Friday, May 13, 2005

Column on NIMBY Squared, then Cubed

NIMBY Squared, then Cubed

Tibor R. Machan

Over the years I have occasionally written about goings on in Silverado
Canyon, where I live in Southern California. The place is smack in a part
of Cleveland National Forest, although obviously the strip that?s the
inhabited canyon is mostly private property.

One of the fracas has been about building a small development with 12
expensive homes. This has been lingering in various bureaucratic city,
county and whatever departments, with the delays brought about by the
NIMBY crowd, of course. Not everyone in the canyon is opposed,
interestingly, but those who are have much time and energy on their hand,
so this valuable property lies waste until the opponents are finally
placated.

Now the hullabaloo is about the possibility of a tunnel or corridor
coming through or near the canyon and, of course, there is even greater
opposition to this than to those 12 homes. The tunnel would help, it is
argued by traffic experts, ease the nearly immobile morning and afternoon
traffic on the Riverside Freeway (#91). Just as with the new homes, which
would ease some of the escalation of home costs by freeing up some lower
priced homes in Orange County, so with the proposed tunnel, certain people
would be helped by making their commute less painful and costly.

Alas, the NIMBY folks care nothing about this. They just bellyache about
how they wouldn?t be viewing only the beautiful mountains peaks but may
have to see a bit of road traffic from the canyon home windows and as they
mosey about the region.

I lived in Switzerland for two years and traveled extensively from there
to Southwest Italy and and elsewhere where tunnels about in great
numbers?big ones, small ones, wide ones and narrow ones, all types. And,
mind you, they are impressive, too, sights to behold at least to those of
us who enjoy some humanity mixed in with the wilds.

Now if you mention this hereabouts, you will hear all about the delicate
ground of Southern California, what with its various fault lines and the
like. But when you read the rants and raves about the possibility of
tunnels there is no word about that at all. It?s all about our wonderful
view and wild life and such, as if the wilds had no resilience and needed
these NIMBY folks to rescue it from human intervention.

Of course, you will never hear about how perhaps those who care so much
about the wilds should move out of their canyon homes, maybe to some city,
thus making the personal sacrifice they want everyone else to make by not
living or traveling near the canyons. The idea of the 12 homes or the
tunnel is rank villainy but their own insistence of having things go their
way is, well, the moral high ground. Sure?if you buy this, I got this
bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you for peanuts.

We live in the world alongside a lot of other people?many of whom will
not even consider responsible parenting but pop kids into it without a
moment reflection, often completely unprepared to care for them. Indeed,
many of the same folks who fret so much about the environment are also
very protective of those who are poor with large families. (They agitate
for paid family leave, for example, which clearly encourages population
growth.) But never mind, NIMBY comes first for them, whatever the impact
on those whose cost of living rises as a result.

It is simple maturity to acknowledge that space will be squeezed and that
no one has any right to live on prime real estate surrounded by wild life
that he or she didn?t bother to purchase fair and square. And part of the
price of living in California, especially, is to put up with millions of
others who also wish to live and travel there. And that means more roads,
even, sometimes, through nifty places like the Cleveland National Forest.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Column on Multicultural Paradoxes

Paradoxes of Multiculturalism

Tibor R. Machan

My own university has recently experienced a minor upheaval because the
president refused to exceed to demands to build a multicultural center.
Some who wanted such a center have claimed, rather angrily, that this is a
denial of their unique identity, an insult to who they are. The last issue
of our student paper contained quite a few such outbursts, although there
were also several letters in support of the president?s stance.

The incident brought to mind for me a paper written by a very good
friend, though I don?t believe it was ever published, on the very idea of
multicultural educational efforts. After much investigation and
reflection, this friend concluded that a great deal of so called
multicultural education is actually not multicultural at all but rather
one-sided. Among the discoveries he made is that when people study
multiculturalism they are rarely presented with an in-depth view of
different cultures. Indeed, these cultures are hardly studied as
distinctive phenomena. Instead, it is the idea of multiculturalism?the
idea that there are many different cultures and they all deserve equal
respect from everyone?that?s promulgated.

But by adhering to this idea, one isn?t immersing oneself in different
cultures at all. This notion of cultural egalitarianism is something very
few members of the great varieties of cultures around the globe actually
believe, quite the contrary.

The notion that one?s own culture has nothing over others is mostly
anathema to most who live in societies that have traditions of fierce
loyalty to certain unique religions and practices. That, indeed, is the
natural stance to take?why else would these religions and practices be
embraced in the first place, if one believed they are no better than
others around the world?

In fact, if there is a society in which multiculturalism is embraced by a
most folks, at least to some significant measure, it is the United states
of America. And this has been so from its very beginning.

In 1798 a young man, J. M. Holley, wrote a letter to his brother
attesting to this multicultural character of the new country, noting that
?the diversity of dress, manners, & customs is greater in America, than in
any other country in the world, the reason of which, is very obvious. It
is considered as a country where people enjoy liberty and independence; of
course, persons from allmost every nation in the world, come here as to an
assylum from oppression; Each brings with him prejudices in favor of the
habits of his own countrymen....? (Quoted in ?Endpaper,? The New York
Times Book Review, November 5, 1995, p. 46).

In our time, when critics of the United States denigrate its allegedly
self-deluded exceptionalism?the idea that it has uniquely favorable
attributes as a human community?it could easily be replied that the
country?s hospitality to so many different cultures is indeed one of its
unique, albeit sometimes problematic, but mostly benevolent attributes. No
one is required to swear to much more when taking up US citizenship than
to embrace the country?s basic laws. (I recall when I became naturalized
as an American, back in 1961, in Washington, DC, we were required to swear
only to abide by the US Constitution and not to hold loyal to others in
conflict with it.) No one is put through some litmus test about specific
cultural features.

This, of course, annoys some folks a great deal. The likes of Pat
Buchanan, for example, are very concerned that too many people come to
this country who give not a hoot about its cultural attributes. And, yes,
I have to admit that I myself have never come to love baseball,
basketball, and football, or hot dogs and hamburgers. Instead, I, who
consider myself quite cosmopolitan, am still loyal to tennis and gulyas
soup and espresso coffee, not to mention various types of music and
painting and drama from the old continent from which I hail. No one has
treated me badly for this, not even for my other peculiarities, partly
attributable to my accidental cultural background, and from what I have
observed this is pretty much so with millions of other newcomers.

I think my college president was right. This country is already
multicultural to a vastly greater extent than are most others (except
perhaps for a few of the big cosmopolitan cities). So he can do better
with the funds of our university than make an empty gesture toward what
usually turns out to be a rather shallow so called multicultural
educational effort.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Column on Corporations and Governments

Corporations and Governments

Tibor R. Machan

Many critics of free market capitalism focus their energies on
demonstrating that with corporations as powerful as they can become in a
free market, there is no danger as great as making it possible for them to
pursue profit freely, unregulated by government. They are convinced that
only a power that is even greater than wealthy big corporations can
contain the rapacious ambitions that are evident throughout corporate
commerce.

The idea that big corporations are untamed beasts that wreak havoc upon
civilized society is immensely popular throughout the academy everywhere
in the world, including the United States of America. Most professors in
the humanities and social sciences, a great many writers, journalists,
artist, and entertainers?centered mainly in New York City and
Hollywood?cling firmly to their view that corporations are a threat to the
well being of nearly everyone in society and that those who do not share
this belief are deluded, period. It is not only Ralph Nader who embraces
this idea and the only reason Nader hasn?t reached national political
office is that he is viewed as a naïve idealist who wants to take on
forces that must be appeased, not fought.

It is pretty clear that in a society in which people may solicit
governments for favors, big corporations will have an advantage over
others, although universities and unions are not all that far behind in
the power they wield through lobbyists throughout the capitols of the
various states and the federal government. Champions of the free society
hold, of course, that the answer to this problem isn?t to abolish or try
to regulated big business but to refashion the legal system so as to ban
favors to any sector of society. They believe that corporations should be
independent of government as much as churches are. And their idea is not
implausible since by firmly separating church and state, the American
government has, in the main, remained independent of religious control.
If, for example, a massive Roman Catholic church, with millions and
millions of faithful, can be kept at bay, surely corporations could be as
well.

Still, business corporations are probably always going to have a hold on
politicians in the legal system as currently composed. They control huge
sums of money that politicians want so as to run successful campaigns,
which isn?t the case with churches and universities. So long as election
campaigns need to be conducted and so long as people, including their
organizations, are, as they should be, free to make contributions to these
campaigns, it is difficult, critics of free market capitalism say, to
imagine a largely capitalist society free of undue big business-corporate
political influence.

Yet it is possible, slowly and over much time, to wean corporations from
government largess and vice versa. But this requires extensive education
and vigilant proselytization. The probability of such reform is small,
admittedly, but then so was the probability of abolishing slavery at one
time, or, later, segregation or the military draft. All changes of this
magnitude, that require undoing centuries of bad habits, both personal and
institutional, have a slim chance of succeeding. After all, corporations
are entrenched in the system itself, one that gives them such a bad
reputation, without many of them making a determined effort to end their
dependency.

