This Independence Day marks the 234th anniversary of the adoption of our nation's Declaration of Independence. With parades, fireworks, friends, family, and much fanfare and patriotism, we celebrate not only our independence but the principles laid forth in one of the most remarkable documents ever written by human hand. The main purpose of the Declaration was to explain to the world why we would be willing to sacrifice our lives and fortunes in order to separate ourselves from the oppressive yoke of a foreign government. Most of the Declaration is no longer meaningful to Americans outside of a historical understanding of the events leading up to the Revolutionary War; the second paragraph, however, defines the very point and purpose of government in this nation or any nation. In a federal democracy, where the people elect representatives into office, it is of the utmost importance that those citizens know why we have government at all, what legitimate government would look like, and what actions are beyond the pale so that office holders seeking to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the citizens of our nation and justice itself may be held accountable and removed from positions of power.
Let us consider this paragraph and the universal truths contained within it:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Let's consider these self evident truths:
1. We are all created equal. This statement has been a source of confusion for some Americans, but let us think about it. We are created...this implies a Creator. We are equal...at the moment of creation. This is not a promise that we shall be equal in all aspects, but rather that we are, from the moment of our birth to the moment of our death, equal in the respect that we are human beings.
2. As human beings, we are endowed equally by that inferred Creator with unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and equality of result are incompatible with one another. If we cannot all be awesome baseball players like David Ortiz, the only way to create equality of result would be to restrict the liberty of great baseball players to use their skill until we are all down to the skill of the weakest player. The same goes for inventors, doctors, teachers, businessmen, physical looks, social ability, and anywhere else inequality exists in skill, talent, and wealth. We are equal in our unalienable rights; we are free to use our liberty to rise above others so long as those unalienable rights are not violated.
3. To protect those unalienable rights, we establish government. The fact is, we cannot trust the honor system that each of us will not violate the unalienable rights of other people as we try to advance our own positions. We create government to limit our range of action to anything that does not violate the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness (effectively property, for those familiar with John Locke). Government has the right to restrict us because we consent to these restrictions; we consent to these restrictions because it removes us from the State of Nature; we give up the right to harm the unalienable rights of others so that ours will not be harmed, either. This is the purpose of government, this and nothing else.
4. Governments are run by men, men who have the same passions and desire for advancement as the men being governed. Should governments abuse their power and become a threat to the very lives, liberties, and properties they were created to protect, those governments become usurpers and rebels against which the people have every right to oppose and remove. Governments must protect the unalienable rights of all citizens; the rights of no citizens may be sacrificed for the advancement of others. Every citizen has unalienable rights and no majority ever assembled has the authority to deny any minority, however so small or hated, their proper rights. Redistributing with the force of law the happiness of men, earned by honest labor and voluntary trade, always involves a violation of the unalienable right of the pursuit of happiness of those whose wealth is redistributed away from them.
5. Revolution is a nasty business. Lives, liberty, property, the very things we wish to preserve, are all put on the line during times of war. Our Declaration does not clearly say when the line is crossed between transient causes and a long train of abuses; the best we can do is gleam what information we can from the context of the Declaration itself and the history leading up to that war in determining where the line is between foolish uprisings and a noble overthrow of a tyrant.
My fellow citizens know well enough what event we celebrate (our independence from Great Britain); I write this to remind them what principles inspired our Founding Fathers to create the greatest nation, a nation conceived in liberty and based on universal ideals all may participate in rather than ethnicity or religion. I write to remind my fellow citizens of these principles and that our nation is great only so long as we jealously guard them against those who would ignore them, either out of evil intent or mislead desire for good.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Review of Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty
The Ethics of Liberty (full text online)
Murray N. Rothbard
This is a complex book and I am not honestly sure how I feel about it overall. There is a great deal of good in this book, in particular for one who has never seriously considered the origins and propriety of property rights. Rothbard's criticism of the state is penetrating to such an extent that even minimal state libertarians will have difficulty justifying their positions. However, I think the case for an anarchist system is not particularly well made and that a critical eye on par with Rothbard's would find as many, if not more, problems with his solution than he has come up with the concerning the state. I could spend the better part of a year going into each intellectual crevice opened up by this book, but rather than going into such detail I will point out a few of the more interesting topics that the reader would certainly benefit from chewing over.
Rothbard's theory is that all rights are derived from a human having an intrinsic right to his own body and the works thereof. As anyone who follows the courts knows, even widely accepted rights, such as the right to free speech, religion, press, etc., become fairly complex when argued before the court. Why is this? Rothbard sees the problem as the courts looking for a mystical right out of thin air rather than basing these rights in the person and his property. So long as I own the property I use to speak, write, or worship on, it is nobodies business how I do so and nobody, but nobody, may deny me the ability to do so as long as their property right is not violated. This clears up a great deal of confusion concerning gun rights, freedom of speech and press, among others. I think that such an analysis makes sense. Consider the FCC/Citizens United case that was decided earlier this year with a surprising amount of controversy. If a corporation, using its own money, decides to buy political advertisements, they should be allowed to so long as somebody is voluntarily willing to sell them a forum. It is the business of nobody else to deny them the use of their own property.
Punishment for crimes against a person or their property is to be dealt with "proportionally" in that the criminal will pay back what was damaged plus lose from their own personal property an equivalent amount. Rothbard comes up with some interesting ways of applying this to situations of assault, murder, kidnapping, and other situations where a literal tit for tat would make no sense. In his section concerning children, however, Rothbard fails to apply his own theory when it comes to abortion. Concerning proportionality, the only case justifying the death penalty is in a case of murder, according to Rothbard himself, but he then allows the "crime" of "invasion" committed by a fetus upon the mother to also be punished with death. With this exception, his theory concerning children does logically flow from his theory of property rights, harsh as it may sound. I believe children to be the bane of political philosophy. In children we have a human being incapable of taking care of themselves yet with the future ability to do so, who did not bring themselves into existence, who will depend greatly upon their parents for what sort of life they will end up living with. No ideology seems to really know what to do with them.
My problem with this book lies generally in that I have no idea how wrongs will be redressed. I fear such an anarchist society would devolve into gang warfare, as individuals will collect into groups for mutual protection and see that group as the source of authority. All groups follow the iron law of oligarchy in that they will always pick leaders, who will then have incentive to abuse their power, often at the expense of those outside of the group. The state apparatus, for all of its problems, does provide a means of executing justice without competition. This is important because competition in terms of executing justice will not come just in the form of a lower price; it may also come in the form of a different judgment. Rothbard seems to believe that be describing those groups enforcing justice incorrectly as criminals means something. Labelling them criminals means nothing if they are the most powerful group. Replacing the state with a very powerful gang or groups of gangs does not really solve the problem of reducing and eliminating illegitimate force. Such a society would also be at the mercy of other nations, in particular those that develop advanced military forces. Rothbard never deals with this problem; presumably he would look to volunteer militias or security forces. The former would have no chance against professional soldiers, the second creates a powerful force that could abuse the people.
