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?
Friday, December 16, 2011
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
