July 23, 2008Great Read on HayekSamizdat Jonathan Pearce pens a long and thoughtful post, in response to a left-of-center journalist who wrote: A civil, but still flawed look at Hayek from the left He discusses Jessie Larner's piece in Dissent Magazine: what he got right, what he missed. Both pieces are well worth a back-to-back read.
Posted by jk at 5:00 PM
| Comments (0)
July 13, 2008AuthorityAuthority is a broad term with many applications. One of the most important of those deals with the origin and scope of government power. The intersection of that power with "the power of an individual's inner freedom' is an important place to make fine distinctions. Following the link to Perry's "Tale of Two Thieves" blog provided in his comment to the previous post led to another excerpt from Walter Williams' forward to his friend's book (which looks to be well worth a read, by the way): "Give us what we demand," cried out the multitude, "lest we seize it by force." While allowing for the possibility that the necessary distinction came before the excerpted portion, it is necessary to observe it is not contained within this passage. By way of explanation, here is the comment I left on Perry's blog: "Ye have no authority, for one cannot give authority unto oneself."
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:18 PM
| Comments (5)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
My reply on my blog, reproduced here: God (and I say this in a "natural rights" context) gives us the authority, the rights, over our own lives. We can't "give" that power to ourselves. So you either have your God-given rights (including taking it back), or you don't. You don't even have to believe in natural rights, per se, to agree with this. By virtue of being human, you have these rights from birth. You don't need to "give" them to yourself, or "receive" them. But the real reason the merchant lost is because of force. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 13, 2008 10:26 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Dagny thinks I'm splitting hairs unnecessarily but I continue to think this is an important distinction. When you say "God" gives something or another then you lose credibility with those who are not believers. You can get many of them back if the right is attributed to a Creator, to the extent the non-believer is willing to insert his mother and father into that role. But you get it completely right Perry in your second paragraph, which I find a far more compelling and objective argument. "By virtue of being human" you have these rights from birth. Deity, Creator or creator notwithstanding, for without these rights - as I said - you're merely another animal. When I say "give yourself" the right to your own life and liberty it is in counterpoise to the idea of giving them to another - individual, state, deity or other some such. (If you don't actively "keep" your rights then you effectively "give" them to the first knave who says what's yours is his.) If the merchant had said "one cannot give authority over others unto oneself" then he would be making the same argument you are, and he might have won over any rational men among the multitude. I realize the point of the example was to show that there are no rational men in a mob that would sieze the property of other men in the name of government. And yes, the merchant did lose the fight because his force was inadequate compared to the government's. But my point is that if you don't understand the true source and extent of your inherent human rights then you'll be less able to protect them from other men - even rational men - who may possess the same incomplete understanding. Posted by: johngalt at July 14, 2008 2:08 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
You're definitely splitting hairs unnecessarily. You know the basic point of my parable, but even the specific rhetoric is still correct. As I said, you either have authority or you don't. You can't give it to yourself. Authority can only given to you by someone else. So the crowd cannot give itself authority over the merchant, and likewise, the merchant didn't give himself authority over his own life. Giving yourself authority over your own life implies that you didn't have it at some point. Asserting that authority is different. I personally find that people who don't believe in God, whether a Judeo-Christian version like mine or a Deist like Jefferson's, have less weight in the argument of from where and how they have their rights. "By virtue of being human" reduces the argument to one of pure reason. Backed by force, yes, but it ends at the point that man is a thinking creature, capable of reason though not always utilizing it. It doesn't mean "by virtue of being human" is incorrect, just that to me it lacks the compelling argument that God gave me my rights -- which implies that a tyrant is going contrary to the Big Boss. And a lot of people indeed will have to answer for suppressing the rights that God gave others. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 14, 2008 3:22 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I can't agree with you that "authority can only be given to you by someone else." I'll need to give it more thought before attempting a persuasive argument, however. But back to the reason I'm tilting at this windmill: That God gave you your rights is more compelling - to you. But to non-believers or to believers in a different god (Allah, Krishna, Mother Nature, the ACLU) this argument in defense of your natural born rights is powerless. Isn't there more value in an objective basis for the origin of individual human rights? Couldn't such a genesis for self-determination find universal acceptance amongst all men without requiring some universal faith as prerequisite? While I consider the latter to be completely impossible I still hope to witness the former in my own lifetime. Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2008 2:59 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
The beauty of the argument is this: others don't have to believe where I got my rights, just that I *do* have them. And if they don't believe I have my rights, let them *try* to take them. I don't have any faith in the latter, either, and I doubt you'll ever see the former. Human reasoning being what it is, there will *never* be the common objectivity required for everyone to agree. Most people are damn fools and greedy neighbors, others like to exert power as "leaders," and those of us who understand real freedom number so few. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 17, 2008 11:52 AMJuly 4, 2008China for a Day?Megan McArdle is in Aspen, which is almost, sortof in Colorado. You can call me names if you want but I really hate Aspen. Like Boulder, it has its charms, but it lacks Boulder's tenuous tether to actual reality. She is there at a seminar listening to Thomas Friedman. And he is exhorting us to lead the way to "abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons" (my experience with electrons to date has been that they are all four of these things without government interference). Friedman catches McArdle's heart by saying that we don't want a green Manhattan project, that we want to use price signals. But it seems to deteriorate pretty quickly from there: At this point he sort of goes off the deep end and talks about how great it would be if we could be China for a day--have the government get in, totally reorganize the energy market, and then go forward from there. He bases this on a conversation with Jeff Immelt, who thinks the world would be a better place if this happened. Here, friends and neighbors, I will make my stand as a pragmatic man of the right. We all feel the Hamiltonian urge. Now and then, we all want to force something on the public or electorate that they don't know is good for them. But it has been a province of the left to consistently exercise this. Republicans have, I'd cite Nixon, Theodore Roosevelt, and Hoover, but none is held in great esteem by the party or limited government philosophers. President Reagan perhaps blurred the lines a bit in the Iran-Contra imbroglio, President George W. Bush pushes Executive power a long way past what Madison envisioned in Federalist 10, and used some strong-arm legislative tactics to get Medicare Part D passed in a GOP Congress. But the smaller-government politicians have been pretty philosophically consistent. Against these exceptions, I look at FDR (with Hoover's man Rex Tugwell), Wilson, Johnson -- and the campaign rhetoric of Senator Barack Obama. Constitutional restrictions on government power are an impediment to remaking the world in their way. They have to be "China for Day" to get their benighted ideas past a foolish electorate. I have railed as well against the millenarian überright who look forward to rebuilding their ideal libertarian world out the ashes of a post-implosion society, We don't need to be China for a day and we don't need to have the Obama administration bring the whole thing down. We enjoy a modern, functioning, self-directed government. It has great flaws, but it can be changed with vision and ideas -- without leaving the Constitutional structure. Going outside or beyond that structure is what got us here -- it is not the solution.
