Being of Two (or More) Minds
Tibor R. Machan
My one time professor Robert J. Fogelin recently wrote a book, Walking the Tightrope of Reason (London: Oxford University Press, 2003), which argued that the bulk of us are pretty satisfied holding inconsistent beliefs. We think that the world can be understood and dealt with rationally but also hold out for some miracles. We think our fellow human beings are mostly trustworthy and nice but also believe that many people are rotten through and through. And even in more technical areas, we think that the world is but a huge machine that moves ineluctably wherever it is headed yet think we have free will and can change the course of events in various areas of our lives.
Professor Fogelin’s is a very challenging thesis. One problem with it is that in our criticism of how people behave or how institutions are run, our standard is consistency. Even in reading the book we must use reason to tell if it is sound. If we find things inconsistent, we regard it to be a flaw. So when certain politicians propose public policies, others and the pundits insist they be consistent. When witnesses testify in court, they are held to standards of full consistency, otherwise their testimony is discredited. Scientists, too, are supposed to advance ideas that are coherent and do not contain inconsistencies. Those who solve crimes, too, are held to such standards.
So, even about the very issue of whether inconsistencies are permissible, many of us are inconsistent. We can accept a bit of hypocrisy here, some two-facedness there, and so forth, but not too much.
If you generalize Professor Fogelin’s idea to, say, an entire country and the views of the citizenry—let alone to the whole world—what comes out is rather messy, if not out and out chaotic. Laws would turn out to favor both one thing and its opposite—for example, personal responsibility as well as everything bad one does being excusable, pro-life as well as pro-choice, and freedom as well as subjugation. Or when it comes to foreign affairs, great numbers of us believe in restraint and a policy whereby only when it is in our interest should we meddle in the affairs of foreign countries; yet there are millions who believe that humanitarian goals justify various interventions. And maybe the very same citizens think both of these ideas and make their mixed thinking evident to their political representatives. So those representatives, too, are of two or more minds when in comes to public policy—e. g., let’s cut but let’s also increase government spending.
At the personal level, too, we find that people prize integrity—keeping one’s values consistent and standing up for them as such. But they also claim that, well, one just cannot be so logical about it all, one needs to make allowances for divided loyalties and conflicting goals in people’s lives. (This was the theme of the late Sidney Hook’s book, Pragmatism and the Tragic Sense of Life [Basic Books, 1975].) The admonition that we should all “get it together” and not run wild with mutually exclusive agendas in our lives is popular, but so, too, is the come-back that this is too difficult, too demanding, too unrealistic and even rigid and dogmatic. We need, some will insist, more of a flexible approach, one that doesn’t look for logic and reason in everything.
My take on this is not the main issue here. I am just reporting on how many influential and intelligent folks line up on the issue of how consistent people should be as they conduct their personal or public affairs. Given that Professor Fogelin’s idea is quite popular, it may require of us that we assess how things go within different areas of our lives, private or public, quite differently from how we are used to. We do tend to insist on consistency where other people’s ideas and conduct are concerned; even with ourselves we often feel guilty when we do not think and live consistently. Yet at other times we make much allowance for inconsistencies. Perhaps we need to appreciate this a bit as we look at the world.
For my money the effort to live rationally, with integrity, consistently, is a supremely worthy one. But let’s face it, lots of people aren’t very interested in such an approach to life. And some very bright ones even contend it is pretty much a hopeless undertaking. Should we hold up reason as the ideal and keep judging private and public affairs accordingly? Is it, in short, better to stick to reason and leave fancy to the imagination, as Socrates once suggested?
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Al Gore’s Unconcern for People
Tibor R. Machan
Only a few sentences of Larry King’s recent interview with former Vice President Al Gore caught my eyes and ears but they were enough to confirm what I had been suspecting all along. Asked about his view of the famous Cambridge University astrophysicist Stephen Hawking’s idea that human beings need to prepare to eventually move into outer space, Gore flatly dismissed it.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about how human beings might cope with ecological problems here on earth would need to consider as at least one possibility the emigration of people from earth to some new frontiers. These would surely be possibilities worth considering by those who believe, honestly, that in some centuries or even decades to come, earth will no longer be capable of supporting human life.
In principle, the idea Hawking has floated, by no means original with him, is merely a logical extension of what has been happening on earth for as long as living things have been inhabiting it. The more there is of them, the further away they need to move from where they were initially hatched, as it were. Birds, fish, and humans—you name them. When they increase in numbers, they slowly extend the territory they can successfully inhabit. Not that this always happens smoothly or that it can happen rapidly. Living beings that are unable to change their environment on their own initiative have needed to slowly adjust to some of the new areas to which they had to migrate. But just consider one clear case in point: in time some fish move on to shore and managed to live there as land based animals.
But when it comes to human beings, the possibility of migration from earth to some other planets can be seen to be more promising that what the slow process of evolution illustrates with most living beings. That’s because human beings need not await the workings of natural selection in how they adjust to new regions where they can successfully survive and flourish. People are unique in large measure because they can choose to transform their environments, not merely evolve to be able to live in them. The evidence for this is overwhelming.
One of the flaws in the panicky kind of environmentalism Al Gore & Co., promote is that they ignore the human capacity for creativity and innovation. That flaw, of course, includes failing to seriously entertain the possibility that in time people will migrate away from earth, changing their new habitat to accommodate their needs and wants.
Not that such expansion of human habitation beyond earth may not involve missteps of various kinds. Just consider the problems already evident with the (largely government run) space program. But what I am talking about and what Professor Hawking referred to wasn’t some infallible process of changing how people live on earth to some other part of the universe. The point is that such a change is a clear possibility for which evidence is already accumulating.
The suggestion of this possibility, even if quite rational, would not impress someone like Al Gore, of course. If he took it seriously, it would remove from his propaganda arsenal the element of fundamental fear. No longer would it make much sense to hand over all our decisions to the environmentalists with Al Gore as the leader—or should I say “Fuhrer”? No, the idea that in good time people will recognize what they need to do to cope with the possibility of having used up the resources available to them here on earth strongly suggests that an unregimented approach to coping with the environment is preferable to one imposed on us from above.
What Gore & Co., clearly lack is the confidence that human beings, in the main, are fit to handle the problems that arise in their lives. Or might it be that they fear that confidence because it robs them of the chance to grab power over the rest of us? Seems to me that this is not such a remote possibility at all.
When Gore so quickly dismissed that people could well migrate from earth elsewhere to solve some of the problems he claims he is concerned about, this possibility suggested itself quite readily, at least to me.
Tibor R. Machan
Only a few sentences of Larry King’s recent interview with former Vice President Al Gore caught my eyes and ears but they were enough to confirm what I had been suspecting all along. Asked about his view of the famous Cambridge University astrophysicist Stephen Hawking’s idea that human beings need to prepare to eventually move into outer space, Gore flatly dismissed it.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about how human beings might cope with ecological problems here on earth would need to consider as at least one possibility the emigration of people from earth to some new frontiers. These would surely be possibilities worth considering by those who believe, honestly, that in some centuries or even decades to come, earth will no longer be capable of supporting human life.
In principle, the idea Hawking has floated, by no means original with him, is merely a logical extension of what has been happening on earth for as long as living things have been inhabiting it. The more there is of them, the further away they need to move from where they were initially hatched, as it were. Birds, fish, and humans—you name them. When they increase in numbers, they slowly extend the territory they can successfully inhabit. Not that this always happens smoothly or that it can happen rapidly. Living beings that are unable to change their environment on their own initiative have needed to slowly adjust to some of the new areas to which they had to migrate. But just consider one clear case in point: in time some fish move on to shore and managed to live there as land based animals.
But when it comes to human beings, the possibility of migration from earth to some other planets can be seen to be more promising that what the slow process of evolution illustrates with most living beings. That’s because human beings need not await the workings of natural selection in how they adjust to new regions where they can successfully survive and flourish. People are unique in large measure because they can choose to transform their environments, not merely evolve to be able to live in them. The evidence for this is overwhelming.
One of the flaws in the panicky kind of environmentalism Al Gore & Co., promote is that they ignore the human capacity for creativity and innovation. That flaw, of course, includes failing to seriously entertain the possibility that in time people will migrate away from earth, changing their new habitat to accommodate their needs and wants.
Not that such expansion of human habitation beyond earth may not involve missteps of various kinds. Just consider the problems already evident with the (largely government run) space program. But what I am talking about and what Professor Hawking referred to wasn’t some infallible process of changing how people live on earth to some other part of the universe. The point is that such a change is a clear possibility for which evidence is already accumulating.
The suggestion of this possibility, even if quite rational, would not impress someone like Al Gore, of course. If he took it seriously, it would remove from his propaganda arsenal the element of fundamental fear. No longer would it make much sense to hand over all our decisions to the environmentalists with Al Gore as the leader—or should I say “Fuhrer”? No, the idea that in good time people will recognize what they need to do to cope with the possibility of having used up the resources available to them here on earth strongly suggests that an unregimented approach to coping with the environment is preferable to one imposed on us from above.
What Gore & Co., clearly lack is the confidence that human beings, in the main, are fit to handle the problems that arise in their lives. Or might it be that they fear that confidence because it robs them of the chance to grab power over the rest of us? Seems to me that this is not such a remote possibility at all.
When Gore so quickly dismissed that people could well migrate from earth elsewhere to solve some of the problems he claims he is concerned about, this possibility suggested itself quite readily, at least to me.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Journalistic Malpractice?
Tibor R. Machan
Now and then I peruse newspapers from around the country and on one such occasion I ran across the article "Hundreds rally to place crime fighting tax on ballot" in The Palo Alto Daily News. The title was itself of interest to me because “hundreds” just doesn’t strike me as an imposing figure.
As I read into the piece, however, something more important came to light. It read exactly like a press release from those who support the measure. These folks want to have an additional property tax imposed on residents of East Palo Alto so as to raise funds basically to help ex-cons to get jobs, to facilitate their reintegration into the community.~
For the moment never mind about the propriety of a public policy measure that spends other people’s money on helping out convicted criminals. (One may even consider this double jeopardy against the local citizens!) What struck me as curious is that even though in a previous effort a similar measure lost at the polls, there was not one quotation from skeptics provided in the news report. Instead quotations followed quotations from supporters of the idea.
What kind of journalism is this? Could the reporter, Luke Stangel, find no one who objects to this idea? I cannot believe that.~The article thus ends up to be little more than propaganda for those who want to tax property owners to fund yet another welfare measure in East Palo Alto.
And Mr. Stangel wasn’t the only one who got on board with this mission. After a bit of research I discovered that Neil Gonzales, of the San Mateo County Times, in his piece, “East Palo Alto Coalition Seeks Tax to Fight Youth Crime,” did virtually the same thing—turned a supposed news report into virtual propaganda as well.
I am somewhat familiar with small papers and how some of those writing for them are community activists, so their “reports” are actually advocacy pieces. We have a monthly newspaper in my own community that engages in this kind of “journalism.”
Yet this is not at all unavoidable. Publishers and editors could easily insist that when an activist switches hats and becomes a journalist, his or her behavior change and instead of engaging in what in informal logic is called the fallacy of pleading one’s case, a balanced report be produced that reflects what is actually going on in the community. And if there are serious opponents of a measure being proposed for a vote in a community, someone who takes on the job of telling about it in a newspaper—instead of a political pamphlet—has the responsibility to include different views on the issue being debated.
But no. Both of these journalists have produced “reports” with no mention of the opponents’ viewpoints, let alone providing any quotations from them or reasons why some oppose the measure. These pieces, in fact, read very much like the kind of “reports” I used to encounter in the newspapers back in communist Hungary, where no one but the government had the legal power to produce them.
Maybe, however, when a paper is the sole provider of news in a small community, there is a temptation to get lazy and some, like the two journalists whose reports I read, cave into this instead of upholding professional standards. Readers, in turn, need to be vigilant in such circumstances because the ordinary forces of media competition are missing. Yes, some small competition might exist from bloggers and the like. Still, it is probably best to make sure whether a story has some other angle to it than what is presented in lopsided reports like those I ran across.
It is one of the widespread myths propagated by many journalists and their teachers that when it comes to news reporting, journalists can be independent, non-partisan, and fully relied upon to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. However, in fact no journalist is without some, perhaps well hidden (even from oneself), point of view that guides who will be interviewed, what stories will be covered and followed up on, etc. So what may start out as a report intended to be informative of how things are in a community turns out to be, well, a piece of propaganda.
Both of the reporters filing stories on the proposed East Palo Alto ballot measure managed to become advocates for the measure and thus undermine their journalistic integrity. Or that is, at least, what comes through from reading their “reports.”
Tibor R. Machan
Now and then I peruse newspapers from around the country and on one such occasion I ran across the article "Hundreds rally to place crime fighting tax on ballot" in The Palo Alto Daily News. The title was itself of interest to me because “hundreds” just doesn’t strike me as an imposing figure.
As I read into the piece, however, something more important came to light. It read exactly like a press release from those who support the measure. These folks want to have an additional property tax imposed on residents of East Palo Alto so as to raise funds basically to help ex-cons to get jobs, to facilitate their reintegration into the community.~
For the moment never mind about the propriety of a public policy measure that spends other people’s money on helping out convicted criminals. (One may even consider this double jeopardy against the local citizens!) What struck me as curious is that even though in a previous effort a similar measure lost at the polls, there was not one quotation from skeptics provided in the news report. Instead quotations followed quotations from supporters of the idea.
What kind of journalism is this? Could the reporter, Luke Stangel, find no one who objects to this idea? I cannot believe that.~The article thus ends up to be little more than propaganda for those who want to tax property owners to fund yet another welfare measure in East Palo Alto.
And Mr. Stangel wasn’t the only one who got on board with this mission. After a bit of research I discovered that Neil Gonzales, of the San Mateo County Times, in his piece, “East Palo Alto Coalition Seeks Tax to Fight Youth Crime,” did virtually the same thing—turned a supposed news report into virtual propaganda as well.
I am somewhat familiar with small papers and how some of those writing for them are community activists, so their “reports” are actually advocacy pieces. We have a monthly newspaper in my own community that engages in this kind of “journalism.”
Yet this is not at all unavoidable. Publishers and editors could easily insist that when an activist switches hats and becomes a journalist, his or her behavior change and instead of engaging in what in informal logic is called the fallacy of pleading one’s case, a balanced report be produced that reflects what is actually going on in the community. And if there are serious opponents of a measure being proposed for a vote in a community, someone who takes on the job of telling about it in a newspaper—instead of a political pamphlet—has the responsibility to include different views on the issue being debated.
But no. Both of these journalists have produced “reports” with no mention of the opponents’ viewpoints, let alone providing any quotations from them or reasons why some oppose the measure. These pieces, in fact, read very much like the kind of “reports” I used to encounter in the newspapers back in communist Hungary, where no one but the government had the legal power to produce them.
Maybe, however, when a paper is the sole provider of news in a small community, there is a temptation to get lazy and some, like the two journalists whose reports I read, cave into this instead of upholding professional standards. Readers, in turn, need to be vigilant in such circumstances because the ordinary forces of media competition are missing. Yes, some small competition might exist from bloggers and the like. Still, it is probably best to make sure whether a story has some other angle to it than what is presented in lopsided reports like those I ran across.
It is one of the widespread myths propagated by many journalists and their teachers that when it comes to news reporting, journalists can be independent, non-partisan, and fully relied upon to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. However, in fact no journalist is without some, perhaps well hidden (even from oneself), point of view that guides who will be interviewed, what stories will be covered and followed up on, etc. So what may start out as a report intended to be informative of how things are in a community turns out to be, well, a piece of propaganda.
Both of the reporters filing stories on the proposed East Palo Alto ballot measure managed to become advocates for the measure and thus undermine their journalistic integrity. Or that is, at least, what comes through from reading their “reports.”
