A couple of days ago I posted about how the "Free market" and the values on which it is based are opposed to the U.S. Constitution and the values on which it was based. I suggested that one has to choose which is more important: the selfish desire for money fundamental to the "free market" or the cooperative intent at the heart of Constitution.
In that discussion (and here) I have put "Free market" in quotes, because "free market" is a loaded term that is understood in many different ways by many different people. One common understanding is that for a market to be "free", we need to eliminate all regulations. As I have argued in the past, markets can't exist without regulation. If there are no regulations that keep people from cheating, lying, and stealing, then we don't really have a market at all. Certainly there is no version of free market theory that suggests that the best social outcomes will result from allowing one producer to undersell another by virtue of selling a toxic product. But without regulation, how do we know which product is the bad one? It is regulation that allows us to discover which firm packed salmonella-laced food.
So I want to stay away from the idea of "free markets" which has been so badly polluted.
And yesterday, I was also critiquing free market theory as an unrealistic fantasy. All of which might lead one to believe that I'm really hostile to the theory. But I'm not; I'm just hostile to out-and-out blindness to obvious issues.
What I want to write about today is how important the notion of competitive markets is in a democracy, and how, indeed, democracy itself is a form of competitive market.
Adam Smith's invisible hand operates, I have argued, because markets, when operating properly, use the supply/demand dynamic to set market prices that force efficient use of resources and encourage innovations that allow even more efficient use of resources. This is, I believe, not just a beautiful idea, but one that plays out well both theoretically and empirically.
Theoretically, I wish to note, also, how this idea of the efficiency of a competitive market is the same kind of efficiency that underlies the notion of a democracy: through the exchange of ideas, the polity is able to make the best possible decision; it is the competition of ideas that allows the best plans to be made.
One theoretical aspect that I won't go into here is the body of theory about the processes of design and planning that argue for the importance of incorporating diverse opinions (and I'll admit to bias here, since this is what I studied in graduate school and this is one of the basic premises of the book that I co-wrote with my mentor about the work of his mentor (The Universe of Design)).
The theoretical aspect that I will discuss here is that markets do a good job of disseminating information: this is a common notion in "free market" theory is almost all its forms. A diversity of options allows for consumers to choose, and the market then reflects the emergent wisdom of the multitude. Thus the market's diversity allows freedom of choice, and this freedom of choice allows the market to capture the diverse opinions of all people. In principle democracy should operate in a similar fashion: the interests of all people are considered when making a plan.
Empirically, I will note that the US economy was its strongest in a period that the Sherman Antitrust Act was strongly enforced (the 40s through the 70s).
I will also note the parallel with diversity of biological populations: diverse biological populations are much more stable; monocultures are much more liable to boom and disastrous bust.
In short, competitive markets--where buyers and sellers have a number of real options--allow for a diversity of opinions to be heard and tested and ultimately adopted in a way that suits the needs and desires of the many. In short, it is a system by which the allocation of resources is determined by the people for the people. When competition is eliminated--whether that is through a political totalitarian government, or through the consolidation of monopoly power in some market--then the emergent wisdom of the marketplace is eliminated, along with the corresponding freedom of choice.
Wouldn't it be great if the markets supported a diversity of opinions? Wouldn't it be great if democracy was reflecting the needs and interests of the majority of people?
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Fantasy economics
I thought about calling this post "Santa Claus Economics" but choose the more general term.
If I said I was going to solve the nation's economic problems by harnessing the productive might of Santa Claus and his ability to determine good from bad, you'd try to lock me up.
But most people who answer to the rallying cry of "free market economics" basically are believing in something just as fantastic.
In a famous passage, Smith invoked the idea of "an invisible hand" leading the capitalist to an end that is good for both the individual and society. And invisible hand. No shit. But they don't lock you up for professing to believe in free market economics.
Smith did not actually mean that there would be an invisible hand, of course. Smith actually described a whole system of how goods are exchanged, how people behave, etc., all of which lead to the good social result. Smith's work describes the mechanism by which socially good ends are going to be achieved through the selfish agency of the actors.
This whole system that Smith describes is complex and depends on many different notions of how the world works.
Some of the premises on which Smith builds--I'm thinking specifically of the idea of the rational actor which underlies Smith's descriptions of the decision-making processes of people--have been shown to be false. Nobel-prize winning work by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky shows that people don't make rational decisions at least if we define rational in a classical sense of using Bayesian probabilistic reasoning and logic. But I don't want to go there now--I just want to note how the larger scheme of an economic theory is dependent on many different ideas, some of which are problematic.
The work as a whole describes a manner of functioning. Is is this operation of the market which is supposed to lead to optimal solutions--but the operation of the market to be optimal really needs to meet certain criteria.
Current free market theories as they appear in political debate, however, don't include any of the discussion of the mechanism that has to operate; the debate is generally boiled down to "We need less regulation; regulation is what is destroying the market" as if, once all regulation were removed, the markets would somehow automatically lead to the optimal result. This is the fantasy. It's not as if some invisible hand is waiting for the regulators to say "OK, go do whatever you want now" before it then leads producers to the betterment of society. The invisible hand doesn't exist. If the market isn't functioning in the way that it is supposed to, then it won't lead to good results.
This is clear in Adam Smith's work.
The basic premise of Smith's social betterment is based on the idea that supply and demand will operate to force market prices to match what he called the "natural price"--which we might interpret as what things are really worth. This leads to an efficient allocation of resources, and is one of the underpinnings of what helps the market produce good outcomes. And then, in addition to efficient allocation, there is the possibility for innovation to lead to more efficient use of resources, and the innovator, by being able to produce more efficiently, will reap a profit by virtue of having a more efficient system. Thus, basically, the free market promotes the general good by leading to efficient allocation of resources and by encouraging innovation. This basic premise is, I believe, generally sound, even given problematic assumptions like the non-rationality of people. Or if not generally sound, at least pragmatically sound.
But it is a basic premise in Smith's work, as well, that there are many market conditions under which this efficient allocation of resources does not occur, and in which innovation is squelched. It is clear from Smith's work that one sort of condition that will lead to this inefficient market operation is concentration of power in the hands of a monopoly who can then set the price however it wishes, with no regard for the "natural price". This basic premise was generally accepted until recently. In the 1890s Republicans wrote the Sherman AntiTrust Act, which assumed--as did Smith--that competition was necessary to make the market work.
But in the last decade or two, at least in the political debate, the importance of competition has been completely ignored. The fantasy now is that if there is no regulation, then the market will naturally lead to the best solutions, even though in most markets there is a small number of very large firms that can essentially set the prices as they will to maximize their profits.
If one is going to believe in a theory like laissez-faire economics, then one should at least have some idea about how it works, otherwise you've got nothing but a fantasy. And other people can use that fantasy for their own gain.
In the unregulated markets of the US, what we have is a small number of firms making huge profits, but the efficient (and equitable) allocation of resources that would occur in competitive markets does not occur because the markets are not competitive, but rather are characterized by monopoly or oligopoly power. Thus things are not being sold for what Smith would have considered their "natural price"--for example the wages of laborers have not increased, even though the productivity of labor (which would determine the "natural price") has. And innovation is squelched, too (look at how US technology which was the unquestioned world leader 40 years ago no longer has nearly the same dominance).
The big firms, who are well-represented in the government, use the idea of the "free market" as a rallying cry (and a point of loyalty--because questioning the free market means you must be a marxist), all the while they are doing their best to keep the markets from ever being freed from the power of their firms.
Wouldn't it be great if people stopped believing in some fantastic invisible hand? Wouldn't it be great if people understood how markets work, so that they could see that currently markets aren't working that way?
If I said I was going to solve the nation's economic problems by harnessing the productive might of Santa Claus and his ability to determine good from bad, you'd try to lock me up.
But most people who answer to the rallying cry of "free market economics" basically are believing in something just as fantastic.
In a famous passage, Smith invoked the idea of "an invisible hand" leading the capitalist to an end that is good for both the individual and society. And invisible hand. No shit. But they don't lock you up for professing to believe in free market economics.
Smith did not actually mean that there would be an invisible hand, of course. Smith actually described a whole system of how goods are exchanged, how people behave, etc., all of which lead to the good social result. Smith's work describes the mechanism by which socially good ends are going to be achieved through the selfish agency of the actors.
This whole system that Smith describes is complex and depends on many different notions of how the world works.
Some of the premises on which Smith builds--I'm thinking specifically of the idea of the rational actor which underlies Smith's descriptions of the decision-making processes of people--have been shown to be false. Nobel-prize winning work by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky shows that people don't make rational decisions at least if we define rational in a classical sense of using Bayesian probabilistic reasoning and logic. But I don't want to go there now--I just want to note how the larger scheme of an economic theory is dependent on many different ideas, some of which are problematic.
The work as a whole describes a manner of functioning. Is is this operation of the market which is supposed to lead to optimal solutions--but the operation of the market to be optimal really needs to meet certain criteria.
Current free market theories as they appear in political debate, however, don't include any of the discussion of the mechanism that has to operate; the debate is generally boiled down to "We need less regulation; regulation is what is destroying the market" as if, once all regulation were removed, the markets would somehow automatically lead to the optimal result. This is the fantasy. It's not as if some invisible hand is waiting for the regulators to say "OK, go do whatever you want now" before it then leads producers to the betterment of society. The invisible hand doesn't exist. If the market isn't functioning in the way that it is supposed to, then it won't lead to good results.
This is clear in Adam Smith's work.
The basic premise of Smith's social betterment is based on the idea that supply and demand will operate to force market prices to match what he called the "natural price"--which we might interpret as what things are really worth. This leads to an efficient allocation of resources, and is one of the underpinnings of what helps the market produce good outcomes. And then, in addition to efficient allocation, there is the possibility for innovation to lead to more efficient use of resources, and the innovator, by being able to produce more efficiently, will reap a profit by virtue of having a more efficient system. Thus, basically, the free market promotes the general good by leading to efficient allocation of resources and by encouraging innovation. This basic premise is, I believe, generally sound, even given problematic assumptions like the non-rationality of people. Or if not generally sound, at least pragmatically sound.
