Relativism Is Fine Until They Saw Your Head Off

It's important to remember that some conflicts aren't just the product of differences of opinion, cultural asymmetries, or poor communication. Sometimes, people are backwards, morally incompatible with civil society, or simply evil. Acknowledgment of this is probably a good litmus test for sanity... keep that in mind when arguing with anti-everything leftists.

Let's Be Honest

One of my pet peeves is when leftists or centrists claim that libertarians want to force their preferences on others just like everyone else. This is incredibly facile. Broadly speaking, the difference between libertarianism and everything else is the difference between choice and control. You can't force people to have choices.

Manipulating Children

You may recall the story about Seattle teachers removing Legos from the classroom because the children playing with them were exhibiting capitalist tendencies. Well, one of the teachers gives a thorough explanation. It's profoundly disturbing:

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building. And it's important to have the same priorities."

...

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes.... We should all just have the same number of pieces, like 15 or 28 pieces."

As teachers, we were excited by these comments.

The teacher is obviously concerned about power relationships. Basically, wealth = power and power distribution should be equal, dammit. It's clear, however, where the power lies in the classroom, and the results, predictably, aren't pretty.

I Don't Know Whether to Laugh or Puke

In both "rich" nations like the U.S. and in "poor" nations like Mexico, the poor still have less than they need and the rich have become billionaires at the expense of the poor (1) ... no lessons in fairness and equality to be found.

I find it amazing that some people still believe in the absolute zero-sum theory of a rich vs. poor dialectic in liberal societies. These thoughts are not shocking, they're not credible, so what's the point? Tearing down successful people? Creating hate and envy just for the hell of it? This intellectual porn has no place in the world of serious men and women who actually try to live with one another in peace.

Within a century it's plausible that western countries like the US could be so rich, a productive few could pay for the consumption of a majority of citizens. I doubt even this would make this author of the post happy. He will never be happy because every human being is unique; there will alway be disparities in how people are valued by their peers.

Whats News

Hey kids -anyone who's still interested- I'm an underwriting trainee in Philly. I don't know what this means for me in the long term, or even geographically in the short term, but for now I'm working for the big, bad insurance company! Perhaps later I'll write an essay on why people love to hate things on which they depend: like insurance.

Speaking of writing, I'm not doing much of that lately. For friends and curious travellers, columns from my newspaper tenure and blog posts which I felt were insightful are linked on the sidebar. I'll go through my old posts and look for others. There's a lot of crap, idle musings, and hotheaded reactions throughout my archives, but enough good material exists, I believe, to justify a glance or two at De Gustibus. Hopefully I'll return someday.

For friends and family: I post personal happenings and miscellaneous thoughts on a blog created for members of my residence in England: Fulford College Lounge

Why Economics Is Hard To Grasp

This is short and interesting.

Snarky quote: "In other words, to have an intuitive grasp of economics, you might just need to take a step or two up the evolutionary ladder."

Read the whole thing; the article is not what that quote makes it sound like.

Not Much To Say About It, But Here Ya Go

I'm supporting Bill Peirce for governor. He is honest, as far as I can tell. He is not a demagogue. He does not want to be idealistic with my tax dollars. He does not hate gay people or immigrants. He understands that civil society, and not government, produces wealth. My choice really comes between accepting the status quo and not voting (on the margin the differences between Strickland and Blackwell are not going to be worth selling my soul to support one of them) or voting for Peirce. Since Peirce doesn't seem like Badnarik, the LP candidate for president who was a little cooky, he'll get my vote. First vote I'll ever make, incidentally. Yes, I know its futile, but there's no reason not to do so.

Which Photo More Likely?

Michelle Malkin has this picture up on her blog. It's from a video in which she chastises Miller Brewing Co. for support of, or lack of indignation against, illegal immigration.













You'd think it would be hard to edit video, especially on her budget, right? Well, think again. What should first generate suspicion? Look at her left foot. Half of it is missing! And knowing how she feels about people from the wrong side of the fence, the real footage should come as no surprise:

What?

Religion will make people say the darndest things (Breitbart):

"There are some people, and I'm one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord," Tomanio said. "I don't care how he governs, I will support him. I'm a Republican through and through."

