Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Column on Nuclear Option, etc.

Let?s Keep Them Quarreling

Tibor R. Machan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Liberty—My Own Universalist Journey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column on Past Political Incorrectness

Being Politically Incorrect Before Its Time

Tibor R. Machan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 22, 2005

Column on Being Right but Alone

Being Among the Few who are Right

Tibor R. Machan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

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

Misunderstanding Private Property Rights

Tibor R. Machan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, April 18, 2005

Column on FDR's Phony Rights (updated)

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

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Column on the Constitution in Exile movement (sans typo)

A Basic Legal Debate Nearly Grasped

Tibor R. Machan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Column on Corruption of American Politics

Why American Politics Has Gone Nuts

Tibor R. Machan

Have you noticed? There doesn?t appear to be any room for civil discourse
in politics these days. There is no issue about which the disputing
parties merely argue?the other side just has to be vicious, lying,
deceiving, cheating, wishing simply to hurt some people, moved by
mendacity while we are, of course, pure of heart. There isn?t a discussion
of the merits, the pros and the cons, only of who is evil, who is not.

Take the social security reform issue. Bush supporters see their
opponents as caring nothing about the upcoming plight of young people,
while his opponents must be uncaring toward old people. That seems to be
the essence of it now. Or the war in Iraq. It isn?t about whether the
policy is sound, but what Bush and Cheney must be gaining from it, or why
opponents must all be Saddamites, lovers of a tyrant.

Well, I have an idea why things have gotten to be so acrimonious in
American politics. It concerns the utter corruption of the nature of
American government.

When America?s founders embarked upon establishing the country, they laid
out a vision about its basic ideals and ideas. They so stated this in the
Declaration of Independence. The country was to be based on certain
fundamental principles about human nature, namely, that everyone has,
simply as a human being, certain unalienable rights?to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, among others?and that it is government?s
function to secure these rights. The rest is all details?important ones,
admittedly, but details nonetheless. It?s about how to do this basic task,
not about what is to be done. That latter issue had been largely
settled?government was supposed to deal with crime and foreign aggression,
little else. For this it has to have certain powers which were spelled out
in the Constitution but otherwise it was the people?you, I, and everyone
else in the country who was to be free to do what he or she chooses and
all our problems were to be solved by us, not the government, which had
its task set: keeping the peace.

Now, admittedly, this is to look at the matter a bit simply. But still
the picture is basically right. The Founders wanted a free country with a
government of strictly limited powers for the purpose of securing our
rights to be free to do what we needed to do in our highly diverse lives.

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

So what is national politics to be about in such a place? It is, to quote
that failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, to be ?about
competence,? that?s all. Who are to administer the system best? It wasn?t
to be about whether the country is to go Right or Left or Christian or
Muslim or socialist or capitalist. None of that was to be debated because
that debate was over once the fundamentals were laid out and country had
been founded.

Alas, this is now all gone. The party politics we have is not about
fielding candidates for a specific job but about whether America will have
this or that kind of government?big, small, democratic, welfare statist,
liberal, conservative or whatever.

It wasn?t supposed to be this way at all. But because now the dispute is
about what kind of country we should have, party politics has degenerated
into combat, with hostile camps peddling their respective conceptions of
society and dismissing opponents as enemies instead of treating them as
contestants. And that is not what American politics set out to be, not in
its essence.

Column on A Vision of Harmony

A Vision, Partly Fulfilled

Tibor R. Machan

When a kid I was deliberately taught to denigrate Jews. My father was a
virulent anti-Semite, my mother a milder one but both shared this
widespread bigotry in Hungary and, indeed, much of Europe. It took a while
for me to get enlightened, mainly, first, by noticing how ridiculous his
hostility to Jews made my father. For example, he beat me up for liking a
Jewish jazz pianist and he claimed Jewish bankers made sure Hollywood
movie stars looked Jewish so Jews get a good reputation. And then by
meeting Jewish school mates in my first American high school who turned
out to be pretty much like all other kids, a diverse lot, plain and
simple. So, I quickly turned against my parents on this one.

Later, when I came to the USA, I joined the Air Force in 1958 and roomed
with a black airman named Ivan, who turned out to be a really smart young
man and read even more books than I did. So that pretty much did it for
any temptation I might have had to join some other fellow airmen in their
racism.

Ever since I grew up this way I have had this deep-seated, somewhat
sentimental hope that all this racial antagonism would just disappear. In
grad school I even moderated a dispute between the UC Santa Barbara Black
Student Union and the SDS, during the late sixties, having gotten this
reputation of not sharing anyone?s prejudices too much.

When I lived in Alabama for ten years I had a chance, on and off, to
study local racism up close?once a hospital orderly was wheeling me to an
X-ray room and made a hasty racial slur against a clerk who checked me in
and when I called him on it he turned red faced, saying, ?Oh, I am sorry,
I am a racist.? Wow, that was a revealing confession.