Rothbard's attempt to create a political philosophy based on the nature of mankind has many successful points concerning property rights but fails to really take in the nature of mankind itself. We are a violent species and are willing to use violence to gain what we like. While social ties do tend to negate this, it is not a cure all, and violence between societies in the same geographic area may actually be increased by this organizing power. Anarchy fails to prevent groups from forming and abusing their own power; obliterating "the state" leads to a situation where many little "states" come into existence. Whoever has power will always be able to abuse that power, even (or perhaps especially) in anarchy. Libertarianism is the best of all possible outcomes, but it does contain an emotional letdown in that the 'promised' land type outcome isn't included. At best, we'll have a world where abuses of justice will be kept lower than in others but not entirely wiped out. It is a lamentable aspect of our species that the need for politics will always be with us and that the best solution we have is a vigilant, perpetual guard against abuses of our liberties. That all being said, I think Rothbard does an excellent job defining what those liberties are, even if his solution to protecting them is not top notch.
Companion Reading
Rothbard vs. Strauss: Libertarianism, Rights and Reason (free download)
Murray N. Rothbard
This is a complex book and I am not honestly sure how I feel about it overall. There is a great deal of good in this book, in particular for one who has never seriously considered the origins and propriety of property rights. Rothbard's criticism of the state is penetrating to such an extent that even minimal state libertarians will have difficulty justifying their positions. However, I think the case for an anarchist system is not particularly well made and that a critical eye on par with Rothbard's would find as many, if not more, problems with his solution than he has come up with the concerning the state. I could spend the better part of a year going into each intellectual crevice opened up by this book, but rather than going into such detail I will point out a few of the more interesting topics that the reader would certainly benefit from chewing over.
Rothbard's theory is that all rights are derived from a human having an intrinsic right to his own body and the works thereof. As anyone who follows the courts knows, even widely accepted rights, such as the right to free speech, religion, press, etc., become fairly complex when argued before the court. Why is this? Rothbard sees the problem as the courts looking for a mystical right out of thin air rather than basing these rights in the person and his property. So long as I own the property I use to speak, write, or worship on, it is nobodies business how I do so and nobody, but nobody, may deny me the ability to do so as long as their property right is not violated. This clears up a great deal of confusion concerning gun rights, freedom of speech and press, among others. I think that such an analysis makes sense. Consider the FCC/Citizens United case that was decided earlier this year with a surprising amount of controversy. If a corporation, using its own money, decides to buy political advertisements, they should be allowed to so long as somebody is voluntarily willing to sell them a forum. It is the business of nobody else to deny them the use of their own property.
Punishment for crimes against a person or their property is to be dealt with "proportionally" in that the criminal will pay back what was damaged plus lose from their own personal property an equivalent amount. Rothbard comes up with some interesting ways of applying this to situations of assault, murder, kidnapping, and other situations where a literal tit for tat would make no sense. In his section concerning children, however, Rothbard fails to apply his own theory when it comes to abortion. Concerning proportionality, the only case justifying the death penalty is in a case of murder, according to Rothbard himself, but he then allows the "crime" of "invasion" committed by a fetus upon the mother to also be punished with death. With this exception, his theory concerning children does logically flow from his theory of property rights, harsh as it may sound. I believe children to be the bane of political philosophy. In children we have a human being incapable of taking care of themselves yet with the future ability to do so, who did not bring themselves into existence, who will depend greatly upon their parents for what sort of life they will end up living with. No ideology seems to really know what to do with them.
My problem with this book lies generally in that I have no idea how wrongs will be redressed. I fear such an anarchist society would devolve into gang warfare, as individuals will collect into groups for mutual protection and see that group as the source of authority. All groups follow the iron law of oligarchy in that they will always pick leaders, who will then have incentive to abuse their power, often at the expense of those outside of the group. The state apparatus, for all of its problems, does provide a means of executing justice without competition. This is important because competition in terms of executing justice will not come just in the form of a lower price; it may also come in the form of a different judgment. Rothbard seems to believe that be describing those groups enforcing justice incorrectly as criminals means something. Labelling them criminals means nothing if they are the most powerful group. Replacing the state with a very powerful gang or groups of gangs does not really solve the problem of reducing and eliminating illegitimate force. Such a society would also be at the mercy of other nations, in particular those that develop advanced military forces. Rothbard never deals with this problem; presumably he would look to volunteer militias or security forces. The former would have no chance against professional soldiers, the second creates a powerful force that could abuse the people.
Rothbard's attempt to create a political philosophy based on the nature of mankind has many successful points concerning property rights but fails to really take in the nature of mankind itself. We are a violent species and are willing to use violence to gain what we like. While social ties do tend to negate this, it is not a cure all, and violence between societies in the same geographic area may actually be increased by this organizing power. Anarchy fails to prevent groups from forming and abusing their own power; obliterating "the state" leads to a situation where many little "states" come into existence. Whoever has power will always be able to abuse that power, even (or perhaps especially) in anarchy. Libertarianism is the best of all possible outcomes, but it does contain an emotional letdown in that the 'promised' land type outcome isn't included. At best, we'll have a world where abuses of justice will be kept lower than in others but not entirely wiped out. It is a lamentable aspect of our species that the need for politics will always be with us and that the best solution we have is a vigilant, perpetual guard against abuses of our liberties. That all being said, I think Rothbard does an excellent job defining what those liberties are, even if his solution to protecting them is not top notch.
Companion Reading
Rothbard vs. Strauss: Libertarianism, Rights and Reason (free download)
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Generational Problems
For ages, mankind has struggled to create a "perfect" society where all would be treated in a "just" and "fair" manner, leading to a high quality of life for everyone involved. As you can note by the quotation marks, the ideals we strive for tend to be vague, which makes identifying the means to those ends also vague. Though I do not believe in the perfectibility of human society, I do find such attempts fascinating. It is, in my mind, an equation without a solution, but that does not stop individuals from believing there is a solution and from coming up with intricate ways of solving the puzzle. To help those folks with their search, I will illuminate the problem of generations with two questions. I would not say this is the most difficult problem facing statist philosophies, nor that these two questions are the only ones requiring an answer for the generational problem, but I think it will help people who believe either in the possibility of a perfect utopian or those who believe government intervention can lead to more limited gains see the extreme difficulty they face. The first question is geared more towards socialists and while I would like to see the answers given for that question, I believe the second will be farther reaching in that anyone who supports the notion of a state will need to find an answer to the problem. The questions are by no means new (the first was contemplated by Plato, the second by Jefferson, among many, many others), but I hope people will be willing to examine their own ideologies in light of these questions.
1. In order to create a "just" society (by which justice means equality of conditions or equality of starting positions), inheritance beyond genetics cannot be allowed. Is it truly just to take away a parent's ability to leave their children well off? Are children in equal starting positions who have parents of different parental skills? In short, can the family exist in such a system and if not, what can replace it? What problems would exist?