Something tells me that if God wanted to set things right, he'd show a little more compentence in his selection process. Wait, he might even rid us of the evildoers himself. Wait, he might have offered some warning of the impending terror attacks, tsunamis, hurricanes, droughts, etc. Face it lady, either God doesn't get involved or he's a ridiculous failure. Stupid.

History Repeating

H. L. Mencken is somewhat of an inspirational writer for me. To be honest, I've only read 50 or so pages of his work (from A Carnival of Buncombe - selected political writings), but his first rate snark stood in my mind as a quality worth aiming for. Another admission: I'm not much of a snark artist, but Mencken's keen (if imprecise at times) sense of the folly of politics and politicians was and is motivational.

Imagine my excitement when I find this letter to the editor of Time magazine from 50 years back:

Sir:

I was saddened by the death of H. L. Mencken and angered that his waning years had to be spent in forced inactivity. How it must have galled him to sit on the sidelines during an era that produced a Harry Truman, a Joe McCarthy, an Arthur Godfrey and, of course, a Liberace ... As for your Feb. 6 tribute to Mencken, I felt that it was excellent.

DAVID GREGORY ROSSIE

Windsor, N.Y.

Since there are not many Rossies in the world (our family had its name changed from something else after moving to the US), there's a good chance this guy is a relative. Mencken wasn't a consistent libertarian (I don't really know what his political beliefs were), but he was a pretty reliable enemy of the state back in his days.

By the way, I found this via Google News Archive. Hat tip to Craig Depken at DoL.

Possible Master's Programs?

If I haven't made myself clear: I really love the Netherlands. So, naturally, I've been looking for ways to live there. Dutch universities have a handful of exciting master's degree programs in the economics discipline. For example, Erasmus University of Rotterdam has a program called "Institutions," an MPhil in Philosophy and Economics.

The University of Maastricht has a program called "Infonomics." It's roughly summed up as "the study of where information and economics meet." Is Hayek popping up in your mind? Well, he should be. He wrote many essays and books on knowledge and its use in society. While a Google search for "Hayek & Infonomics" returned little, I'm interested enough to send an email to someone in the program to ask what they think about the importance of Hayek's knowledge problem. If there's enough relevance, I may have found something to keep me intellectually engaged for a year.

They Never Learn

Right-wingers are throwing a fit about a new movie. The premise of the movie: President Bush is assassinated in the future, and through the lens of imaginary documenters viewers will catch a glimpse of how it happened, why it happened, and its effect on people.

Three things are certain. 1.) No-one's seen the movie. 2.) Right-wingers have already drawn conclusions. 3.) Said right-wingers are spewing hate.

You'd think they would have learned their lessons from drawing conclusions about Iraq! But what else can you expect from an ideology that is founded upon imagery, symbolism, and narratives?

"Plausible, But Unlikely"

Plain stupidity and borderline evil in our court system.

The gist:

Emiliano Gonzolez is "caught" with over 100 grand in US dollars. Money is confescated because of an assumed drugs or terrorism link. Case goes to court. Reaches Circuit Court of Appeals. Court finds that "While the claimants' explanation for these circumstances may be "plausible," we think it is unlikely." In other words, the guy has not been convicted of anything, but he is assumed guilty until proven innocent. Gonzolez loses money.

We have much more to worry about in our country than phantom immigrants and terrorists under our beds.

Shameful

I can understand why people fear Muslims and Asians, with all of the barbarism in the Mid-East mixed with the general bigotry and ignorance of foreigners to be found in all nations. Still, Brits ought to be ashamed of their countrymen for this. Refusing to fly with Muslim-looking people... a huge step BACK in civilization. I'd say that the terrorists and those who willingly goad them can take responsibility for this. The real question is, who should be more satisfied? The Islamic radicals or the anti-Islamic radicals?

Let it still be known that I find civilization in the Mid-East to be sorely lacking and often barbaric (as far as I know), but no friend of the west and of civilization, meaning no peaceful person, should be treated with contempt and fear.

