Reactions to "Radicals for Capitalism"

I finished reading Brian Doherty's book about a month ago. I figure posting my obligatory reaction is a good way to end yet another long blogging hiatus.

For those of you at all interested in libertarianism, I can recommend it as not only informative but also really entertaining; for a 600 plus page book it seemed like a quick read. I especially enjoyed its treating of some of the more obscure figures in the movement's history, as well as it's coverage of Murray Rothbard, who emerged as a more sympathetic figure than my previous image of him, which was mainly as a crank and ideologue who's highly axiomatic system of economics and ethics made him basically incapable of engaging in any constructive discourse. The presentation in the book didn't totally alter that perception, but I did come away with more admiration for his principled opposition to war and to the state, to which I've found myself increasingly sympathetic.

The book also makes an important contribution in going to considerable lengths to show that libertarianism is a substantively different ideology from modern conservatism. I find this especially important, because I've recently felt that many libertarians have become too comfortable with conservatives, who have largely become advocates of the expansive state created by the progressives. Early libertarians seemed to understand the pernicious effects of America's involvement in the cold war, which clearly separated them from the mainstream of the conservative movement. Indeed, great thinkers like Mises and Hayek clearly understood that communism was bound to be moribund and was not the omnipresent threat that conservatives saw.

I do have a few minor complaints with the book. I came away with the impression that I didn't really have a much better understanding of libertarianism as a movement. I would have liked more exploration of the broader social context in which libertarianism came about. There is some of this- Doherty does address how utterly alien libertarian ideas seemed to almost all people until the 70's or so. Perhaps I'm just craving a neat historical-sociological thesis, which may well end up being contrived.

The book also has some stylistic flaws. I felt a few passages felt a bit tacked on in an attempt to convey the "free-wheeling" spirit of our movement (this phrase does in fact appear to have been literally inserted into the sub-title of the book shortly before publication, and also appears on the cover made to look like it was stuck in there by hand). Overall, however, the prose is very clear and avoids too many flourishes, and, as I mentioned, it is a very fun read.

I'll be sure to post any other thoughts that occur to me on this subject. Till then, I recommend you read it.

Looking at this month's Cato Unbound

OK, so I had been working on a post responding to some of the ideas presented in this month's issue of Cato Unbound, but I somehow failed to save the draft. I hate rewriting stuff from scratch, so in lieu of that post I'll just offer some brief thoughts on some of the ideas in this issue:

-Tyler Cowen's essay has almost certainly generated the most discussion in the libertarian blogosphere. I''m sympathetic to his ideas, though I reject most of his conclusions (my now deleted post was a defense of Cowen's defense of positive liberty against Tom Palmer). I think libertarians do need to reconsider the importance of positive liberty. My take is that the increase in positive liberty is the chief reason to support economic freedom (indeed, I think the notion of economic freedom without a positive liberty element doesn't make much sense). It is true, as Palmer points out in a recent Cato podcast, that notions of positive liberty are often used to defend state intervention, but I think a correct understanding of positive liberty generally supports libertarianism. We ought not abandon a valuable idea simply because it has been adopted to some extent by our ideological adversaries.

-Virginia Postrel again shows herself as one of the most lucid and intelligent contemporary libertarian thinkers in her essay. I agree with everthing she writes here. Just go and read it, because she says it better than I ever could.

-I don't think that the welfare state is inevitable. Given the clear unsustainability of many current programs, it seems conceavable that future generations will be increasingly sceptical of massive state-backed income transfers. As Brink Lindsey points out, as people get wealthier, they can afford more government, but they can also afford more of other stuff, including individual insurance and retirement saving which will almost certainly give them a better payoff than the state-provided alternative. Also, given the enourmous strides that free market ideas have made in our society, it strikes me that libertarians can and just might make a good deal more progress in the marketplace of ideas in the coming years.

I hope to go more in depth about some of these ideas soon. Stay tuned.

A Good Point

Over at EconLog, Bryan Caplan makes an interesting obervation:

"Contrary to popular belief, Big Business often supports federal regulation. Economists' standard explanation: Regulation either directly restricts competition, or indirectly imposes a greater burden on smaller businesses. But there is another important reason why Big Business supports federal regulation that economists often overlook: To avoid the enormous transactions costs of dealing with 50 different sets of state regulation, and thousands of different sets of local regulation."