The question then becomes whether it is of any real use to seek remedy
for corporate influence from expanded government regulation, This is what
the current movie Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, along with most
statist critiques of the Enron fiasco suggest?namely, that the answer to
corporate malfeasance is more and more state intervention. But the logic
of such a position is seriously flawed.

After all, if corporations have powerful, albeit wrongheaded, influence
on government today, why would government have the ability to set them
right? That is a preposterous idea. Moreover, government intervention,
even apart from clearly often serving corporate interests, is so
susceptible to corruption, to misuse, that placing one?s hope in more and
more of it is flat out incredible.

The only hope is the slow, vigilant, process of divorcing corporate
commerce?as well as all other institutions susceptible to corruption?from
government. However much existing corporations exhibit the relentless
tendency to link up with government and thus wield much more than
harmless?and perhaps well deserved?economic power, it is plainly
unreasonable to expect that the alternative of increasing government
regulation is the right solution.

Column on Targetting Individualism (sans typos)

Another Effort to Discredit Individualism
Tibor R. Machan
Regular contributor Jim Holt's column in the May 8, 2005, New York Times
Magazine is all about recent efforts to map the human brain. Some of these
are so successful that they record highly specific brain processes that
are correlated with thoughts and even subconscious perceptual activities.
But don?t count on Holt to report on such matters without a political
agenda. In discussing the fact that the human brain is split and sometimes
when the two spheres are severed things keep on going quite nicely, thank
you, he reproduces this line from New York University philosophy Thomas
Nagel, famed recently for co-authoring The Myth of Ownership (Oxford,
2002): "The ordinary, simple idea of a single person will come to seem
quaint some day, when the complexities of the human control system become
clearer and we become less certain that there is anything very important
that we are one of."
Over twenty years ago another rather prominent philosopher, Derek Parfit,
advanced a similar thesis, in his Reason and Persons (Oxford, 1984),
according to which we are each actually teams?Parfit in fact used the term
"nations"?and not single persons. The whole book was a rather clever piece
of logic chopping in which the main goal seems to have been to show that
no individual human beings exist. And so, no moral or legal order that
rests on the idea of individual rights could be sustained. Nagel, then, is
certainly quite unoriginal but that, of course, would be no problem of he
weren?t so wrong.
My new friend, Barnard Baars, a neuroscientist and author of In the
Theater of Consciousness (Oxford, 1996) made some interesting observations
to me about Nagel?s (and Holt?s) contention, which I reproduce here with
his permission:
"It's complete nonsense from a scientific point of view. My friend Stan
Franklin, who is a mathematician/computer scientist, talks about
?autonomous agents.? Humans are nothing if not autonomous agents?not in a
mystical sense, but in a very specific and causal sense.
"One of the ways we are autonomous is in terms of substitutability of
resources. On the level of food, we like to eat meat, but if that runs
out, potatoes will do. So there are options. In terms of human
relationships, we'd like to have Julia Roberts as our playmate, but there
are other fish in that sea. In terms of making a living, we'd all like to
be paid for our books, but... (etc.) I think that's one of the keys to
autonomy, substitutability of resources.
"Another is flexibility in acquiring knowledge. Humans are by far the best
learners in the animal kingdom, obviously. But acquired knowledge also
shapes who we are and how we define our purposes and interests. Gerald
Edelman, who is a heck of a lot better scientist than Thomas Nagel, makes
a big thing about the distinctiveness of the INDIVIDUAL human brain. His
Neural Darwinism gives a conceptual account of individuality from solid
biological evidence.
"So the NYT quote is complete nonsense but...it supports the social
engineering agenda. Of course that agenda keeps failing in reality!"
Most of us are familiar today with junk science in support of various
environmental and related political programs and how often the government
is eager to cash in on it. (The recent howler about the rate of obesity,
fortunately nipped in the bud shortly after it was floated, is a good case
in point.) Perhaps we need to be alerted to junk philosophy, as well, put
in the service of a political utopia?although, come to think of it, that?s
been going on for centuries. Yet, hasn?t junk science had a long career
itself, yet folks keep falling for it repeatedly?

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Column on Why I Write Columns

Columns for Mind Teasing

Tibor R. Machan

What motivates people to write columns? There is no one answer that fits
all columnists?that?s a start of an answer. In my own case there is no one
motive?depends on the day, time, circumstances, my own state of mind, and
probably much I don?t even bother to learn of.

A few things I do know, about why I write columns, involve certain goals.
Among these foremost is the achievement of a world in which freedom is in
greater rather than lesser abundance, the freedom of the individual from
coercive intervention in his or her life. But why bother about this, one
might ask?

Well, I am convinced, from years of experiencing, thinking about, and
reading or otherwise studying the issue, that such freedom is a
precondition of moral conduct at any level whatsoever. Only free men and
women can choose to do what is right. And this is their first and foremost
task in life, so freedom as a condition of their community lives enhances
this task better than anything else.

Contrary to very popular belief, regimenting, regulating, ordering people
about to do what?s right is not the road to that goal at all. That?s
because choice is indispensable for right conduct. So if one wishes to
strive for a better world, one in which people more often than not do the
right thing, one cannot do much more as a general rule than promote human
liberty. Sure, one can make suggestions, implore people, advocate and
materially support this or that course of conduct, too. And one can and
should, needless to say, guide oneself to act properly. But as a matter of
the common good, championing and fighting for individual liberty is really
the best method.

Yet this is only my primary reason. Another is that I keep my own mind in
shape by writing on innumerable things. For this I need, of course, to
study, to keep up with what is going on in many disciplines. And by doing
all this I also generate discussions between me and those who take some
interest in my topics and how I treat them. This keeps me sharper than I
otherwise would be?use it or lose it, as the saying goes.

There are limits, though, to the value of the exchanges that are
generated from published writing, the main one being that some people
enter the exchange in a mean-minded fashion, wishing not to argue but to
insult and make the writer feel badly. I used to take the bait earlier in
my life but no longer. There is too much to do that?s constructive,
helpful, interesting, and so forth than to waste time on hurling insults
back and forth.

So I have this policy now?if I see an insult in the first few lines of an
email or letter?and even in a book review, when one of mine manages to
prompt one?I toss it. I don?t even continue. Sure, I risk losing some
possibly useful follow-up comments but not likely, I figure, since folks
who resort to insults usually haven?t much else to offer. And there are
lots of civil interlocutors around whom one would like not to ignore while
hassling with the uncivil ones.

In some ways there is benefit to not being a very famous columnist
because this makes it more likely that there is time to answer people who
make interesting, often critical, points in response to the mind-teasers
that short columns necessarily have to be. These missives merely raise
some issue, offer a few arguments and a bit of evidence, and then the rest
has to be worked out in more detail. And that?s OK?the division of labor
applies here as everywhere: Some folks need to do such mind-teasing both
for themselves and as a service, while others best do something else
productive.

There is also that motive of aiming to say things in ways that are
succinct yet clear. That?s sort of the artistic part of writing columns, I
believe. Crafting one is not all that simple?structure, form, expression,
language, and the rest all need to be managed reasonably well for the
thing to amount to something of value. And to get there now and then is,
of course, quite satisfying.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Column on Trampling the First (some additional quotes and corrections)

Coercive Zeal Gone Wild

Tibor R. Machan

If there are supposed to be some liberties that have still not been
massively undermined in America, they are those codified in the First
Amendment to the US Constitution. Both freedom of the press and of
religion?basically about holding and voicing beliefs of one?s own
choosing?are supposedly basic rights of all US citizens. (Some folks
dispute that this is so, claiming, I believe implausibly, that only the
federal government may not limit freedom of speech. Yet, of course, the
right is supposedly held by all citizens of the USA, anywhere?it derives
from our unalienable and equal natural right to liberty, listed in the US
Declaration, so if there is to be protection for this right, it clearly
must be provided in every nook and cranny of the country.)

These days, however, a great many people seem to believe that their
worries, sensibilities, feelings and such trump the First Amendment. I
have had a recent personal experience with just this trend.

In one of my columns I criticized the Americans for Disabilities Act for
imposing on various establishments, commercial and not, a legally enforced
duty of generosity and kindness toward disabled people. I noted that some
activists have gone so far as to harass small shops?for example, wineries
in the Central California regions (near Paso Robles and San Louis
Obispo)?with lawsuits that are then settled for big bucks in favor of the
complainants. I noted that this abuse, even officially condemned by a San
Francisco judge recently, is natural with a law that shouldn?t even be on
the books?no one?s generosity or good will ought ever to be compelled,
coerced from the person or corporation. What?s the moral merit in being
helpful to the disabled if one?s doing it at the point of the gun?

Well, several people with disability groups took umbrage with my views
but they didn?t simply leave it at writing letters to the editor to the
papers in which the column appeared. Nor did they think it enough to send
me several pretty nasty emails, claiming that I have offended them. All
that would have been par for the course and part and parcel of free?if not
entirely civil?exchange among citizens of a relatively free society.