But it is a basic premise in Smith's work, as well, that there are many market conditions under which this efficient allocation of resources does not occur, and in which innovation is squelched. It is clear from Smith's work that one sort of condition that will lead to this inefficient market operation is concentration of power in the hands of a monopoly who can then set the price however it wishes, with no regard for the "natural price". This basic premise was generally accepted until recently. In the 1890s Republicans wrote the Sherman AntiTrust Act, which assumed--as did Smith--that competition was necessary to make the market work.
But in the last decade or two, at least in the political debate, the importance of competition has been completely ignored. The fantasy now is that if there is no regulation, then the market will naturally lead to the best solutions, even though in most markets there is a small number of very large firms that can essentially set the prices as they will to maximize their profits.
If one is going to believe in a theory like laissez-faire economics, then one should at least have some idea about how it works, otherwise you've got nothing but a fantasy. And other people can use that fantasy for their own gain.
In the unregulated markets of the US, what we have is a small number of firms making huge profits, but the efficient (and equitable) allocation of resources that would occur in competitive markets does not occur because the markets are not competitive, but rather are characterized by monopoly or oligopoly power. Thus things are not being sold for what Smith would have considered their "natural price"--for example the wages of laborers have not increased, even though the productivity of labor (which would determine the "natural price") has. And innovation is squelched, too (look at how US technology which was the unquestioned world leader 40 years ago no longer has nearly the same dominance).
The big firms, who are well-represented in the government, use the idea of the "free market" as a rallying cry (and a point of loyalty--because questioning the free market means you must be a marxist), all the while they are doing their best to keep the markets from ever being freed from the power of their firms.
Wouldn't it be great if people stopped believing in some fantastic invisible hand? Wouldn't it be great if people understood how markets work, so that they could see that currently markets aren't working that way?
The "free market" vs. the U.S. Constitution
Just the other day, a friend of mine posted the following comment on facebook:
It seems like even claiming that there is a problem with the "free market" will get you called a Marxist. In this post, I'm going in the opposite direction; in this post I'm going to suggest that standing up for the "free market" is un-American--specifically, it is opposed to the U.S. Constitution.
You may have noticed by now that I keep putting "free market" in quotes. The reason for this is because there is no such thing as a "free market"--rather there is a variety of economic theories which describe economic behavior, and these theories are not uniform in what they consider "free" for a market.
A couple of years ago I wrote a post in which I discuss the effect of classical "free market" theory on moral values (The Free Market and the Death of Compassion.), and I will take that as a starting point. In that post I quote John Maynard Keynes saying ""foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" and a longer passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:
We can see in both of these quotes that the individual actor is called upon to act in his or her own personal interest, without attention to the needs of others or any sort of "public interest". In short: "free market" theories call for selfish behavior. Such behavior, however, is in stark contrast to the values set forth by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, as we can see just by looking at the preamble:
Let me emphasize those opening words: "We the People." This is a document about people working together. It is about people working together for the public good--not a bunch of people acting selfishly and trying to maximize their own gain. By this basic analysis, we can clearly see that the principles guiding the creation of the United States are principles of cooperation and of people working together for a larger shared public good. In the preamble, too, we can see hints (at least) that we should care for the welfare of all, not just individually.
In short: the basic principles behind the formation of the United States are principles of cooperation towards a greater social good. The principles behind "free markets" are selfish principles. These two value systems are in conflict, and--as the bible suggests--one can only serve one value system at a time:
So which is important to you? The "free market" or the U.S. Constitution? If you say that the "free market" is more important, then I call you out as being opposed to American values and being opposed to American democracy.
There's a mountain more that could be said on this subject, but I don't want to get too deep in here. Before closing, however, I will address one argument--it is claimed (by Adam Smith and those who follow) that the selfish aims of the individual actors will lead to the greatest social good, and therefore that by acting selfishly, one promotes the overall good of the society. There are several responses I could make to this, but one is that the values of the people in the society are part of the society and part of what makes a society good or bad. The good that Adam Smith predicted was limited to a prediction of wealth: the free market increases wealth. However, what if we measure the quality of a society in more complex terms--in terms of wealth and other factors? In that case, the increase in wealth predicted by Smith's theories might well be counterbalanced by a corresponding decrease in other factors that contribute to a good society.
Ultimately both Adam Smith (and following free market proponents) are putting forth a recipe for how to create a better society. So, too, were the framers of the U.S. Constitution. One of these recipes says (explicitly) that social interest and a sense of social responsibility are bad. The other puts a sense of social responsibility at its very heart.
So the next time someone tells you how great the "free market" is, just say "yeah, as long as you don't believe in the Constitution."
This post is long enough now, but really these issues are complex. The critique of "free markets" that I posted here is a critique of certain aspects of this complex economic theory. In the current political climate of the US, the complexity of real issues is swept under the table in favor of a sound-bite logic suitable for 30-second answers on televised debates and televised commercials. The real complexity of issues that needs to be addressed isn't: in this case, I want to point out that there is a huge gap between "free markets" as often propounded by the media and politicians, and the idea of a controlled non-market economy (which is often called Marxism, though that is not really what Marx was talking about). Just because I don't blithely accept any and all claims that the "free market" is the best social system, doesn't mean that I don't believe in the value of a market economy. Indeed, if the "free market" is defined properly, then I even agree with "free markets."
But wouldn't it be great if people actually cared about the Constitution, with its guarantees of political freedom, more than they cared about their own personal gain? Wouldn't it be great if people held the good of society--the general welfare--as a value to be honored instead of serving mammon?
"I'm not a marxist but I think that somebody needs to point out to all those who say that controlled economies don't work that, right now, the Chinese and their controlled economy are burying us."As it happens, I had been accused of being a marxist just a couple of days before that, because I had suggested that market power tends to end up in the hands of a few small firms.
It seems like even claiming that there is a problem with the "free market" will get you called a Marxist. In this post, I'm going in the opposite direction; in this post I'm going to suggest that standing up for the "free market" is un-American--specifically, it is opposed to the U.S. Constitution.
You may have noticed by now that I keep putting "free market" in quotes. The reason for this is because there is no such thing as a "free market"--rather there is a variety of economic theories which describe economic behavior, and these theories are not uniform in what they consider "free" for a market.
A couple of years ago I wrote a post in which I discuss the effect of classical "free market" theory on moral values (The Free Market and the Death of Compassion.), and I will take that as a starting point. In that post I quote John Maynard Keynes saying ""foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" and a longer passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:
He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security ; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
-- Wealth of Nations, Book IV, chapter II
We can see in both of these quotes that the individual actor is called upon to act in his or her own personal interest, without attention to the needs of others or any sort of "public interest". In short: "free market" theories call for selfish behavior. Such behavior, however, is in stark contrast to the values set forth by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, as we can see just by looking at the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Let me emphasize those opening words: "We the People." This is a document about people working together. It is about people working together for the public good--not a bunch of people acting selfishly and trying to maximize their own gain. By this basic analysis, we can clearly see that the principles guiding the creation of the United States are principles of cooperation and of people working together for a larger shared public good. In the preamble, too, we can see hints (at least) that we should care for the welfare of all, not just individually.
In short: the basic principles behind the formation of the United States are principles of cooperation towards a greater social good. The principles behind "free markets" are selfish principles. These two value systems are in conflict, and--as the bible suggests--one can only serve one value system at a time:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
-- Matthew 6:24
So which is important to you? The "free market" or the U.S. Constitution? If you say that the "free market" is more important, then I call you out as being opposed to American values and being opposed to American democracy.
There's a mountain more that could be said on this subject, but I don't want to get too deep in here. Before closing, however, I will address one argument--it is claimed (by Adam Smith and those who follow) that the selfish aims of the individual actors will lead to the greatest social good, and therefore that by acting selfishly, one promotes the overall good of the society. There are several responses I could make to this, but one is that the values of the people in the society are part of the society and part of what makes a society good or bad. The good that Adam Smith predicted was limited to a prediction of wealth: the free market increases wealth. However, what if we measure the quality of a society in more complex terms--in terms of wealth and other factors? In that case, the increase in wealth predicted by Smith's theories might well be counterbalanced by a corresponding decrease in other factors that contribute to a good society.
Ultimately both Adam Smith (and following free market proponents) are putting forth a recipe for how to create a better society. So, too, were the framers of the U.S. Constitution. One of these recipes says (explicitly) that social interest and a sense of social responsibility are bad. The other puts a sense of social responsibility at its very heart.
So the next time someone tells you how great the "free market" is, just say "yeah, as long as you don't believe in the Constitution."
This post is long enough now, but really these issues are complex. The critique of "free markets" that I posted here is a critique of certain aspects of this complex economic theory. In the current political climate of the US, the complexity of real issues is swept under the table in favor of a sound-bite logic suitable for 30-second answers on televised debates and televised commercials. The real complexity of issues that needs to be addressed isn't: in this case, I want to point out that there is a huge gap between "free markets" as often propounded by the media and politicians, and the idea of a controlled non-market economy (which is often called Marxism, though that is not really what Marx was talking about). Just because I don't blithely accept any and all claims that the "free market" is the best social system, doesn't mean that I don't believe in the value of a market economy. Indeed, if the "free market" is defined properly, then I even agree with "free markets."
But wouldn't it be great if people actually cared about the Constitution, with its guarantees of political freedom, more than they cared about their own personal gain? Wouldn't it be great if people held the good of society--the general welfare--as a value to be honored instead of serving mammon?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Speech is Action
A lot of people I know often say "Well, I don't like what government is doing, but what can I do about it?"
My recent answer has been: talk about it. Talk about it a lot.
A natural response to that is: "What good will that do? Talk isn't enough."
I'm not sure about that. I think that talk may be enough. At least if there is enough talk. Of course talking constantly takes a lot of effort. Which may be evidence that talking really is taking action.
On the societal level, the discourse is largely dominated by those voices that are heard the loudest: the mass media. The mass media and the government, despite common claims to the contrary, are working together very often. And their voice is contrary to the voice of the people in many places and times.