This poses a problem for my proposal for libertarians to support federalism. Because increased federalism would likely create a large set of differing regulations, this could impose greater costs on businesses than the more uniform federal regulation, however burdonsome the latter may be.

A plausible responce is that competition among states to attract business will result in more liberal regulation, as most companies can easily leave a state if the regulations are overly burdonsome.

No Libertarianism Without More Libertarians

I'm beginning to think that a more libertarian society will never be possible without more libertarians. This should be obvious, I suppose, but it's a point I don't encounter very often. The fact is that most people in this country believe the Federal Government should do all sorts of things beyond the enforcment of common law and national defense.

The first step for libertarians, I think, is to argue for federalism. This is where the aliance between libertarians and conservatives may have some purpose, though how many conservatives really believe in federalism is not clear anymore; the marriage amendment comes to mind.

I don't have much hope, however. I fear there are too many interests with a stake in the power of the Federal Government to allocate wealth and privledge, including the states. Alas, things may have to get much worse before they get better.

Some Tough Questions

I believe most people accept the fundamental premises of classical liberalism- that state power should only be invoked to secure the liberty of the individual. Of course, how one comes down in concrete cases will vary enormously depending on how one defines 'liberty'.

War is one case where disagreement over the how to correctly apply liberal principles can lead to very different views on the subject. I've found my libertarian instincts challenged by the question of just warfare. I've found a similar cognitive dissonance among other libertarians.

I believe this cognitive dissonance stems from the difference in the outcome (as least as libertarians see it) of the minimal state domestically and abroad. Under a minimal state, enforcing common law principles, the invisible hand is free to work its magic, and prosperity and freedom result. But what of those who remain under the heel of the state abroad? Are we indifferent to their plight? The traditionally non-interventionist position of the libertarian leads him to defend some unpopular views, such as the proposition that the Civil War and the Second World War were unjustified.

But what, so the objection goes, of the black slaves, or the murdered Jews of Europe? As unpalatable as it may be, it behooves the good libertarian to respond: But what of the millions who died fighting these wars? What of the expansion of the powers of the state they spurred?

Far be it from me to give the answer to these prickly questions (though I believe the libertarian need not provide a definitive answer). Isn't it remarkable, though, that these questions are so infrequently posed? It has become clearer to me of late that the state will always hold up lofty ideals and neglect the difficult questions to wage war. Sadly, it seems most are willing to accept this tactic.

Why I'm an Atheist

When asked the question "do you believe in God?", I have usually answered something along the lines of "I don't accept the assumptions behind that question." I’ve been drawn to some version of mysticism, in which the divine is essentially ineffable, and can only be experienced, not "believed". I have been deeply moved by (the likely mythical figure) Lao Zi, Rumi, and the Upanishads. I rejected agnosticism, theism, and atheism.

In the past year or so, I believe I've come to better understand the language of existential claims. I have to give most of the credit for this to Wittgenstein. Such claims, I've come to believe, only make sense if they are falsifiable, either through empirical or analytical observation.

What sort of claim is "God exists"? The most intuitive follow up question is "what is the conception of God in question?" Here we arrive at a clearer understanding of atheism, and the position it rejects, theism.

Theism is the belief that God is a conscious entity possessing three necessary qualities: omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence. Let us then assume that this is sort of God purported to exist. The second question then may be "way observable conditions instantiate these three qualities?" In other words, what would we expect the world to be like were God, possessing these qualities, to exist?

Without going into the long history of this debate, it should suffice to say that there is no consensus about what such a world should look like, other than, of course, this world. The problem is that proponents of theism have not made any falsifiable claims about the existence of God. This is because they seek to show that God exists in this world.

The perhaps oldest challenge to the theist’s position is the problem of suffering. If there is a benevolent, all-powerful God, why do so many innocent people suffer? The typical theist answer is either that evil is the flip side of good, or that, simply, the Lord works in mysterious ways.

In the past, I found this response somewhat convincing. The problem I’ve come to see now is that such claims seem designed to apply in all possible situations. There is no limit to the cruelty that could exist to serve the divine purpose. It seems to me, then, that this is no answer at all, as it seems to say that no matter what conditions apply in this world, they speak to God’s existence. Thus I have come to see the claim “God exists” as either incoherent or demonstrably false.