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Varieties of Globalization
Tibor R. Machan
Most years I do a lot of international traveling and make some observations in light of topics of current interest. So on recent trips, for example to Argentina, Chile, and South Africa, I have noticed how in most airports and establishments of various kinds smoking tends to be banned, either by law or because proprietors prefer it. One might even say that there is a global trend toward eliminating smoking as an acceptable pastime.
Although there are some who protests such “imperialism,” they are not your usual critics of globalization. Indeed, if anything, the very people who find economic globalization objectionable tend to be the ones who have no problem with spreading smoking bans across the globe. In this instance, it seems, they see nothing wrong with imposing on members of different cultures, ethnic groups, religious faiths a one-size-fits-all way of life, namely, a life without tobacco smoke.
But why is it perfectly OK to spread this life style across the world? Those who support this globalization—the likes of Rob Reiner the Hollywood bully (“Meathead” from All in the Family) who is behind so much of the anti-smoking fascism in the U. S. A.—would most likely claim that, well, in such a case something universal is at issue, something that applies to people as such, having to do with their health and fitness. In this area people are significantly alike so considerations of multiculturalism, ethnic and religious diversity do not apply, such folks would insist. And while this is open to question—is it really true that everyone ought to quit smoking, that there aren’t some people who are actually better off lighting up, given their personality and even physical state—at least one can appreciate the reasoning behind the idea.
Yet when it comes to the more familiar type of globalization, namely, that of the principles of a free market economy, the critics wish to insist that nothing universal is at issue. But this is just where they are wrong.
The globalization that involves spreading the policies of free, unimpeded trade—which involves removing protectionist measures, high tariffs, government regulations, and so forth—is based on a view about human life whereby liberty is regarded as a universal principle. If there is anything that every human being requires in his or her life, it is the respect and protection of his or her right to liberty.
The late Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom and numerous other political economic works, made a very poignant point that bears on this:
"That freedom is the matrix required for the growth of moral values—indeed not merely one value among many but the source of all values—is almost self-evident. It is only where the individual has choice, and its inherent responsibility, that he has occasion to affirm existing values, to contribute to their further growth, and the earn moral merit."
In other words, human beings need to be free to embark upon any creative, productive projects, especially ones that are of moral significance. There can be many differences in how they live—for some even smoking may not be such a terrible thing—but normally none is better off from being regimented about by others. No one is better off being a slave or serf or in a state of involuntary servitude. It is unjust to impose on other people what they should choose to do in the market place apart from keeping their conduct peaceful.
Globalization is an impulse that is evidently widespread—in matters of health care, fitness, nutrition, entertainment and, of course, sports (just consider all the international athletic and other competitions and races that we witness year after year). Some of it is over the top—a good many people can do without tennis or soccer in their lives, or without daily workouts at a gym or even smoking bans. So skepticism about the one-size-fits-all mentality makes good sense when it comes to most ways of life.
When it comes to the principles of individual liberty, however, including their application to commerce and business, it is very plausible that without exception all human beings require them in their lives. That is the one kind of globalization that ought to be given universal support.
Tibor R. Machan
Most years I do a lot of international traveling and make some observations in light of topics of current interest. So on recent trips, for example to Argentina, Chile, and South Africa, I have noticed how in most airports and establishments of various kinds smoking tends to be banned, either by law or because proprietors prefer it. One might even say that there is a global trend toward eliminating smoking as an acceptable pastime.
Although there are some who protests such “imperialism,” they are not your usual critics of globalization. Indeed, if anything, the very people who find economic globalization objectionable tend to be the ones who have no problem with spreading smoking bans across the globe. In this instance, it seems, they see nothing wrong with imposing on members of different cultures, ethnic groups, religious faiths a one-size-fits-all way of life, namely, a life without tobacco smoke.
But why is it perfectly OK to spread this life style across the world? Those who support this globalization—the likes of Rob Reiner the Hollywood bully (“Meathead” from All in the Family) who is behind so much of the anti-smoking fascism in the U. S. A.—would most likely claim that, well, in such a case something universal is at issue, something that applies to people as such, having to do with their health and fitness. In this area people are significantly alike so considerations of multiculturalism, ethnic and religious diversity do not apply, such folks would insist. And while this is open to question—is it really true that everyone ought to quit smoking, that there aren’t some people who are actually better off lighting up, given their personality and even physical state—at least one can appreciate the reasoning behind the idea.
Yet when it comes to the more familiar type of globalization, namely, that of the principles of a free market economy, the critics wish to insist that nothing universal is at issue. But this is just where they are wrong.
The globalization that involves spreading the policies of free, unimpeded trade—which involves removing protectionist measures, high tariffs, government regulations, and so forth—is based on a view about human life whereby liberty is regarded as a universal principle. If there is anything that every human being requires in his or her life, it is the respect and protection of his or her right to liberty.
The late Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom and numerous other political economic works, made a very poignant point that bears on this:
"That freedom is the matrix required for the growth of moral values—indeed not merely one value among many but the source of all values—is almost self-evident. It is only where the individual has choice, and its inherent responsibility, that he has occasion to affirm existing values, to contribute to their further growth, and the earn moral merit."
In other words, human beings need to be free to embark upon any creative, productive projects, especially ones that are of moral significance. There can be many differences in how they live—for some even smoking may not be such a terrible thing—but normally none is better off from being regimented about by others. No one is better off being a slave or serf or in a state of involuntary servitude. It is unjust to impose on other people what they should choose to do in the market place apart from keeping their conduct peaceful.
Globalization is an impulse that is evidently widespread—in matters of health care, fitness, nutrition, entertainment and, of course, sports (just consider all the international athletic and other competitions and races that we witness year after year). Some of it is over the top—a good many people can do without tennis or soccer in their lives, or without daily workouts at a gym or even smoking bans. So skepticism about the one-size-fits-all mentality makes good sense when it comes to most ways of life.
When it comes to the principles of individual liberty, however, including their application to commerce and business, it is very plausible that without exception all human beings require them in their lives. That is the one kind of globalization that ought to be given universal support.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Yes, Bill Gates Misspoke Himself
Tibor R. Machan
The letters section of the morning paper was filled with complaints about my Monday column critical of Bill Gates’ terminology of “giving back to the community.” Folks took off after me for being a libertarian, for sounding like Ayn Rand, for being confused or for saying nothing at all useful.
It’s nice to generate lots of letters for the paper with one’s column, so on that score I am pleased. As to the content, I am afraid readers had a problem with grasping my point, which is, trade isn’t unfair rip-off. Perhaps I didn’t make myself fully clear but more likely most just disliked what I said, namely, that Gates, if he made his wealth honestly, already gave back when he provided his customers with the goods and services he produced. The rest is generosity, charity, philanthropy, kindness, compassion but not “giving back” anything.
Sure, all this may be something unimportant to make mention of to many people but here is my take on it: the world of commerce and business is in desperate need of being better understood. The kind of thinking that produces such language as Bill Gates used is contributing to the widespread hostility toward capitalism and freedom of trade. It is that kind of thinking that spreads the myth that globalization is exploiting poor countries by rich ones. It is the kind of thinking that spreads resentment toward professionals who make a profit off providing their clients and customers with valued services. (Incidentally, that is just the kind of thinking that was on exhibit in the same paper that carried the critical letters, on the front page, featuring a “dissident” doctor who finds fault with his colleagues who make a profit from tending to the sick! As if the media, shoe makers, teachers or basketball players all were doing something wrong for charging people for what they provide for them!)
Despite all the complaints about how I mistreated Bill Gates’ remarks, the shoe is really on the other foot. Too many folks hold very warped ideas about commerce. They believe that it is producers who owe gratitude to society, the community, or customers for their wealth, whereas in fact it is clients and customers who owe gratitude to producers, creative geniuses, and the lot for making their talents and efforts available to the rest of us.
Just think—should it be the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Goethe, Picasso, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Rembrandt, Albert Einstein, Frank Lloyd Wright who owe thanks to us all? Are we not the beneficiaries of their brilliant work? According to all those who think Bill Gates owes gratitude to the community, that he needs to give back something to us all, these kinds of innovators and creators should be grateful for the favor we do them when we enjoy the benefits of their work. That is perverse!
Sadly, too many of us go about our lives taking for granted thousands of benefits we would not enjoy if these people didn’t put their minds to work and make available the results to us in the market place, by means of free trade. To then insist that, yes, they must “give back to the community,” even after having made all of this available to the community in the first place (in return for mostly modest prices), is terribly misguided and, I suggest, ungrateful to boot.
But I guess we live in a culture in which the entitlement mindset is running rampant, in which the bulk of the population holds that what creative, productive people make available to us is something they should have by some natural right! It is these creative, productive people who must bow their heads in shame for making a buck from their work, while the rest of us can demand their work and have them thank us for letting them do it.
It is, I am pretty sure, this kind of thinking that’s gradually undermining the original American dream, the one that attracted millions to these shores: Work hard, make your work available to the market, and you shall be rewarded!
It didn’t take libertarians or even Ayn Rand to put this idea in circulation—it was in the air from the beginning of the American experiment. But it is certainly having a hard time being taken seriously now, having been eroded by the welfare state mentality that is so widespread in our time.
Tibor R. Machan
The letters section of the morning paper was filled with complaints about my Monday column critical of Bill Gates’ terminology of “giving back to the community.” Folks took off after me for being a libertarian, for sounding like Ayn Rand, for being confused or for saying nothing at all useful.
It’s nice to generate lots of letters for the paper with one’s column, so on that score I am pleased. As to the content, I am afraid readers had a problem with grasping my point, which is, trade isn’t unfair rip-off. Perhaps I didn’t make myself fully clear but more likely most just disliked what I said, namely, that Gates, if he made his wealth honestly, already gave back when he provided his customers with the goods and services he produced. The rest is generosity, charity, philanthropy, kindness, compassion but not “giving back” anything.
Sure, all this may be something unimportant to make mention of to many people but here is my take on it: the world of commerce and business is in desperate need of being better understood. The kind of thinking that produces such language as Bill Gates used is contributing to the widespread hostility toward capitalism and freedom of trade. It is that kind of thinking that spreads the myth that globalization is exploiting poor countries by rich ones. It is the kind of thinking that spreads resentment toward professionals who make a profit off providing their clients and customers with valued services. (Incidentally, that is just the kind of thinking that was on exhibit in the same paper that carried the critical letters, on the front page, featuring a “dissident” doctor who finds fault with his colleagues who make a profit from tending to the sick! As if the media, shoe makers, teachers or basketball players all were doing something wrong for charging people for what they provide for them!)
Despite all the complaints about how I mistreated Bill Gates’ remarks, the shoe is really on the other foot. Too many folks hold very warped ideas about commerce. They believe that it is producers who owe gratitude to society, the community, or customers for their wealth, whereas in fact it is clients and customers who owe gratitude to producers, creative geniuses, and the lot for making their talents and efforts available to the rest of us.
Just think—should it be the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Goethe, Picasso, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Rembrandt, Albert Einstein, Frank Lloyd Wright who owe thanks to us all? Are we not the beneficiaries of their brilliant work? According to all those who think Bill Gates owes gratitude to the community, that he needs to give back something to us all, these kinds of innovators and creators should be grateful for the favor we do them when we enjoy the benefits of their work. That is perverse!
Sadly, too many of us go about our lives taking for granted thousands of benefits we would not enjoy if these people didn’t put their minds to work and make available the results to us in the market place, by means of free trade. To then insist that, yes, they must “give back to the community,” even after having made all of this available to the community in the first place (in return for mostly modest prices), is terribly misguided and, I suggest, ungrateful to boot.
But I guess we live in a culture in which the entitlement mindset is running rampant, in which the bulk of the population holds that what creative, productive people make available to us is something they should have by some natural right! It is these creative, productive people who must bow their heads in shame for making a buck from their work, while the rest of us can demand their work and have them thank us for letting them do it.
It is, I am pretty sure, this kind of thinking that’s gradually undermining the original American dream, the one that attracted millions to these shores: Work hard, make your work available to the market, and you shall be rewarded!
It didn’t take libertarians or even Ayn Rand to put this idea in circulation—it was in the air from the beginning of the American experiment. But it is certainly having a hard time being taken seriously now, having been eroded by the welfare state mentality that is so widespread in our time.
Friday, June 23, 2006
True Liberal Democracy
Tibor R. Machan
When one objects to government’s meddling in people’s lives, often one gets the response that, after all, so long as government’s decisions are reached democratically, there’s nothing wrong with such meddling. This assumes that democracy is a benign way to arrive at policies that go contrary to what individuals want, even violate their unalienable rights. Why would such an assumption be accepted with little resistance?
One reason is that many people focus just on those democracies that occur in various voluntary associations—clubs, unions, corporations, and so forth. In such groups democracy functions well and is in fact unobjectionable because those taking part in the decision-making joined up voluntarily and have what economists call “the exit option.” You can leave the Rotary or Kiwanis Club, or an apartment house or gated community, if you really don’t like what the majority does. Your participation is up to you. So when this kind of group reaches decisions democratically, the decisions are accepted from the start—the rule is, “Anyone who joins us must accept how we reach decisions.”
Being a citizen of a country is both something similar and quite different. Most citizens do not join a country but are born into it, although quite a few do. So it is only just that the most minimal requirements are imposed on them. The American Founders spelled these out—respect the unalienable rights of all and that’s all you need to be a bona fide citizen of a free country. The only obligations you have are negative—do not violate other people’s rights.
Now this principle applies to everyone and so it also blocks democratic means for meddling with people who refuse to comply with the wishes of majorities. Freedom from coercion means also freedom from the coercion of the majority, not just a king or tsar or emperor. And this makes very good moral sense—why would it be OK for the majority to intrude on some when it is not OK for just one or a few to do so?
In recent mainstream public policy discussions these points have been raised in connection with the work of the journalist Fareed Zakaria, editor of the international edition of Newsweek, who wrote The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (2003). While Zakaria’s thesis isn’t so radical as that of the American Founders, he does make a very good case against bloated, unrestrained democracies. After all, Hitler’s reign came about democratically and look at Hamas, the extremist group which won the Palestinian Authority's general elections in January. Both of these are cases illustrating that mere democracy isn’t enough for a country to be governed justly.
But then how exactly should democracy function in a free country? As noted already, in voluntary groups, where members can join or leave of their own free will, democratic means can be nearly unlimited. (I recall once when I gave a talk at a Kiwanis Club, there was a ritual of the master of ceremonies arbitrarily fining people various sums of money. He was authorized to do this in the bylaws, of course, and no one objected.) But in a country which most people do not join but are born into, democracy must be limited to decisions about policies that do not involve the violation of our unalienable individual rights. Would this not make democracy completely ineffectual and moot?
No, because there are decisions to be reached democratically that have to do with the administration of a system of laws aimed to secure our basic rights—e.g., who will sit as a judge, who will build the court house, who will appoint the generals, etc., etc. These are decisions that intrude on no one’s rights—and there are many others. In general terms, selection of the administrators of a just system can occur democratically without the violation of anyone’s rights.
But this is a properly limited scope for democracy. This is the proper understanding of liberal democracy, as well. Such a regime operates without depriving people of their liberties, unlike the democratic procedures with which most of us are familiar these days. It is but a defensive system, never an aggressive one.
The revolutionary idea of the American Founders and those political theorist who taught them wasn’t just that monarchs may not violate our rights. It also applied to majorities. They, too, must respect our basic rights. That is what limited government means—limited to applying measures that are just and peaceful.
Tibor R. Machan
When one objects to government’s meddling in people’s lives, often one gets the response that, after all, so long as government’s decisions are reached democratically, there’s nothing wrong with such meddling. This assumes that democracy is a benign way to arrive at policies that go contrary to what individuals want, even violate their unalienable rights. Why would such an assumption be accepted with little resistance?