Posted by jk at 5:36 PM
| Comments (0)
June 21, 2008Saturday ReadingI was tempted to link to Elizabeth Scalia's piece on critical thinking yesterday and embellish it with one of my 100 word comments. I am quite glad I did not. Roger Kimball does extremely heavy lifting on that topic and I am glad that his response will never be compared to mine. I invite readers to grab a cup of coffee and settle in; his post is long enough to be published as a magazine cover story. He digresses from "Critical Thinking" to cover essential differences in progressive vs. conservative thought in the two imperfect vessels of Kant and Bismarck. An inventory of the fearsome social, political, and moral innovations made in this past century alone should have made every thinking person wary of unchaperoned innovation. The piece is too far reaching to be successfully excerpted. Read the whole thing. Did Kimball really compose this in a single day? It is a response to an article published yesterday. I consider myself a fast (as opposed to gifted) writer. This would have taken me a year. With a full time research assistant. And two editors. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by jk at 11:01 AM
| Comments (0)
May 23, 2008Staying True to PrinciplesFred Thompson, my first choice for GOP candidate has an piece in the Wall Street Journal decrying the chicken-littles who are marking the end of conservatism. (again) Conservatives should stay true to their principles and remember: Read it all
Posted by AlexC at 3:13 PM
May 13, 2008Ms. Rand Call Your Office!David Bernstein, at Volkh Conspiracy, joins Professor Norman Levitt in taking a whack at "Science Studies," the specialty of the Lecturer at Dartmouth who sued her students for thinking. One clear advantage to this methodology, obviously, is that it gives its practitioners leave to dismiss scientific findings they find discomfiting without the necessity of developing significant scientific arguments against them. If science is a phantom constructed by a cabal with social interests opposed to yours, you have only to utter a few magic words from the science-studies canon and, poof!, the offending ideas go up in smoke. One can see this at work in the supposed findings of many authors, from Helen Longino, who doesn't like the fact that exposure to hormones in utero can affect the behavioral propensities of young children, to Vine Deloria, the American Indian activist who simply despises western science root and branch and asserts that it has no authority to dispute Native American lore. I don't know that it will surprise any ThreeSourcers, but the brazen capacity of academe to deny truth and reason should astonish -- we must not inure to it. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by jk at 1:32 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Ayn Rand answered these people before she left for the day. She wrote in the introduction to Atlas Shrugged- "Those who deny the existence of reason cannot be swayed by it. They cannot help you. Leave them alone." Posted by: johngalt at May 16, 2008 3:50 PMMay 11, 2008Prosperitarian Exit Strategy<Senator Clinton Voice>Y'Know,</Senator Clinton Voice> pundits keep asking Senator Clinton and her staff why she is still in the race, asking the campaign to show the math whereby she gets the nomination. Empathy for the dirigisme poster child is not my normal state, but I am starting to feel for her. I've had a worse few days than she. I'm not out $21 Million, but I've received a lot of political bad news. And if pundits found me newsworthy, they'd be asking me about exit strategies: "With all due respect, Mr. Kranz, how do you see the math working that will preserve freedom and prosperity in this country?" I'd have to stammer and say that I believed my policies to be best for the country, and hope they cut to commercial. The first wave of pessimism was a fun chat with an old friend (who might be blogging around here in a bit). Looking at the bleak electoral landscape in November, even I -- Mister Optimist -- could not come up with a rosy scenario. Second was David Brooks's NYTimes Editorial this week. I always liked David Brooks, but he has an elitist, CW kind of conservativism, and has not found intellectual growth at the Times. I can normally shrug him off. But his call for an American Cameronism is too much to bear. Keep in mind I get most of my UK politics from Samizdata so I may be a bit jaundiced, but that doesn't sound like anything I want. Third was the cover story to Reason "Cult of the Presidency." I found the issue buried under some mail -- it may have been out a while. Gene Healy says "Who can we blame for the imperial White House? Look no further than you and me.:" Healy looks at the Constitution, founders' intent, and the early President through TR, and wonders how we came to demanding a President that is so actively involved. Senator Clinton is quoted that "I'm ready to be Commander-in-Chief of our economy on Day One." Ow. The article opens by quoting ThreeSources Deity, Phil Gramm, saying "I ain't running for National Preacher," then pointing out that he finished fifth in the first primaries with a lot of money and name recognition. Fourth is Senator Lamar Alexander’s Energy Plan, best summarized by this commenter (linked by Insty): Good Lord, now we've got Republicans proposing Five Year Plans and Seven Step programs like some 1930's Soviet Beet Kommissar. The last thing we need is the know-nothings in Congress pretending they have the expertise required to plan the future of a market segment as huge and critical as energy. They have no such knowledge because that knowledge doesn't exist anywhere as some type of accessible whole. It takes a market with millions upon millions of people, each with their own intimate knowledge of their own needs and capabilities, participating in an open energy marketplace with free prices to coordinate such an unimaginably huge, ever-changing body of knowledge and action. I have bemoaned that only 9% of the electorate is libertarian -- I don't know that even that many yearn, like I do, for a "Silent Cal" type President who would not pretend to run our lives. I can't draw the map or count the delegates to show how we get there, but like Senator Clinton, I'll keep on campaigning.
Posted by jk at 1:43 PM
April 25, 2008EthanolA friend of this blog sends a link to the NY Sun: “I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels. Ethanol subsidies are great. They are great because they present a perfect example of what is wrong with government interference. This story has it all -- I dearly hope our grandchildren will ridicule us for this, when they read of this idiocy in their textbooks. I'll concede that it is conceived to deal with a real problem and promote a public good: heart full of good intentions. It would be better to produce more energy domestically, to ship less oil around the world in big ugly tankers. And less pollution would be an advantage. But the decision to take it out of market forces is where it all goes wrong. In the market, millions of customers, suppliers, marketing people and product engineers decide what best fills the need. People would try many different things, creating winners and losers. In the land of Ethanol, however, the decision is made by two powerful politicians. Sens. Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin may not be philosophical soulmates, but they both represent the great State of Iowa. They both have seniority and the power it confers. And they both receive a lot of funding from "Big Ag." I'm not saying that either of them did anything wrong, illegal, immoral or even untoward. It sounded like a good idea, it would help their state, it was desired by their donors -- what's not to like? In the years since, the bloom has fallen off the cornstalk. It turns out that Ethanol is inefficient, produces more CO2 than gasoline, and that the subsidies have distorted the food markets. Any kind of market mechanism would have trimmed the capital going into this until these issues were better resolved. But government doesn't care so much about results (cf. education) so the project continues. The waste of money is not the worst thing -- the worst thing is all the real solutions and development that is crowded out. Every week I read about a breakthrough in solar, or biomass, fusion, geothermal. But all these technologies must compete with subsidized corn-based ethanol production. So many government decisions are loaded with emotional baggage. Abortion, health care, education and the environment arouse powerful feelings, and many people let their emotions take over when discussing them. But -- other than Senator Grassley -- nobody gets too choked up about Ethanol. Non-Senators can discuss the benefits and pitfalls of subsidies rationally. It represents a good opportunity to educate people on the dangers of state intrusion into free markets. UPDATE: Insty links to the Sun article and has a lot more on the connection with VP Gore which interested my original emailer.
Posted by jk at 6:30 PM
March 20, 2008Welcome Mr. MametI had read several blog posts and references to David Mamet's Village Voice piece "Why I Am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal." It's always good to have somebody discover Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman. I smiled and moved on. Daniel Henninger writes about it today in his Wonderland column. His piece, as usual, is pretty good. But it got me to go to the source and read Mamet's piece in its entirety. I am not going to excerpt it. Mamet is a writer and artist by trade, and he has written a work of art. It does not hurt that it highlights what I believe, but it is an honest, introspective finding of the values I cherish. He gets it -- whether he discovered it last week or last century.
Posted by jk at 11:47 AM
| Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:
Mamet also produces an excellent military themed series on CBS called, "The Unit." I look forward to reading his entire essay. Posted by: johngalt at March 25, 2008 3:00 PM
But jk thinks:
Et tu, jg? I have heard nothing but complaints about rampant anti-Americanism on that show. I tease my brother-in-law for watching it. While I have not seen it, he has shared a few plotlines with me and I have never heard such anti-corporate, anti-business nonsense. I admitted that I haven't watched the show, am I wrong?