I am thinking specifically of the coverage of the recent NDAA 2012 that was passed in early December by both houses of the U.S. Congress, with its inclusion of a provision that allows for indefinite detention without trial of those suspected of being terrorists or aiding terrorists. But the point is more general, too: there are many points on which the media is basically a shill for government policies worth opposing.
How do we oppose these loud voices in the media? We have to talk. And talk more. And talk some more. This takes effort. Personally, I know that I don't talk as much as I could. But if each of us were to talk about important issues often, then there is potential for the discourse to shift.
The voices of the real people need to be heard, not the voices of the media. And this takes effort.
If we are opposed to the NDAA of 2012--and who is in favor of indefinite detention without trial? (that's a rhetorical question, of course)--then we each need to raise our individual voice to combat the silence that pervades the mainstream media. Each of us needs to work at the conversation that is necessary to have a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people."
If all of us were talking with each other, then the discourse need not be dominated by the mass media. But this would require everybody talking. A true grassroots movement.
And this is what is needed, if we wish to oppose policies that allow the government to lock people up without trial.
Do you believe that the government should be able to lock people up indefinitely without trial? If so, I'd like to hear why. If not, then I'd love for you to take action--take action by talking about it. A lot.
Yes, I know that this can be annoying. I know that people don't want to hear the constant discussion of things unpleasant. But isn't it important to sometimes talk about things unpleasant? If a friend was an alcoholic in denial, wouldn't it still be good to talk about the thing that they don't want to talk about? This is no different: we need to talk about this for our own good, even if it is unpleasant.
If every single person who is opposed to indefinite detention without trial were to call the White House, and their Senators and their Representative, that would change policy. Every single person--they couldn't deny that. Even though they can deny the thousands who do call, because those thousands are a small number compared to the millions of voters who aren't talking about the problems with the NDAA, and who will let it pass--along with their civil liberties--without noticing or acting.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the U.S. woke up and said: "I don't believe in indefinite detention without trial (a principle codified in the 5th and 6th amendments of the U.S. Constitution)"? Wouldn't it be great if everyone woke up and said: "I don't believe in torture (a principle codified in the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.)?
My recent answer has been: talk about it. Talk about it a lot.
A natural response to that is: "What good will that do? Talk isn't enough."
I'm not sure about that. I think that talk may be enough. At least if there is enough talk. Of course talking constantly takes a lot of effort. Which may be evidence that talking really is taking action.
On the societal level, the discourse is largely dominated by those voices that are heard the loudest: the mass media. The mass media and the government, despite common claims to the contrary, are working together very often. And their voice is contrary to the voice of the people in many places and times.
I am thinking specifically of the coverage of the recent NDAA 2012 that was passed in early December by both houses of the U.S. Congress, with its inclusion of a provision that allows for indefinite detention without trial of those suspected of being terrorists or aiding terrorists. But the point is more general, too: there are many points on which the media is basically a shill for government policies worth opposing.
How do we oppose these loud voices in the media? We have to talk. And talk more. And talk some more. This takes effort. Personally, I know that I don't talk as much as I could. But if each of us were to talk about important issues often, then there is potential for the discourse to shift.
The voices of the real people need to be heard, not the voices of the media. And this takes effort.
If we are opposed to the NDAA of 2012--and who is in favor of indefinite detention without trial? (that's a rhetorical question, of course)--then we each need to raise our individual voice to combat the silence that pervades the mainstream media. Each of us needs to work at the conversation that is necessary to have a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people."
If all of us were talking with each other, then the discourse need not be dominated by the mass media. But this would require everybody talking. A true grassroots movement.
And this is what is needed, if we wish to oppose policies that allow the government to lock people up without trial.
Do you believe that the government should be able to lock people up indefinitely without trial? If so, I'd like to hear why. If not, then I'd love for you to take action--take action by talking about it. A lot.
Yes, I know that this can be annoying. I know that people don't want to hear the constant discussion of things unpleasant. But isn't it important to sometimes talk about things unpleasant? If a friend was an alcoholic in denial, wouldn't it still be good to talk about the thing that they don't want to talk about? This is no different: we need to talk about this for our own good, even if it is unpleasant.
If every single person who is opposed to indefinite detention without trial were to call the White House, and their Senators and their Representative, that would change policy. Every single person--they couldn't deny that. Even though they can deny the thousands who do call, because those thousands are a small number compared to the millions of voters who aren't talking about the problems with the NDAA, and who will let it pass--along with their civil liberties--without noticing or acting.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the U.S. woke up and said: "I don't believe in indefinite detention without trial (a principle codified in the 5th and 6th amendments of the U.S. Constitution)"? Wouldn't it be great if everyone woke up and said: "I don't believe in torture (a principle codified in the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.)?
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Talk, talk, talk.
What actions can we take to lead to massive political change in the face of a system that is rapidly dismantling the basic rights that were codified in the U.S. Constitution?
Talk is one of the most powerful tools that we have. Talk is not "just talk." It may be true that talk is cheap, as people often say, but talk is also powerful: when we say that the pen is mightier than the sword, we are not really talking about the pen itself, so much as we are talking about the power of words. Words have great power. We have to put them into action.
One of the big problems that the world faces is that the conversations of the world are dominated by the voices of the major corporations that own the big mass media outlets. These media are not telling a story that is designed to help people--or at least not the vast majority of people.
No one person has the voice alone to change the debate and to shift focus onto stories that really matter, or to shift the tone of the stories being told. But if we all are telling the real stories, then, maybe, we could change the debate.
Once upon a time--not so long ago--the U.S. made a claim to having a good human rights record, and if history didn't bear that out, at least there was a legal code that could support that claim. And that legal code was a support for moving towards a nation with greater liberty and justice for all.
Then we got the George W. Bush administration, and we got laws justifying warrant-less wiretapping, and memos justifying the use of torture, and now we've got the NDAA of 2012 which allows for the indefinite detention without trial of anyone the military wants.
These are not things that any U.S. citizen who believes in the U.S. Constitution should accept. The Constitution, flawed though it is, is a foundation for government that is worthy of respect. It sets forth rights that are worth defending.
The elected officials of the nation swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. They are not doing a good job, and now is the time to talk about that.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, right-wing, left-wing: who wants the government to be able to lock people up with no trial? Is that a free nation? Each of us can act to defend the constitution just by talking about it. Of course we have to talk about it a lot to spread the word, but it shouldn't be a polarizing conversation. Political conversation is often difficult because of conflicting opinions. But this should be one political conversation with almost no disagreement:
"Should we preserve the right to a speedy, public trial, as guaranteed in the Constitution?"
Now is the time and the action that we each can take is to talk. Each of us talking alone is not that big a deal, but like the old ad said: "If you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc...."
If everyone talked about how cool the 6th amendment of the Constitution is (the right to a public, speedy trial), our combined voices would be loud enough to drown out the corporate media that would love the right to throw anyone they want into jail.
Talk may be cheap, but it's also powerful. If everyone does it, it's loud. Wouldn't it be great if everyone stood up against the continued erosion of our legal rights?
Talk is one of the most powerful tools that we have. Talk is not "just talk." It may be true that talk is cheap, as people often say, but talk is also powerful: when we say that the pen is mightier than the sword, we are not really talking about the pen itself, so much as we are talking about the power of words. Words have great power. We have to put them into action.
One of the big problems that the world faces is that the conversations of the world are dominated by the voices of the major corporations that own the big mass media outlets. These media are not telling a story that is designed to help people--or at least not the vast majority of people.
No one person has the voice alone to change the debate and to shift focus onto stories that really matter, or to shift the tone of the stories being told. But if we all are telling the real stories, then, maybe, we could change the debate.
Once upon a time--not so long ago--the U.S. made a claim to having a good human rights record, and if history didn't bear that out, at least there was a legal code that could support that claim. And that legal code was a support for moving towards a nation with greater liberty and justice for all.
Then we got the George W. Bush administration, and we got laws justifying warrant-less wiretapping, and memos justifying the use of torture, and now we've got the NDAA of 2012 which allows for the indefinite detention without trial of anyone the military wants.
These are not things that any U.S. citizen who believes in the U.S. Constitution should accept. The Constitution, flawed though it is, is a foundation for government that is worthy of respect. It sets forth rights that are worth defending.
The elected officials of the nation swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. They are not doing a good job, and now is the time to talk about that.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, right-wing, left-wing: who wants the government to be able to lock people up with no trial? Is that a free nation? Each of us can act to defend the constitution just by talking about it. Of course we have to talk about it a lot to spread the word, but it shouldn't be a polarizing conversation. Political conversation is often difficult because of conflicting opinions. But this should be one political conversation with almost no disagreement:
"Should we preserve the right to a speedy, public trial, as guaranteed in the Constitution?"
Now is the time and the action that we each can take is to talk. Each of us talking alone is not that big a deal, but like the old ad said: "If you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc...."
If everyone talked about how cool the 6th amendment of the Constitution is (the right to a public, speedy trial), our combined voices would be loud enough to drown out the corporate media that would love the right to throw anyone they want into jail.
Talk may be cheap, but it's also powerful. If everyone does it, it's loud. Wouldn't it be great if everyone stood up against the continued erosion of our legal rights?
Friday, December 16, 2011
Common Ground for the Tea Party and the Occupy movement
The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 by both houses of congress represents on on-going erosion of the very principles on which the U.S. prides itself.
The act allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial, which is a clear violation of the constitution's 6th amendment.
Now the Tea Party typically mocks the Occupy movement, but here, it seems to me, the two groups should find some common ground.
The Tea Party has been very vocal in defense of the 2nd Amendment; Tea Party demonstrations are known for the open display of firearms.
The Tea Party is known to call for less government. Surely laws that allow the government to hold people without trial are not a movement in the direction of less government.
Wouldn't it be great if all the people of the United States were to see that preserving the U.S. Constitution is better than allowing the government to slide into totalitarianism?
The act allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial, which is a clear violation of the constitution's 6th amendment.
Now the Tea Party typically mocks the Occupy movement, but here, it seems to me, the two groups should find some common ground.