Recycling Smackdown

While many recyclers adhere to this practice as if it were religion, the science and marketing of recycling is quite falsifiable. Daniel Benjamin, a professor at Clemson and a lecturer at PERC, tackled recycling in this, The Eight Great Myths of Recycling. hat tip: Ann

My Last "Column": A Pro-Choice Philosophy

Some readers may remember that I wrote for Capital's campus newspaper, The Chimes during fall semester last year. They didn't have me return in the spring because I was in England, which I thought was bogus considering the lack of depth they had at the paper. Anyhow, I wrote a column, or letter to the editor, to be published in the final weeks of classes after I had witnessed (on my spring break from York) the backlash against the Capital College Republican's pro-life week. I don't know if it was printed (I doubt it), but here it is, slightly edited, for you to enjoy or tear apart:


A Pro-Choice Philosophy

I arrived back in the country just in time to witness the pro-life week aftermath. Unfortunately, both sides of this inane debate continue to label their respective groups simplistically. Conservatives call themselves “pro-life” while liberals call themselves “pro-choice.” While I take issue with “pro-life” (many pro-lifers are ardent supporters of the death penalty, aggressive warfare, and the deadly war on drugs), “pro-choice” is the label that cries out “Hypocrisy!” the most.

Choice is an interesting concept. Most abortion rights advocates don’t understand the implications of their arguments. For example, the median abortion-rights supporter is a member of the Democratic Party. I don’t know Democratic politics in detail, but I can point to areas where they emphatically repress choice: labor markets, personal consumption habits, advertising, investment, and schooling. You see, choice is scary in many ways. That’s why dictatorships thrive and demagogues become so popular. People become afraid of choices because consequences necessarily follow. What’s worse: people fear the choices that others make which might upset their religious, cultural, or aesthetic sensibilities.

If abortion-rights advocates followed their arguments to their logical conclusion, they would arrive at a libertarian philosophy. A woman’s body is her sanctuary. Great. But bodies are not merely vessels for birth; they consume, work, play, talk, travel, and raise families. If it’s not OK to tell a woman to keep a child, is it acceptable to tell her how to spend her income? Is it reasonable to tell her whom she can and cannot employ? Would it be OK to throw her in jail for smoking a joint? What’s the fundamental distinction here? Is there one?

The label often used by abortion-rights supporters, “pro-choice,” can only be taken seriously if it applies to all of human conduct. They should argue, “Choices that don’t disrupt other people’s choices should be defended as human rights.” Otherwise, the “pro-choice” camp is nothing but a group of narrowly self-interested, anti-social demagogues. Abortion rights, if they apply (which is not so obvious taking into account the life of the unborn), are a small part of the overall corpus of freedom. Liberty for all, please.

Hmmm

I've always found myself conflicted... between the anger that is fostered by observing the hate politics of the right (and sometimes of the left but in my case that is less unnerving to me) and my general state of placidity and my commitment to tolerance. As people who know me a little can vouch, I'm usually a relaxed, easy-going guy. As my friends and some intellectual opponents can also tell you, I have a passionate side that when inflamed unexpectedly can lead to foolishness and harshness. While I understand that most commentators can be harsh and uncompromising in the heat of a nasty debate, I generally cannot be this way and make compelling arguments at the same time. I am thankful for my inability to succeed at this craft, and I believe that this reflects my long-term commitment to avoid it. Since my inflamed moments of anger rarely last long, I often look back at what I've said or written and feel remorse.

My last post, while true to my heart in content, is rather vicious in its delivery. I leave it stand as testament to a habit of overbearing retaliation in political commentary that consumes me as easily as it does the political full-timers in the hope that I never let my anger win the fruits of my intellectual labor.

Winning A Battle Amidst Losing The War

The bloodsuckers at Michellemalkin.com, Little Green Footballs, and the other pro-war sites may distract their followers with the Reuters photoshopped pictures story, but I'm not fooled. They are still a bunch of rabid, dangerously ideological war lovers who supported a losing cause from the beginning, who will also tear apart anyone who stands in their way or reports the folly of their ventures. So, to them I say: go ahead, have some fun at Reuters' expense. Who else cares? May your days of self-imposed glory slide quietly into the abyss of time.