No, all that?s not enough. The Executive Director, Ruthee Goldkorn, for
the Ms. Wheelchair California Pageant, contacted the president of the
university at which I teach and demanded that punitive action be taken
against me for voicing my views. Indeed, a demand was launched that I be
fired for my having published my views. Ms. Goldkorn wrote to Chapman's
president, saying "The purpose of this correspondence is to demand an
investigation of Prof. Machan and his prompt removal from your staff." She
went on, "I trust you will take this information very seriously, conduct a
full and open investigation and ultimately remove Professor Machan,?
adding, "This person has no business shaping minds and influencing
students of any age. He is the worst kind of bigot; the kind who hides
behind academia. He must be removed immediately." When the president
responded saying he will not fire or even reprimand me, Ms. Goldkorn
replied, ?Although Prof. Machan has received numerous emails and
correspondences expressing outrage at the sentiments expressed, I guess he
is safe and secure in his position at your institution.? Well, yes, he is,
since what he did is offer his ideas on some subject, and for this most
reputable academic institutions do not fire someone.

Several others approached the student newspaper claiming that I have done
some grave wrong for which I need to be punished by the university,
although the resulting article in the student paper never made clear just
what the complaining individuals actually wanted done. (One may wonder
what these folks want to happen to Greg Perry, a handicapped author of the
high critical book Disabling America [WND Books, 2003].)

Now what is extraordinary about this isn?t that the folks who support the
ADA and its vigilant enforcement were upset. One expects members of
special interest groups who gain government support to try to hang on to
that support. One need only check out the massive lobbying efforts
throughout the country?s various capitols to confirm the point. What is
really disturbing here is that some of the beneficiaries of these laws and
regulations are now perfectly willing to demand that people who disagree
with them be muzzled, fired, perhaps even jailed for their opinions. They
don't simply suggest such policies but demand them, as if they were
entitled to have their will imposed on the dissidents.

This outlook seems to be fueled by the conviction that everyone's support
of entitlements to special favoritism by government is of far greater
importance in our legal system than is the right of freedom of thought or
speech itself. The zeal with which they go to bat for their entitlements
is so fervent that not even the rights of freedom of speech and press are
supposed to remain in place if it means making it possible to give voice
to opposition to those entitlements.

It is interesting that often people fear the undermining of the First
Amendment from those on the political Right, mainly because they associate
such efforts with the attempt to censor pornography or blasphemy. Already
a few decades ago this proved to be a mistake, when some Leftist
feminists, such as law Professor Catherine MacKinnon, decided that
speaking badly of women should not gain constitutional protection (see her
book Only Words [Harvard University Press, 1993]). Today, thinking it's
the Right that's a threat to civil liberties is clearly wrong, what with
political correctness guiding universities and other institutions in their
hiring and promotion policies.

Although the ACLU is still holding to its defense of the First Amendment,
many statists and their constituency, including many members of special
interest groups, have nearly totally abandoned their commitment to the
free discussion of topics that make some people uncomfortable or that some
consider offensive. Which just goes to show you: Back during the McCarthy
era, when the Left was being harassed, its supporters were unyielding in
their defense of civil liberties, especially the right to free thought or
speech.

Now that they are running many government agencies, their outlook seems
to be: Forget about those inconvenient basic rights if they may hamper the
march toward total state control over our lives.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Column on Intelligent Design

Puzzles of Intelligent Design

Tibor R. Machan

When I was a child I was being raised as a Roman Catholic. I was, of
course, baptized, took first communion, and was confirmed. I attended
church pretty regularly although this was in Communist Hungary where we
later learned that many of those giving sermons belonged to what were
called ?the red priests,? members of the clergy who made some kind of
appeasement with the Communist government. Yet there were some famous
members, as well, who opposed communism with great courage?Cardinal
Midszenty, for example.

In time, however, I came to wonder just what I was believing and why. I
argued with priests after they gave sermons on angels and the duty of
self-sacrifice, finding these notions incredible. But I carried on as a
good soldier, blaming myself for daring to question. One time while in the
US Air Force, when I was about 19, I went to confession on Sunday and
heard myself saying the ritualistic sentence, ?And I will do my best not
to sin again,? when I realized that Monday I was planning to go on a date
and had every intention to sin, so I said to the priest hearing my
confession, ?But father, I am not sure I am being honest about this, since
I have a date tomorrow evening and will probably sin and I know this now.?
Without missing a beat he replied, ?Just mean it for now.?

This was that proverbial last straw on the camel?s back?it made no sense
to me to make a promise you know you are going to break by just intending
it ?for now.? It set me off on a very long journey of reexamination of
what I was believing, why, did it make sense, how dare I question
something so well established in my world, etc., and so forth.

Of course, all along I had raised questions of the elementary kind?could
God ever make a rock so big He couldn?t lift it? How could God could come
from nothing but the world needed Him to create it? If everything in the
world needs a cause, does this mean the world itself, which contains all
the causes, could be caused by something else?where would that come from?
Yes, I was a devil of a kid.

Eventually I decided to take up the study of philosophy in order to
refine my inquires, to meet up with some pretty good
thinkers?philosophers, theologians, psychologists?who would help me get
clear on some of these issues (and many others). At the end of the day?at
least for most of the days I recall?I decided I wasn?t going to believe in
these things; I simply couldn?t get past my doubts even if it showed
strong hubris. (Indeed, another nail in the coffin was reading Thomas a
Kempis [circa 1379], Imitation of Christ, who had claimed we humans sin by
seeking knowledge since this is an affront to God, the only one who can
really know.)

Nevertheless, the issue of God is always before us, especially if one
teaches philosophy, and being dogmatic in whatever side one takes is very
bad form, indeed. So now I am thinking about this ?Intelligent Design?
position that is making the rounds, although by all accounts it is a
variation on what is known as the cosmological argument.

As the Stanford (on line) Encyclopedia of philosophy tells it, ?[i]t uses
a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from
certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a
unique being, generally referred to as God. Among these initial claims are
that the world came into being, that the world is such that at any future
time it could either be or not be (the world is contingent), or that
certain beings in the world are causally dependent or contingent. From
these facts philosophers infer either deductively or inductively that a
first cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being
(God) exists. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural
theology, whose goal has been to provide some evidence for the claim that
God exists.? The current version, ID, holds that since there are numerous
facts about our world that are very orderly and work in a lawlike fashion,
and since we haven?t got naturalistic (e.g., Darwinian) explanations for
all of them, it must have been God, an intelligent designer, who created
it all.

This being a fairly big issue, I want to just convey my two big problems
with it. First, the design of the world isn?t actually all that
intelligent, considering how many matters seem to go awry all the time,
especially with us. Second, and more importantly, intelligence is produced
by a living brain, so the idea that there had been intelligence prior to
the world defies what we know pretty well?a brain requires the world for
it to exist.

I guess, I remain unconvinced and the advocates of ID need to go back to
the drawing board.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Column on Whether to Besmirch or Praise Liberty

To Besmirch or to Praise, that's the Question

Tibor R. Machan

One may, I think, assume that from the beginning of human thought there
has been this battle between those who stress our capacity to screw up and
those who focus mainly on all the nifty things we can accomplish. Just
think about the idea of original sin?why make such a big deal of the fact
that people are, of course, free to sin or do vicious things, when they
are also just as able and even more likely to act virtuously, creatively,
productively?

Alas, it would be quite a task to do the math here. Are people more
likely to do well or badly? It looks like on the whole the more optimistic
assessment wins out, although it is difficult to show this without a
pretty well worked out set of standards, ones that are likely to be highly
controversial. On a common sense level, too, the task is daunting because
the reporting of good news is so much less popular in the mainstream
media; even the fictional representation of humanity?s lot tends to stress
the dark side. In the realms of art and entertainment the macabre or
horrible, wherein people and their circumstances come off pretty much on
the downside, seems to dominate. While some religions, like the Seventh
Day Adventists, do advise us to look on the bright side of things?I am
thinking here of my favorite bumper sticker, ?Notice the good and praise
it,? which I recall them producing some years ago?mostly they tend to
focus on us all as sinners.

I am reflecting on this after having finally seen the award winning
German movie, ?Good Bye, Lenin,? about the East German lady who falls into
a coma just before the Berlin Wall comes down and, so as to spare her any
excitement when she awakens, she is kept in the dark about all the changes
that have occurred in consequence of this momentous event. As the changes
are depicted in the movie, you get a good illustration of how some folks
revel in a negatives of human affairs.

The West, of course, has been much more free for people than the East,
during the Cold War, and this can use examination and illustration in a
film like ?Good Bye, Lenin.? So what do we get from the people who gave us
this widely acclaimed little gem?

Well, the first thing about the free West that?s depicted for us is
pornography. Next come some pretty gaudy advertisements. Then scenes after
scenes of decadence. That is how the prevailing freedom in West Germany is
represented for the viewing audience.

There is not a thing about the benign creative initiative that freedom
unleashes, no showing of how freedom of commerce makes lives so much more
promising for everyone, nothing much about the bustling employment market
or about civil liberties, no. It?s all about how when you get to be free,
you can make a gory mess of things.