But johngalt thinks:
Methinks you are a victim of "spin." Sure there are bad guys who are Americans or CIA or corporate, but nothing that implies capitalism or liberty are the problem. And beside that, most of the really bad guys are AK-47 totin' foreigners. Posted by: johngalt at March 26, 2008 3:49 PMMarch 11, 2008God's good gracesBlind obedience to faith or manipulative rationalization? You decide: Gaza Hamas leader thanks God for his son's death in Israeli air strike "This is a part of our people's path and, God willing, our people will achieve victory," Khalil al-Haya said. How unfortunate for mister al-Haya that God frowns upon him so, and denies him the glory of martyrdom. Many others in his family were apparently in good graces with Him, however. "I thank God for this gift," Khalil al-Haya said. "This is the 10th member of my family to receive the honor of martyrdom." Man, that's a lot of virgins! Seriously though, if Islamists really believed that being blown to bits by Israeli helicopters in the "conflict with Israel" was a gift from God they'd be lining up with targets on their heads.
Posted by JohnGalt at 11:43 AM
February 28, 2008Waiting for the Libertarian WFB,Jr.A new play by William Beckett: fractious and zealous thinkers fight each other like Monty Python's "Judean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea" while collectivists accrue more money, power, and influence. In the shadow of the New Deal, Godot did show. The WSJ Ed Page remembers "When liberalism was dominant but hidebound in the second half of the last century, [William F. Buckley] pioneered a new direction that transformed American politics." These achievements might not have happened without Buckley, who was uniquely suited to preside over the often-feuding factions of the early political right. He liked arguments over principle, but he also had an uncommon talent for adjudicating disputes and building coalitions. And though Buckley had bedrock beliefs, he had a conservative's distrust for systems and grand theories; his politics were pragmatic. His thinking and prose were governed by a critical-deliberative style that emphasized contingency and complexity. More than anything else, Buckley wanted to promulgate what he often referred to as "a thoughtful conservatism." Waiting...
Posted by jk at 10:43 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
"Thoughtful conservatism:" Light-years ahead of "compassionate conservatism." If WFB Jr. consolidated conservative thought then GWB Jr. dismantled it. Posted by: johngalt at February 28, 2008 3:19 PMJanuary 24, 2008I Was WrongI missed the point on this Kinder Gentler Capitalism thing. Google-dot-org has 1% of its parent’s profits to fix the world. I suggested that the incentives and methods for efficiently allocating resources would be lacking in this new, sweet corporate world. Clearly, I was wrong: The process of determining what to finance was not easy, said Jacquelline Fuller, the head of advocacy at Google.org. Beginning in the spring of 2007, “the 20 team members had 20 ideas.” Team members, she said, “debated, cried and held hands as we tried to determine what kind of difference we could make.” It took them almost a year to winnow down the list. Twenty people “debated, cried and held hands" for almost a year to establish priorities? I'll never compain about meetings at work again.
Posted by jk at 5:56 PM
SadMicrosoft Chairman Bill Gates is my favorite capitalist. I run with a UNIX crowd that exists to counter the evil Borg from Redmond, so I have to be careful what I say. But my life has been so positively impacted by Gates, I have to admire him. I'm fond of asking my lefty friends who did more good: Mother Theresa or Bill Gates? Gates left dozens -- probably hundreds -- of millionaires in his wake, enabled my career and now my ability to pursue part of it from home in spite of disability, and ultimately empowered me to blog and to record my own music. Remove the inexpensive OS from the world and it is considerably darker. Sad to say, Mr. Gates will not participate in the unabashed celebration of capitalism I offer in his name. Too many glasses of Château l'Fete with Mr. Buffet? But these will be immeasurable and unaccountable -- subject to none of the forces that made Microsoft and its impact. We need to turn to the words of Nancy Reagan: "Kinder and Gentler than Whom?" UPDATE: His guest editorial in the WSJ is better. UPDATE II: Don Luskin: "Translation: the old form of capitalism was fine for me, making me the richest man in the world. Now that I've got that position, though, let's change the rules for everyone else." UPDATE III: Larry Kudlow wonders about the differences between free market countries and Venezuela: It appears Gates is ignoring the global spread of free-market capitalism that has successfully lifted hundreds of millions of people up from poverty and into the middle class over the last decade or so. Think China. Think India. Think Eastern Europe (and maybe even France under Sarkozy). Gates wants business leaders to dedicate more time to fighting poverty. But the reality is that economic freedom is the best path to prosperity. Period.
Posted by jk at 3:13 PM
| Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:
Francisco d'Anconia, call your office... Capitalism hasn't "failed many of the world's poor" - authoritarianism has! Just what are "the needs of the poor?" Progress of the third [of the world's population] that's best off is quite satisfactory. What's unsatisfactory is for the bottom third to lag behind. But what about the middle third? Shouldn't we all be forced to give them some of our stuff too? Bill Gates Jr. gets more like his looney father every day. I blame his wife. Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2008 3:47 PM
But jk thinks:
I'd rather continue blaming Buffet. "Bill, I don't want you hanging around with that Berkshire-Hathaway guy any more!" You nailed it, brother jg. The failure is that people have not been given sufficient access to capitalism, not that a "kinder" capitalism is required.
But dagny thinks:
JK the number of millionaires created by Gates is definitely hundreds and more likely thousands. I even dated a few when I lived nearby. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Posted by: dagny at January 25, 2008 12:52 AM
But jk thinks:
No doubt you're right on the magnitude, Dagny. I'm fascinated that you dated them and then married jg... (He knows I jest) Posted by: jk at January 25, 2008 11:41 AMJanuary 22, 2008Hillary and HayekIt pains me to type those names together, but that is the title of a Roger Kimball piece that he has revised and reposted in honor of Senator Clinton's comments that we noted yesterday. The urgency with which Hayek condemns socialism is a function of the importance of the stakes involved. As he puts it in his last book The Fatal Conceit , the “dispute between the market order and socialism is no less than a matter of survival” because “to follow socialist morality would destroy much of present humankind and impoverish much of the rest.” We get a foretaste of what Hayek means whenever the forces of socialism triumph. There follows, as the night the day, an increase in poverty and a diminution of individual freedom. A great read. I am glad that Clinton was so direct in her call for collectivism. The debate can be joined in earnest. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by jk at 2:51 PM
January 14, 2008Capitalism For The SoulTim Blair -- and Instapundit -- link to a brilliant paper on Capitalism's PR problem. I was asked at lunch today why the ideals heralded on ThreeSources are so difficult to sell. This Australian provides a (sorry, I have to break my vow) stunning exegesis: Capitalism provides the conditions for creating worthwhile lives, The problem for those of us who believe that capitalism offers the best chance we have for leading meaningful and worthwhile lives is that in this debate, the devil has always had the best tunes to play. Capitalism lacks romantic appeal. It does not set the pulse racing in the way that opposing ideologies like socialism, fascism, or environmentalism can. It does not stir the blood, for it identifies no dragons to slay. It offers no grand vision for the future, for in an open market system the future is shaped not by the imposition of utopian blueprints, but by billions of individuals pursuing their own preferences. Capitalism can justifiably boast that it is excellent at delivering the goods, but this fails to impress in countries like Australia that have come to take affluence for granted. The piece is long but superb.