A few days ago I completed a blues cruise, something I had wanted to take
part in for years but only now got to do, at last, and among the many
pleasures of it I had the wonderful experience of spending three days with
an incredibly racially, ethnically and otherwise?for example,
age-wise?mixed crowd. I have never seen black and white and men and women
and kids and grown-ups and the rest have so much peaceful, rollicking fun
together. There were umpteen mixed couples?African American men with
Caucasian women and vice versa, blonds with tall Indians from India,
Native American women with black men, and on and on, you name it and the
group included them. Dancing and jumping and swaying about, just having a
grand time of it, with blues bands that had white bassists and black
keyboarders and black and while male and female singers and so on and so
forth.

Both audience and performers showed not a moment?s notice of this
cultural diversity but I, of course, whose business is to think about such
stuff?maybe a bit obsessively, if you ask me?noticed only too well. And
not only did I notice but I was struck how nicely it flowed, how there was
nothing acrimonious, nothing suspicious, just all good will and the thrill
of the music.

No, I have no grand conclusions I can draw from all this?so I will not
contend that we need more blues venues so we will all get along with one
another or anything of that sort. It may even have been just this
particular group of blues enthusiasts. I wasn?t there to do a study of it
all. But I did experience a mellow joyfulness with how it all felt and
frankly yearned, also, for more of such genuine, unforced harmony among
human beings. It seemed just right and I wished for more of it, elsewhere.

At the various universities where I have taught there has been all this
fuss about diversity and, yet, most often one finds few mixed race
couples, not even too many young men and women of different races or
ethnic groups hanging out with each other. So it is tempting for me to
think, there really is no substitute for spontaneous harmony, for bringing
all these different people together not by corralling them by government
edict or even university policy but, well, because it just turns out that
way sometimes. Maybe if it just turned out that way more often and there
were no threats and fines and rebukes waiting to induce us to get along,
we might actually get along a lot more.

But maybe I am just hoping against hope. In any case, I am sure glad I
took part in an event that exhibited and illustrated that there really is
no inherent basis for a racial divide, none at all, not as people are in
their natural, unconstrained ways.

Column on Creeping Censorship

Creeping Censorship

Tibor R. Machan

In 1927 the US Senate nationalized the electromagnetic spectrum?then
called the ether?which are the airwaves where radio and TV signals travel.
They made this socialist move because of sheer impatience?the Navy asked
the Department of Justice to allocate property rights in the medium but
instead the Senate nationalized it.

Ever since then, the medium has been treated as belonging to us all,
regulated ?for us? by the feds. In fact, of course, the feds pretty much
regulated the medium for the few firms that had gotten a foothold in the
broadcast industry so that for decades thereafter ABC, CBS and NBC formed
an oligopoly and could nearly completely control entry into the field. For
a long while, in fact, if someone wanted to enter broadcasting, one would
be required to go to Washington, DC, and make a case to the FCC that no
other radio or television broadcaster would be ?harmed??lose listeners and
viewers?by this entry into the market. Can you imagine?if you wish to open
a restaurant, you need to demonstrate to a bunch of bureaucrats that other
restaurants will not lose customers? Insane, yet it was the law.

Worse than even this, the nationalization of the airwaves resulted in
government censorship, the complete circumvention of the First Amendment
of the US Constitution, on the grounds of, ?Well, this is public property,
after all, and thus it must be managed for the public by the government.?
Like the roads or anything else government has laid claim to and is thus
empowered to manage.

Accordingly, the principles of individual rights are voided, just as they
are when it comes to a public park or beach where local governments can
regulate who gets to be able to make use of it, when, and for what
purpose. All of this is directly in contradiction to the principles of a
genuine free society.

But until now the policy of government management of speech had been
confined to public properties, mainly?there are rules about advertising,
about having to place public service messages on the air and so forth, and
there is, famously, the ban on the use of indecent words and images. Now,
however, we learn that Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Representative Joe
Barton (R-Texas), and the new FCC Chair, Kevin Martin, all want to extend
censorship to cable TV (something one must pay for and does not use the
public airwaves) and even to satellite radio, according to the reports I
have been reading.

This is how it goes: First the principles of individual liberty are
abrogated in the name of having to manage the public sphere. That sphere,
of course, keeps getting bigger and bigger?all the public education
facilities, for example, are included, which means that one of the most
vital sources of intellectual debate and exploration operates under
government management, resulting, for example, in the travesty of official
political correctness policies across the country.

Next, once the idea of individual rights has been gradually eroded this
way, it no longer needs to be a public sphere for it to come under
government supervision. Thus we see the push for the ugly creeping
censorship that now faces us.

Sadly, the one organization that is alert to it, the American Civil
Liberties Union, is mounting a resistance with bad arguments?the ACLU is
talking about how ?indecency? cannot be defined, as if that were the main
reason against the proposed policy. Yet even if ?indecency? were perfectly
definable?just as if ?pornography? were?it would not authorize anyone at
all to ban it. Free men and women must self-regulate these matters.
Parents must deal with such hazards vis-à-vis their children, let alone
themselves, not a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats who have no basic
right to tell us what to watch, what to say, what to read or anything.

Let me tell you, this is really scary. And there isn?t even any allusion
to terrorism here, so the folks pushing for this censorship are evidently
very confident that they have worn us all down in our resistance to the
creeping expansion of government power. I wish we could prove them wrong.