And for this the flick was hailed as being so insightful, so quaint, so
important to make so as to show how East German idealism had to give way
to crass ?McCapitalism.? The director and co-author, [
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0065615/ ]Wolfgang Becker, never tires of
rubbing it in that where freedom reigns, people can behave in less that
admirable, noble ways. This is probably the criticism that has undermined
the free, capitalist society for centuries, indeed from the very beginning
when the idea of human political and economic liberty began to be floated
among political theorists. Acknowledging that human beings ought to live
in freedom has always been undermined by this pessimist outlook, one that
while true, is also far less than half of the truth.

A classic example comes from Karl Marx, when he said, in his famous
essay, ?On the Jewish Question,? that ?the right of man to property is the
right to enjoy his possessions and dispose of the same arbitrarily,
without regard for other men, independently from society, the right of
selfishness.? Never mind for the moment that ?selfishness? may not be all
that terrible, should it include, for example, one?s better education, the
health care of one?s loved ones, etc. Let us just grant, for the sake of
argument, that such a right?as the right to one?s life or one?s
liberty?makes it possible for people to do some shady stuff, including to
dispose of their possessions arbitrarily, ?without regard to other men,
independently of society.?

Yet, of course, they could and mostly do make use of their private
property productively, creatively, in what is called a win-win fashion,
exchanging what they have for what others have in a way that everyone is
better off. But no. Old Karl, just like our little movie, had to focus on
the worst possible cases, on how some folks might make less than the most
efficient, most admirable use of what they have the right to do and own.

To all this I wish to recall our nifty bumper sticker: ?Notice the good
and praise it.? Just pay attention and notice if I?m right.

Saturday, April 30, 2005

Column on Choosing to be Peculiar, even Dumb

The Right to be Dumb?or Peculiar

Tibor R. Machan

Suppose I decided to each at a vegetarian restaurant morning, noon and
evening, 7 days a week, on and on, without a break. Just lettuce, nothing
else. Just image it, I know it is dumb?or peculiar?but there is nothing
very difficult about imagining it, even noticing it here and there. Many
people are, indeed, dumb or peculiar, at least in some aspects of their
lives, and Supersize Me, the movie that bashes McDonald?s because there
are quite a few such people who go there to eat virtually all the time,
day after day, night after night, makes a great deal of this.

Of course, there are other people who do similar things that we all know
about, like those who go to Las Vegas and sit by a slot machine day and
night and that?s their vacation. Maybe they are just enjoying themselves,
although when you walk by and see their faces, that?s not what comes to
you mind. They seem fixated on the one arm bandit, pretty zonked out.

And there are kids who spend nearly all their days skateboarding, no
matter how often they fall, no matter how many bruises they get. And there
are mountain climbers who spend all their spare time climbing those
mountains, endlessly, climbing and climbing, no matter how many others
fall to their deaths, no matter how dangerous it is to do such a thing.
And how about those demolition derby enthusiasts? Or folks who do nothing
but play bridge all weekend, or lie out on the sun and soak it up and risk
skin cancer?

But the likes of Michael Moore and Rob Reiner?and even some at
prestigious universities?just will not get it. Some people aren?t very
sensible or conventional. But of course, the people making a federal case
of the McDonald?s enthusiasm will not accept this as fact. They need an
American villain, some typically American institution, like big business,
so they can then denounce not the stupid or peculiar people who are
overeating of their own free will but the McDonald?s big business people
who are, you guessed it, coercing them all to come and eat there. (Of
course, if you deny free will for the customers, you must also for the
vendors!)

In fact this is all bunk. I love McDonald?s French fries?every six months
or so I indulge myself in a large portion and then look forward to, with
anticipation, when I plan to do it again, six months or so later. Do I
indulge myself every day? No way. Would I like doing so if I didn?t have
to pay for it in various adverse side effects? Sure I would. But I don?t.
I like not being dumb or even very peculiar.

Am I smart or conventional about everything like I am about resisting the
temptation to gorge myself on McDonald?s French fries? No, I am not. If
you knew me better, you could probably spot a character flaw and
peculiarity or two that would show that I, too, hover near cave into some
things odd, even self-destructive, in my life. But all of it is not
irresistible?I could also do otherwise, if I choose to do so?and, indeed,
now and then I decide to drop one of my habits for good.

What is truly contemptible about the Michael Moore types is how they
assume that people have no will of their own and it is only because big
businesses advertise fat foods that they eat fat foods. Millions of
people, of course, who are exposed to the very same ads do not choose to
make McDonald?s their breakfast, lunch, and dining establishment day in
and day out. How come? They don?t choose to?they have other things they
want to do besides gorge themselves on fast food. (And in some cases
wanting to gorge oneself on fast food may not be such a terrible thing.)

It is interesting, by the way, that after the last presidential campaign
it was always the Right Wing that was charged with focusing on so called
moral values. That is entirely wrong?the Michael Moore types on the
Left?his buddies Rob Reiner, Al Franken, et al?are all moralists and
worse. They not only preach the morality of temperance when it comes to
fast foods and such. They, very much like those ladies who spawned
Prohibition about a century ago, want their morality shoved down
everyone?s throat. They aren?t happy with advocating, propagandizing,
imploring, warning and such, no. They are wannabe tyrants. Just look what
they did about smoking, getting it prohibited at private restaurants and
bars!

It?s one thing to urge people not to be dumb or carry on indulging
themselves perhaps unwisely, imprudently. It?s entirely another to coerce
them to act as you would want them to act.

Column on Death and Dying


Death & Dying

Tibor R. Machan

My friend David L. Norton?whose book Personal Destinies, A Philosophy of
Ethical Individualism (Princeton UP, 1976), should have been far more
famous than any that John Rawls and other celebrities in the discipline of
philosophy had written?wrote beautifully and wisely about aging. He gave
credit for the germ of his idea to the famous psychologist, Erik Erickson,
but David developed the idea in far more philosophical terms than Erickson
had. It had to do with how one?s perspective on one?s life undergoes
certain critical though very natural and potentially enhancing stages in
virtue of human nature itself.

One of the points David stressed is that a person with a good outlook on
life will gradually come to terms with the fact that he or she will die
and, while never abandoning the quest for living and, indeed, for
thriving, such a person will not protest or concoct fantasies in order to
manage the fact of impending death. I actually spoke with David by phone
about a week before he died of cancer and he appeared to me to have been
exemplary in how he dealt with his own imminent death.

As I have been getting older, several family members and friends have
died and, of course, I have been spending a tad more time on reflecting on
my own death than I used to. But I do remember when way back in my 30s I
probably had the experience that readied me best for my own eventual
demise.

It was when a tiny kitten I had wanted to become our household pet
suddenly developed some ailment and before anything could be done it
expired while I held it in my left hand. The kitten was suddenly no longer
there, only a dead kitten carcass, no real kitten at all. I noticed,
though, that all was very peaceful with this dead kitten, very
uncomplicated. I believe it was then that I realized that provided there
isn?t going to be too much unbearable pain or suffering, provided those
close to me don?t go ballistic about it all, I should be managing death
quite well, thank you. Because by all I can figure and have gotten used
to, have accepted in my bones by now, that after I die there will be
nothing for me to think, to remember, to consider, to argue, to feel, to
do?it will be the end of my life and, of course, of me.

Sure, there will be some remaining signs that I had been around, but that
will not matter to me at all, only to those who care about what I have
done, what I have meant to them. It is, in fact, for those who care for
me, who will have loved me, that my death will be a problem, not for me.
And about this I may be able to do something, if I give them the most I
can while I am still around, if I care for them and love them, too. I
might, also, be able to help them acknowledge that my being gone is not
what should be focused upon but that I had lived with sufficient dignity
and joy that my life can be deemed nearly all that it could be. And that,
I believe, ought to make them feel better, at least a little after I have
died.

Of course, it is one of the fascinating as well as scary things about
one?s life that few things can be fully, accurately anticipated, apart
from the next several moments?or perhaps a bit more?of one?s future. Yet
one point David, following Erickson, stressed is that this, too, is
something that one must accept and embrace and then it will not be an
obstacle to living properly and fruitfully.

This goes contrary to what I learned was a main point in Martin
Heidegger?s philosophy. When I used to teach Existentialism, I studied
quite extensively his views on death and they were nothing if not morbid
and scary. Heidegger, who despite his serious flirtation with (and one
time enthusiastic endorsement of) Nazism, remains a prominent 20th century
philosopher?still embraced by some influential philosophers who should
know better?believed that we humans are unique in, among other ways,
having to cope with the persistent dread of death. (There is some evidence
now that some other animals have to cope with it to some measure, too, but
not at the philosophical level where they can dwell upon the potentially
awesome fact of it.) There are others in the history of human thought who
have made similar points.