Posted by jk at 12:13 AM
| Comments (2)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I'm on vacation right now and don't have time to read the paper, but selling capitalism has one fundamental problem: There will always be people who don't want to work, and in a true capitalist system that's predicated on a free market, they can't live off the labor of others except by truly voluntary charity. As Bastiat wrote, "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." As long as there is a government actively redistributing wealth, people can afford to delude themselves with jealousy, that "no one should have more than anyone else." Anyway, I have to run. My fiancee's family is preparing dinner. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 14, 2008 5:18 AM
But jk thinks:
Enjoy your dinner and vacation! No doubt you are right to a point and that many enemies of a truly fair economic system want to freeload. But I think johngalt's bete noir of altruism is an even larger component. To be fair, the statists I know tend not to be freeloaders. Some are, but most are productive people who simply cannot bear to see anybody caught in any consequences however much the suffering party may have contributed to his own problems. January 7, 2008Steppin' OutJoe Jackson devotes a section of his website to a serious, well researched pamphlet he has written: Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State. (PDF) A valetudinarian is someone neurotically obsessed with the state of their health (a close cousin of a hypochondriac, which is someone who always thinks they’re sick). Such a condition leaves us vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation, as does the parallel obsession with ‘safety’. The idea of ‘zero-risk’ is also fashionable, but I believe that the more we are encouraged by authorities to demand it, the more we are infantilised. A mature person should accept that ‘zero-risk’ is an illusion. Hat-tip: Samizdata
Posted by jk at 5:28 PM
November 14, 2007Clarkson Vs. MonbiotSamizdata picked this up as a "Quote of the Day," but the post must be read in full. Climate Resistance asks "Why Monbiot is So miserable?" George Monbiot is a writer for the Guardian who makes Paul Krugman look balanced, and Dennis Kucinich moderate. I, like many, assumed Perry DeHavilland coined the phrase "Moonbat" in his honor -- Perry denies this. The post discusses the relentless negativity of the European Left chattering classes, and compares it to the spirit and spunk of Top Gear: George's problem is that the culture he wants us to be part of is entirely negative. In contrast to this cultural pessimism, Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond, and James May celebrate human achievements - however shallowly, and appear to risk their lives for their passions, while Monbiot considers us to be a destructive plague on the planet. Clarkson is a hero, and Monbiot is a chicken. Clarkson bumbles his own way into making history by doing dangerous things like driving to the North Pole, while Monbiot twitches behind his curtains, tutting about what other people are getting up to. Clarkson, for all his faults, is full of spirit, letting bad things bounce off of him. Monbiot dwells on the fantasy dystopia he's read about. The irony here is that while the things that Top Gear represents are somewhat coarse, it is Monbiot's dark dark narrative which creates apathy. The only reason he can think of for organising our collective efforts is that if we don't, we will all drown. What George needs to realise is that people don't drive cars because they watch Top Gear, they watch top Gear because they love cars and the positive things that cars represent. Environmentalism offers us nothing positive. Top Gear is probably the funniest TV program in the world. Though I think it was better before they discovered it was funny and started trying, it is one show I will not miss. Clarkson is a British conservative. He has no love for anything American unless it has four wheels and was made before Nixon was President, but he has a zest for life that the left has completely abandoned.
Posted by jk at 5:41 PM
September 12, 2007Hamilton & the Metric SystemThe middle ed in the Wall Street Journal today goes a couple puns too far, but makes a great point: (Paid link, but I am Brussels has learned what many an exasperated woman has known for some time: Don't get between a Brit or Irishman and his pint. We refer to yesterday's decision by the European Commission to allow the U.K. and Ireland to continue using imperial weights and measures. Pursuing a science career as a lad, I thought the metric system was great, and supported its adoption in America during the 70's. I knew a little science, but I had not met the ideas of Hayek. Why, the metric system was clearly better! You could convert easily between different measures, even between liquid measures, volume, and (with water) mass. Let's join the knighted Europeans. Now I see that the metric system lacks the human scale measurements that we traditionally use "Tradition is the Democracy of the dead," Chesterton tells us. My wife is a little under five feet tall, I'm a tad over six. That makes sense at a deeper level than 183 vs. 152 cm. My friends in Ireland and the UK still give their weight in stones for the same reason. David Brooks calls himself a Hamiltonian more than a conservative in his essay in Mary Eberstat's Why I Turned Right (3.5 stars). And I find myself to be a recovering Hamiltonian. I respect our first Secretary of the Treasury, and consider our country far better off that he won the day with creation of a National Bank. But Hamilton stands for imposing "better" ideas on the people who are not quite bright enough to see their value. Because that worked with the National Bank (I'm sure some ThreeSourcers may dissent) does not mean, on balance, that it has worked for the next 200 years when the government has forced ideas on an unwilling public. The tension between the tyranny of the majority and authoritarianism is a gift from Hamilton and his supporters and antagonists. But we dodged a bullet when we passed on the Metric System.
Posted by jk at 10:44 AM
August 6, 2007Son of Anarcho CapitalismWe dabbled a bit in the far reaches of liberty theory last month, thanks to papers on Anarcho Capitalism provided by ThreeSources brother Harrison Bergeron. I had a good time, but remained unconvinced. Peter Leeson, who wrote one of the papers in question has a commentary on Cato's Unbound section on the topic. If you did not read the paper, be sure to at least read this. It is interesting and it pushes one's notions of the purpose of government (hat-tip to Everyday Economist). I was thinking about this as I read Michael Barone's "Our First Revolution" (review). Leeson opens his second paragraph invoking Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651, after the civil was and beheading of Charles I. He discusses Bellum omnium contra omnes and, famously, describes "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Among Hobbes's complaints is that the environment made wealth creation impossible. This got me thinking of Deepak Lal's Liberal International Economic Orders and the first logarithmic rise in wealth under Pax Britannia. I don't think I'll join Hobbes in the call for a strong sovereign, but I take his description to heart and cannot be moved by Leeson's descriptions of success in Somalia. In a recent study I compared Somali welfare under anarchy to welfare under government using all key development indicators for which data allowed comparison.[15] According to the data, of the eighteen development indicators, fourteen show unambiguous improvement under anarchy. Life expectancy is higher today than was in the last years of government’s existence; infant mortality has improved twenty-four percent; maternal mortality has fallen over thirty percent; infants with low birth weight has fallen more than fifteen percentage points; access to health facilities has increased more than twenty-five percentage points; access to sanitation has risen eight percentage points; extreme poverty has plummeted nearly twenty percentage points; one year olds fully immunized for TB has grown nearly twenty percentage points, and for measles has increased ten; fatalities due to measles have dropped thirty percent; and the prevalence of TVs, radios, and telephones has jumped between three and twenty-five times. You'll pardon me for suggesting that improvement over 1990s Somalia is a pretty low bar. I appreciate Leeson's points as academics and philosophy. When people seriously suggest them as an improvement or a blueprint for the governments in the US or Western Europe, I balk (as does Leeson). Sadly, well-functioning, well-constrained governments like the ones we observe in the U.S. and western Europe are not part of this choice set. Ultra-predatory, corrupt, and abusive governments, however, are. And so is anarchy. As Somalia’s experience illustrates, for many LDCs with these limited options anarchy may very well be the best feasible choice.
Posted by jk at 7:33 PM
| Comments (4)
But Jim thinks:
Until the people of Somalia are ready to take on the responsibility of an enlightened, Western-style government, what else is there to do but accept the fact that functional anarchy has improved the lives of the people? Most attempts to install democracy in countries that aren't ready for it results in military coups or the dissolution of order--the leaders have little concept of accountability and responsibility and the people have no faith in the system to hold the leaders accountable. The Cato Unbound lead essay isn't saying that anarchy is preferable to a stable, functioning democracy (it specifically rejects that idea) but that there may be times in the development of a people from totalitarianism to enlightenment where anarchy is a necessary step--more or less the same argument I make in my blog in response to the lead essay. Posted by: Jim at August 7, 2007 2:30 PM
But jk thinks:
Jim: I absolutely agree. Anarchy is superior to bad government and many people would likely be far better off were Castro, Mugabe, (your favorite despot here) replaced with "None of the above" (Chavez would be a draw). I hope I am not putting words into people's mouths, but some frequent guests of ours around here were making the case that Anarcho Capitalism was a good model for developed countries.