More Thoughts

1. How can leftists, anti-american, and anti-war types openly support Hezbollah? It's one thing to denounce violence and call for a ceasefire- even sympathy with those who join Hezbollah out of vengeance can be tolerated. But outright support for a terrorist organization that makes little to no effort to avoid civilian casualties is downright repugnant. Europeans seem to suffer from a blindness to the realities on the ground in the Mid-East, or a resilient strain of reflexive, sticking-up-for-the-little-guy-no-matter-the-circumstances, reactionary, anti-liberal idealism.
What also astonishes me is the sheer level of ignorance to be found in Europe about world affairs. Much as in the US, people there know little about that which they discuss in politics.

2. Language matters, and over-use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorists" in the course of discussing strategy is cartoonish. More amusing is the crusade by some conservatives to purge the news of such terms as "combatant" and "fighter" when mentioning Hezbollah or Al-Queda.

3. I still hear the mantra that cutting and running is not an option for the US in Iraq or the Mid-East. Usually the reason is that our country will look weak. I'm reminded of the contrast between two views of patriotism: "my country right or wrong" or "my country win or lose." Which is more important to you: ask yourselves?

MIddle East

I'm no expert on the Mid-East, but I figured I would post some bullet point thoughts that I have about the latest war in the news. I'll also try and apply some of my general libertarian, peace-loving philosophy toward a resolution to the conflict there.

1. Ultimately, only individuals matter. Groups exist to meet the needs of their members. They cannot exist without individuals and cannot rise to a greater importance than their members without their approval. This is my guiding maxim. Whenever I try to wrap my mind around conflict and even try to pick a side or sympathize with a group, I remind myself of this.

2. The narratives surrounding Israel and the Mid-East are group-centric. Many see 2 sides to the conflict, often colored by notions of good vs. evil. While these narratives go a long way toward explaining what's happening, they are self-fulfilling stories to an ever-growing degree. Fundamentally, they are false. Every Israeli, Lebanese, Syrian, Hezbollah fighter, etc. is or was a thinking, rationalizing, acting human being with unique circumstances. Most of them are marginal actors, utility maximizers, making decisions based on an internal calculation of their environment and how best to improve their condition. Very few people, even in the Mid-East I would guess, are driven solely by absolute goals or fears. The point I'm driving toward is that people's past and present actions alone are not a robust indicator of future action. The inputs of decision-making are constantly changing.

3. Civilian deaths are always regrettable. Blaming the victim is unfortunate and when oft-repeated, disgusting. It must be understood that today's civilians are often tomorrow's guerilla fighters, angry enlistees, even terrorists. It is not merely "moral equivalence" to highlight the cycle of violence in the Mid-East. It is outrageous to deny such a cycle.

4. I wholly support immigration, open borders, and the dynamic exchange of ideas. But I despise foreigners and those who have attachments to other lands bringing their battles to the US. People who can't respect others as human beings no matter their background are morally deficient and I'm sad to admit that these deficiencies are still epidemic throughout our country and across the world. So, Muslims who hates Jews should think twice about coming to live in our civilized country and Jews who wish to financially back Israel should leave me out (meaning don't expect our government to support Israel). It is not my concern. Any foreign interests our government has must be unbiased notwithstanding a commitment to open commerce and peace.

5. I believe that leaving the scene of a conflict can be a honorable decision. Justice is not only about results, but process. If our government is going to meddle in international affairs it should be a party to progress, not partisanship on the side of one warring party against another. In this spirit I submit that the best plan the US government could sponsor regarding Israel and the Mid-East in general would be to allow and subsidize a mass emigration from the region for anyone who is tolerant, peace-loving, and accepting of western, liberal values. Not only would a mass movement of people offer some relief from the tension in the region, it would directly save many lives. Those who wish neither for war nor vengeance but merely peace could leave the war-torn region in pursuit of a productive life without facing the vagaries of deadly sectarianism. Perhaps in this process the concept of a Jewish state will cease to be relevant, removing what is obviously the major source of contention in the region. Perhaps a fully secular Israel would encourage Arabs and Muslims to move past their barbaric anti-semetic tendencies, making the Mid-East a safer place for Jews than before. Even without this happening, there is no denying that Israelis would be a lot safer in the US than in Israel at the moment.

6. I don't much care about military strategy so I don't have much to say about it. I will say that if the defense of a government requires the obliteration of another civilization, the government isn't worth it to me.