I would, however, offer a caveat of sorts. I am sympathetic with the desire to transcend what sometimes seems like a hopelessly banal existence. While I deny most of the answers, I don’t deny the fundamental problem of how we are to live our lives, with the common intuition that there is some difference between what is pleasurable, soothing, or easy, and what is good.

The problem with mysticism is that it often seems to offer as a solution a retreat from all discourse. We’re to believe that the solution to our woes lies in meditation, or leaving society all together. I agree with William James that mysticism must be considered to be ultimately private, and cannot support any existential or ethical claims.

I also believe that the pursuit of the good, be it mystical or otherwise, if it is to be open to all, is predicated on the existence of an open society, founded on the principle of open inquiry. The problem with most religious doctrines is that they, at least implicitly, ask us to cease this inquiry, and uncritically accept their answer. In response to these doctrines, I call myself an atheist, not because I have the final answer, but because I cannot accepts theirs.

A Little Retroactive Disclaimer

Just to clarify a point related to my two previous posts:

I do not in any way endorse the disgusting tactic of suicide bombing of civilians, nor the equally disgusting doctrine that underlies it. I also see the preventative measures Isreal has taken as understandable, though that doesn't place them beyond criticism.

That's really all for now.

Less Hysteria, Please

I'm currently listening to yet another debate between a Palestinian and an Isreali about the significance of the election of Hamas. This is a complex issue, and I only want to express a small idea here: could we have a little less hysteria?

I understand that both parties have a lot at stake here. I understand Palestinians are indeed living under occupation, and Isrealis feel under siege. I also happen to know that there are many Israelis who are not endorsing the anexation of the West Bank. I personally had a number of conversations with an Isreali who had worked on the unofficial Geneva Accords, who expressed to me indifference to the fate of Jewish settlers.

Isn't it possible to detest terrorist tactics and Islamic extremism, while at the same time not casually dehuminizing the Palestinian people, as so many pro-Israel pundits seem to do?

I also have to admit that I find it a tad disingenuous that so many Isreali pundits demand an end to violence from Palestinians, while continuing to occupy Palestinian territory and declaring their right to assasinate Palestinians they consider dangerous. Can one blame Palestinians for not automatically buying into this deal?

I just want to offer these observations in the spririt of a more balanced assesment of a prickly situation. Particularly in this country, such views are immediately branded as anti-Isreal or even anti-semetic. Such a reaction seems to imply that the only moderate position is one that implicitly endorses anything Isreal does, and holds up a blatant double standard. Surely this is neither genuinely humanitarian or liberal, but merely tribalism, the antithesis of the former.

Chiming in on the "Intoonfada"

I can't claim credit for the above coinage- I read it in the wonderful Reason Online.

I'll assume everyone knows what that refers to and get started. My take? There are, as I see it, two reasonable positions I have encountered thus far in the blogosphere. The first is has been expressed most vehemently by Andrew Sullivan (I won't link to a specific post, just scroll along and you'll find plenty). Sullivan sees the right to offend as inextricable from the right to free expression. He has also vehemently decried the hypocrisy of media outlets who have refrained from publishing the cartoons. He questions the ability of the many Muslims to live in an open society.

Another, perhaps more nuanced, position comes from Gregory Djerejian at The Belgavia Dispatch (main post here). Djerejian point to the imprudence of publishing what might seem like crudely provocative material, which he sees as designed to offend Muslims of all stripes. He also expresses aversion to the wave of "Buy Danish" posts and reprinting of the cartoons throughout the blogosphere.

I'd have to say I side a bit more with Sullivan on this one, but only a bit more. The point Djerejian misses, I think, is that a free press cannot be seen as an arm in the war on terrorism or the effort to democratize the Muslim world. If the publishing these cartoons is imprudent, than certainly a lot of free expression is imprudent by the same criterion.

Djerejian also points out that the publishing of these cartoons doesn't make western pluralism look good to many Muslims. This may well be true, but it is also true that you simply don't have pluralism without the right to free expression, even offensive expression (I think many Muslims recognize this, and have protested and petitions peacefully, as is their right). In this case, prudence gives way to principle.