I, however, liked what I understood to be the ancient philosopher
Epicurious?s attitude, who taught that all that fretting about one?s death
is pretty useless and is merely going to contribute to making one?s life
more unhappy than it has to be. This left a big impression on me, so much
so that I turned into someone always a bit puzzled when my own children
find bringing up, as a concern with practical matters would require this,
the inevitable subject of my demise too uncomfortable. I keep wanting to
impress upon them that it will just be something that is best to be
sensibly prepared for, so why not simply come to terms with it?

But I guess that?s easy for me to say?I will not be around to experience
the loss.

Friday, April 29, 2005

Column on Bill Gates and Public Education

Bill Gates Didn?t Go Far Enough

Tibor R. Machan

From his address at the nation?s governors? conference, I give you Bill
Gates: "American high schools are obsolete," he said, adding, "By
obsolete, I don't just mean that our high schools are broken, flawed and
underfunded.... By obsolete, I mean that our high schools?even when they
are working exactly as designed?cannot teach our kids what they need to
know today.?

Indeed, this is part of the theme of a book I edited, Education in a Free
Society (Hoover Institution Press, 2000) and it was the substance of my
essay in 1972, ?The Schools Ain?t What They Used to be...and Never Was,?
in Reason magazine and reprinted in The Libertarian Alternative
(Nelson-Hall, 1974). Actually, I went much farther than Mr. Gates, whose
concern is mostly with how well the schools supply men and women in the
technological sector with a properly trained work force. In contrast, the
concern I (and quite a few others who share my views on this topic), have
is with how well education serves those who are being educated, be they
hard science, humanities, or social science students. Gates merely laments
that "Training the work force of tomorrow with the high schools of today
is like trying to teach kids about today's computers on a 50-year-old
mainframe. ... Our high schools were designed 50 years ago to meet the
needs of another age. Until we design them to meet the needs of the 21st
century, we will keep limiting?even ruining?the lives of millions of
Americans every year."

As a matter of historical fact, our public education system was designed
two centuries ago, in large part, to honor a racist public policy. This
was well researched and reported in the late E. G. West?s book, Education
and the State (Institute for Economic Affairs, 1965). Private schools were
doing just fine, providing what markets provide in exceptionally efficient
and, indeed, wise ways: a highly diverse approach to teaching students,
not the statist and mainly one-size-fits-all approach, but they also did
something very benign and decent?in their diverse and decentralized way
they extended their services to all races and religions. But the
politicians at the time couldn?t stomach this, so they decided to impose a
public education system that would be appropriately racist and
discriminatory, to fall in line with the prevailing mainstream public
philosophy of racism.

The result is what we see now, a defunct public education system, defunct
not because of some recent mistakes, as Mr. Gates contends, but because of
a fundamental flaw in it, its association with government.

Most of us who have gone through the various stages of American public
education may not realize this but we have been part of a massive
collectivized system, not unlike one the Soviet Union would have
championed and from which, in time, it choked to death. Elsewhere public
education remains partly functional only because it tends to be highly
elitists and does not aim, as it does in America, to accommodate the
egalitarian pedagogical philosophy of providing everyone with schooling,
nearly to the level of a guaranteed college degree.

The bottom line is that education, like all other productive, creative
services in society, is better off decentralized, privatized. Sure some
will have to seek out special help, but so do some as they seek to satisfy
their clothing, housing, or nutritional needs. Nonetheless, once we
abandon the fantasy that everyone needs to be subjected to the same
schooling and everyone needs to have is property taxed so as to support
this contorted system, the sort of hopes Mr. Gates, and others, with
different but equally legitimate agendas for young people, are voicing
will no longer have to go unsatisfied. There will be plenty of schools
responding to the varied needs to American students and the opportunities
that face them in all the disciplines of education. There will, in short,
be entrepreneurship in education, as there is in the software industry.

No doubt, this approach is going to be dismissed with total disdain by
some?first, by the people who are wedded in their thinking to how
government is the solution to all human problems, and, second, by those
who are currently mindlessly employed by the state educational systems
across the country and care not a whit for proper schooling but mostly for
their continued steady employment, not unlike those who have worked for
defunct and misguided?and indeed more or less unjust?institutions
throughout human history. But they really aren?t the best source of wisdom
about what young human beings need in the way of an educational
alternative to what we have now, an evidently bankrupt one.

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Column on Nuclear Option, etc.

Let?s Keep Them Quarreling

Tibor R. Machan

A few columns ago I lamented how American politics has gone nuts and I
had quite a lot of reaction to this. One was an invitation to talk to talk
show host John Batchelor of WABC-AM 77, New York City, a no holds barred
supporter of President George W. Bush and his Republican allies in the
Congress. He conducted a prerecorded interview with me and immediately
jumped to the topic of the Republican inspired ?nuclear option? in the US
Senate, one whereby a threatened filibuster to block Bush?s judicial
nominees by Democrats would be squashed by a rarely used parliamentary
maneuver.

Frankly, I am no expert on this and turned the discussion to something
else?namely, what my column was actually about. (I don?t know if the
segment was actually used, but never mind that.) After the mention of the
nuclear option, I decided to research and consider it in some detail and
have come to the conclusion that the Republicans and Democrats are pretty
much alike?they will resort to whatever play they can to get their way and
neither has the moral high ground.

Once again, this particular battle is about getting President Bush?s
judicial nominees before the full Senate and the Republicans?with the
support of Mr. Batchelor?are all upset that the Democrats will not simply
yield. One thing they are complaining about is that the Democrats refuse
to play by the rules of democracy?in particular, by majority rule. And
this is where things get pretty silly again.

When in 2000 Al Gore won more votes in the presidential election than
George W. Bush, yet Bush became president, the Republicans, if I recall
right, kept stressing how this is not a democracy but a republic.
Republicans tend also to be the ones who still welcome the electoral
college, which is clearly a restraint on pure majorities in the
presidential election process. Furthermore, it is Democrats who keep
complaining about how the apportionment of senators is anti-democratic.
And, yes, it is, but Republicans in general tend not to see much wrong
with this because, again, they understand this country to be a republic,
not a democracy.

Except, it seems, now, when the majority did elect George W. Bush and so
supposedly his nominees have the support of that majority. This time
Republicans are bellyaching about the Senate being unable to implement
majority rule because there are rules, namely, the filibuster, that can be
used to restrain the majority.

The nuclear option, so called, is, of course, perfectly constitutional
and if the Republicans deploy it, then it will be the Democrats who will
be complaining about not making it possible for them to engage in the full
measure of the advise and consent process. Batchelor himself said in the
interview with me?as well as during some other segments of his Tuesday
night program?that, after all, the framers only meant to have the Senate
give their ?advice and consent? in the case of presidential nominations,
not to block them.

Of course, if the consent of the Senate is needed and there are various
constitutionally sanctioned measures that may be deployed to forestall a
majority of the Senate giving its consent, that?s tough. Such is the US
Constitution. Not, certainly, fully democratic, fully majoritarian. If the
Senate is authorized to exercise its power by refusing to consent to a
nomination or even if through legitimate Constitutional measures the
consent-giving is somehow blocked, that, too, is just how it is. Live with
it, one might say.

The point of my column was that American politics seems to lack nearly
any measure of civility?of simply working with the rules and arguing the
issues. This fracas about the judicial nominations supports the point?once
again instead of engaging in the civilize process of following the rules
wherever they lead, each side is calling the other nasty names, impugning
to it vicious motives.

But perhaps in the meanwhile we can benefit from something akin to a
gridlock, a condition when the citizenry is able to carry on with its
tasks while the politicians are dickering in Washington, DC.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Liberty—My Own Universalist Journey

When in 1962 I left the US Air Force at Andrews AFB to move out West to begin my stint at the Claremont Colleges, I took a side trip to visit New York City and seek an “audience with Ayn Rand.” First I called Nathaniel Branden and explained that, because of this journey, I may be gone for good from the East Coast and I didn’t wish to miss the chance to meet Miss Rand. He called her and secured a 30 minute meeting for me at the Empire State Building where she had her offices at the time. When I met her I was impressed with how generous and warm this woman was. We spoke easily and I still remember a particular exchange between us.

I had mentioned to Miss Rand that I, too, hail from a communist country. I said that this may account for why I was so responsive to her books, especially, of course, We The Living. She replied, without the slightest tone of chiding or disapproval but with a slight rebuke. “The ideas and ideals in my books are universal and do not speak only to those with certain experiences,” I recall her telling me.

I soon began to appreciate her point and I still think about it now when there are quite a few people who wish to locate Rand’s thinking within a particular tradition of, say, Russian philosophy. I believe that she would not have accepted this, although of course that doesn’t show these commentators are wrong. Still, it is important to begin one’s understanding of a thinker with how he or she understands herself. Rand, in particular, thought that she fit among those in the tradition of philosophy started with the ancient Greeks, especially Socrates and Aristotle, who believed that it is reason that’s to be the arbiter of truth and reason doesn’t function in parochial ways—it seeks universal understanding.