Models for Utopian states tend to focus on single generations of people. Wealth and opportunity among those currently living will be redistributed as to create a "fair" balance. A great many problems have been levied against this idea, usually revolving around the idea that those who have more produced more, ergo they 1) deserve to be richer and 2) will have no incentive to work hard in a system that does not benefit them, leading to an overall decrease in the production and standard of living of society. I think it is worth pointing out that, even were this achieved, the children being born would not be born into equality with each other. For starters, children provide a great motivation to many parents to work even harder to leave their children well off; socialism destroys that motivation because all such wealth would be redistributed. Moreover, even if financial equality is achieved, parental skills, love, affection, etc., will not be equal. Genetic inheritance will also create inequalities, in particular among social and physical traits. Without the ability to become financially superior, children with social and physical weaknesses will not be as competitive in the social and romantic realms. Even with financial equality, the quality of life each child will receive will be unequal.
Can the family exist in such a "just" state? It is worth pointing out that Marx, More, and Plato all resorted to the obliteration of the family due precisely to this problem; parents will never be willing to sacrifice giving their children a better life for any ideological reason. What would replace the family, though? There is no evidence that children would be better educated, either in the intellectual or the social realm, in a state run communal setting rather than the nuclear family and a great deal of research indicating exactly the opposite.
Any theory proposing a result of equality of results will have to deal with the other forms of inequality as well, along with replacing the entire structure of the family, dealing with emotions of affection among its populace, figuring out a method of breeding future generations that does not lead to parental love leading to parents desiring better for their children, and a way of doing all of this so that those making the decisions cannot be excepted from the rules. Those arguing for equality of opportunity face an arduous road as well. These theories are particularly prone to the generational problem in that they allow for inequality so long as everyone starts equally, which is considered "fair" by those theorists. Problem is, those inequalities will lead to parents of different experiences and qualities that will lead to social inequalities for the next generation. It would also require limiting what a family could do for their own children, a law so contrary to human nature as to require extreme enforcement measures and constant surveillance to force people against their basic instincts. "Earned" inequalities by the 1st generation will lead to unequal starting positions among the 2nd unless the "earned" inequalities are taken away from those who did better to equalize the playing field for the second generation. This would certainly lead to a reduction of births among those who perform better and an increase among those who do worse, creating a system which favors breeding among the least talented and discourages it among the brightest.
Any theory proposing equality of conditions, whether as a starting position or as an end results, will need to explain how that equality will be maintained through subsequent generations, dealing in particular with the unequal division of genetics and parental love/skill and the natural tendency of parents to seek a better life for their children.
2. Laws created by one generation pass on to those born after their passage. Can we really say we had their consent to create laws over them? Is this not evidence that we ought to pass as few laws (in particular economic regulations and social spending) as possible in order to mitigate this problem?
Most of us live under hundreds or thousands of laws passed long before we were conceived. Simply put, are these laws made with our consent, and if not, are we bound to follow them? Unlike the former question I find I must attempt to answer this question, as I am one who still believes in the necessity of the state, whereas I am not a believer in the necessity of equality of starting positions or end results. This is how I deal with this problem; other thoughts are more than welcome.
It cannot be said we consented to the creation of such laws. Consent requires a conscious, sentient being, which by definition we were not prior to our own existence. To prevent the collapse of society or the need to renew every law each time a new person is born, we follow the concept of implied consent, whereby if we choose to remain in this nation we also consent to the laws passed prior to our participation in politics. This requires a free nation to allow citizens to leave who choose not to consent to the laws. While an important fix, implied consent is very, very broad in its scope. Either you accept all of the laws, or you leave. There is no getting around this problem; we cannot give a veto to each citizen upon reaching the age of majority for particular laws, for obvious logistical reasons.
Given that we cannot get rid of this problem, our only solution is to mitigate it. It is not just to impose rules, regulations, and in particular debt upon those who cannot consent, but at the same time we must have some rules and regulations. The best solution we have, then, is to reduce the number of injustices we commit to a bare minimum possible that will ensure the survival of our life, liberty, and property. By reducing the numbers of laws, regulations, and debt, future generations will need to give their implied consent to fewer laws they were not around to consent to in the first place. While the problem still exists, it will be smaller than it otherwise would have been.
1. In order to create a "just" society (by which justice means equality of conditions or equality of starting positions), inheritance beyond genetics cannot be allowed. Is it truly just to take away a parent's ability to leave their children well off? Are children in equal starting positions who have parents of different parental skills? In short, can the family exist in such a system and if not, what can replace it? What problems would exist?
Models for Utopian states tend to focus on single generations of people. Wealth and opportunity among those currently living will be redistributed as to create a "fair" balance. A great many problems have been levied against this idea, usually revolving around the idea that those who have more produced more, ergo they 1) deserve to be richer and 2) will have no incentive to work hard in a system that does not benefit them, leading to an overall decrease in the production and standard of living of society. I think it is worth pointing out that, even were this achieved, the children being born would not be born into equality with each other. For starters, children provide a great motivation to many parents to work even harder to leave their children well off; socialism destroys that motivation because all such wealth would be redistributed. Moreover, even if financial equality is achieved, parental skills, love, affection, etc., will not be equal. Genetic inheritance will also create inequalities, in particular among social and physical traits. Without the ability to become financially superior, children with social and physical weaknesses will not be as competitive in the social and romantic realms. Even with financial equality, the quality of life each child will receive will be unequal.
Can the family exist in such a "just" state? It is worth pointing out that Marx, More, and Plato all resorted to the obliteration of the family due precisely to this problem; parents will never be willing to sacrifice giving their children a better life for any ideological reason. What would replace the family, though? There is no evidence that children would be better educated, either in the intellectual or the social realm, in a state run communal setting rather than the nuclear family and a great deal of research indicating exactly the opposite.
Any theory proposing a result of equality of results will have to deal with the other forms of inequality as well, along with replacing the entire structure of the family, dealing with emotions of affection among its populace, figuring out a method of breeding future generations that does not lead to parental love leading to parents desiring better for their children, and a way of doing all of this so that those making the decisions cannot be excepted from the rules. Those arguing for equality of opportunity face an arduous road as well. These theories are particularly prone to the generational problem in that they allow for inequality so long as everyone starts equally, which is considered "fair" by those theorists. Problem is, those inequalities will lead to parents of different experiences and qualities that will lead to social inequalities for the next generation. It would also require limiting what a family could do for their own children, a law so contrary to human nature as to require extreme enforcement measures and constant surveillance to force people against their basic instincts. "Earned" inequalities by the 1st generation will lead to unequal starting positions among the 2nd unless the "earned" inequalities are taken away from those who did better to equalize the playing field for the second generation. This would certainly lead to a reduction of births among those who perform better and an increase among those who do worse, creating a system which favors breeding among the least talented and discourages it among the brightest.
Any theory proposing equality of conditions, whether as a starting position or as an end results, will need to explain how that equality will be maintained through subsequent generations, dealing in particular with the unequal division of genetics and parental love/skill and the natural tendency of parents to seek a better life for their children.
2. Laws created by one generation pass on to those born after their passage. Can we really say we had their consent to create laws over them? Is this not evidence that we ought to pass as few laws (in particular economic regulations and social spending) as possible in order to mitigate this problem?