Column on Why Liberty Doesn't Fare Well Enough

Why Freedom Doesn?t Sell Well

Tibor R. Machan

At a conference I attended with many friends of the free society hours on
end were spent on discussing why freedom doesn?t manage to catch on
better?why so many people refuse to embrace the idea of a fully free
society. Several famous luminaries, including the Nobel Laureate Milton
Friedman, lamented this fact. Dr. Friedman even suggested that his famous
book, Capitalism and Freedom, published back in 1962, was something of a
failure because it didn?t manage to move the country more rapidly toward
scaling down government and increasing individual liberty or expanding the
scope of the private sector. That is what winning the fight for liberty
would come to, in practical terms, even if in the intellectual realm the
fight has been largely successful (especially since the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the embarrassing records of such countries as North Korea
and Cuba, or even Germany and France, as far as enabling people to
flourish in their lives).

In one session there was a lot of consternation about making the case for
freedom more solid by showing more clearly how efficient freedom is, how
much more one can achieve of what one wants when one is free, compared to
when one is partially?and especially completely?regimented by governments.
And here is where the problem seems to lie, as far as I understand the
situation.

First of all, even if one were to deploy the most outstanding arguments
and demonstrations to show that freedom is superior to its more or less
Draconian alternatives, this will never guarantee victory. Even the famous
eternal vigilance, paid as its price, will not make freedom triumph if
people do not want it. And they may not want it for many reasons, even
when upon considering the case for it they cannot come up with sound
objections. Human beings do not always choose what is best for them?no one
can reasonably deny this when we look around and see so many making a mess
of their lives when they certainly do not have to do so. Given the
likelihood that many folks are not at their best, including when it comes
to thinking and acting with regard to their political situations, this
should not be terribly surprising. So, it is clear that even when the case
for liberty is a very solid one, that doesn?t mean everyone will make the
effort to help establish a regime of freedom instead of one of more or
less tyranny. There simply are too many people who want to take shortcuts,
refuse to take responsibility for their own conduct and believe they can
get away with this?and sadly often do?by calling upon the government to
force others to shoulder burdens they ought to assume.

Second, is the most widely circulated case for liberty as good as we can
get? That case is mostly put in terms of how effective a free society is,
how efficient its institutions are to get people what they want out of
life, especially prosperity. The problem is, however, that while this
point is well supported, it doesn?t manage to clinch it for liberty.

Liberty is, after all, a condition that people can use for good or for
ill. And even when they use it for good, if they cannot show that it is
for good they are using it, they will often he defenseless against critics
who chide them. Just consider how many people and organizations chide us
all for being prosperous, for striving to do well in life. Unless wanting
to do well in life is itself defended, shown to be a superior objective,
the fact the liberty enhances this goal just will not make it evident
enough that liberty is of great merit.

In the end, liberty needs a moral defense. It needs to be shown not only
that individual freedom makes it possible to attain what we want,
including our economic prosperity. First, it needs to be stressed that
individual human beings require a decisive role in their own lives,
whatever the results. Second, it is vital to demonstrate that the goal of
flourishing, the pursuit of one?s own happiness?including economic
success?is a good, worthy cause.

Yes, it is, but many, many people deny this and the mere efficiency of
liberty doesn?t counter their objections and doubts.

Column on Criticizing America

America Bashing Continues

Tibor R. Machan

No one is more prone to criticize the various levels and branches of the
US government than I am. My complaints, however, tend to focus on how our
political institutions have departed from the best ideas on which the
country was founded.

When you read most prominent mainstream newspapers and magazines?The New
York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, The New York Review of
Books, for example?these too often and sadly aim their criticism exactly
at those principles. It is when America is most American, one might say,
that they pick on her.

Take as an example James Traub?s February 13, 2005, column in The New
York Times Magazine, ?Freedom From Want.? It is a nasty little piece that
calls into question America?s generosity toward those around the globe who
are in dire straits. As the tag line quotes Traub?which pretty much
summarizes the piece??Our closest allies have put world poverty at the top
of their agenda. Why can't Americans do the same??

Well, for starters, our closest allies haven?t put world poverty at the
top of their agenda?it is their governments that have made the decision to
send some of the money they take from their citizens in taxes to help some
of the poor around the globe. This is a totally neglected distinction by
Traub and others: confusing what governments do in the way of forcibly
transferring wealth from their citizens to whoever government officials
think should get the wealth, and what the citizens of a country support
out of their own pockets voluntarily, without being threatened with jail
time if they refuse.

And here in fact Americans as a whole come off as the most generous
people on the face of the earth. I am not talking about the considerable
foreign aid the government of the US is sending abroad, secured through
the extortionist means of taxation (yes, Virginia, taxation is
extortion?you pay or you go to jail). I am talking about the fact, noted
poignantly in a letter to The New York Times Magazine by Carol Adelman,
Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, that while the US government sends
$16 billion?still the highest absolute amount?as aid, ?This number,
however, excludes American private giving of more than $43 billion, more
than double the government aid in 2003.?

What was Traub thinking? Why was he ignoring the facts that Adelman
brought to light? What kind of journalist is it who considers only what
the government coercively redistributes as ?giving,? while treating
genuine, voluntary contributions as non-existent?