One reason is that many people focus just on those democracies that occur in various voluntary associations—clubs, unions, corporations, and so forth. In such groups democracy functions well and is in fact unobjectionable because those taking part in the decision-making joined up voluntarily and have what economists call “the exit option.” You can leave the Rotary or Kiwanis Club, or an apartment house or gated community, if you really don’t like what the majority does. Your participation is up to you. So when this kind of group reaches decisions democratically, the decisions are accepted from the start—the rule is, “Anyone who joins us must accept how we reach decisions.”
Being a citizen of a country is both something similar and quite different. Most citizens do not join a country but are born into it, although quite a few do. So it is only just that the most minimal requirements are imposed on them. The American Founders spelled these out—respect the unalienable rights of all and that’s all you need to be a bona fide citizen of a free country. The only obligations you have are negative—do not violate other people’s rights.
Now this principle applies to everyone and so it also blocks democratic means for meddling with people who refuse to comply with the wishes of majorities. Freedom from coercion means also freedom from the coercion of the majority, not just a king or tsar or emperor. And this makes very good moral sense—why would it be OK for the majority to intrude on some when it is not OK for just one or a few to do so?
In recent mainstream public policy discussions these points have been raised in connection with the work of the journalist Fareed Zakaria, editor of the international edition of Newsweek, who wrote The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (2003). While Zakaria’s thesis isn’t so radical as that of the American Founders, he does make a very good case against bloated, unrestrained democracies. After all, Hitler’s reign came about democratically and look at Hamas, the extremist group which won the Palestinian Authority's general elections in January. Both of these are cases illustrating that mere democracy isn’t enough for a country to be governed justly.
But then how exactly should democracy function in a free country? As noted already, in voluntary groups, where members can join or leave of their own free will, democratic means can be nearly unlimited. (I recall once when I gave a talk at a Kiwanis Club, there was a ritual of the master of ceremonies arbitrarily fining people various sums of money. He was authorized to do this in the bylaws, of course, and no one objected.) But in a country which most people do not join but are born into, democracy must be limited to decisions about policies that do not involve the violation of our unalienable individual rights. Would this not make democracy completely ineffectual and moot?
No, because there are decisions to be reached democratically that have to do with the administration of a system of laws aimed to secure our basic rights—e.g., who will sit as a judge, who will build the court house, who will appoint the generals, etc., etc. These are decisions that intrude on no one’s rights—and there are many others. In general terms, selection of the administrators of a just system can occur democratically without the violation of anyone’s rights.
But this is a properly limited scope for democracy. This is the proper understanding of liberal democracy, as well. Such a regime operates without depriving people of their liberties, unlike the democratic procedures with which most of us are familiar these days. It is but a defensive system, never an aggressive one.
The revolutionary idea of the American Founders and those political theorist who taught them wasn’t just that monarchs may not violate our rights. It also applied to majorities. They, too, must respect our basic rights. That is what limited government means—limited to applying measures that are just and peaceful.
True Liberal Democracy
Tibor R. Machan
When one objects to government’s meddling in people’s lives, often one gets the response that, after all, so long as government’s decisions are reached democratically, there’s nothing wrong with such meddling. This assumes that democracy is a benign way to arrive at policies that go contrary to what individuals want, even violate their unalienable rights. Why would such an assumption be accepted with little resistance?
One reason is that many people focus just on those democracies that occur in various voluntary associations—clubs, unions, corporations, and so forth. In such groups democracy functions well and is in fact unobjectionable because those taking part in the decision-making joined up voluntarily and have what economists call “the exit option.” You can leave the Rotary or Kiwanis Club, or an apartment house or gated community, if you really don’t like what the majority does. Your participation is up to you. So when this kind of group reaches decisions democratically, the decisions are accepted from the start—the rule is, “Anyone who joins us must accept how we reach decisions.”
Being a citizen of a country is both something similar and quite different. Most citizens do not join a country but are born into it, although quite a few do. So it is only just that the most minimal requirements are imposed on them. The American Founders spelled these out—respect the unalienable rights of all and that’s all you need to be a bona fide citizen of a free country. The only obligations you have are negative—do not violate other people’s rights.
Now this principle applies to everyone and so it also blocks democratic means for meddling with people who refuse to comply with the wishes of majorities. Freedom from coercion means also freedom from the coercion of the majority, not just a king or tsar or emperor. And this makes very good moral sense—why would it be OK for the majority to intrude on some when it is not OK for just one or a few to do so?
In recent mainstream public policy discussions these points have been raised in connection with the work of the journalist Fareed Zakaria, editor of the international edition of Newsweek, who wrote The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (2003). While Zakaria’s thesis isn’t so radical as that of the American Founders, he does make a very good case against bloated, unrestrained democracies. After all, Hitler’s reign came about democratically and look at Hamas, the extremist group which won the Palestinian Authority's general elections in January. Both of these are cases illustrating that mere democracy isn’t enough for a country to be governed justly.
But then how exactly should democracy function in a free country? As noted already, in voluntary groups, where members can join or leave of their own free will, democratic means can be nearly unlimited. (I recall once when I gave a talk at a Kiwanis Club, there was a ritual of the master of ceremonies arbitrarily fining people various sums of money. He was authorized to do this in the bylaws, of course, and no one objected.) But in a country which most people do not join but are born into, democracy must be limited to decisions about policies that do not involve the violation of our unalienable individual rights. Would this not make democracy completely ineffectual and moot?
No, because there are decisions to be reached democratically that have to do with the administration of a system of laws aimed to secure our basic rights—e.g., who will sit as a judge, who will build the court house, who will appoint the generals, etc., etc. These are decisions that intrude on no one’s rights—and there are many others. In general terms, selection of the administrators of a just system can occur democratically without the violation of anyone’s rights.
But this is a properly limited scope for democracy. This is the proper understanding of liberal democracy, as well. Such a regime operates without depriving people of their liberties, unlike the democratic procedures with which most of us are familiar these days. It is but a defensive system, never an aggressive one.
The revolutionary idea of the American Founders and those political theorist who taught them wasn’t just that monarchs may not violate our rights. It also applied to majorities. They, too, must respect our basic rights. That is what limited government means—limited to applying measures that are just and peaceful.
Tibor R. Machan
When one objects to government’s meddling in people’s lives, often one gets the response that, after all, so long as government’s decisions are reached democratically, there’s nothing wrong with such meddling. This assumes that democracy is a benign way to arrive at policies that go contrary to what individuals want, even violate their unalienable rights. Why would such an assumption be accepted with little resistance?
One reason is that many people focus just on those democracies that occur in various voluntary associations—clubs, unions, corporations, and so forth. In such groups democracy functions well and is in fact unobjectionable because those taking part in the decision-making joined up voluntarily and have what economists call “the exit option.” You can leave the Rotary or Kiwanis Club, or an apartment house or gated community, if you really don’t like what the majority does. Your participation is up to you. So when this kind of group reaches decisions democratically, the decisions are accepted from the start—the rule is, “Anyone who joins us must accept how we reach decisions.”
Being a citizen of a country is both something similar and quite different. Most citizens do not join a country but are born into it, although quite a few do. So it is only just that the most minimal requirements are imposed on them. The American Founders spelled these out—respect the unalienable rights of all and that’s all you need to be a bona fide citizen of a free country. The only obligations you have are negative—do not violate other people’s rights.
Now this principle applies to everyone and so it also blocks democratic means for meddling with people who refuse to comply with the wishes of majorities. Freedom from coercion means also freedom from the coercion of the majority, not just a king or tsar or emperor. And this makes very good moral sense—why would it be OK for the majority to intrude on some when it is not OK for just one or a few to do so?
In recent mainstream public policy discussions these points have been raised in connection with the work of the journalist Fareed Zakaria, editor of the international edition of Newsweek, who wrote The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (2003). While Zakaria’s thesis isn’t so radical as that of the American Founders, he does make a very good case against bloated, unrestrained democracies. After all, Hitler’s reign came about democratically and look at Hamas, the extremist group which won the Palestinian Authority's general elections in January. Both of these are cases illustrating that mere democracy isn’t enough for a country to be governed justly.
But then how exactly should democracy function in a free country? As noted already, in voluntary groups, where members can join or leave of their own free will, democratic means can be nearly unlimited. (I recall once when I gave a talk at a Kiwanis Club, there was a ritual of the master of ceremonies arbitrarily fining people various sums of money. He was authorized to do this in the bylaws, of course, and no one objected.) But in a country which most people do not join but are born into, democracy must be limited to decisions about policies that do not involve the violation of our unalienable individual rights. Would this not make democracy completely ineffectual and moot?
No, because there are decisions to be reached democratically that have to do with the administration of a system of laws aimed to secure our basic rights—e.g., who will sit as a judge, who will build the court house, who will appoint the generals, etc., etc. These are decisions that intrude on no one’s rights—and there are many others. In general terms, selection of the administrators of a just system can occur democratically without the violation of anyone’s rights.
But this is a properly limited scope for democracy. This is the proper understanding of liberal democracy, as well. Such a regime operates without depriving people of their liberties, unlike the democratic procedures with which most of us are familiar these days. It is but a defensive system, never an aggressive one.
The revolutionary idea of the American Founders and those political theorist who taught them wasn’t just that monarchs may not violate our rights. It also applied to majorities. They, too, must respect our basic rights. That is what limited government means—limited to applying measures that are just and peaceful.
Another Blunder at “Public” Schools
Tibor R. Machan
The Miami Herald reported the other day that “A parent's challenge to a book about Cuba resulted in the Miami-Dade School Board voting to ban it—along with 23 other books in the series, even though no one objected to them.” This action then prompted the ACLU to sue, demanding that the books be put back on the shelves.
This is another wonderful—or, actually, horrible—case where the true culprit is not being identified in the major media or even by the interested parties. The most prominent conservative commentator on the air, Rush Limbaugh, also managed to miss the point completely, offering, instead, his rant against the book in question that depicted Cuba glowingly.
Yes, one can appreciate it when a parent is outraged who grew up in a Communist or Nazi country and sees his or her child exposed to “education” that ignores the vile aspects of those systems. It’s like putting books in children’s hands that show only the wonderful German Autobahn as Hitler’s legacy. Yet, in a free country there is nothing a government should do about such misuses of the right to free expression. The protestations must be left to private parties.
Trouble is, of course, that when it comes to elementary, secondary, and even much of higher education, the United States of America is not a free country. The bulk of these institutions are run by—and paid out of taxes extorted from us—by governments. As such, education in the U. S. A. is effectively nationalized, a part of the public sector.
And here then comes to ACLU! They know that when it comes to the public sector, playing favorite with those who hate Cuba is technically illegal. (Let’s face it, the ACLU also defended the Nazis when they wanted to march on public roads in Skokie, Illinois, some decades ago!) So, what’s the solution?
Abolish government education, that’s what. Education ought to be approached the very same way religion is in this country, in any free country, in fact. There should be a powerful wall of separation between state and education. Once education is fully privatized, whether one school or another will have favorable or critical books about Cuba or the Third Reich or North Korea in its libraries will be up to those who own the school and those who are considering sending their children there. The ACLU will have no role in the matter whatsoever. Nor will some politicized bureaucracy, such as the state, county, or city school board.
Until this state of affairs is realized, there will forever be protracted squabbles about whether to have this or that kind of fiction, poetry, or non-fiction in the libraries and curricula of public schools. Citizens with different political ideas and ideals, different commitments, dreams, hopes and such, will fight others about what books children should be reading.
A privatized system avoids this kind of ugly mess. There is no public education to control, for any faction of the citizenry which members of other factions can then resist since they, too, are made to pay for it all.
Unfortunately, as with so many other matters in most societies, at this stage of the discussion defenders of government control of education bring up the supposedly sad state of the poor who, they alleged, will be left uneducated in a fully free country. This is bunk, no different from a claim that without government shoe stores, the poor will have no shoes—or any other goods and services traded in the mostly free market place in many societies.
But never mind that for now. The main point here is that if the likes of Rush Limbaugh or the ACLU have problem with what kinds of readings children must do in schools, they ought to consider, very seriously indeed, the privatization of all of education. There is no better solution to their problem.
Tibor R. Machan
The Miami Herald reported the other day that “A parent's challenge to a book about Cuba resulted in the Miami-Dade School Board voting to ban it—along with 23 other books in the series, even though no one objected to them.” This action then prompted the ACLU to sue, demanding that the books be put back on the shelves.
This is another wonderful—or, actually, horrible—case where the true culprit is not being identified in the major media or even by the interested parties. The most prominent conservative commentator on the air, Rush Limbaugh, also managed to miss the point completely, offering, instead, his rant against the book in question that depicted Cuba glowingly.
Yes, one can appreciate it when a parent is outraged who grew up in a Communist or Nazi country and sees his or her child exposed to “education” that ignores the vile aspects of those systems. It’s like putting books in children’s hands that show only the wonderful German Autobahn as Hitler’s legacy. Yet, in a free country there is nothing a government should do about such misuses of the right to free expression. The protestations must be left to private parties.
Trouble is, of course, that when it comes to elementary, secondary, and even much of higher education, the United States of America is not a free country. The bulk of these institutions are run by—and paid out of taxes extorted from us—by governments. As such, education in the U. S. A. is effectively nationalized, a part of the public sector.
And here then comes to ACLU! They know that when it comes to the public sector, playing favorite with those who hate Cuba is technically illegal. (Let’s face it, the ACLU also defended the Nazis when they wanted to march on public roads in Skokie, Illinois, some decades ago!) So, what’s the solution?
Abolish government education, that’s what. Education ought to be approached the very same way religion is in this country, in any free country, in fact. There should be a powerful wall of separation between state and education. Once education is fully privatized, whether one school or another will have favorable or critical books about Cuba or the Third Reich or North Korea in its libraries will be up to those who own the school and those who are considering sending their children there. The ACLU will have no role in the matter whatsoever. Nor will some politicized bureaucracy, such as the state, county, or city school board.
Until this state of affairs is realized, there will forever be protracted squabbles about whether to have this or that kind of fiction, poetry, or non-fiction in the libraries and curricula of public schools. Citizens with different political ideas and ideals, different commitments, dreams, hopes and such, will fight others about what books children should be reading.
A privatized system avoids this kind of ugly mess. There is no public education to control, for any faction of the citizenry which members of other factions can then resist since they, too, are made to pay for it all.
Unfortunately, as with so many other matters in most societies, at this stage of the discussion defenders of government control of education bring up the supposedly sad state of the poor who, they alleged, will be left uneducated in a fully free country. This is bunk, no different from a claim that without government shoe stores, the poor will have no shoes—or any other goods and services traded in the mostly free market place in many societies.
But never mind that for now. The main point here is that if the likes of Rush Limbaugh or the ACLU have problem with what kinds of readings children must do in schools, they ought to consider, very seriously indeed, the privatization of all of education. There is no better solution to their problem.
Family Leave Expanded in Massachusetts
Tibor R. Machan
TIME leads off its June 26, 2006, central story as follows: “Every new parent knows that having~a baby means weeks without sleep. Should it also mean weeks without a paycheck?” The suggestion is that TIME is in favor of forcing companies pay families whose members cannot show up for work, or at least considers it a palatable development in public affairs. Rush Limbaugh spent some time with the item one days but he missed the major problem.
It is well known that one of the serious impediments to entrepreneurship throughout Europe is that companies are bound by labor laws to provide employees with nearly cradle to grave security. In consequence of this, these countries are experiencing slow growth and minimal start-ups in business. No wonder. If by law, not by freely formed employment agreement (that could contain some kind of mutually accepted exit option and heed market conditions), employees must provide innumerable benefits to employees, those thinking of starting a business will hesitate and often desist. Their investment will have to be calculated accordingly and will turn out to be far greater than market conditions may justify. Ergo, no business. Ergo, no employment. Which accounts for double digit unemployment figures in France, German, Spain, and elsewhere.