That said, I think Djerejian is right to be cautious of the way some have used this kafuffle to more or less say "See, I told you Muslims are antagonistic to the west!" This is the sort of reasoning that's very appealing to European isolationists, as well as to the more fanatical sort of pro-Israel types and other hawks. It's also plainly false. Certainly protests have been widespread, but, by all counts, violence has been fairly rare. One editor of a Jordanian paper was fired for publishing the cartoons. Characterizing this as the Muslims World rising up in rage is simplistic at best.

At the same time, it's also true that the Muslim world does not have the same tradition of secularism and free speech that the west does, and this is likely a reason, along with the misery and oppression under which many in the Muslim world live, for the wide-spread outrage. Christian zealots in the west have had a long time to get used to the idea that many people really don't give a flying fart about Jesus or what the Bible says. One of the great virtues of the United States is the amazingly inspired idea to completely prohibit state sponsored or endorsed religion. This idea has had over two hundred years to take route. Sullivan is right to take pride in this.

In many European countries, on the other hand, laws exist prohibiting insulting any religion. In Germany, denial of the holocaust, or the publishing of materials that do so is a crime. France has taken a different approach enacted laws widely recognized as targeting Muslims' expression of their faith in public places. One can hardly fault Muslims for pointing out obvious hypocrisy in European treatment of religious groups. Muslims are right to feel targeted in Europe, and, in a more abstract and debatable sense, by the U.S. Arabs might live under repressive regimes much infinitely worse than ours, but they’re not stupid. While I've heard countless pundits decrying Palestinian terrorism (rightly so), I don't here them deny that Israel is, in fact, occupying land internationally recognized as Palestinian territory, and has actively pursued the gradual annexation of that territory through the proliferation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Is it so outlandish to suspect the motives of the American government and the West in its Middle East policy?

My point here is only to say that just because a Muslim feels outrage because of this latest incident does not make him a fanatic, even if his attitude is based partially on pre-enlightenment notions of religion and the state. One of the reasons why the Bush administration's policy of democratization has met with such hostility at home and abroad is that it marks a radical departure in our approach to the region. I don't consider it in the least bit unpatriotic or pro-islamist to say that the west has done quite a job of fucking up the middle east, whether through colonialism, supporting various nasty regimes, or just plain negligence. I also don’t see why one can’t simultaneously be ardently against so called Islamo-fascism, and ultimately support efforts to counter its influence.

If we're really serious about the whole liberal society thing, we'd better be prepared to actually be liberal-minded and be prepared to admit our mistakes and contradictions. How well U.S. policy fits that bill is certainly open to debate, but surely we can't be so full of shit as to hold ourselves up as the absolute paradigm of liberalism when we've engaged in such illiberal practices in the past. I still believe that the U.S. is among the most liberal societies in the world, and has a good deal to offer the world. But that doesn't mean that we should engage is shallow posturing. I suspect our best chance of ensuring the spread of liberal societies is for our pundits and politician to show a bit more honesty and seriousness. I'm trying to do my part.

Socratic wisdom and political thinking

An idea that occurred to me only recently in this form, but is certainly represented in the work of Hayek, is that, in considering public policy, it is as important to firmly establish ones ignorance as well as ones knowledge. I believe much of what underlies classical liberal and libertarian thinking is the recognition of how one acquires knowledge, and how this knowledge can and can't be broadly applied. Thus it is important to consider what knowledge central governments don't and never can posses, such as the important time and place knowledge that allows individuals in the market to make intelligent decisions. These individuals also have limited knowledge of the market as a whole, and this is why the price system is so vital; it provides an easily understandable gauge of various complex market conditions.

Any person can also recognize that there is no simple, universal formula for the good life, and thus, if we care about fostering well being, there is a strong case to be made that the role of any central authority shouldn't be to establish and enforce such a formula, but rather to remove obstacles in the way of the creation for varying lifestyles. This, I think, is the central argument in favor of freedom as the chief virtue to be promoted by governments, and it rests largely on the recognition of limited knowledge.

Socrates' great wisdom lay in the knowledge of his own ignorance. This lesson, while widely recognized, has not taken hold among many intellectuals. Part of the reason why so many intellectuals oppose capitalism lies in their tendency to look for universal ideas. In this they follow Plato more than Socrates. Socrates was not a universal skeptic. He understood that knowledge was first and foremost a process, one which required constant dialogue with others. The case for liberalism (as always here, of the classical, non-American sort) lies in this principle. The principles it does hold as universal are the prerequisites for the open pursuit of knowledge and happiness. It recongizes the limits of knowledge, but also what makes it possible to make this a practical concept.