In retrospect I now appreciate that in my own case, as well, there had been a development from the particular to the universal when it comes to my understanding of human political, individual liberty. I was raised, as a young person, in a system of politics that was supposed to be aspiring to become communist. (There was no communism anywhere I history, of course, only systems whose rulers supposedly aspired to guide them toward communism.) Stalin was, in those days, a frequent visitor to Budapest where his puppet leader Rakosi ruled with an iron fist from 1948 on. As a student at the Bartok Bela Uti elementary school, along with thousands of others from around the city—youths and adults—I was required to attend the mass gatherings at the Hero’s Plaza where everyone had to listen to propaganda speeches and repeatedly shout in unison, “Our Dear Father, Stalin.” If we didn’t show and shout, we would be docked a grade.

Alongside these forced marches and the so called education we received—which was blatant indoctrination in most cases apart from the science and technology courses—I had also begun to become aware that my mother was a bit of a tyrant. I lived with her then and with her second family. My father, in turn, whom she divorced the year I was born, in 1939, had been an avid supporter of Hitler in his capacity as a radio commentator, and had left for the West as soon as the Russians conquered Budapest. Both my parents, despite considerably different styles of life and parenting, had been fanatic about athletics and I was promptly subjected to a regime of relentless indoctrination at home into such sports as fencing and rowing.

As those who know me a bit might imagine, this didn’t quite fit my own budding life plan, which tended to involve reading a lot of books—fiction and non-fiction. I had devoured, by age 9, nearly all the novels of the American western novelist Zane Grey, read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, and about two dozen or more works by the creator of Perry Mason, Erle Stanley Gardner. As Mason once put it, 'You never can tell about these conservative Easterners, Paul. They all of them have a streak in them of wanting to be Wild West. I'll bet if someone would give that fellow a twin-holstered rapid-draw gun belt with a couple of guns in it, he'd stand up in front of a mirror, practise a fast draw and take fiendish delight in the process' (from The Case of the Amorous Aunt, 1963). This was certainly true about me, although I doubt Mason was referring to Easterners from as far East as Budapest. (Actually, Gardner had been an attorney in California with mostly Chinese clients in the early 20th century.)

Instead of warming up to sports, which at any rate I had been involved in entirely as a matter of my parent’s fantasy and imposition regarding my future, I would read these and many other books, mostly late at night, under my bed covers and with the aid of a flashlight. It was then that slowly but surely I began to be aware that I was not free to do what I thought suited me best, not just in the sense of being thwarted as most kids are when they try to indulge themselves but in the more serious sense of having one’s basic inclinations and aspirations forcibly, even brutally, suppressed.

The two sources of forcible suppression were political and familial but it took quite a while for me to realize that such suppression wasn’t only contrary to my life and hopes but amounted to the major threat from others directed at all people everywhere in history and around the globe. Those initial novels I had been eagerly devouring brought home to me this message forcefully but mostly only implicitly and I mainly identified with that message in a personal way, simply baffled why I wasn’t understood by my parents, why I was being shoved in directions that were so alien to what I wanted, albeit only vaguely.

One thing that is enlightening about all this, however, is that I never felt guilty for not wanting to go along with the plans for me concocted either by the Hungarian state or even my parents. Indeed, as to the former, when I was about 12 or 13 and was taking a class in what was euphemistically called “constitutional government,” I recall a leceture about the Marxian principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Listening to the rationalization for this odd idea I recall raising my hand and asking: “Suppose my classmate here and I started the week with five Forints each, and he bought himself some wood and nails and then built a table, while I bought some good Hungarian wine and ended the week smashed. Would my friend be required by the state to share the proceeds he would likely obtain from selling what he had built?”

By my best recollection this exchange immediately landed me expelled from the academically oriented high school and into a technical school, on the grounds that I was a reactionary, bourgeois student who should not be allowed to advance to other than a technical higher education. That would have been that expect for that fact that not long after this episode my father in the West had decided to stop trying to get me out of Hungary through official channels and sent in a professional smuggler—what Time Magazine in 1981 called a “flesh peddler”—to fetch me. When I, along with several adults and with the superb guidance of this professional, had been smuggled out successfully, I joined my father’s family in Munich. (The smuggler, by the way, was reported to have been shot dead at a later date as he was trying to rescue his girlfriend from Hungary—so much for the comparative quality of labors of love and labors for profit.) My father and his second wife both worked at Radio Free Europe where, in fact, there had been quite a few former fascists in the various Eastern European sections (not unusual back in those days when the American government tried to use all sorts of talent to do battle with the Soviets.)

To my chagrin, my father turned out to be several times the dictator compared with my mother. He had failed to go to the Olympics in is own prime because the games were cancelled during the Second World War. Prior to that he had won the European “pair oars without coxen” rowing championship. Subsequently he had firmly gotten it into his had that I would be his surrogate Olympian, probably the main reason for his rescuing me from communist Hungary. (The others may have been some measure of genuine fondness for a son and, also perhaps, that having a recent refuge from a communist country in the family would in time get him a free ocean voyage to the US by dint of an act of the US Congress in, I believe, 1952.)

As soon as I arrived in the West, I was subjected to a daily regime of merciless early morning exercises—a three mile run, tennis lessons, track and field after school and exhibition swimming for my father’s swimming classes. Seeing how this wasn’t at all my own idea, I was soon to become a very brooding, displeased kid, often beaten for my various “failures,” mostly consisting of my lack of enthusiasm for the athletic life to which I was being subjected.

In addition to this involuntary athletic servitude, I started to notice how anti-Semitic my father was, dissing Jews every chance he got, sometimes in the crudest form imaginable. He would claim, for example, that American Jewish bankers selected movie actors who looked Jewish to play heroic roles in Hollywood films they bank rolled so as to give Jews a good image around the world. He would give me a thrashing when I imprudently expressed praise for some Jew, such as a visiting jazz pianist at RFE.

Slowly but surely I began to form the notion that what I was experiencing and witnessing, both in my political and familiar histories, had significance beyond my own circumstances, although that is where they had their most immediate impact for me, of course. So to make a long story a bit shorter, once we had come to the USA, and I began to experience American culture via my high school in Shaker Heights, Ohio, and in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania—two places I spent time during the first couple of months in my new country—I noticed that my circumstances were rather unusual. This was beginning to dawn on me even earlier, when while at an American high school in Munich, Germany, I had befriended a young man, Jimmy Loftus, who had a rather noticeably decent relationship with his own father. (I recall his walking with him once in front of me, with his father’s left armed draped around his shoulders, which made me choke up.)

One time Jimmy asked me to stay after school to play basketball and I told him I couldn’t because my father insists on my returning home after school; he replied, “Well just tell him you stayed to play a bit.” I told him I would get a thrashing if I did this, and he said, “Well, then hit him back.” That idea, I must report, turned into a paradigm breaker for me—I could not even fathom such a thing before Jimmy suggested it to me.

Once I had lived a bit in the US, however, I realized that kids where not taken to be their parents’ items of property, to do with as their whims or pleasures dictated. So following a particularly brutal altercation between him and me, I left my father’s house on my 18th birthday, never to return there.

My history with the Hungarian authorities, such as my “teachers” and commissars, as well as with my parents, highlighted for me the significance of a measure of human liberty within my own early life. But that’s not all. These elements of my personal history also alerted me to a problem people were having around me and indeed throughout human history and in many parts of the contemporary world. In time I would run across the works of Ayn Rand and other champions of human individual liberty and these would resonate with me most emphatically in light of my own budding understanding. But that wasn’t all.

For example, after reading Atlas Shrugged, while in the US Air Force at Andrews AFB, near Washington, DC, I had at first feared that my very positive response to the book was perhaps idiosyncratic, just as I had suggested to Rand when we met. So for entire weekends I and some fellow admirers of the work would sit in the main terminal cafeteria discussing Galt’s speech, checking it for possible mistakes, making sure it was basically sound, at least to the best of our abilities. Soon I began to take college courses at night, in philosophy, literature, political science, and so forth, in part to check out Rand’s ideas, to compare them to the prominent thinking that had come down to us from around the globe—I had already read some of the works of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Montaigne, Plutarch, Cicero, and others, just as I was encountering Rand, so I realized that there were all these ideas about human affairs and the world at large circulating against which one can check new ones.

In time I would embark upon an academic career in philosophy in part because it just fit with my budding identity and in part because I thought it would be the best way not to become captive to my own very powerful particular and significant experiences. I believe now that I have done my checking thoroughly enough to come to the reasonable conclusions—not one with Platonic or Cartesian certainty but a certainly beyond a reasonable doubt—that Rand’ ideas are indeed sound at heart. And I decided in time, too, to devote myself to their better and better understanding, development and teaching.

The bottom line is this—with more to be gleaned from my memoir, The Man Without a Hobby, Adventures of a Gregarious Egoist (Hamilton Books, 2004): Individual liberty, in the tradition of John Locke, the Declaration of Independence and Ayn Rand, is a fundamental, universal human value for all human individuals (excepting only the crucially incapacitated who, however, themselves do best if the rest of us are free).