In the quasi-free market, capitalist U. S. A., in contrast, there are no federal laws mandating the provision of extensive benefits to employees, at least not yet. The Massachusetts legislature will not rest easy with this and is, accordingly, mimicking the German labor laws.
Of course, this will appear to be all so “generous” (with others’ resources) to those who will take advantage of the extended family leave. However, such coercive imposition of benefits ignores market conditions and therefore isn’t likely to be economically sound.
It seems like the legislators in Massachusetts and others who are pushing for these sort of Draconian labor regulations have not learned anything from the collapse of Soviet socialism. The entire Soviet bloc was rife with these kinds of laws—many people in those societies destroyed by such laws still pine after them nostalgically, unaware or forgetful of the damage such a system did to millions of people. The dream of guaranteed welfare provisions, put on the backs of people in the business world, can appear to be very cool until one tries to live them for a while. Then shortages, low wages, unemployment, lousy services, and mounting abuse finally calls attention to how terrible it is to be guided by such dreams.
A country that leaves business to fend for itself—i.e., no subsidies but also no mandated benefits to employees—may not appear to be sweet and lovely until one checks out its history, its employment market, its overall productivity. There cannot be too many false promises in such a country. Thus many shortsighted folks will find it wanting: “I might lose my job,” “I may have to wait with having kids until I can really afford having them,” or “My family will have to save up for children and the care they require and not be able, legally, to dump the cost on others.” Yes, all this sounds awful.
Except that it is a far more realistic, and ultimately successful, approach to the employment situation. Massachusetts's politicians, of course, have been bathing in this dream world, what with Edward Kennedy & Co. in leadership positions there and the Boston university community awash with promoters of socialist public policies and methods.
Yet there is a chink in their armor, even apart from how bad their ideas are for the economy and from their very own point of view. These very same folks who dream of a socialist paradise here on earth are also strong advocates of population control and environmental precaution. Well, here is the news: promoting extended family leave and other mandated family benefits which help people avoid coming to grips with the full cost of parenthood is just the sort of policy that will increase child bearing. That, in turn, will be added burden to the environment, as well as to the public school system and all sort of related facilities the same parents who expect a free ride in these areas will expect in other areas of their lives.
At that point, look out. The prospects for a Soviet style meltdown will be approaching. In contrast to the anxieties associated with the free market capitalist system, that meltdown will be a true disaster all around.
Tibor R. Machan
TIME leads off its June 26, 2006, central story as follows: “Every new parent knows that having~a baby means weeks without sleep. Should it also mean weeks without a paycheck?” The suggestion is that TIME is in favor of forcing companies pay families whose members cannot show up for work, or at least considers it a palatable development in public affairs. Rush Limbaugh spent some time with the item one days but he missed the major problem.
It is well known that one of the serious impediments to entrepreneurship throughout Europe is that companies are bound by labor laws to provide employees with nearly cradle to grave security. In consequence of this, these countries are experiencing slow growth and minimal start-ups in business. No wonder. If by law, not by freely formed employment agreement (that could contain some kind of mutually accepted exit option and heed market conditions), employees must provide innumerable benefits to employees, those thinking of starting a business will hesitate and often desist. Their investment will have to be calculated accordingly and will turn out to be far greater than market conditions may justify. Ergo, no business. Ergo, no employment. Which accounts for double digit unemployment figures in France, German, Spain, and elsewhere.
In the quasi-free market, capitalist U. S. A., in contrast, there are no federal laws mandating the provision of extensive benefits to employees, at least not yet. The Massachusetts legislature will not rest easy with this and is, accordingly, mimicking the German labor laws.
Of course, this will appear to be all so “generous” (with others’ resources) to those who will take advantage of the extended family leave. However, such coercive imposition of benefits ignores market conditions and therefore isn’t likely to be economically sound.
It seems like the legislators in Massachusetts and others who are pushing for these sort of Draconian labor regulations have not learned anything from the collapse of Soviet socialism. The entire Soviet bloc was rife with these kinds of laws—many people in those societies destroyed by such laws still pine after them nostalgically, unaware or forgetful of the damage such a system did to millions of people. The dream of guaranteed welfare provisions, put on the backs of people in the business world, can appear to be very cool until one tries to live them for a while. Then shortages, low wages, unemployment, lousy services, and mounting abuse finally calls attention to how terrible it is to be guided by such dreams.
A country that leaves business to fend for itself—i.e., no subsidies but also no mandated benefits to employees—may not appear to be sweet and lovely until one checks out its history, its employment market, its overall productivity. There cannot be too many false promises in such a country. Thus many shortsighted folks will find it wanting: “I might lose my job,” “I may have to wait with having kids until I can really afford having them,” or “My family will have to save up for children and the care they require and not be able, legally, to dump the cost on others.” Yes, all this sounds awful.
Except that it is a far more realistic, and ultimately successful, approach to the employment situation. Massachusetts's politicians, of course, have been bathing in this dream world, what with Edward Kennedy & Co. in leadership positions there and the Boston university community awash with promoters of socialist public policies and methods.
Yet there is a chink in their armor, even apart from how bad their ideas are for the economy and from their very own point of view. These very same folks who dream of a socialist paradise here on earth are also strong advocates of population control and environmental precaution. Well, here is the news: promoting extended family leave and other mandated family benefits which help people avoid coming to grips with the full cost of parenthood is just the sort of policy that will increase child bearing. That, in turn, will be added burden to the environment, as well as to the public school system and all sort of related facilities the same parents who expect a free ride in these areas will expect in other areas of their lives.
At that point, look out. The prospects for a Soviet style meltdown will be approaching. In contrast to the anxieties associated with the free market capitalist system, that meltdown will be a true disaster all around.
Are We Making Progress?
Tibor R. Machan
Of all the studies that make the news, I’d like to read of one that measures whether there has been significant progress toward the free society. Yes, there are records kept on which country is more free (in the relevant sense, roughly, of enjoying respect for and protection of individual rights in the Lockean tradition, the tradition that spawned the Declaration of Independence). This includes elements of a legal infrastructure emphasizing due process, civil liberties, private property rights, freedom to enter and exist contracts, etc., and so forth.
Yet my own curiosity here focuses on the relative progress of classical liberal, libertarian ideas vis-Ã -vis all the varieties of statism that are being promulgated. Even though I’ve been focusing on the respective merits of the free society vis-Ã -vis more or less statists ones since 1961—when I started to read philosophy and then discovered Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, et al. (oddly, via first becoming aware of William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review), I have never managed to get a confident grasp of whether the movement is gaining ground on its opponents.
When I started into this movement, there had been the Foundation for Economic Education, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, and a few other more or less consistent think tanks and advocacy organizations working on various aspects and problems of the free society. In time the Institute for Humane Studies, the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Mises Institute, the Independent Institute, The Pacific Research Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Institute for Justice, the Heartland Institute, the International Society for Individual Liberty, Free Market News Network, and similar organizations (many with prominent web presence now) emerged so that today there are umpteen such outfits publishing books, journals, magazines, and pamphlets, producing Webcasts, organizing conferences and seminars, and generally making a very decent effort at getting competent, erudite, and civil presentations of the case for liberty within not just American but what may roughly be called Western culture and beyond. (There are free market think tanks in the UK, Hungary, Rumania, the Czech Republic, Poland, as well as Pakistan, Nigeria, India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and many other places. And I was recently contacted by someone from China who is starting such an institute!)
OK, but when compared to what statists are doing, is this anywhere sufficient to advance the cause of liberty? Is it only that the pie of intellectual activism is growing, with everyone having pretty much the same percentage of a slice of it as forty years ago or is the percentage of the slice with libertarian content growing compared to the rest?
I cannot begin to answer this question, although here and there some hopeful signs are in evidence. Take the growth of the media company for which I work half time, Freedom Communications, Inc., of Irvine, CA. It’s flagship newspaper, The Orange County Register, is in excellent shape, having managed to fend off numerous attempts by The Los Angeles Times to obliterate it. The company has some 30 daily papers across the country, as well as another 25 or so weeklies, some of them published in Spanish. The organization has grown but what about others pushing for the opposite trend, for expanding the entitlement or welfare state?
Not that my own vigilance would diminish at all were I to learn that the movement toward a fully free society is lagging or flourishing big time. Still, with the prospect for the latter improving, I would certainly be more hopeful about what kind of lives my own children will have, and the children of my friends, and, indeed, the children of millions and millions. So the issue is certainly not merely academic.
Yes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance but it is not unreasonable to hope for some genuine progress, to see some fruit to one’s labors. I think most of those who have devoted much of their energy to studying and defending the free society, in various areas of specialty or in the most general terms, would wish to know just how the movement is faring. I am sure those who are championing opposite ideas and ideals would also like to know how well they are doing in the war of ideas. I do know that some have reached great influence, for example, with the United Nations, The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and similar outfits. And they have no compunction about utilizing money extorted from the rest of us to promote their agenda. (Is that a great advantage they enjoy? Or is it, like most matters touched by the state, actually a liability?)
Maybe someday there will be a graduate student in political economy or some related discipline who will shed some light on this concern of mine. Maybe someone has already but I’ve missed it.
Tibor R. Machan
Of all the studies that make the news, I’d like to read of one that measures whether there has been significant progress toward the free society. Yes, there are records kept on which country is more free (in the relevant sense, roughly, of enjoying respect for and protection of individual rights in the Lockean tradition, the tradition that spawned the Declaration of Independence). This includes elements of a legal infrastructure emphasizing due process, civil liberties, private property rights, freedom to enter and exist contracts, etc., and so forth.
Yet my own curiosity here focuses on the relative progress of classical liberal, libertarian ideas vis-Ã -vis all the varieties of statism that are being promulgated. Even though I’ve been focusing on the respective merits of the free society vis-Ã -vis more or less statists ones since 1961—when I started to read philosophy and then discovered Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, et al. (oddly, via first becoming aware of William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review), I have never managed to get a confident grasp of whether the movement is gaining ground on its opponents.
When I started into this movement, there had been the Foundation for Economic Education, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, and a few other more or less consistent think tanks and advocacy organizations working on various aspects and problems of the free society. In time the Institute for Humane Studies, the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Mises Institute, the Independent Institute, The Pacific Research Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Institute for Justice, the Heartland Institute, the International Society for Individual Liberty, Free Market News Network, and similar organizations (many with prominent web presence now) emerged so that today there are umpteen such outfits publishing books, journals, magazines, and pamphlets, producing Webcasts, organizing conferences and seminars, and generally making a very decent effort at getting competent, erudite, and civil presentations of the case for liberty within not just American but what may roughly be called Western culture and beyond. (There are free market think tanks in the UK, Hungary, Rumania, the Czech Republic, Poland, as well as Pakistan, Nigeria, India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and many other places. And I was recently contacted by someone from China who is starting such an institute!)
OK, but when compared to what statists are doing, is this anywhere sufficient to advance the cause of liberty? Is it only that the pie of intellectual activism is growing, with everyone having pretty much the same percentage of a slice of it as forty years ago or is the percentage of the slice with libertarian content growing compared to the rest?
I cannot begin to answer this question, although here and there some hopeful signs are in evidence. Take the growth of the media company for which I work half time, Freedom Communications, Inc., of Irvine, CA. It’s flagship newspaper, The Orange County Register, is in excellent shape, having managed to fend off numerous attempts by The Los Angeles Times to obliterate it. The company has some 30 daily papers across the country, as well as another 25 or so weeklies, some of them published in Spanish. The organization has grown but what about others pushing for the opposite trend, for expanding the entitlement or welfare state?
Not that my own vigilance would diminish at all were I to learn that the movement toward a fully free society is lagging or flourishing big time. Still, with the prospect for the latter improving, I would certainly be more hopeful about what kind of lives my own children will have, and the children of my friends, and, indeed, the children of millions and millions. So the issue is certainly not merely academic.
Yes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance but it is not unreasonable to hope for some genuine progress, to see some fruit to one’s labors. I think most of those who have devoted much of their energy to studying and defending the free society, in various areas of specialty or in the most general terms, would wish to know just how the movement is faring. I am sure those who are championing opposite ideas and ideals would also like to know how well they are doing in the war of ideas. I do know that some have reached great influence, for example, with the United Nations, The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and similar outfits. And they have no compunction about utilizing money extorted from the rest of us to promote their agenda. (Is that a great advantage they enjoy? Or is it, like most matters touched by the state, actually a liability?)
Maybe someday there will be a graduate student in political economy or some related discipline who will shed some light on this concern of mine. Maybe someone has already but I’ve missed it.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Coercion Addiction
Tibor R. Machan
In a recently published missive I had expressed skepticism about Al Gore’s story of global warming and climate change. So not surprising I received some harsh rebukes for this.
I am not a trained climatologist and so I rely in my understanding on those who make themselves clear to me and also embrace certain principles as they propose solutions to problems they identify. Now this means, very briefly, that the sort of call to arms found in Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” and similar offerings is unacceptable.
As an example of his predilection to go to government for solutions, Al Gore is most upset with George Bush for refusing to increase government regulation of whatever has an impact on the environment. Gore’s solutions, in other words, are exclusively coercive—give more power to the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency (under his leadership, of course) and we will then be on our way to solving the problems he and his team of experts have identified.
What Gore & Co., ignore is not environmental but economic science and sound principles of political economy. Economist have successfully shown the inefficiency of government intervention for purposes of solving nearly any problem at all. For his work on this issue, James Buchanan received the Nobel Prize in 1986. He developed “public choice theory,” a set of principles he and his colleague Gordon Tullock laid out in their book, Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (University of Michigan Press, 1962). It shows beyond any reasonable doubt—certainly less doubt than what Al Gore gives us—that when one entrusts problem-solving to government agents, one can expect that there will be mismanagement because bureaucrats promote their own vested interest and agendas when they hold their positions, not the so called “public interest.” (Part of the problem is that in most cases what some group labels “the public interest” is actually the private or vested interest of that very group. Yes, even scientists working for government exhibit this behavior pattern—they are very interested in garnering government grants and subsidies whether the work these support has anything at all to do with the welfare of the citizenry.)
OK, now it follows from this that whatever problem is at issue, calling upon governments to solve it is very risky if not outright delusional. My own skepticism about Al Gore & Co. isn’t so much about the diagnosis but the cure, although even the diagnosis shows plenty of evidence of special pleading. (Nearly all the predictions are put in terms of what “may” happen, not what will.)
But most of all what is of very serious concern is how readily the likes of Al Gore will toss aside considerations of due process and civil liberties, not to mention private property rights, just so as to implement what they call “precautionary” policies, ones that do as much damage to the principles of a free society as any part of the Patriot Act. In another words, Al Gore & Co., are—and pardon my derivative language here—addicted to government.
Now there are those who will cavalierly dismiss my concerns as right wing, oil-interest-driven ideology that simply blinds the likes of me to what is imperative for humanity’s survival and welfare. Au contraire!
It is, instead, the folks lined up with Al Gore who show an unwavering, dogmatic commitment to handling all problems by means of coercion, the governmental way. (There is a wonderful book about this, Jonathan R. T. Hughes’ The governmental habit: Economic Controls from Colonial times to the Present [Basic Books, 1977; republished by Princeton University Press, 1991].) To test whether I am right about this, just ask anyone who joins Gore & Co., what their solutions involve. They involve state imposed restrictions, higher taxation, an environmental disaster czar, and similar measures that are not becoming of a free society but of a top down tyranny.