Musings on the latest scandal

To the few of you following this blog, my apologies for the lack of recent posting. There certainly has been no shortage of subjects to write about of late. I'm working to have something intelligent to say about current events. My first stab will be the scandal surrounding lobbyists and certain representatives in Washington. I have to state here that I'm still informing myself on the details of this matter, but I thought I'd offer some basic ideas about what this latest kafuffle may mean for the state of our government.

I doubt that any thoughtful commentators on government affairs will be confident that any reforms enacted will do much to address the problem as most people see it: deeply entrenched special interest exploiting access to and financing of legislators in order to influence policy tailored to their narrow interests. Without oversight from a vigilant electorate, politicians have little reason to hold themselves more accountable to their constituencies, much less to enshrine a system to enforce accountability.

I count myself among the skeptics. Because the government enjoys such broad powers to distribute wealth (not its own, of course), the incentive to influence government policy is great.
The problem, as many see it, is the involvement of large sums of money, which are used to wine, dine and otherwise court the favor of law makers. In principle, I see no problem with prohibiting this kind of thing as a matter of professional ethics. I suspect, however, that a ban would only drive these dealings underground, just as a prohibition of other highly attractive practices, such as drugs or prostitution, has done little to actually curb these activities.

As long as government is in the business of deciding winners and losers in the marketplace, the incentive for individuals are groups to gain favor by dubious means with lawmakers will be too great to halt. Even if giving direct favors is not involved, interest groups will still invest in mobilizing voters around tribalist credos, smear campaigns, and other means to persuade a sufficient number of voters that the narrow interests of the group are also the in the interest of voters as a whole.

While it might be described as democratic, even publicly endorsed plans to redistribute wealth or regular commerce and other behavior suffer from removing vital time and place knowledge and drives markets.

For years some have proposed complete public financing of elections as the only permanent solution to our ills. How placing the selection of viable political candidates completely into the hands of government will promote greater democracy is honestly beyond me. If anyone arguing this case has anything positive to say about Howard Dean's or Ralph Nader's recent presidential campaigns, they have already severely undermined their argument. Public financing of elections, it seems to me, would be a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; in removing government accountability to "special interests", you also remove most of the accountability to the voters in general. Public financing will inevitably favor incumbents and the party establishment, and supporters of grassroots movements should take a hard look at these proposals. At the very best, they represent a substantial trade-off.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I tend to think that only a government with substantially fewer powers will be reasonably immune to corruption. A government required to focus on maintaining basic common law principles will attract public servants suited for that task. What resources go where, and how one goes about exploiting them, is done most efficiently, and, I think, most democratically within free market conditions. The market may produce both winners and losers, but at least they are chosen by consensual agreements, rather than by a body whose choices, at best, pander to the most well organized portion of its constituency, and are enforced by its monopoly on legitimate coercive power.

A Tyrany of Choices?

In one of my many debates with the lefties that surround me, my opponent brought up some supposed psychological research that suggests that people are happiest when there is a perceived limit to the choices available to them. He took from this that free markets aren't all they're cracked up to be. After all, the abundance of choice is one of the reasons to support liberal economic policies. This assertion runs deeply contrary to libertarian thinking, and I'm sure many libertarians would be quick to right off this sort of thing as socialist at best and fascist at worst.

I am also inclined to recoil from such talk. It may, however, be worth while to reexamine the virtue of choice. For this purpose, I'm going to assume that the aforementioned research has some truth to it, though I haven't encountered it myself.

Let's assume, then, that the present abundance of choices in our society do not lead to the same degree of happiness that one would have in a soceity where there was less choice. The first question that comes to mind is how one would go about creating this better society.

In order to limit the choices available to people, someone would have to impose such a limit, and see to it that some sort of system remained in place to sustain these limits. Socialism is certainly one option.

Without delving too deeply into the arguments against and for socialism, I will just state here that there are many reasons to reject socialism, many of which have nothing to do with the matter of choice as such. The main reason is that there is no way from preventing socialism from leading to totalitarianism, because the government is charged with controling all resources, and must thus control virtually all choices individuals make, and because any dissent poses a great threat to the government monopoly over the allocation of resources.