Most of us live under hundreds or thousands of laws passed long before we were conceived. Simply put, are these laws made with our consent, and if not, are we bound to follow them? Unlike the former question I find I must attempt to answer this question, as I am one who still believes in the necessity of the state, whereas I am not a believer in the necessity of equality of starting positions or end results. This is how I deal with this problem; other thoughts are more than welcome.
It cannot be said we consented to the creation of such laws. Consent requires a conscious, sentient being, which by definition we were not prior to our own existence. To prevent the collapse of society or the need to renew every law each time a new person is born, we follow the concept of implied consent, whereby if we choose to remain in this nation we also consent to the laws passed prior to our participation in politics. This requires a free nation to allow citizens to leave who choose not to consent to the laws. While an important fix, implied consent is very, very broad in its scope. Either you accept all of the laws, or you leave. There is no getting around this problem; we cannot give a veto to each citizen upon reaching the age of majority for particular laws, for obvious logistical reasons.
Given that we cannot get rid of this problem, our only solution is to mitigate it. It is not just to impose rules, regulations, and in particular debt upon those who cannot consent, but at the same time we must have some rules and regulations. The best solution we have, then, is to reduce the number of injustices we commit to a bare minimum possible that will ensure the survival of our life, liberty, and property. By reducing the numbers of laws, regulations, and debt, future generations will need to give their implied consent to fewer laws they were not around to consent to in the first place. While the problem still exists, it will be smaller than it otherwise would have been.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Libertarian Paternalism?
This article by Glen Whitman over at Cato Unbound is a must read.
Mr. Whitman makes the argument that individuals are not in a position to be making better decisions for other people far better than I have. Those proposing legislation punishing people for not taking the "right" decisions in their own lives, not affecting others, need to read this first and prove legislators know any better what they are doing than the people do.
Mr. Whitman makes the argument that individuals are not in a position to be making better decisions for other people far better than I have. Those proposing legislation punishing people for not taking the "right" decisions in their own lives, not affecting others, need to read this first and prove legislators know any better what they are doing than the people do.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Limits of Democratic Government
Democracy is the key component of the American ethos. Since the founding of the American colonies, it has been a precept of all citizens that they have an equal say in the make up and conduct of the government. A government democratically elected by the majority of its citizens appears to have a greater claim to legitimacy to rule over the people than any other form of government. I love our democracy as much as any other citizen, which is a point I ask the reader to keep in mind. A strange request? Yes, but for most readers, this will be a strange project, as we need to take a critical eye towards democracy to define its limits and its perils. Democracy has the potential to be the most beautiful form of governments, but is also has the ability to be among the worst horrors of the world when abused.
I am by no means the first to make this distinction between a good and bad version of the same form of government. Aristotle was among the first, creating three divisions of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) with a good and bad version of each, leading to six potential types of government. The particular types of government is not relevant here; there are enough variations and mixtures in modern governments of these three types as to make them obsolete in discussing our world today. That any particular form could be good or bad, however, is an idea citizens need to understand today. Monarchy and aristocracies can be better for their people than some democracies have turned out to be; democracies can, indeed, be bad. The different types of governments have different virtues and drawbacks, but all of them can be good or bad. I believe that all governments, regardless of form, can be viewed as good or bad depending on their scope and involvement in the lives of their people. Governments that protect and respect the lives, liberties, and properties of their respective people's are good forms; governments that fail to do this or become a threat to those rights are bad.
It is my intention to disabuse my readers of a number of preconceptions about democracy that are dangerous to our society. When we are finished, I honestly believe my reader will have a stronger love for the good form of democracy and an unwillingness to accept the corrupting influences, either in their own political philosophy or on that of others with whom they discuss such subjects.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." ~Thomas Paine, Rights of Man
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." ~James Madison, Federalist #51
Government is the institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Were there no government, each and every one of us would be the simultaneous judge, juror, and executioner in all instances in which we perceive wrong to have been done. Maybe a very few individuals reading this would honestly use that power well and never for selfish advancement, but I believe most would be like me and know in their hearts they would steal or maybe even kill for self advancement if there was not a superior force to stop us. We create the government specifically to be that superior force to stop each of us from abusing the lives of each other; the problem is, such a superior force itself is now free to abuse others because there is no superior force to keep them in check. We institute democracy to keep the government in line with the will of the people, but how will we keep the people from abusing certain factions of the people?
A tyranny is a government which does not respect the rights of its own people. While the anarchy of places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and post invasion Iraq have captured the imagination of many for their horrors, anarchy is not the worst situation imaginable. Anarchy is a situation where everyone may declare war on anyone else, Hobbes famous State of Nature, but tyranny is worse still in that it sets up a situation where everyone is at war against you. As bad as a war of all against all may be, it is preferable to a war of everyone teamed up against you.
Democracies are by no means immune from such a problem; indeed, they may be more prone to them as elections clearly define an "us vs. you" situation where the majority take power and the minority are left with few chances of defending themselves. Monarchies and aristocracies rarely capture so many people within their fold, whereas the leaders in a democracy by definition have the most supporters of any particular faction. Though democracies tend to avoid threats to life and limb, they are far more likely to abuse property rights, as elections often bring about new governments that know they will exist only for a short time and must extract as many of the rewards of having power as possible in that short time frame, usually at the expense of the minority groups or future generations. Ultimately, democracies are governments, and all governments are evil for the very reason that they force people to take actions they otherwise would not do.
Far too often, supporters of expanding the role of government in a democracy claim legitimacy for their power grabs by hiding behind the claim that they represent "the people." I ask my reader to cover this section very carefully and if I err in any respect please politely let me know, because "the people" is among the most dangerous phrases ever spoken by politicos. We are, as Lincoln put is, a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", but what is "the people?" The most incorrect and dangerous assumption is to believe the government actually represents the will of all the citizens of a particular state. While the government does legitimately govern all of the people by their tacit consent, its actions are very likely in diametrical opposition to the will of many of its citizens. Government is indeed instituted for the good of all of the citizens, but in every circumstance the government will take actions that unjustly harm certain elements of that society.
Since nearly all democracies today are representative in nature, we need to note that elections are only brief snapshots of the political leanings of society. Elections are also not particularly precise instruments; we vote for a candidate who most closely represents our current views, almost always disagreeing on some issues with those candidates. Moreover, we do not know specifics concerning the bills that will come before those legislators. While a majority may put a legislator into office, there is no certainty that legislator will actually vote along with the majority of his or her constituents on any particular piece of legislation. After a few months or years, a legislator may not even have a majority approval of his or her own constituents, but will still be considered a representative of "the majority" because of a snapshot election some time earlier.
All of this should not be seen as me wishing to do away with elections. I cannot think of a better method of holding officials accountable to the individuals whose lives will be impacted by government action; I merely wish to show such methods are cumbersome and very imperfect. The claim of supporting particular government actions in the name of "the people" is tenuous at best.
Even in a democracy, then, with the people as close to in charge as possible, we will have situations where the government treats its own people unjustly. In most circumstances, this will come about by a majority faction in government seeking to reward its voters at the expense of those who supported others, mainly by punishing or withholding rewards from large segments of the society that generally tended not to support the current government. Ironically, members of those segments that did support the government will be punished because the government cannot act precisely enough to actually identify individual supporters.