Until and unless those showing great concern for the environment demonstrate that they understand the public choice problems of reliance on government and they respect the rights of individual human beings as they approach the problem, they do not deserve respect. Some of what they produce may be diagnostically sound but as to their cure, forget about it.
--------------------
Machan is the R. C. Hoiles Professor of Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University's Argyros School of B&E and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, CA. He wrote Putting Humans First, Why We Are Nature’s Favorite (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).
Tibor R. Machan
In a recently published missive I had expressed skepticism about Al Gore’s story of global warming and climate change. So not surprising I received some harsh rebukes for this.
I am not a trained climatologist and so I rely in my understanding on those who make themselves clear to me and also embrace certain principles as they propose solutions to problems they identify. Now this means, very briefly, that the sort of call to arms found in Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” and similar offerings is unacceptable.
As an example of his predilection to go to government for solutions, Al Gore is most upset with George Bush for refusing to increase government regulation of whatever has an impact on the environment. Gore’s solutions, in other words, are exclusively coercive—give more power to the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency (under his leadership, of course) and we will then be on our way to solving the problems he and his team of experts have identified.
What Gore & Co., ignore is not environmental but economic science and sound principles of political economy. Economist have successfully shown the inefficiency of government intervention for purposes of solving nearly any problem at all. For his work on this issue, James Buchanan received the Nobel Prize in 1986. He developed “public choice theory,” a set of principles he and his colleague Gordon Tullock laid out in their book, Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (University of Michigan Press, 1962). It shows beyond any reasonable doubt—certainly less doubt than what Al Gore gives us—that when one entrusts problem-solving to government agents, one can expect that there will be mismanagement because bureaucrats promote their own vested interest and agendas when they hold their positions, not the so called “public interest.” (Part of the problem is that in most cases what some group labels “the public interest” is actually the private or vested interest of that very group. Yes, even scientists working for government exhibit this behavior pattern—they are very interested in garnering government grants and subsidies whether the work these support has anything at all to do with the welfare of the citizenry.)
OK, now it follows from this that whatever problem is at issue, calling upon governments to solve it is very risky if not outright delusional. My own skepticism about Al Gore & Co. isn’t so much about the diagnosis but the cure, although even the diagnosis shows plenty of evidence of special pleading. (Nearly all the predictions are put in terms of what “may” happen, not what will.)
But most of all what is of very serious concern is how readily the likes of Al Gore will toss aside considerations of due process and civil liberties, not to mention private property rights, just so as to implement what they call “precautionary” policies, ones that do as much damage to the principles of a free society as any part of the Patriot Act. In another words, Al Gore & Co., are—and pardon my derivative language here—addicted to government.
Now there are those who will cavalierly dismiss my concerns as right wing, oil-interest-driven ideology that simply blinds the likes of me to what is imperative for humanity’s survival and welfare. Au contraire!
It is, instead, the folks lined up with Al Gore who show an unwavering, dogmatic commitment to handling all problems by means of coercion, the governmental way. (There is a wonderful book about this, Jonathan R. T. Hughes’ The governmental habit: Economic Controls from Colonial times to the Present [Basic Books, 1977; republished by Princeton University Press, 1991].) To test whether I am right about this, just ask anyone who joins Gore & Co., what their solutions involve. They involve state imposed restrictions, higher taxation, an environmental disaster czar, and similar measures that are not becoming of a free society but of a top down tyranny.
Until and unless those showing great concern for the environment demonstrate that they understand the public choice problems of reliance on government and they respect the rights of individual human beings as they approach the problem, they do not deserve respect. Some of what they produce may be diagnostically sound but as to their cure, forget about it.
--------------------
Machan is the R. C. Hoiles Professor of Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University's Argyros School of B&E and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, CA. He wrote Putting Humans First, Why We Are Nature’s Favorite (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Iraqi War Blues
Tibor R. Machan
It is blues because it’s such a torment—to most Americans, to those who have died—and to a lot of families who have lost members—in this war, and to the supporters because they can’t advance a convincing reason to stay the course.
President George W. Bush may have wanted to hit Iraq even before 9/11 and his reason may well have been that he thought Saddam Hussein did hide some weapons of mass destruction. I have no idea whether Bush was honest but even if he was, it’s no excuse because believing that WMDs were hidden in Iraq doesn’t appear to have been justified. Believing something that’s unjustified to believe doesn’t count as a reason for acting on the belief. Say you irrationally believe your spouse is cheating on you and so you decided to meet out punishment. It’s no excuse to say, “But I believed you were cheating on me” even if you did but in fact had no reason to.
Did Bush have good reasons, compelling ones, to think Iraq had WMDs? There seems to be no support for this view anywhere now. So then attacking Iraq, while not anything most reasonable people could be too upset about so far as Saddam Hussein is concerned, doesn’t appear to have been justified.
How does this bear on the current debate as to whether the war in Iraq is “a war of choice”? Yes, this seems to be a big deal now—was the war necessary or did Bush decide to wage it as a matter of preference, something he didn’t need to do?
Some—for example Republican pundit Morton Kondracke of weekend TV news program “The Beltway Boys”—think since Bush believed there were WMDs in Iraq, the war was not one of choice but of necessity. But this is the kind of justification I sketched above for punishing one’s spouse because one honestly but irrationally thinks one has been betrayed. Even if Bush honestly thought Iraq had WMDs, if that belief was ill founded, as it evidently was, the war could be considered a war of choice. There was no objective necessity for it.
Mind you, most of Bush’s critics from among the liberal Democrats have no good case against him either. They haven’t ever objected to preemptive public policies that intrude on innocent people, let alone those under serious if mistaken suspicion. Just consider as a perfect current example how eagerly former VP Al Gore is urging his various precautionary measures—ones that would intrude on millions of us without any regard for civil liberties and due process—because he feels there are big risks we face from environmental hazards (global warming, climate change, what have you). Gore and his supporters who complain about Bush’s preemptive war policies because they were preemptive are hypocrites.
Only those who consistently uphold what we might dub the George Washington doctrine about getting America militarily entangled have a case against Bush & Co. These folks believe that free countries may only go to war when there is a justified and dependable belief that the country is under attack or about to be attacked. The emphasis here is on justified and dependable. Forcibly intervening in other people’s lives is only justifiable when these other people are mounting or about to mount an attack. A war is just, in other words, only when it is defensive.
George W. Bush’s war against Iraq was never defensive, not because he may not have believed the country needs defending from WMDs but because his and his administration’s beliefs about Iraq’s WMDs were unjustified, ill founded. Nothing in the meantime, since the war commenced, has changed this fact. Not that there was nothing at all murky about Saddam Hussein and WMDs. Yes there was, what with all that hide and seek involving the United Nations’ team of inspectors. But war is too big a deal, military and indeed any other kind of aggression is too big a deal, to start in a murky situation.
Bush, of course, is no consistent follower of the George Washington doctrine. Nor are most of his liberal Democratic critics. So their quarrel about the war in Iraq is mostly incoherent. The only part that has some bona fide relevance concerns the issue of how long to keep American troops in Iraq now that the American military is there.
Tibor R. Machan
It is blues because it’s such a torment—to most Americans, to those who have died—and to a lot of families who have lost members—in this war, and to the supporters because they can’t advance a convincing reason to stay the course.
President George W. Bush may have wanted to hit Iraq even before 9/11 and his reason may well have been that he thought Saddam Hussein did hide some weapons of mass destruction. I have no idea whether Bush was honest but even if he was, it’s no excuse because believing that WMDs were hidden in Iraq doesn’t appear to have been justified. Believing something that’s unjustified to believe doesn’t count as a reason for acting on the belief. Say you irrationally believe your spouse is cheating on you and so you decided to meet out punishment. It’s no excuse to say, “But I believed you were cheating on me” even if you did but in fact had no reason to.
Did Bush have good reasons, compelling ones, to think Iraq had WMDs? There seems to be no support for this view anywhere now. So then attacking Iraq, while not anything most reasonable people could be too upset about so far as Saddam Hussein is concerned, doesn’t appear to have been justified.
How does this bear on the current debate as to whether the war in Iraq is “a war of choice”? Yes, this seems to be a big deal now—was the war necessary or did Bush decide to wage it as a matter of preference, something he didn’t need to do?
Some—for example Republican pundit Morton Kondracke of weekend TV news program “The Beltway Boys”—think since Bush believed there were WMDs in Iraq, the war was not one of choice but of necessity. But this is the kind of justification I sketched above for punishing one’s spouse because one honestly but irrationally thinks one has been betrayed. Even if Bush honestly thought Iraq had WMDs, if that belief was ill founded, as it evidently was, the war could be considered a war of choice. There was no objective necessity for it.
Mind you, most of Bush’s critics from among the liberal Democrats have no good case against him either. They haven’t ever objected to preemptive public policies that intrude on innocent people, let alone those under serious if mistaken suspicion. Just consider as a perfect current example how eagerly former VP Al Gore is urging his various precautionary measures—ones that would intrude on millions of us without any regard for civil liberties and due process—because he feels there are big risks we face from environmental hazards (global warming, climate change, what have you). Gore and his supporters who complain about Bush’s preemptive war policies because they were preemptive are hypocrites.
Only those who consistently uphold what we might dub the George Washington doctrine about getting America militarily entangled have a case against Bush & Co. These folks believe that free countries may only go to war when there is a justified and dependable belief that the country is under attack or about to be attacked. The emphasis here is on justified and dependable. Forcibly intervening in other people’s lives is only justifiable when these other people are mounting or about to mount an attack. A war is just, in other words, only when it is defensive.
George W. Bush’s war against Iraq was never defensive, not because he may not have believed the country needs defending from WMDs but because his and his administration’s beliefs about Iraq’s WMDs were unjustified, ill founded. Nothing in the meantime, since the war commenced, has changed this fact. Not that there was nothing at all murky about Saddam Hussein and WMDs. Yes there was, what with all that hide and seek involving the United Nations’ team of inspectors. But war is too big a deal, military and indeed any other kind of aggression is too big a deal, to start in a murky situation.
Bush, of course, is no consistent follower of the George Washington doctrine. Nor are most of his liberal Democratic critics. So their quarrel about the war in Iraq is mostly incoherent. The only part that has some bona fide relevance concerns the issue of how long to keep American troops in Iraq now that the American military is there.
Report on PETA is Journalistic Malpractice
Tibor R. Machan
When recently Borders Bookstore refused to display the Danish cartoons that were deemed insulting to many Muslims who responded by going on a rampage, some people expressed the view that Borders was being cowardly. Borders management explained they properly didn’t chose to place members of their staff in harms way. So, Borders wasn’t being cowardly but justifiably prudent. It isn’t necessary for Borders to sacrifice some innocent employees for the sake of taking a stand. There could be better ways to show solidarity with champions of freedom of speech and artistic expression.
More recently some members of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) invaded a dinner where the pop star Beyonce Knowles was the host to various invited guests. PETA members “peppered the pop star with questions about her fur use,” reported the Associated Press. In the report AP gave a short characterization of PETA as “known for its untraditional methods of raising awareness about animal rights.”
Never mind for a moment about PETA’s agenda. Certainly, AP’s characterization of PETA’s way of bringing attention to it should not be described in the cowardly fashion of calling them “untraditional methods.” PETA has been guilty of assault, battery, trespass, and harassment against numerous famous individuals who refuse to accept PETA’s viewpoint. These are way beyond “untraditional methods.” They are frequently out and out criminal and AP is plainly mischaracterizing PETA when it refuses to say so. Unlike Muslim radicals, who are reasonably feared to go on a rampage and perpetrated violence against Borders’ employees, AP wasn’t in harms way from PETA. Its conduct is, therefore, pretty clearly cowardly.
But there is more. Using the expression “raising awareness about animal rights” is totally misleading, akin to writing about some group that they are invading people’s private parties in an effort of “raising awareness about ghosts.” There are no ghosts! There are no animal rights! AP might as well be writing its report as if the tooth fairy were something real.
Animals aren’t the type of living being that can have rights; AP and anyone else might as well come to terms with this fact. Rights are what human beings can and do have. That is because they are moral agents—living beings who after infancy begin to make choices in their lives, choices that can be morally commendable or blameworthy.
It is this fact that gives rise to the existence of rights in human community life. Choice brings on moral responsibility and rights provide the criteria by which people’s moral sphere of authority, their sovereignty, is spelled out and translated into law.
To say that animals have rights is like saying that animals have guilt, or moral and legal duties, or can engage in insult or commit murder; none of that makes any sense outside of imaginative fiction or fantasy (like that produced by Walt Disney and thousands of children’s book authors). At its best, talk of “animal rights” is moral hype. It involves claiming for animals something that is false so as to bring to light what could in fact be true, namely, that human beings often abuse them, treat them inhumanely. But it is utterly confusing to mistake the hype for truth.
When AP fails to put quotation marks around “animal rights,” it shows partisanship with PETA and is abandoning its journalistic position of the impartial reporter. In the incidence with Beyonce Knowles, AP did two things that demonstrate either carelessness of out and out bias. It downplayed PETA’s methods, perhaps because, as the AP report states, the organization “had previously attempted to reach Knowles through faxes, letters and rallies outside her concerts.” Ms. Knowles was clearly being victimized in ways that are reminiscent of the methods of the KKK and neo-Nazis, not of civilized advocacy groups and failing to indicate that involves biased, partisan reporting. PETA is a rogue group, frequently engaged in what comes very close to terrorism—attacks on innocent people with whom PETA disagrees and which disagreement is no justification for treating the likes of Ms. Knowles in their criminal fashion.
AP might have noted that by any standard of civilized conduct, PETA ought to straighten out its policies and confine itself to communicating via ”faxes, letters and [perhaps] rallies outside her concerts.” Invading a dinner to which no PETA members were invited and which PETA members attended on false pretenses should not garner this violent group favorable treatment from the Associated Press.
Tibor R. Machan
When recently Borders Bookstore refused to display the Danish cartoons that were deemed insulting to many Muslims who responded by going on a rampage, some people expressed the view that Borders was being cowardly. Borders management explained they properly didn’t chose to place members of their staff in harms way. So, Borders wasn’t being cowardly but justifiably prudent. It isn’t necessary for Borders to sacrifice some innocent employees for the sake of taking a stand. There could be better ways to show solidarity with champions of freedom of speech and artistic expression.
More recently some members of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) invaded a dinner where the pop star Beyonce Knowles was the host to various invited guests. PETA members “peppered the pop star with questions about her fur use,” reported the Associated Press. In the report AP gave a short characterization of PETA as “known for its untraditional methods of raising awareness about animal rights.”
Never mind for a moment about PETA’s agenda. Certainly, AP’s characterization of PETA’s way of bringing attention to it should not be described in the cowardly fashion of calling them “untraditional methods.” PETA has been guilty of assault, battery, trespass, and harassment against numerous famous individuals who refuse to accept PETA’s viewpoint. These are way beyond “untraditional methods.” They are frequently out and out criminal and AP is plainly mischaracterizing PETA when it refuses to say so. Unlike Muslim radicals, who are reasonably feared to go on a rampage and perpetrated violence against Borders’ employees, AP wasn’t in harms way from PETA. Its conduct is, therefore, pretty clearly cowardly.
But there is more. Using the expression “raising awareness about animal rights” is totally misleading, akin to writing about some group that they are invading people’s private parties in an effort of “raising awareness about ghosts.” There are no ghosts! There are no animal rights! AP might as well be writing its report as if the tooth fairy were something real.
Animals aren’t the type of living being that can have rights; AP and anyone else might as well come to terms with this fact. Rights are what human beings can and do have. That is because they are moral agents—living beings who after infancy begin to make choices in their lives, choices that can be morally commendable or blameworthy.
It is this fact that gives rise to the existence of rights in human community life. Choice brings on moral responsibility and rights provide the criteria by which people’s moral sphere of authority, their sovereignty, is spelled out and translated into law.