Let us focus, however, on the issue of choice as such, and for the interest of argument submit that, all things being equal, less choice at least can be better than more choice. My responce to this is that, even if this is true, it is relatively meaningless. After all, most would agree that, all things being equal, it is better to have less suffering in the world. The problem is, in matters of government policy, all things are never equal, and one can no less reduce choice in isolation than one can suffering. All government policy, because it relies essentially on coercion, has unintended consequences. In debating this issue as a matter of policy, then, one must discuss the actual consequences any change would induce.

One change resulting from a reduction of choice is an accompanying reduction in the quality of resources which competition brings about. I think most would agree that, even if our choices are to be limited, we have good reason to desire a high standard of quality for the resources we consume.

These argument may not carry much wait for the sort of collectivist utopian for whom I must reiterate these basics principles of economics. Their ultimate assumption, I believe, is that they, or some theoretical benevolent leader, is in a position to decide what's best for the people, and that one thus need not worry about the market's ability to alocate resources, because surely a benevolent dictator or a central commitee can do the same thing without all the waste and the mess.

Over a century of seeing the unfathomable brutality stemming from this assumption has forced many collectivists to tiptoe around their core ideas, and focus more on semantic games and scathing indictments of Walmart et al. It behooves liberal-minded people everywhere to bring such people to face their assuptions, and let them stand the open scrutiny they certainly could not withstand.

Backup on "Syriana"

Richard Cohen speaks the truth about "Syriana" in today's Post. He pretty much makes all the points I did, and much more eloquently at that. I hope people don't get the impression from that last post that my motivation for this blog is to hate on the left. Cohen is a self described "liberal", and I have every hope that there are many other thoughtful liberals like him who aren't afraid to decry the irrational paranoia of some on the left, which, after all, can only harm their movement in the long run. There are, after all, many things to legitimately criticize about U.S. foreign policy, and the left can play an important role in disrupting the clanish groupthink of the right, which has gotten us into quite a bit of trouble.

There is certainly no dirth of similar paranoia on the right. One need only look at the hysterical rantings of O'Reily and co. about the supposed "war on Christmas". I have plenty of scorn to heap upon the deeply irrational and illiberal Christianism that has infected conservatism in this country, and which, it can be argued, poses a much greater threat to the openness of our society today.

I'll be linking to any other liberal commentator who speaks out against the simplistic paranoia of "Syriana".

Some thoughts on "Syriana"

Warning: This post contains spoilers for those who haven't seen the movie yet!


I recently went with a friend of mine to see the film "Syriana". I was taken with the first rate acting and the density and elegance of the editing. As I left the theater, however, I had the impression that all of this was a facade for something very banal and perhaps even sinister.

The film has been widely praised for its disturbing portrayal of the international oil business, and several critics have pointed to its conspiracy theory plot. Many critics have tried to portray the presentation as in some way nuanced or complex. My impression, however, was quite different. The message, not so subtly imbedded amongst all the quiet dialogue, is this: the U.S. government actively conspires with the oil industry to subvert the sovereignty of other nations, in this case Saudi Arabia, with the sole interest of supporting American companies and with flagrant disregard for the majority of people. This is what causes terrorism.

Now, this is a fair enough statement to make on its own, and one, in some regards, not entirely removed from the likely truth. Yet I find it both dishonest and cowardly to make such a blunt point in the form of a work of fiction- one which, moreover, is based "loosely" on a non-fiction work (how loosely, I don't know).

The message of the film is in essence an accusation, yet because it is a work of fiction it isn't based on actual fact, and indeed doesn't claim to be, it romoves itself from the arena of serious debate. I heard an interview with the writer/director, in which he claimed that the film was informed by what he had observed in his travels in the Middle East. If he had indeed revealed the sort of vast conspiracy that the film portrays, one would think that he would present his finding as fact. Surely this would cause a scandal of rarely seen proportions. Equally certain, however, is that the exact events of the film, or even a facsimile thereof, have not taken place. What, then, is the purpose of this project?