The Tea Party has been very vocal in defense of the 2nd Amendment; Tea Party demonstrations are known for the open display of firearms.
The Tea Party is known to call for less government. Surely laws that allow the government to hold people without trial are not a movement in the direction of less government.
Wouldn't it be great if all the people of the United States were to see that preserving the U.S. Constitution is better than allowing the government to slide into totalitarianism?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Basic Operation of Democracy
Recently a friend of mine, in responding to a recent news item, said "OK, now I'm angry, but what do I DO about it?"
I suggested "educate people." My friend responded something to the effect of "But just hitting share on Facebook isn't really doing anything."
There is truth in thinking that hitting share on Facebook isn't enough. But sharing something on Facebook isn't necessarily trivially unimportant, either.
The fundamental principle of democracy is that the people of the state--the citizens--are the one who make decisions. Ultimately, the democracy is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people," as Lincoln said it in the Gettysburg address. It is the public who should decide in a functioning democracy--at least in one that lives up to the principles set forth by the founders of the United States.
And for people to make good choices regarding government, education is crucial. As James Madison said: ""A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." Or as John Adams said: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know."
It is the debate among ideas that is so crucial that right to dissent is written in to the Constitution's First Amendment.
At present, we find ourselves in a place and time where the stories that surround us are filled with misinformation or outright lies. In that context education is even more important.
And in the U.S. we live in a place and time where the fundamental laws and principles of the nation--the very principles of which Americans are so proud--the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole--are being ruthlessly and systematically eroded by the government.
We have seen many many images of police violence against protesters in the Occupy movement. Whether or not one supports the Occupy movement, it is clearly a violation of civil liberties to beat peaceful protesters. Neither the right wing, nor the left wants to give the government the right to beat people for gathering peacefully.
The people who have fallen victim to the police violence at Occupy protests include those who form the backbone of our society. Victims have included war veterans, lawyers, retired policemen, journalists, professors, students, and many others. Where are our civil liberties if law abiding citizens are beaten and pepper-sprayed for exercising their first amendment rights?
Meanwhile, the government moves apace to reduce our liberties further: currently in debate for congress is legislation that would give "this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world." This would be merely an additional erosion of our rights against search and seizure, which are already compromised.
These stories need to be circulated. The people of the U.S., Republicans and Democrats alike, should be concerned at the erosion of their civil liberties. These stories, however, are not covered (or not covered accurately) by the mass media. How many of your friends are talking about the legislation that would allow the military to arrest and imprison them indefinitely, without charges, without trial, without recourse?
And thus the significance of sharing on Facebook. It's one way to get the story out there. Many million citizens of the U.S. are on Facebook, if every one of them shared the story about how these military powers of detention are being considered by our elected representatives, that would shift the debate.
There's no question that other things need to be done too: vote; contact your elected representatives; make choices with your money that support small businesses rather than the corporations whose agenda is closely related to the erosion of civil liberties. There are many ways to make your voice heard. Exercise as many as you can. Because that's how democracy should work. If you don't think that the police should be able to beat retired policemen, retired judges, celebrated poets, and others, who are peacefully protesting, then you need to get your voice out wherever and however you can. You need to convince your friends that what has happened to the Occupy movement is not the right way to deal with dissent, and that it represents a fundamental violation of liberties that sets a precedent for the same violation of liberties to occur again and again.
There are actions that make no difference when they only happen rarely, but that quickly have massive impact when repeated enough. It's not one piece of litter that makes a city dirty; it's thousands of people all dropping one piece of litter. It's not one car that fills a city with smog, but put millions on the road, and suddenly you got the skies of LA. Your one Facebook share won't rock the world, but if you're part of millions who share the same thing, then maybe it will.
Wouldn't it be great if the people of the U.S. knew about the erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed rights?
I suggested "educate people." My friend responded something to the effect of "But just hitting share on Facebook isn't really doing anything."
There is truth in thinking that hitting share on Facebook isn't enough. But sharing something on Facebook isn't necessarily trivially unimportant, either.
The fundamental principle of democracy is that the people of the state--the citizens--are the one who make decisions. Ultimately, the democracy is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people," as Lincoln said it in the Gettysburg address. It is the public who should decide in a functioning democracy--at least in one that lives up to the principles set forth by the founders of the United States.
And for people to make good choices regarding government, education is crucial. As James Madison said: ""A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." Or as John Adams said: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know."
It is the debate among ideas that is so crucial that right to dissent is written in to the Constitution's First Amendment.
At present, we find ourselves in a place and time where the stories that surround us are filled with misinformation or outright lies. In that context education is even more important.
And in the U.S. we live in a place and time where the fundamental laws and principles of the nation--the very principles of which Americans are so proud--the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole--are being ruthlessly and systematically eroded by the government.
We have seen many many images of police violence against protesters in the Occupy movement. Whether or not one supports the Occupy movement, it is clearly a violation of civil liberties to beat peaceful protesters. Neither the right wing, nor the left wants to give the government the right to beat people for gathering peacefully.
The people who have fallen victim to the police violence at Occupy protests include those who form the backbone of our society. Victims have included war veterans, lawyers, retired policemen, journalists, professors, students, and many others. Where are our civil liberties if law abiding citizens are beaten and pepper-sprayed for exercising their first amendment rights?
Meanwhile, the government moves apace to reduce our liberties further: currently in debate for congress is legislation that would give "this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world." This would be merely an additional erosion of our rights against search and seizure, which are already compromised.
These stories need to be circulated. The people of the U.S., Republicans and Democrats alike, should be concerned at the erosion of their civil liberties. These stories, however, are not covered (or not covered accurately) by the mass media. How many of your friends are talking about the legislation that would allow the military to arrest and imprison them indefinitely, without charges, without trial, without recourse?
And thus the significance of sharing on Facebook. It's one way to get the story out there. Many million citizens of the U.S. are on Facebook, if every one of them shared the story about how these military powers of detention are being considered by our elected representatives, that would shift the debate.
There's no question that other things need to be done too: vote; contact your elected representatives; make choices with your money that support small businesses rather than the corporations whose agenda is closely related to the erosion of civil liberties. There are many ways to make your voice heard. Exercise as many as you can. Because that's how democracy should work. If you don't think that the police should be able to beat retired policemen, retired judges, celebrated poets, and others, who are peacefully protesting, then you need to get your voice out wherever and however you can. You need to convince your friends that what has happened to the Occupy movement is not the right way to deal with dissent, and that it represents a fundamental violation of liberties that sets a precedent for the same violation of liberties to occur again and again.
There are actions that make no difference when they only happen rarely, but that quickly have massive impact when repeated enough. It's not one piece of litter that makes a city dirty; it's thousands of people all dropping one piece of litter. It's not one car that fills a city with smog, but put millions on the road, and suddenly you got the skies of LA. Your one Facebook share won't rock the world, but if you're part of millions who share the same thing, then maybe it will.
Wouldn't it be great if the people of the U.S. knew about the erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed rights?
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Conservatism
I am, in many ways, a very conservative man. I hold to traditional values, like those espoused in the US Constitution and many expressed in the Bible--though I am not religious, the values that shaped this civilization are derived from religious sources, especially the Judeo-Christian tradition. Those conservative values are embedded in our culture, much in the way that the values expressed in Aesop's fables are embedded in our culture. I think these values are central to a good life and to the growth of civilization.
I am also conservative in that I think that the simple basic things in life are the best: can there really be something much better than to enjoy a beautiful day in a beautiful setting? I would rather have a fresh peach and a simple meal than a feast, and I do not think this is asceticism so much as just simple values.
I find, however, that to identify myself as conservative, identifies me with a group of politicians who would change many, many things, with what appears to me little respect for tradition or traditional values. Politicians in general, of course, are suspect.
The state of the world is distressing, because it does not seem to me that the politicians who hold power in the U.S. really serve my conservative values.
Wouldn't it be great if the politicians wanted to conserve the environment so future generations could enjoy that simple pleasure?
I am also conservative in that I think that the simple basic things in life are the best: can there really be something much better than to enjoy a beautiful day in a beautiful setting? I would rather have a fresh peach and a simple meal than a feast, and I do not think this is asceticism so much as just simple values.
I find, however, that to identify myself as conservative, identifies me with a group of politicians who would change many, many things, with what appears to me little respect for tradition or traditional values. Politicians in general, of course, are suspect.
The state of the world is distressing, because it does not seem to me that the politicians who hold power in the U.S. really serve my conservative values.
Wouldn't it be great if the politicians wanted to conserve the environment so future generations could enjoy that simple pleasure?
Thursday, June 16, 2011
What is important in life?
There are many different answers to this question. I don't believe that there is any objective standard by which to say one answer is better than another.
The way that we choose to answer the question, however, is of tremendous significance--it guides our actions and shapes our lives.
To the extent that we want our actions to support our idea of what is important in life, then, we can propose it as a general rule that it is good to act in a fashion consistent with our beliefs. That's not really news, I suppose.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people in the world who act in a fashion that is inconsistent with their beliefs. And I think the world would be a better place if that were not the case.
The way that we choose to answer the question, however, is of tremendous significance--it guides our actions and shapes our lives.
To the extent that we want our actions to support our idea of what is important in life, then, we can propose it as a general rule that it is good to act in a fashion consistent with our beliefs. That's not really news, I suppose.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people in the world who act in a fashion that is inconsistent with their beliefs. And I think the world would be a better place if that were not the case.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The failure of logic
A lot of people believe that the answers lie in rationality. As if we would solve all our problems if people just acted logically.
It ain't gonna happen though. There are a lot of reasons why. I want to focus on logic's inherent, internal limitations.
Other barriers to people making good rational/logical decisions exist--for example, access to good information, or the ability to effectively use information--but let's just ignore those for a moment. In fact, we could even assume that people do have access to whatever information they need, and they are able to effectively use the information they are given, too, and still we would see that logic isn't enough. Rationality is not enough.
Since David Hume, we know that the areas of absolute logical certainty are very small. Geometry and other mathematical endeavors can have logical certainty. But nothing based on empirical observation can be similarly certain.