But Jim thinks:
Ok, I get it then. I'm a libertarian, but have a difficult time fathoming such concepts as an anarchy-based coordinated national defense in this modern age of warfare. Pirates, the example used in Cato Unbound, had numerous advantages from a self-preservation standpoint that an anarchist territory would not. Posted by: Jim at August 7, 2007 4:26 PM
But jk thinks:
I might be overstating others' positions. I get in trouble around here because -- while I yield to no one in respect for market economics -- I have an almost Hamiltonian belief that freedom and abundance grow best in an orderly universe. Posted by: jk at August 7, 2007 5:27 PMJuly 17, 2007Randy BarnettPro-Iraq-War-Libertarian guest ed in the WSJ today (free link). I'm off to the doctors for my two year evaluation for the clinical trial I'm on (yes, it is government funded). But Barnett covers some themes I've been pushing. First and foremost, libertarians believe in robust rights of private property, freedom of contract, and restitution to victims of crime. They hold that these rights define true "liberty" and provide the boundaries within which individuals may pursue happiness by making their own free choices while living in close proximity to each other. Within these boundaries, individuals can actualize their potential while minimizing their interference with the pursuit of happiness by others.
Posted by jk at 10:44 AM
| Comments (1)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Barnett is a good guy. I haven't had a chance to start on "Restoring the Lost Constitution" (got a signed copy the night I met him), but he has a marvelous grasp of our Constitutional limitations on government. I welcome Barnett's op-ed, but like most everyone else, he forgets that Saddam had American citizens kidnapped from Kuwait. What we did in Iraq was a long-overdue cleanup, and secondarily of a regime that had a high probability of threatening us. Walter Williams had a great piece once where he described Type I versus Type II errors. Basically, we decided to invade Iraq and remove Saddam because it was too great a risk otherwise. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 17, 2007 12:35 PMJuly 16, 2007Long Term Freedom BullArguments with purist libertarians have spiked around here with cogent comments from Perry Eidlebus and Harrison Bergeron. A sizable part of my argument is that liberty is not as popular as many purists think. There are just not enough laissez faire voters to elect candidates or enact some of the legislation we would prefer. Do not infer that I am pessimistic. I am very worried about American liberty in the near term. An unpopular war is associated with those would liberalize trade and lower taxes, recent GOP Congressional majorities have behaved poorly and without principle, and the 60's
The American Magazine I was shilling in a previous post has Japan on the cover. While we were all watching China, The world's second largest economy freed itself from decades of collectivism and government intervention. Under PM Koizumi and Abe, labor's hold has been loosened, government intervention reduced, and growth is rebounding. Another story details liberalization in -- sit down -- Sweden! They are selling off the government run and owned company that makes Absolut Vodka. Add the election of Sarkozy in France, Merkel in Germany, a wave of tax cutting across Europe, freedom may be in good hands while its shining light flickers.
Posted by jk at 4:30 PM
| Comments (1)
But Harrison Bergeron thinks:
The freedom message is strong and there is always hope for the future. For example, a new paper in the Michigan Law Review makes the case that another jk, J.K. Rowling, extols the virtues of freedom and libertarianism in her Harry Potter series. Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 16, 2007 5:17 PMThe New Value of HumansA quick commercial: there are several great stories in this month's American Magazine. Jim Glassman took over the American Experience -- which I liked -- and made it even better. It is an awesome, pretty, and inexpensive magazine. Their new website gives you most of the book if you don't want to subscribe, but I'd advise ponying up the fifteen bucks. It is printed on nice paper and features great design. One that caught my eye was Revenge of the Frosh-Seeking Robots. The intro might be apocryphal, but it is important all the same: Rich Karlgaard, the technology entrepreneur who is publisher of Forbes, tells the story of a trip he took with Microsoft’s Bill Gates in the early 1990s. On the flight, he asked Gates, “Who is your chief competitor?” The article details the competition between Wall Street and Silicon Valley for top talent, and tells about an inexpensive robot targeted at budding young engineers to get them hooked on the joys of programming. As they watch their robot dance to their instructions, they'll lose interest in studying economics and a big money investment banking career. Leaving aside the fact that I am a programmer who wishes he were an economist, I like this story for underscoring what I believe to be an unprecedented recognition of the value of humans. People whine about our "disposable culture" because we replace, instead of repair, electronics. I try to convince them that it is good to recognize that a day of a smart person's time is worth more than a television. To some extent, the increase in lawsuits is part of this pattern as well. It's 65% greedy lawyers, but it would not be possible without the recognition of the incredible value of a healthy human life. To risk a few of those on an asphalt playground was acceptable when I was in grade school but it is not today. Padded playgrounds and bicycle helmets cause eye-rolling among my peers. But it represents a realization of the monetary value of an American child. I am not saying that children are more loved. My parents loved me as they put me untethered in the back of a station wagon and drove to California. What was missing was the high financial value. Readers of this blog will no doubt cry nanny-statism and they are correct. But it could not proceed without this higher value placed on life.
Posted by jk at 10:03 AM
July 14, 2007Anarcho CapitalismIn a comment way down at the bottom of the page, Harrison Bergeron offers a couple of links to Perry Eidlebus: Peter Leeson of George Mason has done some interesting work on anarcho-capitalism that you might be interested in: I recommend both papers highly. Both present solid theory that should be accessible to anyone. I enjoyed the excuse to dabble in a little more academic text than what I usually read. I can also "leave the room" on this, and let Perry and HB fight it out over who is the real libertarian. This is fascinating, and Leeson's theories are well grounded. Introducing credit to the "game thoery" of the second paper is genius. I will have to go back, however, to the comment that started this long discussion. I return to Professor Deepak Lal's "Reviving the Invisible Hand." Lal discusses the explosive wealth generation under expanded Liberal International Economic Orders (LIEOs). I do not see where Leeson's "big-G" anarchy can possibly scale up to provide the comparative advantage and wealth creation that the world has seen under Pax Britannia and Pax Americana. There is a level of anarchy today in International trade -- but it is not the pure anarchy Leeson sees. If an American (or allied) businessperson is taken by pirates off Malaysia or kidnapped in Colombia, it is known and accepted that American force will be involved, starting as diplomatic and possibly escalating. That was true under the might of the 19th Century British Navy as well, and to a lesser extent under Pope Urban and Italian princes. We've at least found a clear delimiter. I cannot cede that banditry is preferable to self-directed government. Perhaps in Leeson's little-G societies, but the United States is better served with its unwieldy Leviathan. I will still fight it at the margins, but I will not trade it in for Captain Jack Sparrow.