I would be more willing to accept this film as an exploration of certain highly relevant themes, were it not for the simplistic portrayal of the characters and their motivations. All of the government officials and corporate executives are clearly only interested in personal profit, and completely indifferent in the suffering of others, and sometimes even interested in perpetuating it. George Clooney pursues his work as a CIA agent so vigorously because he's alienated from his family, and is promptly killed once he begins to develop a conscience. Overall, the motivations for the characters are ultimately completely transparent.

What makes this far worse, however, is that the filmmakers attempt to create the appearance of sophistication and ambiguity where none exist. Most of the dialogue and acting serves to rather confusingly circumscribe what amounts to crude characterizations of people and geopolitical events. I find this method deeply insulting to the audience's intelligence.

Most disturbing, however, is the fact that so many people, all part of the educated liberal-left, have already embraced this film, as no doubt others will in the coming weeks. In doing so, their intelligence has been successfully and rightly insulted.

I'm kinda libertarian

I've neglected to present my political leanings in past posts, or at least I haven't given myself a label. I don't like labels, but, if pressed, I identify as libertarian. The following beliefs lead me to this: I am skeptical of the ability of the government to solve most problems, because it lacks important time and place (TP) knowledge, and the sort of accountability you see in the private sector. Not surprisingly, then, I believe in the general efficacy of private enterprise. I also believe that taxation in essentially theft, especially when a person is taxed to pay for something they alone would not opt to pay for. I have also found that identification with the state is usually bound to nationalism and tribalism.

There are, however, several points where I hesitate to agree with what are considered libertarian beliefs. I've detected an almost blind faith in the power of the market to address all concerns of "social justice" and basic equality, when, in fact, neo-classical economic theory doesn't really address these issues on all counts. In fact, in seems that classical liberalism presents certain fundamental rights whose defense necessitates the existence of certain institutions (this is obvious) and some of these rights may go beyond common law principles, or said principles might entail more than often assumed. For example, the availability of some level of basic health care for all. I'll elaborate more on this in another post.

Overall, however, I find most proposals from the left flagrantly disregard basic economic principles, and tend to reveal a contempt for the wealthy and otherwise privileged, and I don't think a sound and truly just system of government can promote such ideas.

Another note to conclude: I find myself more often critical of the far left than the far right. I think this is mostly due to my having attended a college where left wing ideology predominated, and also because I usually find people on the left to be somewhat more open to rational debate, partly because their basic humanitarian impulses are more aligned with my own, though I've encountered many exceptions, to be sure.

I tend to think that the far right is so steeped in nationalism or christianism or both that their assumptions about what is fundamentally good are radically different from mine. That said, their ideas do hold some sway in our society at present and thus perhaps are more deserving of open criticism.

On the other hand, I feel that many people on the left have their heart in the right place, but misunderstand many things about how society actually works. This is caused, I have come to believe, by the sort of complacency that is bread by intellectual isolation- groupthink, as some have labeled it. One of my goals in maintaining this blog is to help inject new life into the humanist community (that sounds awful ambitious, especially since my readership is presently close to nonexistent).

This is my present understanding of my critical inclination. I've learned that these things can change drastically as I assimilate new ideas and facts. I'll make sure to keep everyone updated.

How I'll be Writing

I've decided that this blog will generally consist more of mini-essays than regular postings. I feel I have more to contribute if I take time to think about what I'm saying. Plus, I don't have the journalistic or political chops to offer many useful insights or references on the fly. I'll occasionally link to things I find interesting, but I plan on taking at least a day to write some longer posts. The last one took me about a week, mostly because I forgot about it for a few days. I hope to sharpen my discipline.

Moralism and Torture

Near the top of the list of annoying pernicious tendencies are moralistic readings of law and punishment. I was reminded of this in this essay by Charles Krauthammer, in which he argues that, in certain cases, we are morally obligated to torture a person. His position is much more thoughtful overall than many others who advocate torture of detainees, if still wrong. Krauthammer advocates torture only when it is necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. Nevertheless, the following passage is typical of what I call the moralistic position on torture:

"Breaking the laws of war and abusing civilians are what, to understate the matter vastly, terrorists do for a living. They are entitled, therefore, to nothing. Anyone who blows up a car bomb in a market deserves to spend the rest of his life roasting on a spit over an open fire."

In short, by committing an act of terrorism, one completely gives up ones dignity, and thus is to be treated humanely merely as a gesture of our largesse.

I'm sure all of you have encountered similar utterances in discussions of terrorism.