So long as there is government, the people in those governments will be tempted to use their powers to aggrandize themselves and their supporters at the expense of others. Even in the legitimate actions of government (protecting life, liberty, property, and enforcing contracts), there will be disagreement over policies. The best solution to this problem is to limit the opportunities for government to act to those legitimate actions and little else. As I just said, this is not a perfect solution, but it will reduce the abuses of government. It is a very simple maxim of politics: the more the government can do, the more it can abuse its powers. Regardless of the form of government, the citizens of all nations best protect their liberties by denying the authority of government to take actions beyond a very small subset already mentioned. To expand beyond these realms is to open up doors of opportunity for abuse in areas government was not instituted to act in and in which it is not capable of making improvements.
I have done my best to keep this explanation simple. It is my sincere hope that those who have read this will recognize that democracy is not in and of itself a good thing. Within certain bounds, no government can be considered more just, but once those bounds are left democracy becomes a nightmare of exploitation by temporary majorities. Within those bounds, citizens will have a wary respect for the institutions and a love of the office holders; outside of those bounds, government will be an object of contempt even by the majority faction. We, as citizens, are caretakers of the government when in the majority and are honor bound to keep that government within its proper role. Those who fail to do so cannot claim to love democracy, no matter how much they may use it in their demagoguery.
I am by no means the first to make this distinction between a good and bad version of the same form of government. Aristotle was among the first, creating three divisions of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) with a good and bad version of each, leading to six potential types of government. The particular types of government is not relevant here; there are enough variations and mixtures in modern governments of these three types as to make them obsolete in discussing our world today. That any particular form could be good or bad, however, is an idea citizens need to understand today. Monarchy and aristocracies can be better for their people than some democracies have turned out to be; democracies can, indeed, be bad. The different types of governments have different virtues and drawbacks, but all of them can be good or bad. I believe that all governments, regardless of form, can be viewed as good or bad depending on their scope and involvement in the lives of their people. Governments that protect and respect the lives, liberties, and properties of their respective people's are good forms; governments that fail to do this or become a threat to those rights are bad.
It is my intention to disabuse my readers of a number of preconceptions about democracy that are dangerous to our society. When we are finished, I honestly believe my reader will have a stronger love for the good form of democracy and an unwillingness to accept the corrupting influences, either in their own political philosophy or on that of others with whom they discuss such subjects.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." ~Thomas Paine, Rights of Man
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." ~James Madison, Federalist #51
Government is the institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Were there no government, each and every one of us would be the simultaneous judge, juror, and executioner in all instances in which we perceive wrong to have been done. Maybe a very few individuals reading this would honestly use that power well and never for selfish advancement, but I believe most would be like me and know in their hearts they would steal or maybe even kill for self advancement if there was not a superior force to stop us. We create the government specifically to be that superior force to stop each of us from abusing the lives of each other; the problem is, such a superior force itself is now free to abuse others because there is no superior force to keep them in check. We institute democracy to keep the government in line with the will of the people, but how will we keep the people from abusing certain factions of the people?
A tyranny is a government which does not respect the rights of its own people. While the anarchy of places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and post invasion Iraq have captured the imagination of many for their horrors, anarchy is not the worst situation imaginable. Anarchy is a situation where everyone may declare war on anyone else, Hobbes famous State of Nature, but tyranny is worse still in that it sets up a situation where everyone is at war against you. As bad as a war of all against all may be, it is preferable to a war of everyone teamed up against you.
Democracies are by no means immune from such a problem; indeed, they may be more prone to them as elections clearly define an "us vs. you" situation where the majority take power and the minority are left with few chances of defending themselves. Monarchies and aristocracies rarely capture so many people within their fold, whereas the leaders in a democracy by definition have the most supporters of any particular faction. Though democracies tend to avoid threats to life and limb, they are far more likely to abuse property rights, as elections often bring about new governments that know they will exist only for a short time and must extract as many of the rewards of having power as possible in that short time frame, usually at the expense of the minority groups or future generations. Ultimately, democracies are governments, and all governments are evil for the very reason that they force people to take actions they otherwise would not do.
Far too often, supporters of expanding the role of government in a democracy claim legitimacy for their power grabs by hiding behind the claim that they represent "the people." I ask my reader to cover this section very carefully and if I err in any respect please politely let me know, because "the people" is among the most dangerous phrases ever spoken by politicos. We are, as Lincoln put is, a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", but what is "the people?" The most incorrect and dangerous assumption is to believe the government actually represents the will of all the citizens of a particular state. While the government does legitimately govern all of the people by their tacit consent, its actions are very likely in diametrical opposition to the will of many of its citizens. Government is indeed instituted for the good of all of the citizens, but in every circumstance the government will take actions that unjustly harm certain elements of that society.
Since nearly all democracies today are representative in nature, we need to note that elections are only brief snapshots of the political leanings of society. Elections are also not particularly precise instruments; we vote for a candidate who most closely represents our current views, almost always disagreeing on some issues with those candidates. Moreover, we do not know specifics concerning the bills that will come before those legislators. While a majority may put a legislator into office, there is no certainty that legislator will actually vote along with the majority of his or her constituents on any particular piece of legislation. After a few months or years, a legislator may not even have a majority approval of his or her own constituents, but will still be considered a representative of "the majority" because of a snapshot election some time earlier.
All of this should not be seen as me wishing to do away with elections. I cannot think of a better method of holding officials accountable to the individuals whose lives will be impacted by government action; I merely wish to show such methods are cumbersome and very imperfect. The claim of supporting particular government actions in the name of "the people" is tenuous at best.
Even in a democracy, then, with the people as close to in charge as possible, we will have situations where the government treats its own people unjustly. In most circumstances, this will come about by a majority faction in government seeking to reward its voters at the expense of those who supported others, mainly by punishing or withholding rewards from large segments of the society that generally tended not to support the current government. Ironically, members of those segments that did support the government will be punished because the government cannot act precisely enough to actually identify individual supporters.
So long as there is government, the people in those governments will be tempted to use their powers to aggrandize themselves and their supporters at the expense of others. Even in the legitimate actions of government (protecting life, liberty, property, and enforcing contracts), there will be disagreement over policies. The best solution to this problem is to limit the opportunities for government to act to those legitimate actions and little else. As I just said, this is not a perfect solution, but it will reduce the abuses of government. It is a very simple maxim of politics: the more the government can do, the more it can abuse its powers. Regardless of the form of government, the citizens of all nations best protect their liberties by denying the authority of government to take actions beyond a very small subset already mentioned. To expand beyond these realms is to open up doors of opportunity for abuse in areas government was not instituted to act in and in which it is not capable of making improvements.