I think I have a clue here: Someone who is eager to denigrate America and
Americans; someone who is eager to discredit a society in which freedom is
still more important than coercion; someone who would rather have us all
forced to behave as statists like us to behave rather than leave us govern
ourselves. For such a person the virtue of generosity is meaningless
unless it is extracted at the point of a gun, just the opposite of how
generosity ought to work among human beings.

Yes, while I am a fierce critic of US government policies, I confine my
criticism mainly to when that government undermines the principles of
individual rights on which it was founded?the unalienable rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others. But in continuing to
sustain a legal and cultural atmosphere of voluntarism, many Americans are
still doing what distinguishes them from the rest of the world, acting
freely to do the right thing.

Whenever you encounter critics of the American system, please look out:
If it is being put down for upholding the principles of individual rights,
the critics are actually being anti-American in the important sense of
that term, namely, turning against America?s central ideal. When the
critic employs the standard of liberty, then he or she is urging America
to be more like what it should be in the first place.

Column on Dissing Liberating Technologies

Machan is R. C. Hoiles Professor of business ethics at Chapman University,
Orange, CA. He is research fellow at the Hoover Institution and advises
Freedom Communications, Inc., on libertarian issues.

----- Original Message -----

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:32:23 AM
Tibor's Forum
From: Tibor R. Machan
Subject: Column on Dissing Liberating Technologies
To: Columns

Dissing Liberating Technology

Tibor R. Machan

The phenomenon is recurring, so you might think why bother with it again.
But as with many other matters, when they recur, it is good to pay them
renewed heed.

I noticed in a recent issue of Newsweek Magazine that some editor decided
to report on a bunch of people who had recently met at a conference and
demonstrated much trepidation about bloggers. In fact it was a group of
mainstream journalists showing their concern that they may be losing their
audience, now that blogging has become big throughout the world wide web.
But instead of saying outright, ?We are worried about our jobs,? the
journalists whose concerns were reported couched their beef in terms of
politics and social justice. The problem you see is, some of them cried:
most bloggers are white and male. So, clearly, the forum is biased in the
most horrible way: it discriminates against minorities. Or perhaps not.

I don?t know if this complaint has any merit to it?the piece in Newsweek
gave no solid evidence. Moreover it didn?t mention at all what
significance there could be to the absence of minorities from the blog
world. Maybe members of these minorities do not want to be on the Internet
much, just as I do not want to mess with digital cameras, even though it
is the rage (Circuit City people tell me they sell 90 digital to one old
fashioned camera).

More importantly, nothing in the Newsweek piece mentioned the incredibly
wide range of viewpoints in the blogging community (to which I, by the
way, do not belong other than to check some out when I am asked to). From
what I am aware of, there appears to be great diversity among bloggers of
just the kind that should matter to people, namely, diverse ethical,
religious, political, economic and related perspectives. Why care about
the rest? Why is it so important to track whether women, blacks, those of
Italian or Hungarian background choose to blog? What should matter, if
anything, is whether people with different things to say take advantage of
the medium.

All the fuss about blogging isn?t everything that?s being done to diss
liberating technology. The March 20th issue of The New York Times Magazine
published a missive, ?Bad Connections,? by Christine Rosen?a fellow at the
Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington?complaining that cell phones
and such ?have put us out of touch with the manners and mores of public
life.? All in all, this lament, coming it as it must from someone who
finds individualism naughty and collectivism nice, is in line with the
know-nothing tradition of anti-technology. Ms. Rosen in fact begins her
belly-aching by recalling the invention of the mirror in the 16th Century
and noting how it has spawned egotism and vanity (forgetting that it also
helps dentistry, as an example, as well as safe driving).

And that is just the point: most inventions can be used well or badly.
There is no guarantee that no one will abuse something that was invented
to be helpful. In the case of cell phones and computers there are
innumerable ways they can be made to serve perfectly good ends as well as
lousy ones?just consider how emailing and instant messaging can keep
families in far better touch than having to write letters and wait for the
mail to deliver them and how smut has spread by it all, as well. I noticed
some of this with my own children who were quite adapt, early in their
lives, at typing and even spelling, not to mention the right use of words,
because they began using email and IM when quite young.

Ms. Rosen, of course?coming as she does from a mainstream ethics center
that is guided by the altruism and self-denial ethics that academic ethics
has been promulgating for centuries?doesn?t like that being called on
one?s mobile phone in public may make a person feel a bit self-important.
My-my, that is just intolerable. (Never mind that much of the
psychological and pedagogical profession is concerned with instilling
greater self-esteem in young people, encouraging them all to be feeling
better about themselves.)

I say to technological innovation, bring it all on! We will do fine
sorting out the good and bad uses of it without the churlishness of the
likes of the people Newsweek chose to report on or Christine Rosen?s nay
saying. Just because the manners and mores of olden times may become
somewhat moot, it doesn?t follow that new manners and mores of merit will
not be forthcoming.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Column on being robbed

So I was Robbed

Tibor R. Machan

The other week I went to San Francisco for a conference, parked in a
?Public Parking? place, on a busy corner (2nd and Howard), and my car was
broken into and a bunch of stuff stolen. And I am partly to blame.