Posted by jk at 4:00 PM
| Comments (5)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
You're stating your case better here, but you still have too great a reliance on government, and it's a dangerous reliance to think government must take wealth from people so they can create more wealth. It's fine that people engage in commerce based on the trust that the government will step in after someone violates them. However, it's never been essential for commerce to exist and even flourish. People for thousands of years traveled the trade routes from the Middle East to India, Samarkand and China, trusting that they could protect themselves from bandits. Now, are our militaries, particularly our navies patrolling the seas, responsible for more people trusting that they could ship things across the globe? In part, but the explosion of wealth we have today is principally from technology. It is important that economic actors believe that they can complete transactions, whether by defending themselves or relying on government, but that in itself is useless without entrepreneurs and technology to drive wealth creation in the first place. The mere enforcement of rights will not spark people to be innovative; it only encourages them to continue in innovation once they get an idea. On the other hand, technological advancement can inherently leads to better enforcement of rights: technological development spurs a group of people beyond others and could very well give them better means of defending themselves. And like I said, which I wrote about on my blog in reference to Chiquita paying off paramilitary groups, sometimes it's cheaper to pay off bandits than to shell out huge taxes to the government. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 17, 2007 1:37 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
BTW, I find it improper to use "anarchy" -- to any extent -- to describe travel on the high seas. Several major governments are willing to step in here and there when someone is violated, so it's largely a high degree of freedom. Barring regulations like shipping lanes, it's probably as close to the proper role of government as you can get. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 17, 2007 1:41 PM
But jk thinks:
You say technology created wealth more than trade. I suggest Matthew Slaughter's editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, detailing how important globalization (I say LIEO) was to technology development: Then IT firms, thanks to competition at home and opening markets around the world, began to establish and expand global production networks. Stages of production that had once been bundled now migrated abroad -- e.g., hard-disk drives to Singapore -- all linked together via international trade and investment. In the United States, IT firms shifted focus to higher value-added activities: core R&D, design, diagnostic manufacturing, marketing and management. Today these high-end U.S. activities support assembly that is scattered around the world, with the massive imports described above now the way final products reach the American market. Just read the back of my sleek iPod: "Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China."Speaking of the iPod, I blogged that its 451 components are manufactured all over the world. That's a lot of pirates to pay off and terrorists to avoid. Posted by: jk at July 18, 2007 10:16 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
"You say technology created wealth more than trade." No, that's only what you thought I said. I said it's technology that principally creates wealth, not a government system of policing. Frankly, I'm surprised you think I, of all people, disregard trade, but even then, it still starts with technology. Machines that harvest crops and weave cloth affording people more leisure time, and some people can then try to invent additional things that they beforehand couldn't. It's difficult to dream up a new device when you're worried about getting enough grain to eat. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 20, 2007 11:41 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
BTW, I'm not sure what pay cycle you have, but I paid the federal pirates last Friday and will again next week. They also have this thing about making me mail them forms every April to ensure I've given them all the booty they demand, otherwise they'll raid my home. Pirates are willing to take less because you might not give in and instead fight them. Government knows it can charge you pretty much whatever it wants, because it has inherent authority over you, meaning that you have no right to resist it. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 20, 2007 11:46 AMJuly 13, 2007Pragmatism and PrincipleThe Part D thread has created a firestorm of philosophical discussion. jk is insistent on calling for pragmatism, but I cannot do the same. First, one must be principled. I support individual freedom -- both economic and social. I also understand that the federal government has expanded beyond its Constitutional powers in the name of crisis and "modernization." I believe that those within the government have used fear and the appearance of compassion to advance their agenda. In addition, those within the government have framed every debate with a false dilemma. Each side decides that something must be done and then produce their respective solutions. So-called pragmatists are then stuck arguing over which of these policies is better when, in reality, the best possible solution often involves no government intervention. My point is illustrated by jk's claim that:
jk is wrong on two fronts. First, he has fallen for this false dilemma put forth by those in government. Second, he pretends that the Democrats solution is off the table. By contrast, I would argue that the Democrats proposal is now much more likely to happen. Now, with a program already in place, the Democrats merely need to tweek it, rather than create it from scratch. In short, pragmatism is a great motto, but a poor practice. As Ludwig von Mises once said:
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 3:08 PM
| Comments (8)
But jk thinks:
It sounds great. But I fear you will stand for your principles as you stand in line for rationed gasoline and national health care in President Clinton's or President Obama's America. Stand proudly! Posted by: jk at July 14, 2007 11:10 AM
But jk thinks:
Again, you and I have the same list. I would trade Murray Rothbard for Schumpeter or Bastiat, but that's a good list all the same. Mises and Hayek as academics, Rothbard as an activist, could present pure and principled opposition. I'll argue that Friedman was a pragmatist. He argued his ideas forcefully and convincingly, but he worked in and with government. I steal his line "I am a little-L libertarian and a big-R Republican." Pragmatism defined. Our mutual hero gave us employee withholding, which he knew was wrong, so that we would have the resources to defeat fascism: pretty pragmatic.
But johngalt thinks:
JK, you posit your question as though slapping tariffs on steel were the ONLY executive action the president could have taken to curry favor with voters. If instead of pandering to a special interest in an important electoral region he'd instead found some way to lighten the government's burden on citizens across the board he could have enjoyed 60K more votes in each region of every state in the union. (Well, perhaps not southern Louisana.) But the biggest failure of Pragmatism (and pragmatism) is inconsistency. In the same comment JK wrote: "I do not think that freedom, wealth creation or our quality of life is made any better by leftist ideas. I'll take the free market every single time." And... "... I fear you will stand for your principles as you stand in line for rationed gasoline and national health care in President Clinton's or President Obama's America." So what you're saying is that you believe the free market will always outperform leftist ideas but that somehow, in the long run, Americans who've known prosperity like none other in history will slit their own throat? Two decades ago, plus or minus, I postulated that if every individual on earth possessed all of the collective knowledge of the human race then collectivism, and therefore war, would become obsolete. Talk radio was first, and then the internet - knowledge is exploding across the earth. It may not feel like it but I'm convinced that leftism is on the verge of full retreat. Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2007 3:21 PM
But jk thinks:
Sorry, jg, I couldn't hear you over the deafening roar of Americans' demanding more liberty and lightening the government's burden on citizens. No. Wait. I just had the Merle Haggard Box Set that Sugarchuck sent me playing too loudly. Actually, I hear very few Americans demanding more liberty. The author of Okie From Muskogee is supporting Senator Clinton's presidential bid. Jeebus, we can't even get Merle. I am not being inconsistent. I state that I would choose free markets, not that I trust my countrymen and countrywomen to do the same. The smart money is on a Democrat winning in 2008 (the Inatrade contract for Dem is selling for 55.3). Even the New York Times comments on how far left the Democratic candidates have lurched this year, yet they are polling well. No Democrat sees an opportunity to tack right on economics while several Republicans are happy to suggest tariffs and interference in trade and globalism.
But jk thinks:
I like but do not accept your theory that the Internet and Talk Radio are spreading enough factual knowledge to defeat collectivism. Daily Kos remains the biggest site on the Internet. After seeing talk radio's performance in the immigration contretemps, I'm not very hopeful of it. Posted by: jk at July 16, 2007 4:11 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
You say that the steel tariffs were worth it so Bush would prevail over Kerry. How about Part D and the senior vote it bought, or his squandering of $62 billion even though the GOP might as well write off much of Katrina-hit areas? Tell me, was Bush's second term worth the eventual bankruptcy of the federal government? Even I could accept a little BS so that we'd get more back (like tax cuts), but Bush's record has been ridiculous. The game has become how to buy people's votes with their own money, and how to rob them but not too much lest they vote for the other guy. A people who always accept the lesser of two evils will always be subject to some tyrant. They'll never be able to throw off the yoke. Lately I've begun to think that we might as well have Hillary in the White House, paired with a Democratic Congress, so this nation can go to hell faster. We'll have the revolution that much faster, then, to restore real freedom and stop this nonsense of "compromise." There isn't a majority of us who will fight in what I think is inevitable, but there are enough of us. We're the ones getting tired of paying for others...and we're the ones who believe in RKBA. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 17, 2007 2:00 PMJune 17, 2007FathersTo all the dedicated fathers out there, happy Father's Day. I must say, now that I am one, I finally "get it." Yesterday's Paul Harvey essay "What dads are made of" [Starts at 9:29. Drag the progress bar.) brought tears to my eyes, as did Tim McGraw's "My little girl" (more so than it does on any other day.) Kevin Helliker writes in the WSJ weekend edition A Father's Legacy, where he uses his wife's loss of her father at age 8 to examine the influence dads have on their children at a young age. And their memories can offer insight into mysteries that living fathers ponder: How much of me would my child remember if I died today? Am I really having any impact on a 5-year-old? What is the most important message I can communicate to my child? But the focus of parenting theory is changing: After years of studying the role of mothers in early life, psychoanalysts are turning with fervor to the influence of fathers. Just last year, an international consortium of Freudian analysts convened a seminar at Columbia University called "The Dead Father," based in part on the premise that the role of the father in early childhood has been underappreciated. "The father has tended to get left out of the theorizing," says Stuart Taylor, a Columbia University psychiatrist who helped organize the seminar. In my brief experience as a father I've found that giving this love, approval and guidance to my children is as profound an influence on me as I hope it is on them. And that magnified sense of importance? That goes both ways too.