I have done my best to keep this explanation simple. It is my sincere hope that those who have read this will recognize that democracy is not in and of itself a good thing. Within certain bounds, no government can be considered more just, but once those bounds are left democracy becomes a nightmare of exploitation by temporary majorities. Within those bounds, citizens will have a wary respect for the institutions and a love of the office holders; outside of those bounds, government will be an object of contempt even by the majority faction. We, as citizens, are caretakers of the government when in the majority and are honor bound to keep that government within its proper role. Those who fail to do so cannot claim to love democracy, no matter how much they may use it in their demagoguery.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Morality Quiz
I thought this post over at Classical Values was interesting. For starters, I too dislike the Left/Right dichotomy. There are a great many of us who have no desire to impose our wills upon other people and we do not fall anywhere on that spectrum. I am also wary of such polls, mostly because it is difficult to truly define what is being asked, but the folks at the YourMorals did a fairly good job in the Fairness Scenarios. The above graph shows my results (in green) compared to self styled liberals and conservatives. The five categories are defined as:
* Procedural Justice - Fairness is a function of how a decision is made rather than the outcome.
* Equality - Fairness is a function of how equally people are treated.
* Need - Fairness is a function of those who are in need having their needs met.
* Equity - Fairness is a function of people who contribute more getting their just reward.
* Retributional Justice - Fairness is a function of people being punished for bad behavior.
The questions asked relate pretty well to the qualities being measured, though in reality situations would be far more complex, but this does at least find which issues we consider important. My three highest outcomes highlight what I have stressed in my political philosophy: what people "deserve" is a function of their actions and results should be decided by a fair process rather than by a predetermined preferred outcome.
But look at my results compared to liberals and conservatives. Hard to place where I am on the Left/Right spectrum, huh?
As for the other tests, I've only taken a few but none were as good as the test I mentioned above. Too many ask questions that can't be answered without context. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to answer whether "whether or not some people were treated differently than others" is relevant to my moral decisions. Depends on the situation, sometimes people should be treated differently, sometimes not, see the above chart. The next few questions are also nearly impossible to answer without context (rebelling against authority is good if the authority is evil but bad if the authority is good, so how I can't tell whether rebelling in and of itself is good or bad). Ok, the Morals, Values, and Ethics quiz is not worth taking, I do not value a person's aptitude in math when considering their moral actions. This is an example of a test badly done because we have no idea what they are asking.
Anyway, that one particular test seemed to be of value in determining how we think groups ought to distribute resources. Government is the ultimate group. I would like to know how some self described liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians, whathaveyou, come up with.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thoughts Concerning Lochner v New York: Justice Holmes' Dissent
Lochner v The State of New York
198 U.S. 45
Argued February 23, 24, 1905.
Decided April 17, 1905.
198 U.S. 45
Argued February 23, 24, 1905.
Decided April 17, 1905.
Lochner is, in many ways, the most abused case ever to have been decided by the Supreme Court. While the issue of how many hours a person may work in a confectionery bakery is not particularly salient any longer, ideas such as the right of contract, judicial activism, and states' rights are, all of which are touched upon in this short case. I intend to skip over the majority decision and focus on the famous dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. For the record, I believe the Court erred in its decision. The Court overstepped its boundaries in telling a particular state what it may or may not do, so long as due process is followed.
Justice Holmes' extremely short dissent is remarkable for the heights of wisdom and the depths of folly it achieves in so short a space:
"This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain. If it were a question whether I agreed with that theory, I should desire to study it further and long before making up my mind. But I do not conceive that to be my duty, because I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law."
Consider these three sentences. In the first sentence, Justice Holmes' errs in believing the case was decided by an economic theory rather than a constitutional theory, namely that the 14th Amendment prevents states from unduly taking away liberty or property. Regardless of the merits of that philosophy, it is inherently a judicial rather than economic theory. In the very next sentence, Mr. Holmes describes what a judicial activist, legislative from the bench, would do if that justice believed the Court should base controversies based on their opinion of the facts at hand rather than on the law. He rightly condemns this stance, but then proceeds to go too far by apparently stating the majority may impose any such law it wishes, when our Founding Fathers set up our government in a way as to specifically avoid tyrannies based upon majority factions. Indeed, Justice Holmes goes so far as to say apparently tyrannical state laws cannot be overturned by the Court, which I believe goes much too far and ignores both the 14th Amendment and Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, providing for a republican form of government to the states.
"The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well-known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Postoffice, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics."
Whether he meant to do so or not, Justice Holmes rightly points out that all government taxation and regulation is restrictive upon personal liberty. Here we come to the crux of the matter. We establish government solely in order to safeguard the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (paraphrased version of property, courtesy of the philosopher John Locke), as is stated in our Declaration of Independence. Governments which become destructive to those ends may be abolished, according to that same Declaration. Government requires a sacrifice of some of these rights to protect the rest, but where is the line to be drawn? At what point does the government cease to be the protector of these God given rights and transform into the greatest threat instead? Justice Holmes gives no answer, but his willingness to abide by the decision of any majority is distressing to an extreme.
"But a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."
Justice Holmes is correct in a technical sense that our Constitution does not blatantly adopt any particular economic theory, but he is wrong to assume all economic theories can be compatible with the Constitution. A paternalistic state, by definition, removes people from the pursuit of happiness and substitutes itself in their place, assuming the government knows better for the people's well being than the people do. Every tyrant believes the same. Should individuals be debased enough to despise the pursuit of happiness in their own lives and wish to outsource those decision to another is their own personal decision, but to impose that notion, with force, on others who do not agree is to deny them one of their inalienable rights. Overarching governments leave no outs for those who wish to live their own lives; they face a government perverted in its aims, destroying our rights rather than preserving them.
"General propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise. But I think that the proposition just stated, if it is accepted, will carry us far toward the end. Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word 'liberty,' in the 14th Amendment, is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health. Men whom I certainly could not pronounce unreasonable would uphold it as a first instalment of a general regulation of the hours of work. Whether in the latter aspect it would be open to the charge of inequality I think it unnecessary to discuss."
The very reason we have this Constitution, with the Bill of Rights and succeeding Amendments, is to prevent the "dominant opinion" from being imposed tyrannically! Just about any dominant opinion is likely to be met by a minority opinion, composed of rational and fair men who believe the proposed statute infringe upon fundamental principles as have been understood throughout the history of our nation. Liberty means to be free to act or not as we see fit; a dominant opinion that forces us to act or not act in a particular way is the exact opposite of liberty.
Justice Holmes illustrates two extremely important principles for our judiciary, though he only seems to agree with one of them. In the first, justices must respect the rule of law and put this higher than their own policy judgments. We elect legislators to create the law; we place justices on the bench to make rulings based on those laws, not their own desires. But secondly, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, which no majority may override save by a Constitutional Amendment. Wherever the government and the dominant opinion overstep their enumerated powers, wherever they cease to be the protectors of our unalienable rights and transform into the greatest threat instead, the judiciary must step in. While we cannot abide judicial activism, judicial abandonment is the equivalent of abandoning the concept of limited government and individual rights in favor of an unchecked tyranny of the majority.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The End of the American Experiment
I am absolutely despondent at what I have witnessed.
The American People have had their liberty annihilated today. While the vast majority fought against it, our government overrode their wishes, a clear violation of the basic principles of democratic government.
But what is worse, far worse, is the number of people who voted in 2008 for this sort of bill but never put a moment's thought into it. These people, along with the apathetic, have abandoned any sort of responsibility towards their fellow citizens; none will explain where they derive the authority to make such a law, none care how it changes the relationship between government and individuals in a negative fashion. Some support out of greed, others out of a horribly misguided and arrogant sense of "helping others" by forcing apparent "goods" upon them.