Yes, I wasn?t thinking clearly. Living as I do in a neighborhood where
homes and cars can be left unlocked, I got spoiled. And all I had to do is
stop to think a minute. Once before, in the 70s, the same thing happened
to me in the same beautiful City by the Bay?then someone broke into my old
Volvo and stole a nice leather coat I bought a few months before in
Berlin. And when I lived in Palo Alto for a year to work at Stanford, I
experienced my first home burglary.

Although this is no evidence of any trend?other than perhaps of my
mistreatment by Bay Area thugs?it should have been on my mind as I locked
up my car and walked away from it. So the rest of my Easter weekend was
spent on damage control since my lap top, which was part of the loot,
contained information that could be used to some hacker to get into my
various accounts and maybe purchase things (although these are mostly
online book shops, so I doubt they will be of great interest to someone
breaking into cars).

It goes to show you that while, of course, it is the perpetrator who did
the worst thing here, the victim, too, could have acted more wisely,
prudently, and therefore is guilty of misconduct. That lesson isn?t often
heeded. I didn?t heed it much on this occasion but I promise to be better
henceforth. In many instances those who should know better and act
accordingly miss out by not realizing there are hazards all around us,
some posed by nature, some by others. The natural hazards are, of course,
more easily anticipated?California often shakes, so one can do better by
preparing for a quake here and there; Florida is hit by hurricanes often
enough so one should probably make sure one?s home is sturdy; and the
Midwest has its floods, the north its deep freezes and so forth.

But there are also too many other people who are hell bent on making life
miserable for the rest. From simple vandalism to brutal murders and
terrorism, these folks are vicious, mean people who will not be
discouraged by finely fashioned welfare programs or by the sentiments of
social workers or anti-globalists. No, they have gone corrupt. And they
will lash out and anyone can become their victim.

Yet, the victims, too, are doing something less than exemplary by not
paying attention to such people, by downplaying the reality of their
existence, by forgetting that they are out there, especially in certain
regions of the neighborhood or globe, praying on whoever is distracted,
whoever forgets about them, whoever thinks they will just go away some day
because of all the good will some people waste on them.

I am writing all of this in part so as to fix the matter in my own mind,
good and hard, not to continue with my own complacency. Sure, I had an
alarm, sure it was broad daylight, and sure in was in the middle of a
mostly civilized city on a sunny weekend day. But not only is it common
sense to take extra measures in any big city but I had personally been put
on alert. Yet I chose to be out to lunch, something I detest when I let
myself do it.

As I say, I promise. In the meantime I will continue with my damage
control, get things fixed, replace the losses, see if my insurance covers
any of it, and become better about coping with the vile ones of the world.

Oh, yes, I also went to the police to report this and the cooperation was
fantastic?well, not really. The officers?half a dozen of them sitting
there, chatting and joking and barely paying heed when I made my
report?pretty much regarded this event as something that?s solely my
problem, not theirs. I don?t know for sure, but I suspect they were more
interested in victimless crimes?drug offenses, prostitution, whatever?than
in cruising about the avenues of San Francisco, being alert so as to stand
ready to secure our rights.

All the more reason to be more alert oneself.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Column on Terri Schiavo's Sad Saga

Terri Schiavo?s Sad Saga

Tibor R. Machan

By the time this is being read, Terri Schiavo may have died. But she is
virtually dead now, or so it has been reported by several doctors who
should know. The situation isn?t so unfamiliar to many of us who have had
relatives who have become nearly dead or brain dead and whose life amounts
to little more than a forcibly induced condition.

I am now old enough to have made my will instructing that if I ever reach
such a state, I do not want anyone to prolong my mere survival. Why?

Well, to begin with, I do not believe in imposing the cost of any such
procedure on my relatives, let alone on total strangers. There is
certainly no moral--and there should be no legal?duty for the latter to
provide me with life supports, period, however much the ?laws? of my
community disagrees with me on this. The law is just wrong when it coerces
others to serve someone with such?or indeed any other?support. How dare
impose such burdens on people who didn?t sign up for the task of their own
free will? That is grossly unjust.

In the Terri Schiavo case the matter is clearly complicated by the fact
that hardly anyone dares bring up the issue of who is supposed to pay for
all this support. But it is plain that if the parents want to do so, let
them?her husband should relinquish his role as next of kin since no one is
taking it seriously anyway. His report of Terri?s own choice to let her
die if the current situation is to arise is apparently treated as
irrelevant for many who are chiming in on the case, even though by all
rights it is he, for better or for worse, who should have that authority.
Well, if he is not allowed to exercise this authority, he should just let
the parents take over the care of poor Terri. (I am not privy to all the
legal complications but that is what seems to me the decent way to handle
it. Certainly if I were in Terri?s position and someone, say a devoted
student of my philosophical works, wanted to keep me going, I would not
expect my children to refuse, although they should not be held responsible
for an
y of the burdens this would create.)

I believe much of the trepidation about Terri?s fate has to do with this
misguided notion that society?that is to say, other persons?must finance
anyone?s life support system. Unless she got sufficient medical insurance
to pay for her continued support, it isn?t justified that she be gaining
the support from people who do not want to provide it. It may appear to be
heartless?which, by the way, it isn?t?but no one owes another to serve
them unless there is an explicit or at least clearly implicit agreement to
that effect in force.