To say that animals have rights is like saying that animals have guilt, or moral and legal duties, or can engage in insult or commit murder; none of that makes any sense outside of imaginative fiction or fantasy (like that produced by Walt Disney and thousands of children’s book authors). At its best, talk of “animal rights” is moral hype. It involves claiming for animals something that is false so as to bring to light what could in fact be true, namely, that human beings often abuse them, treat them inhumanely. But it is utterly confusing to mistake the hype for truth.
When AP fails to put quotation marks around “animal rights,” it shows partisanship with PETA and is abandoning its journalistic position of the impartial reporter. In the incidence with Beyonce Knowles, AP did two things that demonstrate either carelessness of out and out bias. It downplayed PETA’s methods, perhaps because, as the AP report states, the organization “had previously attempted to reach Knowles through faxes, letters and rallies outside her concerts.” Ms. Knowles was clearly being victimized in ways that are reminiscent of the methods of the KKK and neo-Nazis, not of civilized advocacy groups and failing to indicate that involves biased, partisan reporting. PETA is a rogue group, frequently engaged in what comes very close to terrorism—attacks on innocent people with whom PETA disagrees and which disagreement is no justification for treating the likes of Ms. Knowles in their criminal fashion.
AP might have noted that by any standard of civilized conduct, PETA ought to straighten out its policies and confine itself to communicating via ”faxes, letters and [perhaps] rallies outside her concerts.” Invading a dinner to which no PETA members were invited and which PETA members attended on false pretenses should not garner this violent group favorable treatment from the Associated Press.
Friday, June 16, 2006
How to Go Green
Tibor R. Machan
Some influential, even powerful, public policy pundits, like former VP Al Gore and columnist Thomas L. Friedman (of The World is Flat fame), have gone on a crusade to champion what they vaguely call “green.” Among the measures they promote is high taxes on gasoline, so as to wean drivers from fossil fuel and encourage some alternatives like solar energy and wind.
Not that this is anything new—it’s been in the air for decades. Sadly, those pushing for it pretty much reject the best way to encourage switching from gasoline to various alternatives, some of them not yet invented. This is to promote privatization—to build up a legal infrastructure that emphasizes private property rights.
Though a bit late by now, perhaps, without the massive and decades long public subsidization of the gasoline fueled automobile and other vehicles, there would have developed a diversified production and use of fuels throughout the world. Indeed, it is nearly always the centralization of decision-making about such matters (as what kind of fuel people will have to use to move about) that brings and prolongs problems—waste, environmental destruction, over-dependence on a particular type of fuel, etc.
Yet once the world was steered toward reliance mostly on fossil fuels, along with the fact that vehicle movement began to be seen as a natural right, dependence on gasoline became a fact. Here and there small inroads have been made to come up with alternatives but for most of us these haven’t yet become cost-effective. So what do the champions of “green” promote? Higher fossil fuel taxes, that’s what. Yet another attempt to deploy top-down problem solving, which invites all the problems public choice theorists warn about and encourage the growth of bureaucratic tyranny and mismanagement.
For champions of “green” this is an especially counterproductive policy to pursue. And warnings of it have been aired all along. Just the other day news came of a huge cloud of nasty pollution emanating from China, the biggest of the few remaining official, centrally planned economies in the world. It is quite natural that it would be a country in which official legal acknowledgment of the right to private property is lacking where pollution is most severe. That’s because private citizens and groups there are legally ill equipped to fight what economists call negative externalities—the bad environmental side effects of various industrial and farming activities.
In relatively free societies if pollution gets severe enough, one need not wait for some remotely initiated central government to begin to defend against the impact of it. The fact that pollution moves from one individual’s—or, more likely, company’s—region into another’s makes it possible in a substantially private property based economy to contain it by private and local legal action. The government need not be involved much. And since moving a central government’s policies is akin to turning around an aircraft carrier—meaning it can take a very long time—problems such as air pollution must await decades to be addressed. This was evident throughout the rule of Soviet style socialism and is still very much with us in such places as Cuba, North Korea and China.
But the dirty secret is that the governmental habit is still the norm among all those who champion “green.” Al Gore & Co. just don’t get it and even when they do manage to identify problems, their suggested solution is Neanderthal. Always wait for government to step in and rescue us, never mind that that’s the most unreliable source for solving problems like air pollution, the world wide use of fossil fuels, and so forth.
It is better late than never! When it comes to dealing with macro political-economic problems, it is best to decentralize. Instead of having to rely on changes at the top and on some imaginary team of virtuous and wise “leaders,” a decentralized system can get down to business in people’s and various firms’ back yards.
Unfortunately, Al Gore, in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” or Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times columnist who is about to come out with his Discovery Channel movie, “Addicted to Oil,” seem to be oblivious to all the problems of entrusting governments with problem solving. They never learn from the malpractice perpetrated by FEMA and other central government agencies and keep putting their faith in the state.
If one is seriously interested in steering the world toward “green,” do not count on governments to help with the task.
Tibor R. Machan
Some influential, even powerful, public policy pundits, like former VP Al Gore and columnist Thomas L. Friedman (of The World is Flat fame), have gone on a crusade to champion what they vaguely call “green.” Among the measures they promote is high taxes on gasoline, so as to wean drivers from fossil fuel and encourage some alternatives like solar energy and wind.
Not that this is anything new—it’s been in the air for decades. Sadly, those pushing for it pretty much reject the best way to encourage switching from gasoline to various alternatives, some of them not yet invented. This is to promote privatization—to build up a legal infrastructure that emphasizes private property rights.
Though a bit late by now, perhaps, without the massive and decades long public subsidization of the gasoline fueled automobile and other vehicles, there would have developed a diversified production and use of fuels throughout the world. Indeed, it is nearly always the centralization of decision-making about such matters (as what kind of fuel people will have to use to move about) that brings and prolongs problems—waste, environmental destruction, over-dependence on a particular type of fuel, etc.
Yet once the world was steered toward reliance mostly on fossil fuels, along with the fact that vehicle movement began to be seen as a natural right, dependence on gasoline became a fact. Here and there small inroads have been made to come up with alternatives but for most of us these haven’t yet become cost-effective. So what do the champions of “green” promote? Higher fossil fuel taxes, that’s what. Yet another attempt to deploy top-down problem solving, which invites all the problems public choice theorists warn about and encourage the growth of bureaucratic tyranny and mismanagement.
For champions of “green” this is an especially counterproductive policy to pursue. And warnings of it have been aired all along. Just the other day news came of a huge cloud of nasty pollution emanating from China, the biggest of the few remaining official, centrally planned economies in the world. It is quite natural that it would be a country in which official legal acknowledgment of the right to private property is lacking where pollution is most severe. That’s because private citizens and groups there are legally ill equipped to fight what economists call negative externalities—the bad environmental side effects of various industrial and farming activities.
In relatively free societies if pollution gets severe enough, one need not wait for some remotely initiated central government to begin to defend against the impact of it. The fact that pollution moves from one individual’s—or, more likely, company’s—region into another’s makes it possible in a substantially private property based economy to contain it by private and local legal action. The government need not be involved much. And since moving a central government’s policies is akin to turning around an aircraft carrier—meaning it can take a very long time—problems such as air pollution must await decades to be addressed. This was evident throughout the rule of Soviet style socialism and is still very much with us in such places as Cuba, North Korea and China.
But the dirty secret is that the governmental habit is still the norm among all those who champion “green.” Al Gore & Co. just don’t get it and even when they do manage to identify problems, their suggested solution is Neanderthal. Always wait for government to step in and rescue us, never mind that that’s the most unreliable source for solving problems like air pollution, the world wide use of fossil fuels, and so forth.
It is better late than never! When it comes to dealing with macro political-economic problems, it is best to decentralize. Instead of having to rely on changes at the top and on some imaginary team of virtuous and wise “leaders,” a decentralized system can get down to business in people’s and various firms’ back yards.
Unfortunately, Al Gore, in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” or Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times columnist who is about to come out with his Discovery Channel movie, “Addicted to Oil,” seem to be oblivious to all the problems of entrusting governments with problem solving. They never learn from the malpractice perpetrated by FEMA and other central government agencies and keep putting their faith in the state.
If one is seriously interested in steering the world toward “green,” do not count on governments to help with the task.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Bill Gates, Shut up Already
Tibor R. Machan
No doubt he is a genius when it comes to software and innumerable gadgets and such; I am really pleased he got into computers big time. I certainly got a lot from that in my own line of work.
But Bill Gates really needs to shut about some other things he is confused about. Like his claim the other day, when he announced his impending retirement and turn to full time philanthropy, that he “needs to give back to the community.” Why? Did he steal something from people? Did they lend him something he needs to return? What on earth was he talking about?
People who get rich ordinarily aren’t stealing the wealth they obtain—they trade for it what they have to offer—what they have invented or invested in or created, produced, however one wants to put it. When Picasso painted his works and then sold them and made money from them, he wasn’t a thief. When Shakespeare and Arthur Miller wrote their plays and made money from this, they didn’t steal anything from anyone. And when Bill Gates invented all the things he could and then sold it all to people who were willing to buy it, he didn’t confiscate anyone’s wealth but earned it.
Doesn’t Bill Gates understand this elementary fact of commerce? That’s sad. He must have blindly, thoughtlessly picked up some of the nonsense being peddled by rich-bashing folks across the centuries without making the crucial distinction that many of the early rich did, in fact, steal their wealth from others—through military conquests, through out and out theft, through extortion and other violent means. But the wealthy today can easily go about making their wealth, not stealing it. Bill Gates, for example, made most of his wealth by doing what others wanted done for them for which they paid him and from which he became wealthy. He owes nothing “back” to anyone.
Which is not to say there is anything amiss with Gate’s wanting to be of help to millions of Third World poor and sick people. Indeed, his generosity is clearly evident and ought to be widely appreciated, not only by those who receive his largesse but also by others who are not able to give much and can rest easy that someone else is doing so.
None of this has anything to do with “giving something back” to society, the community, the world, to humanity or whatever. That idea is a relic of a perverse, reactionary theory that when someone gains in trade, someone else must lose. It was called “exploitation” by Karl Marx and has swept the world to such an extent that not only out and out enemies of capitalism but some major capitalists have bought into it. But it is completely wrong.
Exploitation has two senses. One means taking unfair advantage of someone—like if someone is inordinately sensitive to, say, cold weather and you are the only one with a blanket but in some special situation demand that you be paid for it way above the ordinary market price. There are undoubtedly such cases. But if I am at dinner time hungry and someone who owns a restaurant sells me food, thus exploiting the opportunity to feed me for pay, that kind of exploitation is not just innocent but out and out admirable. It’s entrepreneurship. Of if you love classical music and you pay an orchestra to perform some of it for you at a symphony hall, you are exploiting their skills in a most benevolent way, as they are exploiting your interests in their performance.
Bill Gates did exploit the fact that millions and millions of people found what he produced very helpful to them, as they all exploited the fact that he was very interested in his work. And there is absolutely nothing amiss with this, quite the contrary. It is admirable when people seek out a market for their skills and deliver to potential purchasers what they want and get rich in the process. Nothing needs to be given back—they have already done the “giving” in the exchange that has transpired. This is no different from what happens when we trade with basketball, tennis, baseball, or football players, entertainers of all kinds, doctors, dentists etc., and so forth to mutual benefit. No one is left with obligations to do any paying back.
Another thing that’s wrong with Bill Gate’s claim is that it makes it appear that generosity or philanthropy should be confined to the very wealthy. They made a lot and now they need to give some of it back, whereas the rest of us who made not so much have no business worrying about those who are in dire straits. But this is entirely wrong. Generosity is something we all should cultivate in us, be we rich or poor. Bill Gate’s claims about his unique obligation to “give back” could encourage some people to get a very warped idea about the nature of generosity.
Tibor R. Machan
No doubt he is a genius when it comes to software and innumerable gadgets and such; I am really pleased he got into computers big time. I certainly got a lot from that in my own line of work.
But Bill Gates really needs to shut about some other things he is confused about. Like his claim the other day, when he announced his impending retirement and turn to full time philanthropy, that he “needs to give back to the community.” Why? Did he steal something from people? Did they lend him something he needs to return? What on earth was he talking about?
People who get rich ordinarily aren’t stealing the wealth they obtain—they trade for it what they have to offer—what they have invented or invested in or created, produced, however one wants to put it. When Picasso painted his works and then sold them and made money from them, he wasn’t a thief. When Shakespeare and Arthur Miller wrote their plays and made money from this, they didn’t steal anything from anyone. And when Bill Gates invented all the things he could and then sold it all to people who were willing to buy it, he didn’t confiscate anyone’s wealth but earned it.
Doesn’t Bill Gates understand this elementary fact of commerce? That’s sad. He must have blindly, thoughtlessly picked up some of the nonsense being peddled by rich-bashing folks across the centuries without making the crucial distinction that many of the early rich did, in fact, steal their wealth from others—through military conquests, through out and out theft, through extortion and other violent means. But the wealthy today can easily go about making their wealth, not stealing it. Bill Gates, for example, made most of his wealth by doing what others wanted done for them for which they paid him and from which he became wealthy. He owes nothing “back” to anyone.
Which is not to say there is anything amiss with Gate’s wanting to be of help to millions of Third World poor and sick people. Indeed, his generosity is clearly evident and ought to be widely appreciated, not only by those who receive his largesse but also by others who are not able to give much and can rest easy that someone else is doing so.
None of this has anything to do with “giving something back” to society, the community, the world, to humanity or whatever. That idea is a relic of a perverse, reactionary theory that when someone gains in trade, someone else must lose. It was called “exploitation” by Karl Marx and has swept the world to such an extent that not only out and out enemies of capitalism but some major capitalists have bought into it. But it is completely wrong.
Exploitation has two senses. One means taking unfair advantage of someone—like if someone is inordinately sensitive to, say, cold weather and you are the only one with a blanket but in some special situation demand that you be paid for it way above the ordinary market price. There are undoubtedly such cases. But if I am at dinner time hungry and someone who owns a restaurant sells me food, thus exploiting the opportunity to feed me for pay, that kind of exploitation is not just innocent but out and out admirable. It’s entrepreneurship. Of if you love classical music and you pay an orchestra to perform some of it for you at a symphony hall, you are exploiting their skills in a most benevolent way, as they are exploiting your interests in their performance.
Bill Gates did exploit the fact that millions and millions of people found what he produced very helpful to them, as they all exploited the fact that he was very interested in his work. And there is absolutely nothing amiss with this, quite the contrary. It is admirable when people seek out a market for their skills and deliver to potential purchasers what they want and get rich in the process. Nothing needs to be given back—they have already done the “giving” in the exchange that has transpired. This is no different from what happens when we trade with basketball, tennis, baseball, or football players, entertainers of all kinds, doctors, dentists etc., and so forth to mutual benefit. No one is left with obligations to do any paying back.
Another thing that’s wrong with Bill Gate’s claim is that it makes it appear that generosity or philanthropy should be confined to the very wealthy. They made a lot and now they need to give some of it back, whereas the rest of us who made not so much have no business worrying about those who are in dire straits. But this is entirely wrong. Generosity is something we all should cultivate in us, be we rich or poor. Bill Gate’s claims about his unique obligation to “give back” could encourage some people to get a very warped idea about the nature of generosity.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Team Sports and Nationalism
Tibor R. Machan
Ever since I left my native country, Hungary, I have been a rebel about rooting for the home team. But I have to modify this in the light of my subsequent education. I do not mind rooting for club teams. I also find rooting for teams affiliated with private colleges and universities unproblematic. What really irks me is all those people who root for national teams. As you can imagine, I resisted rooting for Hungary’s teams in soccer or water polo or anything else. That’s because doing so seemed to me based on an irrational love of country.