For millennia, it has been recognized that logic is prone to errors where infinity is involved--paradoxes such as Zeno's of Achilles and the tortoise have been fascinating for a long time. Borges has a lovely little discussion of these paradoxes titled "Avatars of the Tortoise."
The most central paradox is rarely discussed: there is an infinite regression in proof: to prove something, you need preliminary assumptions. But how are those assumptions known? Empirical observation cannot provide that certain foundation. And if you logically prove the starting assumption, what assumptions are necessary to prove that, and how are they to be proved? Bertrand Russell discussed this paradox. And essentially dismisses it.
But the greatest failure, I believe, in logic is that it does not and cannot eliminate questions of value. For example, if I have to buy a bunch of greens, is red kale better than curly kale? OK, sure, there may be some nutritional difference, and that may mean that there is one that is logically better for a specific individual, but that's partly determined by circumstance. And that's not taking into account any factor related to hedonic issues. I use the word "hedonic" because it's technical and "hedonic issues" serves the technical context better than "things relating to pleasure." But, realistically, taste does matter: if you like curly kale better than red kale, then that happiness affects your biochemistry; it affects your behavior, etc.
Something more than logic is needed. Hilary Putnam says (I paraphrase): knowledge of value depends on knowledge of fact; and knowledge of fact depends on knowledge of value. You can't have one without the other. I think there's a lot of truth in that.
Logic isn't enough on which to build personal behavior or social norms. Values are needed--for example whether competition is better than cooperation, or vice versa. So what values do you want?
Wouldn't it be great if the values guiding the logic were values of compassion and love?
It ain't gonna happen though. There are a lot of reasons why. I want to focus on logic's inherent, internal limitations.
Other barriers to people making good rational/logical decisions exist--for example, access to good information, or the ability to effectively use information--but let's just ignore those for a moment. In fact, we could even assume that people do have access to whatever information they need, and they are able to effectively use the information they are given, too, and still we would see that logic isn't enough. Rationality is not enough.
Since David Hume, we know that the areas of absolute logical certainty are very small. Geometry and other mathematical endeavors can have logical certainty. But nothing based on empirical observation can be similarly certain.
For millennia, it has been recognized that logic is prone to errors where infinity is involved--paradoxes such as Zeno's of Achilles and the tortoise have been fascinating for a long time. Borges has a lovely little discussion of these paradoxes titled "Avatars of the Tortoise."
The most central paradox is rarely discussed: there is an infinite regression in proof: to prove something, you need preliminary assumptions. But how are those assumptions known? Empirical observation cannot provide that certain foundation. And if you logically prove the starting assumption, what assumptions are necessary to prove that, and how are they to be proved? Bertrand Russell discussed this paradox. And essentially dismisses it.
But the greatest failure, I believe, in logic is that it does not and cannot eliminate questions of value. For example, if I have to buy a bunch of greens, is red kale better than curly kale? OK, sure, there may be some nutritional difference, and that may mean that there is one that is logically better for a specific individual, but that's partly determined by circumstance. And that's not taking into account any factor related to hedonic issues. I use the word "hedonic" because it's technical and "hedonic issues" serves the technical context better than "things relating to pleasure." But, realistically, taste does matter: if you like curly kale better than red kale, then that happiness affects your biochemistry; it affects your behavior, etc.
Something more than logic is needed. Hilary Putnam says (I paraphrase): knowledge of value depends on knowledge of fact; and knowledge of fact depends on knowledge of value. You can't have one without the other. I think there's a lot of truth in that.
Logic isn't enough on which to build personal behavior or social norms. Values are needed--for example whether competition is better than cooperation, or vice versa. So what values do you want?
Wouldn't it be great if the values guiding the logic were values of compassion and love?
Friday, November 19, 2010
Markets as a tool for resource allocation
Markets do good things. We don't want to eliminate markets because of the value that they bring in terms of determining how to allocate resources. We don't want to hinder the operation of markets in ways that keep the markets from setting good prices.
So, for example, we don't want to set up situations where a more efficient producer is elbowed out by one of less efficiency because of undue regulation--for example, we don't want some sort of tariff on Acme widgets, just because Acme's competitor is friends with the King (or whatever the government--Adam Smith, from whom the notion of free markets being best is generally derived, was writing about free markets in opposition to monopolies granted by the English government). We would not, in a free market, want to favor some firms because of political connections.
On the other hand, if we are counting on the market to do a good job of allocating resources, we have to have regulations that make sure that resources are being allocated effectively. Perhaps most importantly, we need to be sure that a producer is not able to sell cheaply by avoiding some costs, or by transferring some costs to others. Pollution is a good example: if Acme widgets dumps toxic waste and someone else has to pay for safe disposal, then the market is not correctly valuing the product, and resources are being allocated inefficiently.
Let's talk through an example, imagine that the cost to make up a widget is one dollar--seventy cents of the cost is parts and labor, and the other thirty cents is cleaning up the toxic waste. If Acme widget is actually paying the costs of making the widget, then it cannot stay in business selling for less than one dollar. If they can't stay in business selling widgets for more than a dollar, paying the full costs, then, according to the theory of free markets--the theory of unregulated markets as efficient allocators of resources--, they shouldn't stay in business. If Acme doesn't pay the cleanup costs, however, they can make a profit at a lower cost, and the resources necessary for cleanup do not get factored into the market, and so the market doesn't lead to the desirable outcome.
In short, if you want markets to give good guidance on resource allocation, then it is necessary to have regulations that prevent inefficiency of resource allocation, and it is necessary to eliminate regulations that create inefficiency.
Anyway, despite all the cries for free markets during elections and during debates on legislature to which they are opposed, most of those who have called for free markets have also supported legislation that destroyed the efficiency of market allocation.
Wouldn't it be great if markets did a better job of helping allocate resources?
So, for example, we don't want to set up situations where a more efficient producer is elbowed out by one of less efficiency because of undue regulation--for example, we don't want some sort of tariff on Acme widgets, just because Acme's competitor is friends with the King (or whatever the government--Adam Smith, from whom the notion of free markets being best is generally derived, was writing about free markets in opposition to monopolies granted by the English government). We would not, in a free market, want to favor some firms because of political connections.
On the other hand, if we are counting on the market to do a good job of allocating resources, we have to have regulations that make sure that resources are being allocated effectively. Perhaps most importantly, we need to be sure that a producer is not able to sell cheaply by avoiding some costs, or by transferring some costs to others. Pollution is a good example: if Acme widgets dumps toxic waste and someone else has to pay for safe disposal, then the market is not correctly valuing the product, and resources are being allocated inefficiently.
Let's talk through an example, imagine that the cost to make up a widget is one dollar--seventy cents of the cost is parts and labor, and the other thirty cents is cleaning up the toxic waste. If Acme widget is actually paying the costs of making the widget, then it cannot stay in business selling for less than one dollar. If they can't stay in business selling widgets for more than a dollar, paying the full costs, then, according to the theory of free markets--the theory of unregulated markets as efficient allocators of resources--, they shouldn't stay in business. If Acme doesn't pay the cleanup costs, however, they can make a profit at a lower cost, and the resources necessary for cleanup do not get factored into the market, and so the market doesn't lead to the desirable outcome.
In short, if you want markets to give good guidance on resource allocation, then it is necessary to have regulations that prevent inefficiency of resource allocation, and it is necessary to eliminate regulations that create inefficiency.
Anyway, despite all the cries for free markets during elections and during debates on legislature to which they are opposed, most of those who have called for free markets have also supported legislation that destroyed the efficiency of market allocation.
Wouldn't it be great if markets did a better job of helping allocate resources?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Markets don't exist with out rules and regulations
If I'm going to talk something called "Fair Market Theory", I want to start with at least some sort of discussion of what a market is. This is important, because of how often we hear calls that regulation will ruin some industry and lead to worse because it will damage the operation of the market.
A market is a place where goods and services are bought and sold. This basic definition has in it some implications that are crucial. What is it, after all, to buy and sell something? The market is a market only if people follow basic rules and regulations about how buying and selling work.
Crucial among these things--though sometimes overlooked by free-market proponents--is that what goes on in the market is actually buying and selling, not cheating, lying and stealing.
If people can seize goods by force, that's not a market.
If people can sell sawdust as flour, that's not a market.
This kind of regulation is crucial for a market to be a market. It's also a crucial, though unstated, presumption of basic explanations of why free markets are supposed to lead to good outcomes. Markets are supposed to lead to optimal social outcomes by supporting efficient use of resources and innovation. Free market theory doesn't claim that free markets are good because they allow people to get rich selling sawdust as food.
And we can see that free market theorists generally will not object to regulations in areas like truth in advertising laws (or will object less).
But if a market needs some regulation to achieve its optimal goal, how much regulation is enough and how much is too much? The question is not whether we can create a market without any regulation at all--without any regulation at all, there is no market, there is only the strong and ruthless preying on the weak and honest. A market only becomes a market when the buyers and sellers can believe that their goods and persons will be safe, and that generally they will receive money for what they sell, and they will receive the goods or services that they pay for.
There is no such thing as a market without regulation, and there can be no such thing as long as people are willing to cheat, lie, steal, and kill for their own gain.
Wouldn't it be great if people didn't cheat, lie, steal, and kill?
Wouldn't it be great if markets were set up to protect market participants from such threats? Wouldn't it be great if there were market regulations that made lying, cheating and killing into crimes?
A market is a place where goods and services are bought and sold. This basic definition has in it some implications that are crucial. What is it, after all, to buy and sell something? The market is a market only if people follow basic rules and regulations about how buying and selling work.
Crucial among these things--though sometimes overlooked by free-market proponents--is that what goes on in the market is actually buying and selling, not cheating, lying and stealing.
If people can seize goods by force, that's not a market.
If people can sell sawdust as flour, that's not a market.
This kind of regulation is crucial for a market to be a market. It's also a crucial, though unstated, presumption of basic explanations of why free markets are supposed to lead to good outcomes. Markets are supposed to lead to optimal social outcomes by supporting efficient use of resources and innovation. Free market theory doesn't claim that free markets are good because they allow people to get rich selling sawdust as food.