No doubt there are people all around who disagree, who believe that other
people?s need counts as a justification for conscripting unwilling
strangers to provide help. Well, that is to endorse slavery, or at least
involuntary servitude. Slaves, too, were thought to owe their lives and
labors to their masters, not to themselves. Conscripts, too, are robbed of
their will to live as they choose usually because the people who control
the government believe they are entitled to make them serve a goal they
believe is very important.

Free men and women, however, are not owned by anyone other than
themselves. Nor is their labor, nor their resources, available, morally
speaking, to be seized by others, even those who are in dire straits. That
is the price of liberty?not being able to take from others what others
refuse to give of their own free will.

Alas, neither conservatives nor liberals in the USA care much about these
elementary matters today. Never mind that the fundamental political
document of this country, the Declaration of Independence, spelled out the
idea clearly and unambiguously?namely, that each and every human being has
an unalienable right to his or her life and liberty and pursuit of
happiness (among other rights). This means that others may not take their
lives, infringe on their liberties unless permission from them has been
obtained.

However much even millions may desire that Terri Schiavo be provided with
more time, so that some miracle might make her recover, it should not
occur at the expense of the lives and liberties of people who haven?t
volunteered for this task.

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Correction

Please change Anthony Scalia to
Antonin Scalia in my column on The Forgotten Ninth Amendment

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Column on Scalia and the Ninth Amendment

The Forgotten Ninth Amendment

Tibor R. Machan

In a recent talk US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia criticized his
fellow justices for making law, a role he believes belongs to the
legislature or the people themselves. Justices, he argued, are there to
interpret the US Constitution and this they must do by reading it as it
was intended back when it was framed and when it was later amended. In his
dissent Scalia wrote,

The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the
issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment
will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death
penalty....? The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's
moral standards.

The charge Scalia has leveled at his colleagues?five of them, the
majority who ruled for abolition of the death penalty for juveniles and
the mentally impaired?is the substance of the general criticism usually
labeled ?judicial activism.? This view decries it whenever the court rules
as if there existed rights which are not explicitly mentioned or
enumerated within the US Constitution. One of the most famous of these
unenumerated rights is the right to privacy and the majority of the court
has ruled in several recent cases that various state laws violate this
right and are, therefore, unconstitutional, invalid laws.

In his recent public talk Justice Scalia argued that the idea of a living
constitution is essentially wrongheaded because it leaves the country
without a firm basis of law by which it can be governed. Instead of a
stable set of constitutional principles, justices have come to make laws
based on their ?personal policy preferences,? thus undermining the classic
doctrine of the rule of law (as opposed to that of arbitrary governors).

The case Scalia makes has a good deal going for it because it is indeed
part of the theory of politics in the USA that the role justices play does
not include making laws, only interpreting the Constitution when some
legislation is challenged through the courts (and reaches the US Supreme
Court). The living constitution idea is, indeed, destructive of the rule
of law and of democracy itself because it encourages arbitrariness, the
departure from governance by law toward governance according to the
justices? own convictions.

Yet, there is a problem here because Justice Scalia ignores the Ninth
Amendment to the US Constitution, the one that states unequivocally that
aside from rights enumerated in that document, the people have others, as
well. The Ninth states that ?The enumeration in this Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.? So, while this does not sanction any kind of
loose, ?living,? constitutional doctrine, it does make clear reference to
rights that aren?t explicitly listed in the US Constitution, rights that
we nonetheless possess.

What would be those rights? Pretty much to do everything and anything the
government isn?t authorized to prohibit. Indeed, the point of the US
Constitution does not appear to be to spell out our rights in particular,
other than to spell out for emphasis of some of the most crucial ones. It
is, rather, to state what the strictly limited powers of government are.

As to whether this authorizes the US Supreme Court to strike down state
and federal legislation that permits the execution of juveniles or the
mentally ill, the situation is complicated. It is arguable, however, that
one role of the court is to spell out the logical meanings of terms within
the constitution for our own times, meanings that have clearly undergone
some rational evolution.

Just as in physics the term ?atom? no longer logically means exactly what
it meant 300 years ago, so in political theory and jurisprudence the term
?human being? could reasonably require some updating. If it is found, for
example, that children and the mentally disabled lack the full capacity of
adult humans, this could reasonably require interpreting provisions of the
US Constitution and other laws accordingly.

And that is just what seems to lie behind recent rulings: for example,
the young, who in our day aren?t permitted to enter into contracts, to
marry on their own, or to vote, would probably not warrant being judged
guilty of crimes exactly as they were when certain nuances in
understanding what human beings are had been overlooked or were not
clearly understood.

Against Scalia it can be argued that although the idea of a living
constitution is dangerous, so is the idea of a frozen one. Reasonable
development in the meaning of the terms in the fundamental laws of the
society is to be expected and should not be thwarted in the US Supreme
Court?s deliberations and rulings. Those who protest that this is
anti-democratic need to consider that the Founders were not pure democrats
by a long shot?just consider the electoral college, which is blatantly
anti-democratic.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Column on thanking a bad man

Appreciation for A Bad Man?s Words

Tibor R. Machan

This is something I would never have thought I?d write?words of
appreciation for the last words of a vicious murderer. Yet I believe they
are due, even though the man who spoke those words is now dead, executed
in Texas for murdering a nurse in the 1980s for a payment of $1500.00.