Column on Past Political Incorrectness

Being Politically Incorrect Before Its Time

Tibor R. Machan

A couple of days ago I mentioned to some friends my theory about
nostalgia: The past tends to look good to us because we remember it minus
one of its most important ingredients, the jitters we had back then about
the future. After all, when we do remember the past, we no longer have any
good reason to recall those jitters since we did survive, probably even
succeed, with the future that faced us back then. Minus those jitters,
that past does tend to look good in comparison to the present when we have
our current jitters about the new future we face.

I was reminded of this when I recently received a letter of invitation to
attend the 35th anniversary of the opening of the university where I had
my very own first full time teaching job in 1970, California State
University at Bakersfield. It was their and my own first year!

The late chair of the newly formed philosophy department had hired me, on
the recommendation of Professor John Hospers USC, and on the strength of
my budding academic record and promise. I was very pleased and gave I
believe my level best at CSUB. He had told me in no uncertain terms that I
would be renewed in 1972 if I did, as promised, earn my PhD by then and I
gained my degree in December 1971.

Sadly, however, he went back on his word. And I believe I know why: I was
doing politically incorrect things back then when the term had not yet
been introduced into the language.

A secretary in our dean?s office told me at the time of my termination
that my (then secret) files had contained a copy of a letter to the editor
I had written to (and that was published in) the local newspaper in
Bakersfield in which I was very critical of the United Nations for
extending coercive policies around the globe. Much more importantly,
however, I had received bad marks from him for giving a luncheon talk
during that academic year in which I was critical of public education as
such. This talk was then published in the budding Reason magazine and
later became a chapter in my first edited volume, The Libertarian
Alternative (1973), "The Schools Ain't What They Used To Be...and Never
Was." (The title is a quotation from Will Rogers.) My chair, allegedly
echoing our dean?s sentiments, had also chided me, utterly
unprofessionally, for my divorce from my then wife in 1971.

There was never any question at the time about my professional conduct
and, especially, my publications, which were beginning to mount by then.
Because records back then were still kept secret by the university
administration, I could never check for myself what mine contained. I was
merely not rehired and the small grievance I had filed got me nowhere. The
President of the university told me that having me dismissed would be good
for them and for me?and, perhaps, he was right. Still, the experience was
something of a shock, since I did exactly as was my professional
responsibility and yet it got me nothing, in light of factors about me
that should have had no bearing on my employment. It was, in fact, my own
first experience with the phenomenon of political incorrectness at the
academy, something that by now has become something of an epidemic for
people who articulated convictions, quite outside the classroom, that
didn?t please university administrators and colleagues.

I do not think I will accept the invitation, frankly, but not because I
hold grudges. To do so seems to me a colossal waste of energy and, in any
case, I am too lazy to hold on to anger, which really does require having
to keep recalling why one is mad anyway. But I am not sure I wish to
dredge up yet again, this coming May, the sad memory of my dismissal from
CSUB, especially since no one ever apologized to me for the disgraceful
treatment I received, despite my having gone on to become a well published
and respected academic philosopher.

Why then bother recalling the matter in public? Well, quite often people
lament the current atmosphere in the academy for the way academic freedom
is being violated left and right. But in some ways it used to be worse in
the past, when such violations could be hidden from view because of the
secret file policies of many universities. Not unless one had the good
fortune, as I did, to have a mole in the system could one ascertain just
why despite one?s unexceptionable academic records one got sacked. Today
there is much ado about the matter mainly because it is evident enough,
while in the past it existed but behind closed doors.

All in all, in this and other realms of life, many people think that the
present moment is much worse than all others in the past and this may well
be a huge, largely unchecked mistake. Every generation, of example,
laments how the current crop of young people is far worse than any in the
past. I believe this is a crock.

While there are variations in the quality of the lives we lead generation
after generation, the truth is probably that there isn?t all that much
novelty under the sun, not in how shabbily or how swell people are being
treated by one another.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Column on Being Right but Alone

Being Among the Few who are Right

Tibor R. Machan

When she was about 16, my older daughter and I were sitting in my small
house in Auburn, AL, and she turned to me to ask, ?How do you deal with
the fact that so many people think you are wrong?? She knew. They did, and
still do.

Just yesterday I took part on a panel discussion at Boalt Hall, UC
Berkeley?s School of Law, organized by the branch of the Federalist
Society there, a group with a largely conservative membership in the legal
profession. Of the three of us on the panel, I was clearly the most
radical?or if you will, outrageous. The topic was ?Is America
Post-Democratic?? That meant, as I gathered, whether the United States of
America is still something of a democracy or has this changed, if it ever
was.

My colleagues on the panel, a political science professor from UC
Berkeley and a former director of a Green organization affiliated with
Ralph Nader, spoke mostly about the particulars of contemporary politics.
The professor lamented the alleged hegemony of the Bush conservative
administration, arguing, if I understood him correctly, that Bush?s team
has been moving toward a more and more remote government, one lacking
accountability and severely restricting the input of majority of the
members of the citizenry. The man from Green, in turn, lashed out as the
allegedly inordinate influence big corporations have on American politics,
itself a clear indication, he claimed, of anti-democratic trends in the
country.

Both of these chaps pretty much took it as given that democracy is simply
a swell thing, the more of it the better, period. In contrast, I argued
that democracy is of merit only when severely constrained. In this I had
some good authority from the American Founders, of course, from Federalist
No. 10, where Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote: ?Democracies have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible
with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been
as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.? To
indicate that his sentiment had strong historical support especially now,
I mentioned the democratic selection of Adolph Hitler, of Benito Mussolini
and the example of some current democracies such as Haiti.

But then I went out to point out that taxes are a form of extortion and
the majority?s approval of it?and Justice Holmes calling it the price we
pay for civilization?doesn?t change this fact. I also defended the view
that the power wielding of the democratic method is at most appropriate
for small role of selecting administrators of a just legal order and,
perhaps, in the initial institution of a constitutional system of
individual rights. (Here I was thinking of how nicely this is shown in
that classic Western movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.)

As expected, no one on the panel and the audience appeared to agree with
any of this, although to my surprise several law students did come up to
me afterwards to ask me very friendly questions about my position. The
unpopularity of my views might put me in a funk, you could speculate, but
I have had a pretty long history of similar responses from colleagues and
people in general for over 40 years of thinking as I do. (I was inspired
to take these kinds of ideas very seriously back in 1961, when I first
encountered classical liberalism in John Locke and Ayn Rand as a member of
the US Air Force in Washington, DC. Also, they pretty much are why I
trekked from Hungary to the USA back in the 1950s.)

So, what did I answer my daughter who, incidentally, shares most of my
convictions on political matters? My response went along the lines of,
?Well, sweetie, I like being popular, I like having friendly colleagues,
but I must say I like truth even more.? Later I learned that this is a bit
like what Newton scribbled in his Cambridge notebooks: ?Amicus Plato,
amicus Aristotles; magis amica Veritas? (Plato is my friend, Aristotle is
my friend, but truth is a better friend).

And, let?s face it, when back in the early 60s I ran across the ideas
that I found to be closest to the truth as far as I could tell from my own
explorations and, later, my studies, there were very few folks who took
them seriously, which is no longer the case. Still, in terms of
percentages, those convinced of the truth of individual rights and the
justice of a regime grounded on them are still too few.

Yet think of it this way: The idea that each person is, by virtue of the
very nature of his or her humanity, a sovereign being, a self-ruler not to
be ruled against his or her will by anyone else is not only true but also
the most radical idea in all of political history. So why expect that it
would be all that popular anyway? It takes time for such a novel,
outrageous idea to catch on, if it ever fully will.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Column on What Private Property Rights is Really About (sans tyupos)

Misunderstanding Private Property Rights

Tibor R. Machan

A misguided understanding of the right to private property?and of the
free market spawned by it?has to do with what George Hotchkiss of NYU said
many moons ago, namely, ?People are primarily interested in themselves and
the things that pertain to them?their homes, their children, their health,
complexion, comfort, recreation, financial security, their friends, their
own struggles and triumphs of daily life? (An Outline of Advertising,
1957). While there is some truth in this, there is also much that the
statement neglects.

For one, sadly too many people are not diligently enough interested in
themselves?certainly not in taking good care of themselves, their
children, etc. Too often they are quite negligent, which makes it
plausible for others to promote the idea that they need taking care of by
others even in their adulthood.

More importantly here, however, many people while taking reasonable care
of themselves are also very interested in promoting various causes that do
not directly involve them at all. They want to contribute to the arts, to
curing various diseases, to advancing the sciences, and to advocating
certain political ideas and ideals or public policies. Indeed, billions
and billions of dollars are spent on such goals that do not directly
benefit the persons themselves who do the giving (except in the vacuous
sense that they are interested in these goals).

Now if it is clearly understood that the respect and protection of the
right to private property facilitates not only the pursuit of one?s
direct, immediate self-interest but also all those other projects that
people so evidently and widely support, then the abrogation of that right
can be seen in a different light from the usual.