Posted by JohnGalt at 10:24 AM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
Nice post, jg. Happy Father's Day to you and AlexC and all the other dads in commentland. My father died in 1994 but it is a great comfort to me that I worked with him for four years. We fought like cats and dogs, of course, but I got to know him a lot better than my older brothers did. And I learned quite a bit.
But AlexC thinks:
Amen to that. Every son should work with his father, if possible. You see the other side of your dad. Best experience i ever had. Bar none. Posted by: AlexC at June 17, 2007 9:58 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
Amen. As my father and I grow older, we grow closer than ever. I think my son sees that being in the 'boys club' takes more than just a bit of chromosome difference. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at June 17, 2007 10:20 PMMay 1, 2007Defining ConservatismAre you throwing around words like "neo-con" and "classical liberal" without knowing what they really mean?
He concludes: There are a lot of nuances in conservative philosophy, which become principles for those who learn and adhere to what has been responsible for mankind's successes and failures. Real conservatives are slow to change their views and never forsake their principles.
Posted by AlexC at 12:19 PM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
Mr. Panyard wants to bring down the socialist monolith by insulting all of his natural allies. We'll see how that goes. Until the ending, I was certain that this was being written by a lefty who was studying conservatives as Jane Goodall studied chimpanzees. I disagree with about all of his descriptions and question his tome. Other than that, it was great.
But jk thinks:
I didn't mean that comment to be quite so harsh. I was struck reading Brian Dougherty’s Radicals for Capitalism how badly these schisms dilute political power among the liberty minded. I suppose that is his point but his incorrect and uncomplimentary descriptions of other groups don't help.
But jk thinks:
The real tagline for ThreeSources ought to be "Can't We All Get Along?" Posted by: jk at May 1, 2007 1:02 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Geez JK, I felt like I just saw a great movie after it was panned by the reviewer. Methinks you're a little prickly on this subject. I thought all of the descriptions were as accurate and matter-of-fact as could be in an effort to draw distinctions within the boundaries of a very big tent. I, for one, (a classical/libertarian conservative) was not offended. Nor am I unwilling to link arms with any others described here (except pseudo conservatives) to "bring down the socialist monolith." Posted by: johngalt at May 1, 2007 3:37 PMApril 25, 2007White LiesAndrew Klavan The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace. There are far too many conservatives and libertarians who take this candor to an extreme. Being smug in your correctness far too many times comes across as condescending. Especially to fellow travellers... how are you going to convince anyone you're right, if you're a jerk-off about it?
Posted by AlexC at 3:16 PM
April 3, 2007In Defense of Self-EsteemJonathan Pearce at Samizdata makes a good point about self-esteem. Pearce freely admits "a lot of intellectually vapid rubbish has been written about this. For a lot of the time, it seems, 'self-esteem' is nothing more than a desire to be freed from judgment, hard work and effort." Yet he worries about a "backlash" to which I'd admit which equates self-esteem with some of the goofy methods educators have tried to augment it. Pearce doesn't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater: If you think about it, self-esteem is about the idea that as human beings, we are both competent to live and worthy of achieving happiness on this earth. This has nothing to do with a vague, dope-induced "feel-good" sort of sentiment, but is something quite different. Achieving happiness and believing that one is deserving of that is often quite hard. In a culture soaked in guilt about material wealth, where people are constantly told to feel bad about prosperity and "selfish individualism", it is actually quite gutsy for someone to stand against all this. If one thinks about it, self-esteem, properly understood, is a key component of the idea of human rights. If people are entitled to pursue happiness and the good life, then they need rights to protect and advance that. To believe in the idea of the sovereign individual, one has to believe that individuals are competent to decide their lives and also worthy of such. And a self-confident, happy and proud person is surely what a healthy, liberal civil society needs. And. self-esteem is required to reject the foolish, anti-human ideas one encounters. While you're on Samizdata, check out their awesome April 1 British apology to Germany and Pearce's timely (for ThreeSourcers) critique of certain members of the Objectivist community.
Posted by jk at 5:41 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Good stuff! But then, you'd EXPECT me ["On Politics"] to agree. In Pearce's critique I read nothing of Peikoff other than "I have little time for [him]." As for this Roger Donway, supposedly an Objectivist, he's wrong. Calling oneself an Objectivist doesn't make it so. Posted by: johngalt at April 5, 2007 3:06 PMMarch 30, 2007DeniersIn a comment blog brother AlexC claims that "...90% of Americans believe in God." Personally I thought the figure was closer to 97 percent, so I googled the string american belief god poll and learned that the 97% figure comes from a University of Minnesota study that estimated atheists at 3%. Actual surveys put the number around 10%, in line with AC's claim. The U of M study must be in error though because a recent Gallup poll, as cited by the LA Times Ed page, ranks atheism as the most objectionable of a long list of political negatives. (If 10% of people will admit to atheism, a greater number must secretly harbor the disbelief belief.) In a Gallup poll last month, 53% of respondents said they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified atheist — far more than wouldn't vote for a homosexual (43%), a 72-year-old (42%), someone married for the third time (30%), a Mormon (24%) or a woman (11%). It is such a black mark that the "Secular Coalition for America" used a new word to replace atheist: "nontheist." [Shouldn't it be non-theist?] "Nontheist," by the way, is the latest secularist term of art for folks "without a god-belief," replacing the traditional terms "atheist" and "agnostic." (The former believes there is no God; the latter isn't sure.) But the American Humanist Assn. — and who's not a humanist? — prefers nontheist because most Americans wrongly think that atheists are anti-theists: people who not only don't believe but also object to others' belief in God(s). (For the record, I outed myself as atheist when atheism was less un-cool than it apparently is now.)
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:17 PM
March 29, 2007The Real Front Line in the Iraq WarI place great importance on the lessons of history. Unfortunately, having lived only since the early sixties (and having a mediocre public school education influenced by John Dewey) I wasn't aware of a counterinsurgency war in the fifties - fought by France and the Algerian government against Muslim extremists in that country - until today. Arthur Herman, retired professor of History at George Mason and Georgetown Universities, explains on today's WSJ Ed page how the French ultimately defeated the combatants on foreign soil but were ultimately forced to surrender to them anyway. What happened was this: while the French military had been concentrating on fighting the insurgency in the streets and mountains in Algeria, an intellectual and cultural insurgency at home, led by the French left and the media, had been scoring its own succession of victories. The "surge" is underway in Iraq. While long overdue it is, as Herman describes earlier in the piece, showing remarkable progress. [Read the whole thing.] But to avoid the same fate described above, America's domestic leaders need to initiate an intellectual surge on the home front. The survival of Iraqi patriots, and of America's ability to champion liberty anywhere in the world, hang in the balance.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:37 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
One aspect of the comparison is inapt. The French ran Algeria as a colony. I am all for coalescing free Western nations and all but the French had much more to be guilty about. Posted by: jk at March 29, 2007 4:55 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Al Qaeda and their domestic apologists would certainly refer to Iraq as an American "colony" if they thought that would sour the American public's support for the counterinsurgency. Perhaps when "civil war" grows stale. The vital point is that the Democrats, as tools of the far left, CAN lose this war for us if they aren't opposed in the arena of ideas. But they should be careful: Imagine how much more evil Bush will be to them when he declares a state of emergency and funds continued military action in Iraq by executive order - without congressional approval. I would support such a thing rather than see a repeat of Vietnam (or Algiers.) Posted by: johngalt at March 29, 2007 5:31 PMMarch 19, 2007Thr Real EnemyJohnGalt thinks it is Plato, and Arnold Kling thinks it is Karl Marx. I have suspected that it is John Lennon. But I think we all must admit that the true philosophical leader of the forces of darkness and anti-modernity -- is Yoko Ono. Oleg Atbashian, who grew up under Soviet totalitarianism has studied "The Gospel of John and Yoko" extensively, and narrowed it to these theses: 1. A collective hallucination can create objective reality. I was certainly brought up on this crap. Although I have aggravated some of my blog brothers and sisters with my rejection of Objectivism, I do credit Ayn Rand with showing me the fallacies in that way of thinking. Atbashian opens the piece with a Rand quote -- she remains a powerful antidote to Onoism. Like Kling's Folk-Marxism, I see a lot of what drives my leftist friends in this, and recognize that anybody my age in America was inculcated in this nonsense. Hat-tip: instapundit
Posted by jk at 12:39 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Excellent! I enjoyed reading the entire article and find the following passages most important: "Conservatives who support their positions with economic and political data but give away high moral ground to the “progressives” are thereby admitting that their economic and political achievements are immoral - and thus have no right to exist. (...) Because the spreading of the “progressive” morality has always brought suffering and misery to real-life humans, it should be exposed as inhuman and condemned. It should be opposed with the true human morality that is based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the one that has proven to spread happiness, prosperity, and real progress without any quotation marks." And for the record, I think the real enemies are Immanuel Kant and John Dewey (yes, of Dewey Decimal System fame) but they both channeled Plato. P.S. I think you meant "... the forces of darkness and ANTI-modernity..." Posted by: johngalt at March 19, 2007 3:39 PM
But jk thinks:
It was a tossup between Kant and Plato for you, but I thought I'd go to the source. Thanks for the fix on anti-modernity (since corrected). Posted by: jk at March 19, 2007 3:54 PMJanuary 9, 2007The Ayn Rand "Cult"Talk about not getting it: Atlas Shrugged 2: One Hour Later Not surprisingly, I think this is how dagny expects the new Atlas Shrugged movie to look.