It is reported that George Anderson Hopper, who received a lethal
injection for the murder of Rozanne Gailiunas in 1983, was asked by the
warden if he had anything to say before he was to die and here is what
this man said:

I have made a lot of mistakes in my life. The things I did changed so many
lives. I can?t take it back. It was an atrocity. I am sorry. I beg your
forgiveness. I know I am not worthy of it.? And he is reported to have
uttered this ?with his voice breaking with emotion.?

Now this is today a rather remarkable event, with someone who has done
something morally terrible accepting his guilt and making an effort to
seek forgiveness for it. It shows, for once rather clearly, that some
people accept responsibility for their evil deeds instead of merely
putting up all kinds of excuses and ?explanations? for how they behaved,
as if it had nothing to do with them at all.

In our era it is fashionable to look upon human behavior as but the same
kind of event as the rain fall, an earthquake, a mosquito bite, or a
tsunami?an impersonal bit of motion in the course of the unfolding of the
multitude of impersonal motions throughout the universe. This idea, that
people are just bits and pieces of matter moving about without any hand in
their own activities, is unfortunately encouraged by a pretty dubious
report of what scientists, especially physicists, and by some evolutionary
biologists, have discovered. By this account of how the world is,
everything is fully determined to go the way it must. That doesn?t mean we
know how it will all turn out, although if we knew all the laws of nature
and had a full list of the stuff populating the world, that, too, could be
done. We don?t so, the story goes, there are going to be surprises?that is
how Stephen Hawking, the famous Cambridge astrophysicist, accounts for our
alleged illusion of free will.

But this story is more metaphysics?and a bad kind to boot?than science.
It simply assumes that the universe has no room for free will. It doesn?t
show this at all. And the evidence is clear that people cause much of what
they do, including the scientific work that supposedly gives them this
story, not to mention all the artistic, technological and ordinary, day to
day, production and creativity we witness from them, for good or ill. The
story so many people in the academy tell?that we just are moved objects
and cannot ourselves move anything of our own, that we lack the capacity
to initiate any of our behavior so cannot reasonably be held responsible
for it?is an extrapolation and a hasty one at that.
Instead, a much more credible, though a bit more complicated, story is
that in the universe there are many kinds of beings, and what they can and
cannot do depends on their nature. In the case of people, then, it is the
fact that we have minds that we can activate or leave dormant that
determines how much of what happens with us will turn out. If we make good
use of our minds, if we think things through, if we pay attention and
follow through with what we learn, including in the area of human
relations, things will go well, but if we are sloppy, lazy, thoughtless
and then try to act accordingly, things will go wrong and sometimes we
will end up perpetrating atrocious things, like Mr. Hopper did when he
took money to fill Ms. Gailliunas.

It is about time that some of us fess up to our complicit in the bad
things we produce, whether they be Draconian misdeeds or minor ones, like
failing to keep an appointment or turning in a class assignment on time.
All this explaining away how people act can only spell self-delusion. And
it perpetuates the myth that just fixing a gene here, or a social
circumstance there, or simply throwing a bit of money at a problem, will
make a huge difference and the world will function smoothly in a jiffy
thereafter. That, in turn, promotes the idea of the meddling government as
the God that will fix it all?with the paradoxical idea that people in
government do have the power of free will but no one else does.

Column on not coercing generosity

Coerced Altruism?s Ruinous Popularity

Tibor R. Machan

You might say I wrote the book on generosity?one of mine had this as its
topic and its title, as well, back in 1998. So when in response to a
recent column, in which I reaffirmed the propriety of freely chosen as
against coerced generosity, I received dozens of really nasty letters,
claiming that I was advocating cruelty and meanness, I had to shake my
head in dismay. Will they never get it?

A bill like the Americans with Disabilities Act, long with many others
that make it a crime not to help those who are in more or less serious
need, is clearly in violation of an elementary principle of morality, one
that is captured in a slogan from the famous German philosopher, Immanuel
Kant. ?Ought? implies ?can,? said Kant?who is otherwise not my favorite
(because he continued to support a very destructive idea, namely, dualism,
the notion that reality is divided into two incompatible, the factual and
the mental, realms). In this, however, he pointed his finger at something
we all can easily accept, if we but think about it a little: If one is to
do the right thing, it must be done freely, un-coerced, voluntarily.
Otherwise we are simply behaving as we are forced to by others, something
for which no moral credit could accrue to us, something that does not make
us decent people and does not make the action morally worthwhile.

In a truly free human community, what measure of generosity, charity,
philanthropy is to be forthcoming from people may not be forced upon them
and the beneficiaries may not use the force of laws and regulations to
elicit what they need and want from others. This is true in the case of
all so called civil rights laws, too, be it for the benefit of members of
any type of minorities, be they of some race, gender or disabled group.