Many who oppose private property rights do so on the grounds that they
hold to the Hotchkiss position?it simply facilitates the pursuit of
private goals. Thus it must neglect others and impersonal goals. But if
we understand that private property rights facilitate much else besides
taking good care of one?s immediate concerns, including many of those I
have listed above, then attacking it takes on a very different coloration.

Attacking private property rights comes not so much to making sure that
people don?t just care for themselves but to making sure that they don?t
get to choose what the goals are that gain support, including goals having
little to do with themselves. In other words, attacking private property
rights amounts to attacking the right of individuals to choose, to decide
what kind of goals they get to support and how much support these goals
receive.

Putting it a bit differently, attacking the right to private property
amounts to attacking the judgments of private individuals who would have
the option to support various goals they believe in. Instead, government
officials?politicians, bureaucrats and their advisors?get to confiscate
private property in taxes and other takings and they get to say to what
ends these will be contributed.

But seeing it this way should make us all realize that the issue isn?t
about ?selfish versus benevolent? goals but about who gets to be
benevolent and who gets to say who and what will be benefited. Why, one
might ask, should it be people with political clout who get to make that
decision? Are they really better at making such decisions? Are they really
less likely to engage in unreasonable acquisitiveness, to be greedy, to be
narrow-minded, to serve vested interests?

In fact the evidence seems clear that those in politics are far more
inclined to serve vested interests than are ordinary folks who on their
very own tend to be quite generous. Billions of dollars, for example, are
sent abroad by American citizens, all on their own initiative, to help
people who are in dire straits. Much more is contributed to various
domestic causes.

Besides, the idea that those going into politics or signing up as
bureaucrats are the most benevolent types in society is, despite what they
often wish to have us believe, so contrary to what we all know from the
daily news as to be utterly ridiculous. It is shear gullibility to believe
such a thing, but because of this mistaken notion of the right to private
property and some defenses of it, it gains undeserved credibility. It?s
time to call the confusion?or indeed trick?for what it is, namely, a way
to bamboozle people into relinquishing their right to distribute their own
resources as they judge best when they are, indeed, the best ones to judge.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Column on FDR's Phony Rights (updated)

Roosevelt?s Phony Rights
Tibor R. Machan
April 12th was the anniversary of FDR?s inglorious death, from ailments
largely hidden from the public in a pattern of deception that has now
become all too closely associated with America?s political leadership. But
that?s nothing compared to the deception perpetrated upon the American
people via Roosevelt?s list of phony rights, a list that forever corrupted
the ideas of the American Founders.
Roosevelt unhesitatingly referred to this list as "a second Bill of
Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be
established for all regardless of station, race or creed." Here is what
was part of the list simply cannot be upheld as true, as a list rights
that makes good sense:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or
farms or mines of the nation.? Well, if we do have such a right, then
others must be forced to employ us, thus subjecting them all to
involuntary servitude.
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
recreation.? Once gain, such a right would require it of government, which
the Founders identified as having been instituted so as to ?secure? our
?unalienable rights to life, liberty, etc.,? to violate those very rights.
Instead of leaving us be free, having such rights means government must
coerce us into laboring for others.
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return
which will give him and his family a decent living.? This, too, means the
farmer must be provided with customers, willing or unwilling. But that
means the customers are not free to choose what they will buy for
themselves but must do the bidding of the farmers.
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies
at home or abroad.? By claiming a right to ?unfair competition,? FDR
insisted on a cadre of market supervisors, a squad of police state
officers empowered to decide for people in the market what is or is not
fair, which is simply an impossible task and gives those police state
officers vast arbitrary powers over other people.
"The right of every family to a decent home.? OK, so this decent home, if
it is everyone?s right, will have to be secured on the backs of other
people who may have other projects they choose to pursue instead of
providing decent homes for the rest of us. Free men and women ought never
to be made to produce goods or services for other people, not if that?s
not what they choose to do. That is their own task, however difficult it
may be.
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
enjoy good health.? No way to do this without enslaving a great many of us
to serve other people, to do so against our own free will, thus once again
violating our right to liberty.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
sickness, accident and unemployment.? This, too, is something all of us
ought to provide for ourselves, not extract at the point of the gun from
others. Our right to liberty is, in part, to be respected and protected so
that we may all strive to provide for ourselves and if we are unable to
do, to seek help from others, not by forcible but peaceful means.
"The right to a good education." It is our parents, who chose to bring us
into this world, who should be securing our education, and after that we
ourselves by either paying for or investing in our education or by
convincing, not coercing, others to do this for us if we cannot. Yes,
Virginia, public education is itself a forcible transfer program of
resources and services unbecoming of free men and women.
The plain truth is that all these phony rights of FDR and his supporters,
many of them going very strong today in law schools and political
philosophy departments across the country, indeed all over the world via
the UN?s adoption of the list, have helped to systematically abrogate our
genuine, bona fide unalienable rights, rights that are the conditions of
our freedom and of a free society.
No, Roosevelt?s phony rights must be given up for what they are, a
nightmare of political privileges which made it OK for government to grow
into the Leviathan it now is.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Column on the Constitution in Exile movement (sans typo)

A Basic Legal Debate Nearly Grasped

Tibor R. Machan

Professor Jeffrey Rosen?of the George Washington University School of Law
and one of the stars of contemporary legal journalism who writes from The
New Republic to The New York Times Book Review, and innumerable
publications in between?has just penned a pretty fair piece on the
Constitution in Exile jurisprudential movement (in The New York Times
Magazine, April 17, 2005). The main actors of the movement are libertarian
legal scholars Richard Epstein, Randy Barnett, Chip Mellor, Clint Bolick,
and others, all of whom have a healthy respect of the principles that
underlie and serve to anchor the legal system of the United States of
America.

The hook for Professor Rosen?s piece is the somewhat noisy public debate
about whether the US Constitution is a ?living document? that?s ?growing?
all over the place, or one with stable and lasting ideas that really
should not be altered except when basic facts about human nature and
society make that necessary. Less noisy yet still influential is the
debate about how to interpret the Constitution, in line with original
intent, the moral views of current justices, or some other method that
will guide us toward justice in how the law is understood in America.

Professor Rosen, unfortunately, does not bring in the most basic issue
that?s at stake here, namely, whether the legal system of a just society
has something outside of itself?for example, natural or divine law?on
which it must rest, or is it simply the result of the will of those who
rule?be that the people (through a democratic or republican process) or a
king or some other powerful political body. This debate is best known by
the phrase ?natural versus positive law.?

The natural law idea is that some facts about the world, especially human
nature, underlie how a legal order of a human community ought to be
understood and framed. According to this view the US Constitution, for
example, had been framed with the conviction that its provisions did, to a
significant extent, accord with a sound understanding of the laws that may
be derived from an grasp of human nature and community life. Even where
the principles of the Constitution had to give way to certain political
considerations, so that it could become the law of the land, these could
always be checked against these pre-legal, pre-constitutional principles
of justice and criticized, approved of and revised accordingly.

The positivist position holds, in turn, that laws are inventions of those
who run a society?be they the people (through their elected officials) or
some ruler or ruling elite. There are no fundamental principles to which
laws ought to be adjusted. After all, morality itself is mere convention
or invention, so to look for foundations for human law is a futile effort.
Moreover, it may even be anti-democratic because the idea of such
fundamental moral or natural law can easily go against what the people (or
the majority of them or their representatives) want as law and public
policy.

One point that has always been in contention between the two sides is how
to make room for the common sense understanding, one very problematic to
deny, that some changes in the law are inescapable. The natural law side
would appear to oppose such changes, while the positivist law position
would relish them nearly without limit. Is there some way that can be
loyal to the idea that changes are inescapable, yet they must not be
arbitrary, a mere caprice of the ruler, the majority or (more often)
whoever happens to have managed to get to ?speak for us??

Professor Rosen makes it appear that the Constitution in Exile folks are
dogged absolutists about the US Constitution, whereas in fact they aren?t
or, more aptly put, need not be. They can insist that certain fundamental
principles are stable and lasting (enough) and need only small
modification and adjustment as human understanding grows (e.g., about
human nature, how children should be understood, the facts of
homosexuality or when human existence comes into being during pregnancy).
The dogmatism or absolutism charge is, thus, quite unfair. What is
objectionable from their viewpoint is to think of the Constitution as
entirely malleable, not so much living (which is always guided by
principles of the life in question) but cancerous (living out of control).

Unfortunately we live in a largely anti-philosophical age and without
philosophy the nature of law is impossible to grasp. Rosen and Co.,
especially the major critic of the Constitution in Exile movement he
cites, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago School of Law,
unfortunately wish have a grasp without the grounding this requires.
Professor Sunstein in fact wants to take us back to the era when
governments mostly invented law?see his co-authored book The Cost of
Rights (1999)?and granted privileges or ?rights? without foundations, and
thus took us all to be mere subjects of our rulers, even if these would be
the majority and not some monarch.

Yet, of course, majorities can run amuck, no less so than kings or tsars.
So justice can suffer as much at their hands as it can from that of any
unrestrained ruler. It looks very much like the US Constitution has, which
is why the Constitution in Exile movement is pretty much on the right
course in this debate.