And we can see that free market theorists generally will not object to regulations in areas like truth in advertising laws (or will object less).
But if a market needs some regulation to achieve its optimal goal, how much regulation is enough and how much is too much? The question is not whether we can create a market without any regulation at all--without any regulation at all, there is no market, there is only the strong and ruthless preying on the weak and honest. A market only becomes a market when the buyers and sellers can believe that their goods and persons will be safe, and that generally they will receive money for what they sell, and they will receive the goods or services that they pay for.
There is no such thing as a market without regulation, and there can be no such thing as long as people are willing to cheat, lie, steal, and kill for their own gain.
Wouldn't it be great if people didn't cheat, lie, steal, and kill?
Wouldn't it be great if markets were set up to protect market participants from such threats? Wouldn't it be great if there were market regulations that made lying, cheating and killing into crimes?
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Fair Market Theory
For a long time, I've thought about what I call "Fair market theory" as an alternative to Free Market Theory. I decided that I wanted to put it down in writing...or at least try, so in the next few days/weeks/who knows how long, I'm maybe going to write about what I think fair market theory could do for the world.
I did a google search for "fair market theory" and didn't find hardly anything at all...but it does look like, perhaps, the economist Paul Krugman has used the term in a way like I'm thinking of it.
Why do I care? I think free market theory--which has taken such a hold on the American and international consciousness--is a flawed theory, and that the flaws are both theoretical and empirical.
Not that I think that anyone will actually read what I have to say, but just in case there's someone out there who finds this blog and is interested in non-politicized reasons that free market theory is flawed.
I want to be clear that "free market theory" is not a form of government. Questioning whether "free market theory" should guide governments--especially a democracy--is not an unreasonable pass time for a person living in a democracy who is interested in the the best preservation of the freedoms of living in a constitutional democracy that protects the civil rights and liberties of its citizens.
Wouldn't it be great to live in a country where the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were also guaranteed by the government?
I did a google search for "fair market theory" and didn't find hardly anything at all...but it does look like, perhaps, the economist Paul Krugman has used the term in a way like I'm thinking of it.
Why do I care? I think free market theory--which has taken such a hold on the American and international consciousness--is a flawed theory, and that the flaws are both theoretical and empirical.
Not that I think that anyone will actually read what I have to say, but just in case there's someone out there who finds this blog and is interested in non-politicized reasons that free market theory is flawed.
I want to be clear that "free market theory" is not a form of government. Questioning whether "free market theory" should guide governments--especially a democracy--is not an unreasonable pass time for a person living in a democracy who is interested in the the best preservation of the freedoms of living in a constitutional democracy that protects the civil rights and liberties of its citizens.
Wouldn't it be great to live in a country where the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were also guaranteed by the government?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Death of Morality
Don't get me wrong: I'm no angel.
But I grew up believing in truth, justice and the American way (too much Superman on TV). The level at which truth and justice seem to be completely divorced from the common American consciousness astounds me.
Admittedly, I'm judging largely based on what I find on the internet and mass media, but truth is just far, far gone.
Lies and deception are the order of the day in politics--at least when it comes to anything distasteful to the political elite.
----
I started this post months ago, and don't quite know what I was responding to, nor where I was headed. But, as I look at the little stub, and see that I like the link about Superman, and see that at one time Superman fought for "truth, tolerance, and justice," I think that I have to at least publish it. Not that any one is looking.
The American way used to be about being morally superior. Reagan got away with that city on a hill crap, as if we were some shining beacon of purity. But we weren't the worst of the worst then.
Wouldn't it be great if the American way once again was in search of truth and justice?
But I grew up believing in truth, justice and the American way (too much Superman on TV). The level at which truth and justice seem to be completely divorced from the common American consciousness astounds me.
Admittedly, I'm judging largely based on what I find on the internet and mass media, but truth is just far, far gone.
Lies and deception are the order of the day in politics--at least when it comes to anything distasteful to the political elite.
----
I started this post months ago, and don't quite know what I was responding to, nor where I was headed. But, as I look at the little stub, and see that I like the link about Superman, and see that at one time Superman fought for "truth, tolerance, and justice," I think that I have to at least publish it. Not that any one is looking.
The American way used to be about being morally superior. Reagan got away with that city on a hill crap, as if we were some shining beacon of purity. But we weren't the worst of the worst then.
Wouldn't it be great if the American way once again was in search of truth and justice?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Problem of Multi-Culturalism
On Sunday, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, declared that multiculturalism--"multikuti"--has been a total failure:
Merkel is a right-wing Christian, so my political agenda is rather different from hers. But in this, I think that she reveals what is a common problem with the idea of multiculturalism.
The thing is, essentially, that multiclturalism is an ideal that expresses a value system; it expresses tolerance and respect for others. Make no mistake: I am completely in favor of tolerance and respect. But there is a limit. And this, ultimately, is the problem with multiculturalism. The problem with multiculturalism is a practical one.
The problem is that, in order to work, multiculturalism must cultivate a unified culture of values in which multiculturalism itself is held to be important. In order for multiculturalism to work, everybody must believe in multiculturalism.
What happens when there is a group that does not believe in multiculturalism? That group acts to create barriers to multiculturalism. And if there is a group that hates another group? That may lead to various kinds of violence. And that leads to various kinds of legislation that may violate or discriminate against one particular culture. Consider for example laws against hate crimes: these laws can be seen as discriminating against people with certain beliefs. Consider what it means to be Muslim or Christian in some of the fundamentalist forms, where those who are outside the religion are damned and should be treated in ways that modern secular legal systems would not allow.
Or consider what it means to be part of a secular government where many elected officials are followers of a religious faith, and that shapes all that they desire to do or are willing to do?
Practically speaking, in order to have multiculturalism working, one needs everybody to agree to the basic tenets of multiculturalism--but that is forcing a sort of monoculture--at least with respect to certain values.
For my part, I go with what John Lennon said: "love is the answer, and you know that, for sure." But to realize that, it makes certain ways of looking at the world repugnant. I want to respect everybody; I want to let everybody have their own beliefs. But if I want to live in a world where everybody does that, then something needs to be done about all the people who don't.
It's a practical problem: in order for a culture to practice tolerance, it needs to be intolerant of intolerance.
For me, I think that the answer, ultimately, is one where some value systems are acceptable, and some are not.
Wouldn't it be great if people were motivated by love and respect rather than by hate? Wouldn't it be great if everybody agreed with me about that?
We kidded ourselves a while. We said: 'They won't stay, [after some time] they will be gone,' but this isn't reality. And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side by side and to enjoy each other ... has failed, utterly failed.(from the Christian Science Monitor)
Merkel is a right-wing Christian, so my political agenda is rather different from hers. But in this, I think that she reveals what is a common problem with the idea of multiculturalism.
The thing is, essentially, that multiclturalism is an ideal that expresses a value system; it expresses tolerance and respect for others. Make no mistake: I am completely in favor of tolerance and respect. But there is a limit. And this, ultimately, is the problem with multiculturalism. The problem with multiculturalism is a practical one.
The problem is that, in order to work, multiculturalism must cultivate a unified culture of values in which multiculturalism itself is held to be important. In order for multiculturalism to work, everybody must believe in multiculturalism.
What happens when there is a group that does not believe in multiculturalism? That group acts to create barriers to multiculturalism. And if there is a group that hates another group? That may lead to various kinds of violence. And that leads to various kinds of legislation that may violate or discriminate against one particular culture. Consider for example laws against hate crimes: these laws can be seen as discriminating against people with certain beliefs. Consider what it means to be Muslim or Christian in some of the fundamentalist forms, where those who are outside the religion are damned and should be treated in ways that modern secular legal systems would not allow.
Or consider what it means to be part of a secular government where many elected officials are followers of a religious faith, and that shapes all that they desire to do or are willing to do?
Practically speaking, in order to have multiculturalism working, one needs everybody to agree to the basic tenets of multiculturalism--but that is forcing a sort of monoculture--at least with respect to certain values.
For my part, I go with what John Lennon said: "love is the answer, and you know that, for sure." But to realize that, it makes certain ways of looking at the world repugnant. I want to respect everybody; I want to let everybody have their own beliefs. But if I want to live in a world where everybody does that, then something needs to be done about all the people who don't.
It's a practical problem: in order for a culture to practice tolerance, it needs to be intolerant of intolerance.
For me, I think that the answer, ultimately, is one where some value systems are acceptable, and some are not.
Wouldn't it be great if people were motivated by love and respect rather than by hate? Wouldn't it be great if everybody agreed with me about that?
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Free Market and the Tragedy of the Commons
Last post I commented on how the theory of the free market demands that people act without compassion.
Now I want to discuss another failure of the free market. This is a failure that does not require the free market to operate in any way at odds with the descriptions given by free market theorists.
It is a failure that should concern people, however, because the tragedy of the commons affects all.
The basic formulation of the tragedy of the commons is in the same terms as the free market. Here's how it's described in Wikipedia:
The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.[1] The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.[2]
To repeat: "Multiple individuals acting independently,...consulting their own self-interest." This is the basic formulation of free market behavior, and is what is touted by free market proponents as what will solve all our problems by increasing wealth.
The tragedy of the commons becomes much more significant when we realize that all our most important resources are ultimately limited. There may be vast reservoirs, but no matter how vast the reserve, exponential growth will rapidly exhaust the resources.
The air is a common resource. Water is a common resource. The free market will destroy these.
One way out, implicit in the formulation of the tragedy of the commons, is that we take shared resources and give them into possession of an individual entity. Of course this is a way of avoiding the tragedy of the commons that would appeal immensely to someone who has the resources to feel confident that they will be able to possess their own share.
We can see again how the loss of compassion will play a role in this free market dynamic: loss of compassion drives people to act in selfish interest rather than common interest, and thus the resource is destroyed. If compassion drove people, then the resource would not be exhausted.
Of course there are times when a limited resource is so limited that there is not enough for everybody. This is, of course, a difficult solution.