For instance, when immigrants come to a free society, they, unlike those
who come to certain states of the United States of America, are not
entitled to be provided by laws and regulation with special language
assistance in their schools or places of work. They need to do the
catch-up work with freely given support, not support gotten at the point
of the gun. And that goes, also, for all disabled persons, however much
this may seem to them unfair or even unjust. It is far more unjust to
initiate force against people so as to help one?a point that should be
easy to appreciate in simple personal relations in which it is plain
common sense that morally no one may coerce another to be helpful, even in
cases of dire straits.

In the community in which I live a disaster struck a merciless blow upon
a family, killing a teen and destroying their home recently in a wild yet
well populated canyon during heavy rains. In at least partial response,
thousands from the neighborhood, including about 75 business
establishments from near and far, gathered for a commemorative feast and
raised quite a bit of support for the survivors of the disaster,
voluntarily, with no one rounding them up to provide the support. This is
the way help is secured in a civilized, decent, and free society, not via
threats to put people in jail or of fining them if they are not willing to
give of their own free will. That is a central difference between how free
men and women live in one another?s company and how barbarians do, who
extract what they need and want by actual or threatened brute force.

Yet, in response to my recalling what would seem an obvious
point?especially in a country that put on record (and the government of
which makes a big deal of advocating for all) the conditions by which free
people live together, as wall is in the spirit of George Orwell?s
admonition that "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the
restatement of the obvious" (http://oaks.nvg.org/wm4ra8.html)?I got an
inordinate amount of flack. No, I am not complaining?I merely lament this
fact and make note of it as a disturbing sign of how fragile the idea of
liberty is in the very country in which the Founders considered each
citizen as having the unalienable right to acting freely and one that had
a tragic Civil War fought in large measure so as to abolish slavery,
involuntary servitude.

Monday, March 14, 2005

Column on Evil and The Welfare State

Welfare Statism and Evil

Tibor R. Machan

For a long time I have been reading works in political and social theory
and most of the well published ones?by major commercial and university
presses?agree with this passage that is quoted in The Status Syndrome
(2005), a recent book advocating various government measures to save us
from anything and everything that ails us:

The success of an economy and of a society cannot be separated from the
lives that members of the society are able to lead?. We not only value
living well and satisfactorily, but also appreciate having control over
our own lives.

The author of the passage is Amartya Sen, and the statement comes from
his own very prominent book, Development as Freedom (1999). Both he and
the author of the book to which the passage serves as the epigram believe
that the problems of most societies need more vigorous government
involvement and that those who champion the unfettered and admittedly
non-utopian free society are very mistaken.

Given that for innumerable decades the major Western powers have been
vigorous welfare states and that the claim that free markets have
reigned?say under Margaret Thatcher in England and Ronald Reagan in the
USA?is an out and out lie, it is a valid question to pose why all this
transfer of wealth to the people organized by governments simply hasn?t
done the job of fixing things for those at the lower rungs of the economic
system. There are probably several reasons but a few stand out.

Most generally, the ?lives that members of the society are able to lead?
just isn?t available for even the most energetic welfare statist to
guarantee. There is always something that undermines the grand project of
remedying everything via coercive means, including (a) bureaucratic
rip-offs, (b) lack of the requisite knowledge of what would actually help
people most, and, yes, (c) the bad choices of the very people who are to
be helped out.

There has enough been said about (a) and (b) by well known social
theorists to fill a library but (c) is something else. In our era it is
simply too surly to suggest that many, many people are personally
responsible for much of what happens to them in life. No, it?s got to be
something else, always. (This is also why many intellectuals cannot let
go of the idea that terrorists may really be vicious people, not victims
of, say, globalization or American imperialism.)

But there is a bit of good news now, which may finally enlighten our
decently motivated statists and their academic defenders, people who think
every problem has a solution if only you throw enough money at it and use
sufficient force to get it fixed. Professor Michael Stone of Columbia
University, a psychiatrists to boot, has chimed in with a surprising
(though largely old fashioned) piece of news. As reported in the English
magazine THE WEEK, ?He found that while some [of 500 serial killers in
both the US and Britain he studied] suffered from mental illness or had
been damaged by some event in their history, others were perfectly sane.
They simply enjoyed killing.? As the professor put it, ?Such people make a
rational choice to commit terrible crimes over and over again. They are
evil and we should be able to say that formally.?

Which pretty much opens the door that other people may not be quite so
evil as serial killers but could perpetrate bits and pieces of evil
themselves, including refusing to do much good for their own lives. So
when Sen states that ?we [i.e., all of us] appreciate having control over
our own lives,? he is wrong?some people simply do not appreciate this and
choose, instead, of float about, aimlessly, no matter how much effort is
put into helping them out of their misery.

Of course, most of us who pay any attention to the world, beginning with
our family and neighbors and friends, know this well enough and have
always. There are ne?er-do-wells about everywhere, people who are lazy,
irresponsible, and hopelessly incorrigible on that score, apart from the
really vile ones the professor was studying. And in large societies there
are very many of them and they will always be there. With the welfare
statists? refusal to acknowledge their existence, however, the fruitless
effort to fix these people?s lives by sacrificing the lives and labors of
others for their sake continues, despite the evidence that they will not
be helped.

Perhaps these people need to learn a thing or two from professor Stone
and start admitting that some people ask for their own misery and public
policy and political theory need to take this into account.