America was never meant to be like this. Those who have abandoned their willingness and ability to think to the government do not deserve liberty; indeed, it is doubtful they could even survive with it. If any deserve to be considered less than human, it is those who will not think, who will not defend their personal liberties, who abandon all rights and dignities a free human being deserves for a few trifles thrown by the hands of an all powerful state, or worse still those who abandon liberty to spite those who have done better than they.
I have noticed this the whole process through: it does not matter what argument is made, it will fall on deaf ears because people absolutely refuse to think. This disgusting abandonment of responsibility is what tyrannies are made of. I can't help but think of Rome, which for the populism of Caesar bought Caligula and Nero.
For those few remaining who still hold liberty higher than a government watching and deciding our every move, what can we do?
The American People have had their liberty annihilated today. While the vast majority fought against it, our government overrode their wishes, a clear violation of the basic principles of democratic government.
But what is worse, far worse, is the number of people who voted in 2008 for this sort of bill but never put a moment's thought into it. These people, along with the apathetic, have abandoned any sort of responsibility towards their fellow citizens; none will explain where they derive the authority to make such a law, none care how it changes the relationship between government and individuals in a negative fashion. Some support out of greed, others out of a horribly misguided and arrogant sense of "helping others" by forcing apparent "goods" upon them.
America was never meant to be like this. Those who have abandoned their willingness and ability to think to the government do not deserve liberty; indeed, it is doubtful they could even survive with it. If any deserve to be considered less than human, it is those who will not think, who will not defend their personal liberties, who abandon all rights and dignities a free human being deserves for a few trifles thrown by the hands of an all powerful state, or worse still those who abandon liberty to spite those who have done better than they.
I have noticed this the whole process through: it does not matter what argument is made, it will fall on deaf ears because people absolutely refuse to think. This disgusting abandonment of responsibility is what tyrannies are made of. I can't help but think of Rome, which for the populism of Caesar bought Caligula and Nero.
For those few remaining who still hold liberty higher than a government watching and deciding our every move, what can we do?
Ten Most Influential Books In My Rather Limited World
Since everyone else is doing it...
In all honesty, I can't limit it to ten. Our "world" is so multi-faceted that I can't really rank these books, so I won't bother numbering them.
The Republic of Plato. There is no one in the Western World who has not, in some form or another, been influenced by the works of Plato, and a great deal of political philosophy can find a prototype expressed in the Republic. As with many of the truly Great Books, however, this one is extremely dangerous. Plato searched from the one true Good in the universe and according to the story told in this book a perfect city could be made if only the very wise possessed unfettered power. I highly doubt "good" is unitary and I know that no human is wise enough to be telling another how to live his or her life backed up by the threat of the state. Plato himself seems to have known that; if only modern day statists could figure it out.
Federalist by Publius: This work has had a rather amazing story behind it. For those who read it while thinking about the situation in which it was written, one has to wonder if the authors would have been surprised how we almost revere this collection of essays today, long after the issue of creating a federal government has been settled. The true value of this book lies in the philosophy of man and his imperfections; they never sought out to cure those imperfections but only to limit their abuses in government itself, namely by dividing power so much that no one person or faction could accomplish their goals without compromise. A true warning for modern times.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. A response to John Rawls argument that the state is needed to fix perceived injustices in the distribution of goods and talents by nature. Nozick does an excellent job showing the advantages of a minimal state, the necessity of the rule of law being applied equally to all, and the impossiblity of "social justice" (which always means different things to different people). A must read for anyone who actually desires to study the proper role of government rather than just its forms.
April, 1865 by Jay Winik. This should be read by more high school students. The Civil War did not just "end" in April with everyone saying "yup, it's over, might as well go grab a beer and head home." Even with the Confederacy on the verge of collapse, it was by no means certain the fighting and the killing would end with the destruction of the political state. Guerilla war, similar to what we saw in Iraq, was rampant in places like Missouri, and some of Lee's officers recommended continuing the fight by such means rather than surrender. Lee, Lincoln, and Grant were all amazing commanders in their own way, but each showed their highest quality at the end.
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. I love Russian literature and Dostoevsky is a favorite. The conscience of a human being can be a dreadful thing, something I know from first hand experience but preferred immensely more from reading this book.
The Proper Study of Mankind by Isaiah Berlin. My introduction into the world of political pluralism. Berlin's understanding of the imperfection of man, even (or perhaps, especially) those in power, is a lesson I wish I could magically implant in the mind of every person. He also dismantles the idea that "the good" is unitary.
Second Treatise of Government by John Locke. The intellectual founder of our Republic. A limited government based on the consent of the governed with the purpose of protecting our rights (in particular property rights)...how radical he would seem nowadays!
The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis. Though I am not a Christian any longer, C. S. Lewis will always be one of my favorite authors, and his explanation of personal choice in this book was nothing short of amazing. Mankind truly is petty.
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I picked this book up in January of 2009, when America was taking a distinct turn towards statism. Rand predicted the failure of governments running economies before people like Barack Obama were even born, but apparently nobody every lent poor Obama a copy. More important than the technical aspects of the impossibilty of socialism, though, is the moral superiority of the free market; socialism treats men as cogs, capitalism treats men as men who are capable of determining their own lives for good or ill.
The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. The Prophet of Nature and Man. His beautiful essays cover a vast realm of topics but always manage to focus on the pure and beautiful. While there are aspects I disagree with, in particular concerning the unitary nature of everything, I still always pick up this book when spring time comes around to help enhance the wonder of the season.
The Bible. Nobody knows exactly how long it took to write the Bible or how many people were involved, but it does seem safe to say it spans hundreds of years with dozens of authors. No book has influenced Western literature as much as this one and I highly doubt there is another which influences personal morality as much, either. The stories and themes are wonderful and far too many to list.
1984 by George Orwell. I end this list with the two most abused books in history. Orwell was a magnificent author, but more importantly he was an honest one. He looked straight into the heart of mankind and saw its desire for power, for money, for lust, the weaknesses people carry with them, but the true horror comes in the form of domination of life, and nothing is as capable of dominating life as an all powerful state. I seriously considered adding Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest here, which focused on the horrors of the 20th Centuries totalitarian states, but Orwell's fiction will always be more memorable than reality.
Anyway, that's my (incomplete) list of books that have significantly shaped my world view, whether on God, politics, society, ethics, economics, or any other such field.
In all honesty, I can't limit it to ten. Our "world" is so multi-faceted that I can't really rank these books, so I won't bother numbering them.
The Republic of Plato. There is no one in the Western World who has not, in some form or another, been influenced by the works of Plato, and a great deal of political philosophy can find a prototype expressed in the Republic. As with many of the truly Great Books, however, this one is extremely dangerous. Plato searched from the one true Good in the universe and according to the story told in this book a perfect city could be made if only the very wise possessed unfettered power. I highly doubt "good" is unitary and I know that no human is wise enough to be telling another how to live his or her life backed up by the threat of the state. Plato himself seems to have known that; if only modern day statists could figure it out.