What exactly is love of country anyway? Let me think—I do love Hungarian food and music and some of the landscape and the lay out of the city of Budapest. In fact, I think this last is awesome.
But does this have anything to do with their being Hungarian? I have no idea—Hungary is actually made up some many different ethnic, religions and national groups that it is nearly impossible to find anything specifically Hungarian other these more cultural than national elements. Yes, a gulyas soup is Hungarian. So is the csardas, which is a dance, although for all I know it may be danced in Rumania or Slovakia, too. I can say it rings my chimes when I hear music to which the csardas can be danced.
All in all I have had a very hard time watching sports that involve national competitions, like the World Cup. All this fussing over whether Germany or Italy or England or America is going to win, without much heed about who really is doing well at the sport other than for the sake of national victory. These are, as I see it, remnants of the rampant tribalism that has ruled the world from time immemorial.
Just how seriously even people in the most cosmopolitan regions of the globe embrace such tribalism can be appreciated from what is called the Cricket test, devised by one Norman Tebbit in 1990, a member of the Conservative political establishment in England. It is hypnotically administered to people from ethnic minorities in Britain to see if they have become British. Not until they supported an cricket team from England, in preference to the team from their native country.
Why on earth does one wish to test for such loyalties? What if some of the minorities are more familiar with members of teams from their native country and simply root for these teams for that reason, having nothing to do with politics, global or otherwise? What if I root for Hungarian fencers because my mother was a champion fencer back when I lived there, not because Hungary’s government or national history is swell?
Team sports encourage this nationalism, especially on the part of people who otherwise probably have little interest in politics. Root for the Americans, not because the country is superb to live in, certainly not because the team has earned respect for its skillful playing, but only because, well, its is the American team.
Maybe it is only a matter of taste. But I prefer tennis. There it is the individual for whom one can root, no matter where he or she hails from. If Andy Ruddick or Roger Federer plays the way you admire, you root for him regardless of where he is a citizen. Not that all of tennis avoids nationalism, of course. But it is simpler to ignore it. Of course, when an Australian plays in big tournament, there will always be a bunch of Australians in the stands waiving Australian flags. And so with other plays from other countries. But you need not take note of that at all. Even the players’ uniforms show you nothing about their countries, unlike so many of the uniforms of national teams.
I look forward to the time when all sports will be fully privatized and have nothing to do with politics at all.
Tibor R. Machan
Ever since I left my native country, Hungary, I have been a rebel about rooting for the home team. But I have to modify this in the light of my subsequent education. I do not mind rooting for club teams. I also find rooting for teams affiliated with private colleges and universities unproblematic. What really irks me is all those people who root for national teams. As you can imagine, I resisted rooting for Hungary’s teams in soccer or water polo or anything else. That’s because doing so seemed to me based on an irrational love of country.
What exactly is love of country anyway? Let me think—I do love Hungarian food and music and some of the landscape and the lay out of the city of Budapest. In fact, I think this last is awesome.
But does this have anything to do with their being Hungarian? I have no idea—Hungary is actually made up some many different ethnic, religions and national groups that it is nearly impossible to find anything specifically Hungarian other these more cultural than national elements. Yes, a gulyas soup is Hungarian. So is the csardas, which is a dance, although for all I know it may be danced in Rumania or Slovakia, too. I can say it rings my chimes when I hear music to which the csardas can be danced.
All in all I have had a very hard time watching sports that involve national competitions, like the World Cup. All this fussing over whether Germany or Italy or England or America is going to win, without much heed about who really is doing well at the sport other than for the sake of national victory. These are, as I see it, remnants of the rampant tribalism that has ruled the world from time immemorial.
Just how seriously even people in the most cosmopolitan regions of the globe embrace such tribalism can be appreciated from what is called the Cricket test, devised by one Norman Tebbit in 1990, a member of the Conservative political establishment in England. It is hypnotically administered to people from ethnic minorities in Britain to see if they have become British. Not until they supported an cricket team from England, in preference to the team from their native country.
Why on earth does one wish to test for such loyalties? What if some of the minorities are more familiar with members of teams from their native country and simply root for these teams for that reason, having nothing to do with politics, global or otherwise? What if I root for Hungarian fencers because my mother was a champion fencer back when I lived there, not because Hungary’s government or national history is swell?
Team sports encourage this nationalism, especially on the part of people who otherwise probably have little interest in politics. Root for the Americans, not because the country is superb to live in, certainly not because the team has earned respect for its skillful playing, but only because, well, its is the American team.
Maybe it is only a matter of taste. But I prefer tennis. There it is the individual for whom one can root, no matter where he or she hails from. If Andy Ruddick or Roger Federer plays the way you admire, you root for him regardless of where he is a citizen. Not that all of tennis avoids nationalism, of course. But it is simpler to ignore it. Of course, when an Australian plays in big tournament, there will always be a bunch of Australians in the stands waiving Australian flags. And so with other plays from other countries. But you need not take note of that at all. Even the players’ uniforms show you nothing about their countries, unlike so many of the uniforms of national teams.
I look forward to the time when all sports will be fully privatized and have nothing to do with politics at all.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The Growth of Green Hype
Tibor R. Machan
Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is but the most visible of “green” hypes these days, containing doom and gloom galore, the very predictions and prophesies that have been around for centuries and get repeatedly discredited by subsequent events. Gore is now being joined by the highly visible and widely respected New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, with his upcoming June 27th, 2006, Discovery Channel program, “Addicted to Oil.”
This is not the place to analyze the content of these programs. Gore’s film has been scrutinized and the conclusion of most careful commentators has been that while Gore assembles credible evidence for global climate change, he hasn’t proven by a long shot that such change is due to anything that human beings have done or have failed to do. Indeed, it seems that over the centuries there has been ample and oft repeated climate change, not unlike what is being experienced now, in both directions, the warming and cooling of the planet. The misanthropic spin is largely gratuitous, reminiscent of the more faith based doctrine of original sin, not based on scientific reasoning. But never mind that.
What can be noted here is how much hype surrounds offerings such as those by Gore and Friedman. Both of these men receive the most plentiful exposure on the media, yet they complain endlessly about how little attention they are receiving.
The other night I tuned into Charlie Rose, whose daily program I watch loyally enough to have a sense of what themes get treated and which are neglected. (Rose just came back from a hiatus because of an heart operation, which was the main topic of the program I saw on Monday, June 12th, the first day of his return. He seems quite fine. He had Bill Moyers on, one of my nemeses but whom Rose seems to cherish! Yvette Vega, his executive producer and friend, was with him too, so all in all the somewhat self-indulgent show turned out tolerable enough.)
The second half of this come back program featured Thomas Friedman, who has been on Rose’s show two dozen times or more. Friedman, who, as noted above, has what promises to be (based on the trailer) a doom and gloom program coming up on the Discovery Channel, spoke fairly reasonably about Iraq and Bush’s options there but when he started in on the topic of “green,” he went overboard by all reasonable measures.
To begin with, he complained a lot about how “green” isn’t being taken seriously enough in the media, how it is deemed to be “sissy, girly man, soft, too liberal,” what have you, and thus, allegedly, marginalized. Consider—here is a guy who has The New York Times practically all to himself with whatever message he wishes to get out; he gets to put on what promises to be a clone of Al Gore’s movie on the Discovery Channel, a hugely influential media outlet; he gets to peddle this program over and over again on venues such as “Charlie Rose” and Comedy Central’s immensely popular “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Yet he whines and whines about how little attention he is receiving, how the world isn’t giving him a proper hearing.
How do these folks get away with such deceptive hype? How do they manage to put out these endless, relentless prevarications?
If there is anything that has become an orthodoxy in our time it is that “green” is holy and anyone who doubts it is doing the devil’s work. Unless I have missed it, there has never been a global warming skeptic on “Charlie Rose” or on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” not even one who simply takes issue with the misanthropy that’s part of the “green” mantra. There is never a word of doubt about “green” in forums like The New York Times. (When I pointed this out to the editors of THE WEEK, a British magazine which now also has an American clone, they finally ran a short item giving some voice to the skeptics, but it took some prodding to get even this much accomplished.)
I suppose some would consider it fair to bellyache about how your viewpoint is neglected even while it is center stage on nearly all major media. The more the merrier, if it is important enough, never mind how much lying it takes to get the message out there. However, anytime such lying is perpetrated in the service of some idea, that idea immediately loses much of its credibility. That is just one of the many reasons I find the “green” message highly dubious.
Tibor R. Machan
Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is but the most visible of “green” hypes these days, containing doom and gloom galore, the very predictions and prophesies that have been around for centuries and get repeatedly discredited by subsequent events. Gore is now being joined by the highly visible and widely respected New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, with his upcoming June 27th, 2006, Discovery Channel program, “Addicted to Oil.”
This is not the place to analyze the content of these programs. Gore’s film has been scrutinized and the conclusion of most careful commentators has been that while Gore assembles credible evidence for global climate change, he hasn’t proven by a long shot that such change is due to anything that human beings have done or have failed to do. Indeed, it seems that over the centuries there has been ample and oft repeated climate change, not unlike what is being experienced now, in both directions, the warming and cooling of the planet. The misanthropic spin is largely gratuitous, reminiscent of the more faith based doctrine of original sin, not based on scientific reasoning. But never mind that.
What can be noted here is how much hype surrounds offerings such as those by Gore and Friedman. Both of these men receive the most plentiful exposure on the media, yet they complain endlessly about how little attention they are receiving.
The other night I tuned into Charlie Rose, whose daily program I watch loyally enough to have a sense of what themes get treated and which are neglected. (Rose just came back from a hiatus because of an heart operation, which was the main topic of the program I saw on Monday, June 12th, the first day of his return. He seems quite fine. He had Bill Moyers on, one of my nemeses but whom Rose seems to cherish! Yvette Vega, his executive producer and friend, was with him too, so all in all the somewhat self-indulgent show turned out tolerable enough.)
The second half of this come back program featured Thomas Friedman, who has been on Rose’s show two dozen times or more. Friedman, who, as noted above, has what promises to be (based on the trailer) a doom and gloom program coming up on the Discovery Channel, spoke fairly reasonably about Iraq and Bush’s options there but when he started in on the topic of “green,” he went overboard by all reasonable measures.
To begin with, he complained a lot about how “green” isn’t being taken seriously enough in the media, how it is deemed to be “sissy, girly man, soft, too liberal,” what have you, and thus, allegedly, marginalized. Consider—here is a guy who has The New York Times practically all to himself with whatever message he wishes to get out; he gets to put on what promises to be a clone of Al Gore’s movie on the Discovery Channel, a hugely influential media outlet; he gets to peddle this program over and over again on venues such as “Charlie Rose” and Comedy Central’s immensely popular “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Yet he whines and whines about how little attention he is receiving, how the world isn’t giving him a proper hearing.
How do these folks get away with such deceptive hype? How do they manage to put out these endless, relentless prevarications?
If there is anything that has become an orthodoxy in our time it is that “green” is holy and anyone who doubts it is doing the devil’s work. Unless I have missed it, there has never been a global warming skeptic on “Charlie Rose” or on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” not even one who simply takes issue with the misanthropy that’s part of the “green” mantra. There is never a word of doubt about “green” in forums like The New York Times. (When I pointed this out to the editors of THE WEEK, a British magazine which now also has an American clone, they finally ran a short item giving some voice to the skeptics, but it took some prodding to get even this much accomplished.)
I suppose some would consider it fair to bellyache about how your viewpoint is neglected even while it is center stage on nearly all major media. The more the merrier, if it is important enough, never mind how much lying it takes to get the message out there. However, anytime such lying is perpetrated in the service of some idea, that idea immediately loses much of its credibility. That is just one of the many reasons I find the “green” message highly dubious.
Monday, June 12, 2006
The NY Times’ Crusade Against Internet Gambling
Tibor R. Machan
Each Sunday morning I bring in The NY Times and start reading it, eventually ending up looking through it’s magazine section, but not before checking the book reviews. Yes, it is a bit masochistic—very little in the paper pleases me. Most of it is slanted toward a Leftist agenda of more government regulation and America bashing. I can relate to some of this but not to the evident glee with which The Times shells it all out.
In this morning’s issue there was something especially disturbing. The New York Times is usually on the side of at least one element of the American founders’ political, legal philosophy, namely, freedom of speech. Alas, no more.
It looks like the editors became convinced that Internet gambling by college students is such a terrible thing—“Researchers say that Internet poker is addictive,” “Players say it’s addictive,” “The federal government says it’s illegal,” etc., and so forth they go—that it must be banned. “Administrators who would never consider letting Budweiser install taps in dorm rooms have made high-speed Internet access a standard amenity, putting every student with a credit card minutes away from 24-hour high-stakes gambling.” Such a horrible policy needs to be brought to a screeching halt.
It used to be conservatives who bellyached about how freedom of speech provisions in the U. S. Constitution made possible the degradation of society, via pornography and the like. Now it is The New York Times that peddles the idea with its sensationalism about serious gambling by college students. And they do it with a lousy analogy to boot.
The Internet isn’t like a Budweiser tap. It’s more like a telephone line. Budweiser taps would deliver one thing alone, namely beer. Of course, even that could well be something students should be trusted with—these are, after all, adults who have the civil right to vote, to drive, to travel wherever they choose. They aren’t children any longer. And if I recall correctly, it used to be a cause célèbre of modern liberals to free young college students from the traditional doctrine of in loco parentis at colleges and universities. But never mind that—never let a good scary story be ruined by principles, even if they are your very own.
What these folks at The New York Times magazine need to grasp once and for all is that a free society is risky—in contrast to, say, a concentration camp or the gulags. In a free society young men and women have the option to waste their money on gambling to invest it wisely for their old age security or purchase gifts to send to their parents, etc., etc. This is what comes with freedom.
Ah, but at this point of the discussion the modern liberal will chime in with the story about addiction. If one is addicted, well one isn’t really free to make choices.
But the addiction story is a phony. These folks like gambling, no less so than all those who flock to Vegas or Monte Carlo. Sure, some go overboard, just as some do so when it comes to mountain climbing or eating at fast food restaurants or whatever. We have that liberty, to overdo stuff, often stuff that when overdone becomes bad for us.
But the remedy isn’t to deploy coercive measures but to embark on localized assistance, including education and persuasion. Instead of recklessly writing off these students as addicts—who cannot make decisions for themselves—they need to be viewed as people with free will but unfortunately bad choices, perhaps.
This bit about all questionable conduct being a matter of addiction can backfired good and hard—will we consider voting for various political agendas a matter of addiction if we disagree with it, if we consider it bad judgment? Should voting booths be shut down because those going to them are too feeble-minded to vote right?
It looks like The Times in on board with these developments. Let’s resist as much as we can.
Tibor R. Machan
Each Sunday morning I bring in The NY Times and start reading it, eventually ending up looking through it’s magazine section, but not before checking the book reviews. Yes, it is a bit masochistic—very little in the paper pleases me. Most of it is slanted toward a Leftist agenda of more government regulation and America bashing. I can relate to some of this but not to the evident glee with which The Times shells it all out.
In this morning’s issue there was something especially disturbing. The New York Times is usually on the side of at least one element of the American founders’ political, legal philosophy, namely, freedom of speech. Alas, no more.
It looks like the editors became convinced that Internet gambling by college students is such a terrible thing—“Researchers say that Internet poker is addictive,” “Players say it’s addictive,” “The federal government says it’s illegal,” etc., and so forth they go—that it must be banned. “Administrators who would never consider letting Budweiser install taps in dorm rooms have made high-speed Internet access a standard amenity, putting every student with a credit card minutes away from 24-hour high-stakes gambling.” Such a horrible policy needs to be brought to a screeching halt.
