debate and discussion is the right of everyone to
take part in the discussion! So it appears there is, after all, a natural
base for Sen’s idea of freedom—everyone, because of his or her humanity,
has the right to take part in political deliberations. Why? The one good
answer to this is that by virtue of our human nature we are entitled to
have our political ideas aired in a human community. Being human and thus
moral agents is what this entitlement or right rests on, not on a
discussion or debate. But now other rights could also exist independently
of a national discussion.
Such rights that are immediately evident are those to one’s life,
one’s liberty of thought and conduct, as well as to private property,
meaning that one’s ownership of one’s labor and time, for example,
couldn’t be up for public debate—no one has the proper authority to decide
that you or I may or may not make decisions respecting the disposition of
our labor, our time, indeed, our lives!
Sen’s idea of freedom, however, strongly implies that
participants in a democratic discussion and political debate could
conclude with the idea that my or your or anyone’s life could be
conscripted to serve various goals to which no consent has been given. But
then the same could hold for the right of participation in political
discussion—that right, too, could be debated away. And in some countries
it has been and is, because the foundation of the right to take part in
politics is not deemed to be natural but conventional. In the United
States Professor Cass Sunstein, a very influential party in the team of
President Barrack Obama, holds this view about rights.
In any case, a well integrated theory of freedom cannot accept
that some of our rights are firmly grounded while others up for debate.
These rights are all unalienable, meaning that democratic debate may not
end with conclusions leading to the abrogation of these rights. And that
is just the kind of freedom that the classical liberals, like Peter Bauer,
believed is fundamental and not up for compromise. It is also the best
avenue for development and emergence from poverty because it encourages
initiative and voluntary cooperation, not coercion.
Professor Sen’s bifurcated theory of the right to freedom,
whereby political participation is an absolute but others, such as
property rights, are conventional rights, just will not hold up when fully
scrutinized.
Tibor R. Machan
A most influential book by Harvard Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen
is Development as Freedom (Knopf, 1999). At first glance the title
suggests that Sen shares the late Peter Bauer’s ideas who argued that
global free market policies would best help the poor everywhere. But that
isn't Sen's message at all. What Sen means by freedom is the capability
of people to take active part in politics so they can demand support for
their various needs and projects. This is the democratic welfare state.
Sen holds that the legal infrastructure of a country is to be decided upon
by way of a national conversation. In other words, there are no
principles such as the American Founder’s believed in, basic individual
rights governments must secure. The principles, if we can even call them
that, are conventional, decided upon in a national dialogue. This is in contrast to
natural rights or natural laws that are supposed to be discovered and on
which the law ought to rest. This vital idea of the American Founders is absent
from Sen’s position. Fro him everything is open for debate and discussion and only
after the discussion has ended can we talk of constitutional principles,
fundamental laws, justice and the like. As he puts it,
“Indeed, the connection between public reasoning and the formulation and
use of human rights is extremely important to understand. Any general
plausibility that these ethical claims, or their denials, have is
dependent, on this theory, on their survival and flourishing when they
encounter unobstructed discussion and scrutiny, along with adequately wide
informational availability.” (“Elements of a Theory of Rights,” Philosophy
& Public Affairs 32.4 [2004] p. 349.)
Now, this idea sounds coherent until one digs a bit into some of
what is presupposed in Sen’s position. One thing, for example, that does
not appear to rest on debate and discussion is the right of everyone to
take part in the discussion! So it appears there is, after all, a natural
base for Sen’s idea of freedom—everyone, because of his or her humanity,
has the right to take part in political deliberations. Why? The one good
answer to this is that by virtue of our human nature we are entitled to
have our political ideas aired in a human community. Being human and thus
moral agents is what this entitlement or right rests on, not on a
discussion or debate. But now other rights could also exist independently
of a national discussion.
Such rights that are immediately evident are those to one’s life,
one’s liberty of thought and conduct, as well as to private property,
meaning that one’s ownership of one’s labor and time, for example,
couldn’t be up for public debate—no one has the proper authority to decide
that you or I may or may not make decisions respecting the disposition of
our labor, our time, indeed, our lives!
Sen’s idea of freedom, however, strongly implies that
participants in a democratic discussion and political debate could
conclude with the idea that my or your or anyone’s life could be
conscripted to serve various goals to which no consent has been given. But
then the same could hold for the right of participation in political
discussion—that right, too, could be debated away. And in some countries
it has been and is, because the foundation of the right to take part in
politics is not deemed to be natural but conventional. In the United
States Professor Cass Sunstein, a very influential party in the team of
President Barrack Obama, holds this view about rights.
In any case, a well integrated theory of freedom cannot accept
that some of our rights are firmly grounded while others up for debate.
These rights are all unalienable, meaning that democratic debate may not
end with conclusions leading to the abrogation of these rights. And that
is just the kind of freedom that the classical liberals, like Peter Bauer,
believed is fundamental and not up for compromise. It is also the best
avenue for development and emergence from poverty because it encourages
initiative and voluntary cooperation, not coercion.
Professor Sen’s bifurcated theory of the right to freedom,
whereby political participation is an absolute but others, such as
property rights, are conventional rights, just will not hold up when fully
scrutinized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)