Federalist by Publius: This work has had a rather amazing story behind it. For those who read it while thinking about the situation in which it was written, one has to wonder if the authors would have been surprised how we almost revere this collection of essays today, long after the issue of creating a federal government has been settled. The true value of this book lies in the philosophy of man and his imperfections; they never sought out to cure those imperfections but only to limit their abuses in government itself, namely by dividing power so much that no one person or faction could accomplish their goals without compromise. A true warning for modern times.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. A response to John Rawls argument that the state is needed to fix perceived injustices in the distribution of goods and talents by nature. Nozick does an excellent job showing the advantages of a minimal state, the necessity of the rule of law being applied equally to all, and the impossiblity of "social justice" (which always means different things to different people). A must read for anyone who actually desires to study the proper role of government rather than just its forms.
April, 1865 by Jay Winik. This should be read by more high school students. The Civil War did not just "end" in April with everyone saying "yup, it's over, might as well go grab a beer and head home." Even with the Confederacy on the verge of collapse, it was by no means certain the fighting and the killing would end with the destruction of the political state. Guerilla war, similar to what we saw in Iraq, was rampant in places like Missouri, and some of Lee's officers recommended continuing the fight by such means rather than surrender. Lee, Lincoln, and Grant were all amazing commanders in their own way, but each showed their highest quality at the end.
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. I love Russian literature and Dostoevsky is a favorite. The conscience of a human being can be a dreadful thing, something I know from first hand experience but preferred immensely more from reading this book.
The Proper Study of Mankind by Isaiah Berlin. My introduction into the world of political pluralism. Berlin's understanding of the imperfection of man, even (or perhaps, especially) those in power, is a lesson I wish I could magically implant in the mind of every person. He also dismantles the idea that "the good" is unitary.
Second Treatise of Government by John Locke. The intellectual founder of our Republic. A limited government based on the consent of the governed with the purpose of protecting our rights (in particular property rights)...how radical he would seem nowadays!
The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis. Though I am not a Christian any longer, C. S. Lewis will always be one of my favorite authors, and his explanation of personal choice in this book was nothing short of amazing. Mankind truly is petty.
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I picked this book up in January of 2009, when America was taking a distinct turn towards statism. Rand predicted the failure of governments running economies before people like Barack Obama were even born, but apparently nobody every lent poor Obama a copy. More important than the technical aspects of the impossibilty of socialism, though, is the moral superiority of the free market; socialism treats men as cogs, capitalism treats men as men who are capable of determining their own lives for good or ill.
The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. The Prophet of Nature and Man. His beautiful essays cover a vast realm of topics but always manage to focus on the pure and beautiful. While there are aspects I disagree with, in particular concerning the unitary nature of everything, I still always pick up this book when spring time comes around to help enhance the wonder of the season.
The Bible. Nobody knows exactly how long it took to write the Bible or how many people were involved, but it does seem safe to say it spans hundreds of years with dozens of authors. No book has influenced Western literature as much as this one and I highly doubt there is another which influences personal morality as much, either. The stories and themes are wonderful and far too many to list.
1984 by George Orwell. I end this list with the two most abused books in history. Orwell was a magnificent author, but more importantly he was an honest one. He looked straight into the heart of mankind and saw its desire for power, for money, for lust, the weaknesses people carry with them, but the true horror comes in the form of domination of life, and nothing is as capable of dominating life as an all powerful state. I seriously considered adding Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest here, which focused on the horrors of the 20th Centuries totalitarian states, but Orwell's fiction will always be more memorable than reality.
Anyway, that's my (incomplete) list of books that have significantly shaped my world view, whether on God, politics, society, ethics, economics, or any other such field.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Definitions
A great deal of confusion and frustration occurs in discussing politics. While there are many causes, one important cause we can alleviate is getting our definitions straight. Far too often, we talk past each other or use the wrong abstract phrase or fail to actually understand all of the implications behind the words. Here I intend to create a list of political words I find misused or vague and give my best interpretation of the word.
State: A state consists of any being that creates its own set of rules and holding legitimate use of force delegated to it voluntarily. While there are some 200 nation states recognized today in the world, the true number of "states" are far, far greater. Mafia's that develop their own set of rules and derive their use of force from its members is, in a sense, a state, as are separatist groups, terrorists, and lone criminals. While a state must treat its own members well (that is the reason they join the state in the first place), unless they have created a contract known as a treaty they are under no obligations to treat members of other states well. In this way, a state may arrest, imprison, or execute a criminal in their own society because that person has, in effect, declared themselves their own state.
Right: Any subset of actions an individual may demand another perform or not perform. For example, in the United States it is our right that the government not infringe upon our liberty of free speech. With the exception of the parent/child relationship, all natural rights are of a negative quality, i.e. others shall not do something. All positive rights (i.e. you shall do this) derive from contracts.
Liberty: Any action permissible to the individual. Inherent in that individual's being, not derived from any other person or group but himself, and hence owed to no one.
Power: Any action permissible to the government, delegated to that government by the consent of the governed.
Freedom: Living in a state that is not tyrannical; all actions that may be lawfully taken in a legitimate state.
Politics: A subset of ethics. Whereas ethics determines what actions are good and bad, politics determines which actions are sufficiently good or bad as to be encouraged/discouraged by the use of force.
Ethics: The study in philosophy of what actions are good or bad in a moral sense.
Contract: A voluntary exchange of rights, goods, or liberties. That which is given without a voluntary expectation of a return is called a gift; that which is decided without the consent of both parties is theft.
State: A state consists of any being that creates its own set of rules and holding legitimate use of force delegated to it voluntarily. While there are some 200 nation states recognized today in the world, the true number of "states" are far, far greater. Mafia's that develop their own set of rules and derive their use of force from its members is, in a sense, a state, as are separatist groups, terrorists, and lone criminals. While a state must treat its own members well (that is the reason they join the state in the first place), unless they have created a contract known as a treaty they are under no obligations to treat members of other states well. In this way, a state may arrest, imprison, or execute a criminal in their own society because that person has, in effect, declared themselves their own state.
Right: Any subset of actions an individual may demand another perform or not perform. For example, in the United States it is our right that the government not infringe upon our liberty of free speech. With the exception of the parent/child relationship, all natural rights are of a negative quality, i.e. others shall not do something. All positive rights (i.e. you shall do this) derive from contracts.
Liberty: Any action permissible to the individual. Inherent in that individual's being, not derived from any other person or group but himself, and hence owed to no one.
Power: Any action permissible to the government, delegated to that government by the consent of the governed.
Freedom: Living in a state that is not tyrannical; all actions that may be lawfully taken in a legitimate state.
Politics: A subset of ethics. Whereas ethics determines what actions are good and bad, politics determines which actions are sufficiently good or bad as to be encouraged/discouraged by the use of force.
Ethics: The study in philosophy of what actions are good or bad in a moral sense.
Contract: A voluntary exchange of rights, goods, or liberties. That which is given without a voluntary expectation of a return is called a gift; that which is decided without the consent of both parties is theft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)