But, first of all, it is abundantly clear that individuals acting out of compassion and concern for the group welfare will sacrifice their own needs and desires for the greater good. We honor such people as wartime heroes or as peacetime saints. But they're scorned by free market theory (Adam Smith himself comments that people acting for the public good do little, showing his scorn). While self-sacrifice is not necessarily a palatable option, it is one that tends towards a communally sustainable path.
Secondly, it is worth remembering that, at least at the present, large problems of accumulation of wealth and resources exist. So at least for the moment, it is not as much an issue of overall scarcity, but rather localized or individualized scarcity. The commons are currently sufficient, provided a good distribution.
In any event, the next time someone says that the free market will solve our problems, keep in mind the tragedy of the commons.
Wouldn't it be great if people actually associated the tragedy of the commons with the free market, and with what they're voting for?
Now I want to discuss another failure of the free market. This is a failure that does not require the free market to operate in any way at odds with the descriptions given by free market theorists.
It is a failure that should concern people, however, because the tragedy of the commons affects all.
The basic formulation of the tragedy of the commons is in the same terms as the free market. Here's how it's described in Wikipedia:
The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.[1] The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.[2]
To repeat: "Multiple individuals acting independently,...consulting their own self-interest." This is the basic formulation of free market behavior, and is what is touted by free market proponents as what will solve all our problems by increasing wealth.
The tragedy of the commons becomes much more significant when we realize that all our most important resources are ultimately limited. There may be vast reservoirs, but no matter how vast the reserve, exponential growth will rapidly exhaust the resources.
The air is a common resource. Water is a common resource. The free market will destroy these.
One way out, implicit in the formulation of the tragedy of the commons, is that we take shared resources and give them into possession of an individual entity. Of course this is a way of avoiding the tragedy of the commons that would appeal immensely to someone who has the resources to feel confident that they will be able to possess their own share.
We can see again how the loss of compassion will play a role in this free market dynamic: loss of compassion drives people to act in selfish interest rather than common interest, and thus the resource is destroyed. If compassion drove people, then the resource would not be exhausted.
Of course there are times when a limited resource is so limited that there is not enough for everybody. This is, of course, a difficult solution.
But, first of all, it is abundantly clear that individuals acting out of compassion and concern for the group welfare will sacrifice their own needs and desires for the greater good. We honor such people as wartime heroes or as peacetime saints. But they're scorned by free market theory (Adam Smith himself comments that people acting for the public good do little, showing his scorn). While self-sacrifice is not necessarily a palatable option, it is one that tends towards a communally sustainable path.
Secondly, it is worth remembering that, at least at the present, large problems of accumulation of wealth and resources exist. So at least for the moment, it is not as much an issue of overall scarcity, but rather localized or individualized scarcity. The commons are currently sufficient, provided a good distribution.
In any event, the next time someone says that the free market will solve our problems, keep in mind the tragedy of the commons.
Wouldn't it be great if people actually associated the tragedy of the commons with the free market, and with what they're voting for?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Free Market and the Death of Compassion.
George W. Bush called himself a compassionate conservative. Which suggests that compassion is a virtue. And is recognized as such even by the most conservative of voters.
I believe in compassion myself. I think the world would be a better place if people were more compassionate.
What is compassion?
1. sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others. (Oxford American Dictionary)
2. The deep feeling of sharing the suffering of another in the inclination to give aid or support, or to show mercy. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Anyway, the Republicans value compassion (or say they do); the Democrats value compassion (or say they do).
I have compassion. And that's one reason the American condition--the U.S. condition--sickens me: I feel concern for the sufferings of others. There are many suffering, and the dominant discourse is not a discourse of compassion at all. It is a discourse in which "the free market" dominates.
The free market is looked upon as an inevitable force of nature: as long as we let the market alone, it will drive innovation, and thus improve the lot of all. This, at least, is the crude version.
Or here's how it was represented to me by a friend of a friend in a little Facebook debate:
Note the belief in an "overwhelming good that comes from the free market."
And actually, you can see in the long quote exactly the pathology that I want to discuss: notice how the author dismisses the difficulties of the disadvantaged and downtrodden. Their individual concerns are nothing in the face of the "overwhelming good."
Let us assume for a moment that the free market does in fact lead to such innovation that it produces overwhelming good. My objections to that facile claim are numerous, but let's ignore them for a moment and accept that the free market does produce overwhelming good.
I want to focus on the relationship between the free market and compassion. Let's look at Adam Smith's own words, where he invokes the famed invisible hand, in the passage that describes how the free market will lead to improvement of the social good:
-- Wealth of Nations, Book IV, chapter II
We can see repeated through this passage the notion that "he" (whose role is not entirely defined here, but has been defined variously by Smith and other economic theorists) is selfish. He is not thinking about the public good. He is thinking about his own gain his own situation. Smith says that concern for the public good is not common among merchants, and he suggests that this is not a problem because it promotes the overall good.
So this notion that that overall good is promoted matches the earlier claim that the free market leads to "overwhelming good."
Let us assume that all this is true. Where is compassion in this? Does not Smith explicitly say that people should act in their self-interest without concern for the social good? Does, in fact, the system not depend on people acting without compassion?
We can certainly see that this is a reasonable conclusion--one drawn by the great economist John Maynard Keynes: "foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" (quoted in E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful).
So what we have here is a description of society where the social good is maximized when everyone acts in their selfish interest and without concern for the social good. In otherwords, a society without compassion. Read what Keynes says again: "avarice and usury... must be our gods"! It's all very well for Keynes to say it, but then he was an agnostic. How does that sit with a Bible-reading Christian?
-- Matthew 6:24
What kind of society would be best: one where everyone is wealth, but all compassion, all interest in the difficulties of others has been banished? Or one where wealth is less, but all tried to help the other?
The notion that one cannot serve two gods is not just a biblical injunction--in many cases it is logical imperative. Economic theory--including all free market theory--relies on the notion of opportunity cost, which is essentially the same concept: either one can put your money into the bank to earn interest, or one can invest it in another project. But one cannot do both. Similarly, one cannot make the free market work without abandoning compassion.
And so, in the name of the greater good, apparently we will leave those less able by the wayside to die. The free market insists on it. And the free market is going to serve our ovewhelming good.
Thus the death of compassion.
Wouldn't it be great if people thought that a society with less wealth and more compassion would be better? Wouldn't it be great if people worked together to solve our problems?
I don't have time for it now, but a discussion of how free market attitudes lead to the tragedy of the commons is a worthy effort, too.
I believe in compassion myself. I think the world would be a better place if people were more compassionate.
What is compassion?
1. sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others. (Oxford American Dictionary)
2. The deep feeling of sharing the suffering of another in the inclination to give aid or support, or to show mercy. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Anyway, the Republicans value compassion (or say they do); the Democrats value compassion (or say they do).
I have compassion. And that's one reason the American condition--the U.S. condition--sickens me: I feel concern for the sufferings of others. There are many suffering, and the dominant discourse is not a discourse of compassion at all. It is a discourse in which "the free market" dominates.
The free market is looked upon as an inevitable force of nature: as long as we let the market alone, it will drive innovation, and thus improve the lot of all. This, at least, is the crude version.
Or here's how it was represented to me by a friend of a friend in a little Facebook debate:
Free Market. I know those on the left think the free market is evil but the free market has produced tremendous benefit for the US and thus for mankind. Is it perfect? Of course not and it's a common trick of the left to wheel out examples of the disadvantaged or downtrodded as evidence that the entire system needs to be dismantled. But, this is absolute nonsense in that it ignores the overwhelming good that comes from the free market. Where in your examples is anything approaching the innovation of the US and it increasingly threatened free market system?
Note the belief in an "overwhelming good that comes from the free market."
And actually, you can see in the long quote exactly the pathology that I want to discuss: notice how the author dismisses the difficulties of the disadvantaged and downtrodden. Their individual concerns are nothing in the face of the "overwhelming good."
Let us assume for a moment that the free market does in fact lead to such innovation that it produces overwhelming good. My objections to that facile claim are numerous, but let's ignore them for a moment and accept that the free market does produce overwhelming good.
I want to focus on the relationship between the free market and compassion. Let's look at Adam Smith's own words, where he invokes the famed invisible hand, in the passage that describes how the free market will lead to improvement of the social good:
He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security ; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
-- Wealth of Nations, Book IV, chapter II
We can see repeated through this passage the notion that "he" (whose role is not entirely defined here, but has been defined variously by Smith and other economic theorists) is selfish. He is not thinking about the public good. He is thinking about his own gain his own situation. Smith says that concern for the public good is not common among merchants, and he suggests that this is not a problem because it promotes the overall good.
So this notion that that overall good is promoted matches the earlier claim that the free market leads to "overwhelming good."
Let us assume that all this is true. Where is compassion in this? Does not Smith explicitly say that people should act in their self-interest without concern for the social good? Does, in fact, the system not depend on people acting without compassion?
We can certainly see that this is a reasonable conclusion--one drawn by the great economist John Maynard Keynes: "foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" (quoted in E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful).
So what we have here is a description of society where the social good is maximized when everyone acts in their selfish interest and without concern for the social good. In otherwords, a society without compassion. Read what Keynes says again: "avarice and usury... must be our gods"! It's all very well for Keynes to say it, but then he was an agnostic. How does that sit with a Bible-reading Christian?
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
-- Matthew 6:24
What kind of society would be best: one where everyone is wealth, but all compassion, all interest in the difficulties of others has been banished? Or one where wealth is less, but all tried to help the other?
The notion that one cannot serve two gods is not just a biblical injunction--in many cases it is logical imperative. Economic theory--including all free market theory--relies on the notion of opportunity cost, which is essentially the same concept: either one can put your money into the bank to earn interest, or one can invest it in another project. But one cannot do both. Similarly, one cannot make the free market work without abandoning compassion.
And so, in the name of the greater good, apparently we will leave those less able by the wayside to die. The free market insists on it. And the free market is going to serve our ovewhelming good.
Thus the death of compassion.
Wouldn't it be great if people thought that a society with less wealth and more compassion would be better? Wouldn't it be great if people worked together to solve our problems?
I don't have time for it now, but a discussion of how free market attitudes lead to the tragedy of the commons is a worthy effort, too.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
U.S. culture
Sometimes it seems to me that the culture of the U.S. is driven by Ignorance, Greed, Fear and Hate.