Now, it is naturally deeply unpopular to say anything that might be seen as sympathizing with terrorists or other killers. And sympathy has nothing to do with my objection to this way of thinking. It has everything to do with the idea of "certain inalienable rights". Often overlooked in the passage from which this quote is taken is the word "inalienable". In short, that means you can't take a persons rights away, or at least not with any sound justification. This applies especially to the state. This, in my view, is why it is widely accepted, and true, that torture is wrong in all cases.

"But what about the rights of the victims?" is the obvious question, and it deserves a real response. My reading of liberal (read: 'small L') theory is that the only justification for the state's infringing on a person's rights is for the protection of the rights of the whole. To murder is to negate another's fundamental rights and the prerequisite of an open society, and thus it clearly cannot be tolerated. The purpose of the punishment is to protect these rights for all, and the society that they whose existence they enable. What a criminal "deserves" is determined only by what measures are minimally effective to achieve this end.

By contrast, to conceive punishment as retribution, or as compensation of the victim, can only lead to barbarism. What exactly is enough compensation? Is anyone suggesting "an eye for an eye" anymore? The answer is that the latter is clearly forbidden by our constitution. The former has no clear answer.

The moment punishment is determined by a person's very subjective notion of what is morally fitting for another person, all reason and coherency in matters of justice break down. Not one person, nor even a majority of them, in any country, has the right to decide who possesses dignity and who doesn't. Any infringement upon human dignity is only justified by its demonstratable necessity in the name of preserving liberty.

Krauthammer is right to point out that terrorist acts are an attack on the foundations of an open society, and thus are grave crimes that may even go beyond mass murder. All crimes, however, represent a similar threat, albeit to a greater or lesser degree. But to then say that that one surrenders ones rights in proportion to the extent one has violated those of others simply leads to the 'eye for an eye' theory.

The key point here is that human dignity is inalienable, and we must infringe upon it only with great reservation and care. It is far too easy to let ones emotions dictate how we let the state treat people. It is more difficult, but also infinitely more noble and rational, to distance oneself just enough to understand what is ultimately fair and just and what isn't.

My Starting Point

As a philosophy major, my position on any particular issue tend to derive from the broader principles I adhere to.
One of these is my belief in the necesity of community in arriving at truth. Here I am influenced largely by the later writings of Wittgenstein and by Popper (I'll elaborate on this in another post).
Another is my belief in human freedom as the only certain and universal prerequisite (other than food, shelter, etc) of happiness, and thus the only principle the state should defend. Thus I usually describe myself as libertarian, though I would much prefer the term 'liberal' were it not for the distortion of the latter term in the U.S.
Although I've been attracted to various forms of mysticism, I am deeply sceptical of most religious belief, as I am of any form of irrationalism (post-modernity, etc.). I find many people reluctant to criticize religious communities for fear of appearing intolerant, and I find this tendency troubling. Respect, a term very loosely and lazily used by many, must mean, I think, not only not inflicting harm or refraining from imposing your beliefs on another, but also actively and fully engaging a person, from which thoughtful criticism is inseperable.
I am a firm believer in the scientific method, and believe that its core principles ought to be applied to many other areas of inquiry. The most important of these principles is operating within a theoretical framework that explicity presents the posibility of error, and what error entails. In other words, you have to able to wrong before you can be right.
It is these beliefs which currently inform much of my thinking, though that does not mean there are fixed. I try to remain open-minded without being merely shallow or passive. I certainly hope any readers will feel free to challenge me every step of the way.

Introduction

While contemplating starting a political blog, the question naturally arose of why we need yet another lehman's commentary on politics, especially one with little formal education in the subject nor on the ground experience. This question made me hesitate for quite a while.
The reason that finally made me do it is entirely selfish: blogging may be the best way to improve my writing and force me to refine my thinking. If anyone else finds what I write in any way useful, I'll be pleasently suprised. I will, however, write as if addressing others who will not automatically agree with me.
I consider intelectual honesty to be a cardinal virtue, and a prerequisite of a truly open society. In that spirit, I will strive not to assert the 'correct' position, but to observe and comment thoughtfully and carefully. I suspect I'll be ambivalent or ignorant in most matters I'll address.
Everyone brings their own assumptions and intelectual background to a discussion, and the next post will serve to make mine clear.