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:21 PM
| Comments (5)
But jk thinks:
One fears that the good folks in Hollywood California -- even with mandated, universal health care -- can pull this movie off. At the risk of fanning the flames, does the cartoon have a point about comparative advantage?
But AlexC thinks:
I heard the movie was going to be a trilogy, shot Lord of the Rings style (all at once, but released separately) Besides, how did the strikers eat in Galt's Gulch? Surely there was a market of some kind. (been a while) Posted by: AlexC at January 9, 2007 5:03 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Yes, AC, the trilogy or not to trilogy story is referenced in the "Atlas Shrugged Movie" link above. How did the strikers eat? "I'll leave you to do it," said Galt, "while I go to the market to get supplies for breakfast." [...] He rose to cook the rest of their breakfast. [...] When he put her plate before her, she asked, "Where did you get that food? Do they have a grocery store here?" And New York City was NOT "on fire:" There were not many lights on the earth below. The countryside was an empty black sheet, with a few occasional flickers in the windows of some government structures, and the trembling glow of candles in the windows of thriftless homes. Most of the rural population had long since been reduced to the life of those ages when artificial light was an exorbitant luxury, and a sunset put an end to human activity. The towns were like scattered puddles, left behind by a receding tide, still holding some precious drops of electricity, but drying out in a desert of rations, quotas, controls and power-conservation rules. [...] They could not see the world beyond the mountains, there was only a void of darkness and rock, but the darkness was hiding the ruins of a continent: the roofless homes, the rusting tractors, the lightless streets, the abandoned rail. But far in the distance, on the edge of the earth, a small flame was waving in the wind, the defiantly stubborn flame of Wyatt's Torch, twisting, being torn and regaining its hold, not to be uprooted or extinguished. It seemed to be calling and waiting for the words John Galt was now to pronounce.
But jk thinks:
Hmm. I think they'd have been better off bringing David Ricardo and a boatful of illegal aliens than to have their most productive citizens stocking shelves and raising livestock. This is why I am a Rand fan and not an Objectivist. You can't go to the food court of ideas and eat at the Chinese place everyday, even if it's good. Posted by: jk at January 11, 2007 12:34 PM
But johngalt thinks:
The purpose of hiding out in Galt's Gulch was not to create a replacement society. It was to withold life support from the terminally ill society they abandoned. If they could achieve their greatest potential in the valley they'd have no reason to return. Important reasons to return include natural resources, larger markets and, yes, lower cost labor. While you're at the "food court of ideas" you'll do well to avoid the pizza place with arsenic in its sauce and the taco stand that garnishes everything with rat poison. With ideas, as with food, follow Heinlein's advice: "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." But swallow only food. Learn how to recognize poison and learn why not a single drop must pass your lips. Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2007 2:21 PMJanuary 7, 2007Between Creation and DestructionThe events of this infant new year have already given us plenty of opportunities to ponder the imponderable: Believe it or not, there is a philosophical theme that runs through all these events: In each case, the motive of the actor can be plotted on a scale between creation and destruction: (Where creation is 10 and destruction is 0.) The gang-banger destroys human life without pause in order to create some sort of personal "rep." - Zero Penalize business and redistribute wealth to create an illusion of helping wild animals. - Zero Popular musicians glorify the destruction of hate filled, religiously inspired murderers to create peace and liberty. - Ten An animal "welfare" advocate blithely dismisses efforts to create conditions for survival of untold thousands of animals while reserving financial resources for efforts to destroy commercial enterprises that create animal life for productive use. - Zero As you can see, all of my rankings are either 0 or 10. As with the scale between freedom and tyranny, the continuum from creation to destruction calls for one thing: Extremism. There is no such thing as "too free" or "too creative." I submit that these are the true scales upon which events, ideas, politicians - everything - should be judged. Not left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It is more practical (and desirable) to maximize freedom and creation than to balance between two opposing styles of minimizing them.
Posted by JohnGalt at 6:23 PM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
I suppose I get a zero for daring to question the motives and deductive reasoning capabilities of a starving rap-metal band (not sure the band's success or lack thereof is not exogenous to my critique). Pardon me if I take a little personal umbrage, but I have been lumped in a wall of shame with the likes of PETA, urban gangs, and the Department of the Interior. After such shame, I'm sure you'll see the valor in my defending myself. By grading everything a zero or a ten, jg, you expose the millenarian and utopian characteristics that have frightened me away from the Objectivist camp. Though we share many ideas -- I'll not defend anyone else who "took a thumpin'" in your post -- the absolutism that is so prized as moral integrity within the Objectivist community turns me off. The Jacobins and Bolsheviks were committed to ideological purity as well. They weren't afraid to break eggs to make an omelet as it were. Whittaker Chambers famously said in his NR review of "Atlas Shrugged" that the subtext was "to the gas chambers, go..." I never got that from the author herself but I get it loud and clear from Tracinski and Peikoff. I've always admired your pragmatism that you have seen the GOP at its best as advancing the ideas of liberty. I hope that's not an insult -- does that make you a nine? Peace, brother.
But johngalt thinks:
Alas, I see you missed the point. Posted by: johngalt at January 8, 2007 3:01 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Last night I learned that dagny found my response to your reply "rude." I have to say that wasn't my intention. I was merely disappointed that you don't appear to grasp the distinction between subjective and objective scales of measurement. Perhaps I was subconsciously manipulated into rudeness by your suggestion (with the "gas chambers" quip) that I, along with Tracinski and Peikoff, endorse mass murder. (Speaking of missing points - monumental ones at that.) I have more time today to respond, and more incentive as my better half is not yet satisfied with my performance. Here goes: There's nothing wrong with questioning anything, as long as you listen to the answer and make a rational judgement about it. I ranked Stuck Mojo's lyrics a ten. The concomitant zero goes to "hate filled, religiously inspired murderers." Your equation of Objectivists with Jacobins and Bolsheviks on the basis of "ideological purity" is many things (a listing of which I shall defer) but it certainly is not valid. It's analog is to equate Mahatma Gandhi with Charles Manson because neither wore shoes. To the man who is "turned off" by absolutism I ask, is there nothing in which you value the absolute? For example, could there ever be too few rapes or murders or abortions in the world? The moral integrity of Objectivists you so misunderstand com |