When I was a kid, I would watch Superman on TV and it was always introduced with the narrator speaking of Superman's fight for "truth, justice and the American way."
When I was a kid, I thought that meant that truth and justice were the American way, or at least part of the American way, and the rest of what the American way was was basically being good to people and fighting evil.
Now, the cynical part of me wonders whether the American way has anything to do with goodness or truth or justice. What I see in the common discourse is at best a rearguard action for truth, justice and goodness.
The part of this that saddens me the most, perhaps, is that the good people of America are being driven unknowing into this culture of hate and greed. And, in their ignorance, they don't even see it.
Recently a friend of a friend--a Republican--was telling me why the Democratic plan for health care is no good. He is, I believe, a well-intentioned, kind-hearted person but the reasons he cited were just a shallow repetition of what the media presents as the Republican position.
And that position, basically, is one intended to generate fear: "death panels", "rationing of health care", "growth of large government bureaucracies", "extravagant costs". And behind that fear, there are the excuses: "The US is too big; the US is too diverse; we need to preserve the free market; etc." Fear and excuses why we're not even going to try to do care for people in need. And this from people who claim to be Christian--a religion that speaks at great length of charity to the poor being one primary tenet.
The fear is fueled by ignorance. When's the last time the news gave any real coverage to any of the many different systems by which other industrialized societies provide health care for all their people at lower per capita costs, and with a better recent history of medical innovation? Do the majority of the people who are following the Republican agenda have any real idea about how medical care is delivered in other countries? Do they have any idea of where the money is going in this country?
On a deeper level, do they have any real idea of what they're talking about when they invoke the "free market"? Given my extensive studies of economic theory and market theory (not at the Ph.D. level, perhaps, but well beyond an undergraduate degree in economics), not to mention my more general philosophical interests that have a distinct bearing on any theory (epistemology, philosophy of mind, cognitive science), I feel pretty safe in saying that if the people of the US understood what they were supporting, they would not support it.
The free-market agenda is one of Greed. Greed is what fuels the "free market" according to theory--each man acting in his own self-interest, said Adam Smith; "foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" said John Maynard Keynes.
And hate. This is the one that frightens me the most. The bombast that fills the discourse of the U.S.--especially the right-wing commentators--is a discourse of broad hate and demonization. "I hope he fails," said Limbaugh of Obama, despite the fact that Obama's failure would cause millions suffering. The debate about health care is filled with cautions about how illegal immigrants will overload the system--fear and hate. Where is the debate about how one should love thy enemy (Matthew 5:44) or do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matthew 7:12)? What about the debate about how we want to be a merciful nation because, according to Christian doctrine, "blessed are the merciful" (Matthew 5:7)? How about "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink" (Romans 12:20)?
Wouldn't it be great if our discourse in the U.S. was actually interested in how we could help each other? A discourse that suggests that the people who aren't like us (and who may not agree with us) are actually people we should try to meet with understanding, mercy and forgiveness (as Jesus suggested)? Wouldn't it be great if the gods that guided us were truth, justice and the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)?
And wouldn't it be great if people saw through the greed, fear and hate, so that they understood how their decisions are adversely affecting all of us?
When I was a kid, I would watch Superman on TV and it was always introduced with the narrator speaking of Superman's fight for "truth, justice and the American way."
When I was a kid, I thought that meant that truth and justice were the American way, or at least part of the American way, and the rest of what the American way was was basically being good to people and fighting evil.
Now, the cynical part of me wonders whether the American way has anything to do with goodness or truth or justice. What I see in the common discourse is at best a rearguard action for truth, justice and goodness.
The part of this that saddens me the most, perhaps, is that the good people of America are being driven unknowing into this culture of hate and greed. And, in their ignorance, they don't even see it.
Recently a friend of a friend--a Republican--was telling me why the Democratic plan for health care is no good. He is, I believe, a well-intentioned, kind-hearted person but the reasons he cited were just a shallow repetition of what the media presents as the Republican position.
And that position, basically, is one intended to generate fear: "death panels", "rationing of health care", "growth of large government bureaucracies", "extravagant costs". And behind that fear, there are the excuses: "The US is too big; the US is too diverse; we need to preserve the free market; etc." Fear and excuses why we're not even going to try to do care for people in need. And this from people who claim to be Christian--a religion that speaks at great length of charity to the poor being one primary tenet.
The fear is fueled by ignorance. When's the last time the news gave any real coverage to any of the many different systems by which other industrialized societies provide health care for all their people at lower per capita costs, and with a better recent history of medical innovation? Do the majority of the people who are following the Republican agenda have any real idea about how medical care is delivered in other countries? Do they have any idea of where the money is going in this country?
On a deeper level, do they have any real idea of what they're talking about when they invoke the "free market"? Given my extensive studies of economic theory and market theory (not at the Ph.D. level, perhaps, but well beyond an undergraduate degree in economics), not to mention my more general philosophical interests that have a distinct bearing on any theory (epistemology, philosophy of mind, cognitive science), I feel pretty safe in saying that if the people of the US understood what they were supporting, they would not support it.
The free-market agenda is one of Greed. Greed is what fuels the "free market" according to theory--each man acting in his own self-interest, said Adam Smith; "foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" said John Maynard Keynes.
And hate. This is the one that frightens me the most. The bombast that fills the discourse of the U.S.--especially the right-wing commentators--is a discourse of broad hate and demonization. "I hope he fails," said Limbaugh of Obama, despite the fact that Obama's failure would cause millions suffering. The debate about health care is filled with cautions about how illegal immigrants will overload the system--fear and hate. Where is the debate about how one should love thy enemy (Matthew 5:44) or do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matthew 7:12)? What about the debate about how we want to be a merciful nation because, according to Christian doctrine, "blessed are the merciful" (Matthew 5:7)? How about "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink" (Romans 12:20)?
Wouldn't it be great if our discourse in the U.S. was actually interested in how we could help each other? A discourse that suggests that the people who aren't like us (and who may not agree with us) are actually people we should try to meet with understanding, mercy and forgiveness (as Jesus suggested)? Wouldn't it be great if the gods that guided us were truth, justice and the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)?
And wouldn't it be great if people saw through the greed, fear and hate, so that they understood how their decisions are adversely affecting all of us?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
sacrifice
You can't always get what you want.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
OK, yeah, it would be great if these weren't true, but they are.
What really amazes me is how my peers--highly educated, apparently intelligent--seem to make so little change in their lives with respect to environmental issues.
They drive all the time; they're always jetting here or there on business or pleasure. It surprises me how rarely I hear them say in any of their deliberations, "wow, maybe we should limit that because of environmental considerations."
And the ones with children seem to be the ones least concerned, as if the world will always be beautiful and wonderful for their children, despite what the scientists say about global warming.
And these are not fundamentalist Christians, these are people who are mostly agnostic or atheist, who would say they believe in science, who would ridicule a creationist. I mean, it just boggles my mind: at least a creationist is intellectually consistent in believing that climate changes is not a problem. How one can actively believe in evolution and science generally, and then basically ignore a scientific conclusion supported by a vast amount of research, and a conclusion that will really matter in their lives...
I don't get it.
Voting for Obama will not solve the climate change problem if all the people who voted for Obama continue to drive all the time. Yeah, sure, a Prius is much better than a Hummer, but just switching to a Prius ain't gonna solve the problems.
People--especially the gluttonous Americans--my peers--need to stop consuming so freakin' much!
Well, I ain't got not kids, so I'm not leaving my kids a mess. But still, I have nephews; I have friends with kids, and wouldn't it be great if we left them a world as beautiful as the one we were raised in? Wouldn't it be great if the children of today could still go out and enjoy a beautiful sunny day when they're adults? Wouldn't it be great if their children, too, could grow up enjoying the same beauty of the world that we knew?
I think the saddest irony of all is that the sacrifices that we really need to make probably aren't more than a sacrifice of luxury. We could still have plenty, if we were willing to give up (sacrifice!) the gluttony.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
OK, yeah, it would be great if these weren't true, but they are.
What really amazes me is how my peers--highly educated, apparently intelligent--seem to make so little change in their lives with respect to environmental issues.
They drive all the time; they're always jetting here or there on business or pleasure. It surprises me how rarely I hear them say in any of their deliberations, "wow, maybe we should limit that because of environmental considerations."
And the ones with children seem to be the ones least concerned, as if the world will always be beautiful and wonderful for their children, despite what the scientists say about global warming.
And these are not fundamentalist Christians, these are people who are mostly agnostic or atheist, who would say they believe in science, who would ridicule a creationist. I mean, it just boggles my mind: at least a creationist is intellectually consistent in believing that climate changes is not a problem. How one can actively believe in evolution and science generally, and then basically ignore a scientific conclusion supported by a vast amount of research, and a conclusion that will really matter in their lives...
I don't get it.
Voting for Obama will not solve the climate change problem if all the people who voted for Obama continue to drive all the time. Yeah, sure, a Prius is much better than a Hummer, but just switching to a Prius ain't gonna solve the problems.
People--especially the gluttonous Americans--my peers--need to stop consuming so freakin' much!
Well, I ain't got not kids, so I'm not leaving my kids a mess. But still, I have nephews; I have friends with kids, and wouldn't it be great if we left them a world as beautiful as the one we were raised in? Wouldn't it be great if the children of today could still go out and enjoy a beautiful sunny day when they're adults? Wouldn't it be great if their children, too, could grow up enjoying the same beauty of the world that we knew?
I think the saddest irony of all is that the sacrifices that we really need to make probably aren't more than a sacrifice of luxury. We could still have plenty, if we were willing to give up (sacrifice!) the gluttony.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Health Care
Lately Republicans are arguing that a government health care plan would lead to "rationing of health care." Never mind that the current system is largely based on companies whose profit depends on withholding health care.
Wouldn't it be great if those in government were interested in providing health care for their constituents instead of profits for their corporate donors?
Wouldn't it be great if those in government were interested in providing health care for their constituents instead of profits for their corporate donors?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