It used to be conservatives who bellyached about how freedom of speech provisions in the U. S. Constitution made possible the degradation of society, via pornography and the like. Now it is The New York Times that peddles the idea with its sensationalism about serious gambling by college students. And they do it with a lousy analogy to boot.
The Internet isn’t like a Budweiser tap. It’s more like a telephone line. Budweiser taps would deliver one thing alone, namely beer. Of course, even that could well be something students should be trusted with—these are, after all, adults who have the civil right to vote, to drive, to travel wherever they choose. They aren’t children any longer. And if I recall correctly, it used to be a cause célèbre of modern liberals to free young college students from the traditional doctrine of in loco parentis at colleges and universities. But never mind that—never let a good scary story be ruined by principles, even if they are your very own.
What these folks at The New York Times magazine need to grasp once and for all is that a free society is risky—in contrast to, say, a concentration camp or the gulags. In a free society young men and women have the option to waste their money on gambling to invest it wisely for their old age security or purchase gifts to send to their parents, etc., etc. This is what comes with freedom.
Ah, but at this point of the discussion the modern liberal will chime in with the story about addiction. If one is addicted, well one isn’t really free to make choices.
But the addiction story is a phony. These folks like gambling, no less so than all those who flock to Vegas or Monte Carlo. Sure, some go overboard, just as some do so when it comes to mountain climbing or eating at fast food restaurants or whatever. We have that liberty, to overdo stuff, often stuff that when overdone becomes bad for us.
But the remedy isn’t to deploy coercive measures but to embark on localized assistance, including education and persuasion. Instead of recklessly writing off these students as addicts—who cannot make decisions for themselves—they need to be viewed as people with free will but unfortunately bad choices, perhaps.
This bit about all questionable conduct being a matter of addiction can backfired good and hard—will we consider voting for various political agendas a matter of addiction if we disagree with it, if we consider it bad judgment? Should voting booths be shut down because those going to them are too feeble-minded to vote right?
It looks like The Times in on board with these developments. Let’s resist as much as we can.
Hail to the Fourth
Tibor R. Machan
One reason I consider the Declaration of Independence such a marvelous document is that it states better than anything else the fundamental principles of a free society.
First, the Declaration makes clear that signers held the truths stated to be self-evident, which is different from considering them to be self-evident. That’s a subtle distinction most people miss, saying falsely that the signers believed the truths were in fact self evident. “Holding” them to be so for purposes of making a declaration and “believing” them to be so is not the same by a long shot.
Second, the signers made it clear that however human beings came to be—whether God or Nature created them—they have certain unalienable rights. And “unalienable” is a crucial term here—no one can lose those rights so long as he or she is a human being. Which means no government creates them and no government can take them, be it a monarchy or democracy or theocracy. If one’s rights are unalienable then one has them, no matter what.
Third, the rights we have are ours not as citizens but as human beings. Our citizenship makes a difference but not as to whether we have those rights but concerning their protection. Governments are instituted so as to secure the rights we have, so citizenship comes with the legal infrastructure that gets those rights secured. Other people have those rights, too, but not being citizens of a country in which they are properly secured makes a big difference—that’s why millions have kept flocking to these shores. Not because they would gain the rights when they get to America but because they were promised proper protection of their rights. (Of course, because the government has from the start gone way beyond its proper powers, becoming not a protector but violator of individual rights, those dreams are now in shambles.)
Fourth, contrary to what too many prominent scholars hold, the rights we have are prohibitions, not entitlements, because they forbid anyone from violating our sovereignty. The government comes in after this fact has been properly acknowledged, as an agency established or instituted to make sure those rights are given proper protection. Government is indeed established in line with these rights—we have the right to our lives, liberties, etc., and the corresponding right to secure them by means of a legal authority that is itself bound by those rights. Our only entitlement is to having our rights secured, nothing more. So, the rights we have are not only to be secured by the legal authorities but those very authorities may never violate those rights. This is very important and not awfully difficult to understand: a police officer, for example, has the job to protect us but that protection must not itself involve attacks upon us. Police officers must perform their job without violating the principles they are hired to defend.
Fifth, there are implications for foreign policy from our having the rights we have by virtue of our human nature. The main one is that no war of aggression can be justified since that would mean the government has lost its proper authority. That authority is confined to securing the rights of American citizens, not to violating anyone else’s. Sure, governments of free societies are duty bound to protect the rights of citizens but they are also duty bound not to violate the rights of anyone else. This follows from the Declaration’s recognition that all human beings have the basic rights it lists.
Sixth, and this is also nearly forgotten, the Declaration makes clear that if a government, like a police officer, systematically breaches the principles by which it is supposed to conduct itself, the citizens may abolish it, too. Indeed, it states they have the duty to do so. That’s like saying if our body guards have become corrupt and instead of protecting us, they are now bossing us around, we not only may but ought to fire them. Governments, like body guards, have limited authority and power and if they fail to act accordingly, they must be shown the door. It may be complicated to do this—and the Declaration acknowledges this too—but nonetheless, that’s what needs to be done.
A Declaration is not a full blow political philosophy. The declaration of the American founders makes clear, however, that individuals have certain basic rights they may hire government to secure for them and that government must keep to its job, period. That implies a free society with strictly limited government.
Too bad it is still only but a sound idea, far from a reality!
Tibor R. Machan
One reason I consider the Declaration of Independence such a marvelous document is that it states better than anything else the fundamental principles of a free society.
First, the Declaration makes clear that signers held the truths stated to be self-evident, which is different from considering them to be self-evident. That’s a subtle distinction most people miss, saying falsely that the signers believed the truths were in fact self evident. “Holding” them to be so for purposes of making a declaration and “believing” them to be so is not the same by a long shot.
Second, the signers made it clear that however human beings came to be—whether God or Nature created them—they have certain unalienable rights. And “unalienable” is a crucial term here—no one can lose those rights so long as he or she is a human being. Which means no government creates them and no government can take them, be it a monarchy or democracy or theocracy. If one’s rights are unalienable then one has them, no matter what.
Third, the rights we have are ours not as citizens but as human beings. Our citizenship makes a difference but not as to whether we have those rights but concerning their protection. Governments are instituted so as to secure the rights we have, so citizenship comes with the legal infrastructure that gets those rights secured. Other people have those rights, too, but not being citizens of a country in which they are properly secured makes a big difference—that’s why millions have kept flocking to these shores. Not because they would gain the rights when they get to America but because they were promised proper protection of their rights. (Of course, because the government has from the start gone way beyond its proper powers, becoming not a protector but violator of individual rights, those dreams are now in shambles.)
Fourth, contrary to what too many prominent scholars hold, the rights we have are prohibitions, not entitlements, because they forbid anyone from violating our sovereignty. The government comes in after this fact has been properly acknowledged, as an agency established or instituted to make sure those rights are given proper protection. Government is indeed established in line with these rights—we have the right to our lives, liberties, etc., and the corresponding right to secure them by means of a legal authority that is itself bound by those rights. Our only entitlement is to having our rights secured, nothing more. So, the rights we have are not only to be secured by the legal authorities but those very authorities may never violate those rights. This is very important and not awfully difficult to understand: a police officer, for example, has the job to protect us but that protection must not itself involve attacks upon us. Police officers must perform their job without violating the principles they are hired to defend.
Fifth, there are implications for foreign policy from our having the rights we have by virtue of our human nature. The main one is that no war of aggression can be justified since that would mean the government has lost its proper authority. That authority is confined to securing the rights of American citizens, not to violating anyone else’s. Sure, governments of free societies are duty bound to protect the rights of citizens but they are also duty bound not to violate the rights of anyone else. This follows from the Declaration’s recognition that all human beings have the basic rights it lists.
Sixth, and this is also nearly forgotten, the Declaration makes clear that if a government, like a police officer, systematically breaches the principles by which it is supposed to conduct itself, the citizens may abolish it, too. Indeed, it states they have the duty to do so. That’s like saying if our body guards have become corrupt and instead of protecting us, they are now bossing us around, we not only may but ought to fire them. Governments, like body guards, have limited authority and power and if they fail to act accordingly, they must be shown the door. It may be complicated to do this—and the Declaration acknowledges this too—but nonetheless, that’s what needs to be done.
A Declaration is not a full blow political philosophy. The declaration of the American founders makes clear, however, that individuals have certain basic rights they may hire government to secure for them and that government must keep to its job, period. That implies a free society with strictly limited government.
Too bad it is still only but a sound idea, far from a reality!
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Leo Strauss, Neo-Conservatism & U. S. Foreign Policy
Tibor R. Machan
One has been hearing much about how U. S. foreign policy is influenced by neo-conservatives, especially the ideas of the famous political scientist Leo Strauss (1899-1973) and many of his students. One book, by Anne Norton, is even titled, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire (Yale, 2004), suggesting that Strauss’s ideas are quite directly responsible for policies that precipitated the war against Iraq.
Strauss, who left Germany before the Nazis took over and came to the U. S. A., is, first of all, largely responsible for having reintroduced a serious study of classical Greek political philosophy. He promoted a very close re-reading of Plato and Aristotle, among others, believing that modern political philosophy—starting with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza (1632-1677) and ending with the anti-politics of logical positivists such as A. J. Ayer (1910–1989)—laid the foundation for value free politics. This amounted to the belief that moral and political ideals cannot be rationally defended since reason can only deal with sensory evidence, nothing else. Since what is right and wrong in any area goes way beyond such evidence, right and wrong must remain notions beyond reason.
Strauss and his students believed this wrongful idea was responsible for many of the modern age’s problems, especially liberal democracy’s inability to defend itself intellectually against totalitarian and authoritarian ideologies like Hitler’s Nazism and Stalin’s Communism. Today they tend to hold that the same applies when it comes to the West’s inability to respond intellectually, philosophically to Islamic radicalism. The West has been intellectually disarmed by modern philosophy, so it is necessary to recover its superior ancient heritage.
Not that Strauss and Co. had much to offer even from those venerable sources—their view tended to be that philosophy really doesn’t provide us with any firm ideas, only with a wonderful exploratory intellectual journey. Some of Strauss’s students even came to advocate nihilism as the only honest philosophy; others adhered to the view, which Strauss ascribed to the great philosophers and seems to have embraced, namely, that ordinary folks just cannot cope with what serious philosophy has to offer—the hard truth, for example, that nothing much is known for certain about anything. So the public may have to be deceived for its own good. (For example, Alan Bloom’s famous book, The Closing of the American Mind [1987], is arguably such a work of “big lies.”)
However, one thing Strauss and his followers did champion without reservation is that philosophical reflection, conversation, exploration, and so forth are all extremely important. Even though no results can be expected from these, our only hope lies in a society that makes philosophy possible. And the only regime that does that is liberal democracy, with its substantially free institutions, especially freedom of inquiry—the press, religion, writing and reading and research of all kinds.
What follows from this is that we owe it to ourselves to defend this regime from all the totalitarian and authoritarian enemies that would squash its institutions, including, of course, the radical Islamic terrorists. Exactly how to mount this defense was not spelled out by Strauss and even by most of his students. I believe Strauss would have been inclined to promote peaceful means—advocacy, exemplification, exhortation, diplomacy and so forth—rather than aggressive military action. But some of those who learned at Strauss’s feet believed otherwise and did, in fact, come to believe that we need to defeat the enemies of liberal democracy before they get us.
Neo-conservatives are not all followers of Strauss but they have picked up a good deal from Strausseans and are among this latter group. The likes of Irving Kristol, founding editor of The Public Interest, which was the flagship publication of neo-conservatism, and his son, William, editor of The Weekly Standard, lean in this direction, as does the architect of significant portions of America’s current foreign policy, former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.
Many on the Left criticize neo-conservatism and, especially, its aggressive foreign policy but the Left is intellectually undermined in this because in its domestic policies, including most recently, environmentalism, the Left is also aggressive (“precautionary”), caring little about individual rights, civil liberties and due process. So we have in the U. S. A. two sides arguing about how to conduct foreign affairs neither of which has a clear cut, principled argument in favor of confining military action to genuine, bona fide defense.
This is not what one would have expected in a country begun with the presidency of George Washington who in his farewell letter warned us all quite explicitly against foreign entanglements.
Tibor R. Machan
One has been hearing much about how U. S. foreign policy is influenced by neo-conservatives, especially the ideas of the famous political scientist Leo Strauss (1899-1973) and many of his students. One book, by Anne Norton, is even titled, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire (Yale, 2004), suggesting that Strauss’s ideas are quite directly responsible for policies that precipitated the war against Iraq.
Strauss, who left Germany before the Nazis took over and came to the U. S. A., is, first of all, largely responsible for having reintroduced a serious study of classical Greek political philosophy. He promoted a very close re-reading of Plato and Aristotle, among others, believing that modern political philosophy—starting with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza (1632-1677) and ending with the anti-politics of logical positivists such as A. J. Ayer (1910–1989)—laid the foundation for value free politics. This amounted to the belief that moral and political ideals cannot be rationally defended since reason can only deal with sensory evidence, nothing else. Since what is right and wrong in any area goes way beyond such evidence, right and wrong must remain notions beyond reason.
Strauss and his students believed this wrongful idea was responsible for many of the modern age’s problems, especially liberal democracy’s inability to defend itself intellectually against totalitarian and authoritarian ideologies like Hitler’s Nazism and Stalin’s Communism. Today they tend to hold that the same applies when it comes to the West’s inability to respond intellectually, philosophically to Islamic radicalism. The West has been intellectually disarmed by modern philosophy, so it is necessary to recover its superior ancient heritage.
Not that Strauss and Co. had much to offer even from those venerable sources—their view tended to be that philosophy really doesn’t provide us with any firm ideas, only with a wonderful exploratory intellectual journey. Some of Strauss’s students even came to advocate nihilism as the only honest philosophy; others adhered to the view, which Strauss ascribed to the great philosophers and seems to have embraced, namely, that ordinary folks just cannot cope with what serious philosophy has to offer—the hard truth, for example, that nothing much is known for certain about anything. So the public may have to be deceived for its own good. (For example, Alan Bloom’s famous book, The Closing of the American Mind [1987], is arguably such a work of “big lies.”)
However, one thing Strauss and his followers did champion without reservation is that philosophical reflection, conversation, exploration, and so forth are all extremely important. Even though no results can be expected from these, our only hope lies in a society that makes philosophy possible. And the only regime that does that is liberal democracy, with its substantially free institutions, especially freedom of inquiry—the press, religion, writing and reading and research of all kinds.
What follows from this is that we owe it to ourselves to defend this regime from all the totalitarian and authoritarian enemies that would squash its institutions, including, of course, the radical Islamic terrorists. Exactly how to mount this defense was not spelled out by Strauss and even by most of his students. I believe Strauss would have been inclined to promote peaceful means—advocacy, exemplification, exhortation, diplomacy and so forth—rather than aggressive military action. But some of those who learned at Strauss’s feet believed otherwise and did, in fact, come to believe that we need to defeat the enemies of liberal democracy before they get us.
Neo-conservatives are not all followers of Strauss but they have picked up a good deal from Strausseans and are among this latter group. The likes of Irving Kristol, founding editor of The Public Interest, which was the flagship publication of neo-conservatism, and his son, William, editor of The Weekly Standard, lean in this direction, as does the architect of significant portions of America’s current foreign policy, former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.
Many on the Left criticize neo-conservatism and, especially, its aggressive foreign policy but the Left is intellectually undermined in this because in its domestic policies, including most recently, environmentalism, the Left is also aggressive (“precautionary”), caring little about individual rights, civil liberties and due process. So we have in the U. S. A. two sides arguing about how to conduct foreign affairs neither of which has a clear cut, principled argument in favor of confining military action to genuine, bona fide defense.
This is not what one would have expected in a country begun with the presidency of George Washington who in his farewell letter warned us all quite explicitly against foreign entanglements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)