A Thought on Conspiracy Theories

But the point is clear. The same people that peddle this crap are the ones who also assure us that no government program would work because it's so incompetent. Maybe they should just hire one of the many conspiracy groups who seem to be able to pull off extremely subtle and complex schemes without any trouble -- and even without any of us knowing about it (except for all the people who seem to be in on the secret and are blabbing it all over the internet).

~Revere at Effect Measure

My astrophysics professor once commented that the problem with supposed government cover-up of aliens was, well, that the same government was unable to cover up much more mundane scandals. The source article links to a longer article making much the same point. Still, there may be a related lesson to consider: if people put as much energy into finding solutions to real problems as they do into making up imaginary explanations for past failures, we might have a better functioning world, with fewer such failures to encourage ridiculous explanation. Or we might not, but it's an interesting idea all the same.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Moral Foundations?

Via 3 Quarks Daily, I discovered a morality quiz/survey site. It's got a nice variety of topics. Here are my results for the "Foundations" Survey. Green = my result; blue = average liberal result; red = average conservative result.


Apparently I object more to harm and less to unfairness than the typical liberal. I don't see much point in the Authority/Purity categories, especially not for mature adults. Anyway, there's a lot of material on the site, and it's...not as fluffy as the typical internet quiz site.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Rawls and Nozick

I was busy writing my paper for political philosophy, and didn't even notice that I never posted anything here. Before I get back to that paper (as all I've got now is a rough draft), I figured I'd mention the topic a bit here. Rawls and Nozick are our last two philosophers for political philosophy. Rawls is, arguably, the most significant political theorist of the 20^th century. He developed an entirely novel social contract theory, based not on presuppositions about how the State of Nature would or would not have looked, but based on what he terms the Veil of Ignorance. Nozick was a colleague of Rawls with very different political views. His response to Rawls seems to be inadequate, but there's a bit of a complication. Rawls published his book first. Nozick published a response. When Rawls' book was translated into German, he updated it to account for Nozick's criticisms, but the updated version was not published in English for many more years. So it's possible that Nozick's criticisms were adequate to the original version of Rawls' ideas, and Rawls simply fleshed them out/adapted them in reponse. As Pelletti said, to do it completely right, we'd need to read the first edition of Rawls, then read Nozick, then read the final edition of Rawls, but we just didn't have the time in that class.

Rawls works from what he calls the "original position," where a group of people have come together to come up with the founding principles of their society under a "veil of ignorance," whereby they know none of their own particular attributes. They know that they are people, that they have characteristics, that they have a notion of 'The Good' (someone explain to me why this translates as "a plan for their life," as I don't get it), and they know that to realize their plan they will need access to at least some resources. They also have access to all general knowledge, including historical information, but they don't know their own place in history nor their own geographical location.

I was skeptical of Rawls' conclusions at first, but I think that he's right that people would seek a system where, no matter who they wound up being, they would have a shot at carrying out their life's plan. So they would seek to "maximize the minimum," i.e. make sure that the people who were worst off in the system were as well off as possible. Rawls works out three principles (with two of them grouped together) to describe how this might be done:

1. Liberty Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged to that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Difference Principle
(b) attached to offices and posistions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Fairness of Opportunity Principle

~Rawls, Theory of Justice, 266

Now, Rawls wants to exclude probability calculations altogether, but I think there is one probability calculation that would have to be made in his original position. These people have access to all historical data, so they would know that the vast, vast majority of people throughout history have been the "least advantaged," the poor, the serfs, the slaves, etc. Not knowing who they were, they would know that there was a very large chance that they were in one of these disadvantaged classes. They would also know that, even if they happened to be in one of the advantaged classes, there would still be a chance of falling down into the disadvantaged class. Thus I think it likely that, were Rawls principles presented, people who really thought about them in the original position would accept them. They seem to give the disadvantaged classes the best chance for a decent life.

Nozick takes an entirely different tack in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. He wants to argue for a "night-watch state," where the only function of the government is to protect property rights. He goes through some rather impassioned rhetoric of the "taxation is theft" variety, but never actually explains why property rights are to be held sacrosanct rather than some other set of rights. It didn't help his case that he utilized Locke's theory of property, which Locke grounded in biblical assumptions about the world. Yes, people use Locke without accepting that grounding, but then it's unclear that Locke's idea is grounded at all. But even if we assume that a coherent theory of property acquisition can be worked out, it's clear that modern society does not meet Nozick's criteria for a "fair property distribution." Nozick's suggestion of some sort of recompense to those whose property was taken unfairly seems unworkable, too, since (a) we don't know about all the unfairness that went on; (b) we don't know how much would have worked out differently had the unfairness not occurred; (c) it's likely that many of the victims are dead, so we'd be compensating their descendants; and (d) it's not clear that taking recompense from people whose own property acquisition was fair (but the property was previously obtained unfairly) would actually be just.

But on to Nozick's criticisms of Rawls. Nozick assumes that there is such a thing as a "correct" property distribution (one that has come about through fair acquisition), and then concludes that since the original position is extremely unlikely to produce that distribution, the original position must not itself be fair. He also tries to argue that the difference principle might be used in questionable ways, and that it is an end-state distribution; however, the questionable uses would be taken care of by the Liberty Principle (which Rawls considers to be the first and most important consideration), and while the difference principle puts a constraint on the "end-state distribution", it itself is not an end-state distribution, any more than Nozick's constraint of "fair acquisition" on the end-state makes his view an end-state distribution. Essentially, Nozick misses that liberty comes first in Rawls' view, and then, if there are things that the liberty principle doesn't settle, the difference principle can be applied.

I will admit that as Rawls describes it, his principles come across as a bit too cold and calculating. I think that's more a problem with his writing style than with the ideas themselves. For instance, Nozick criticizes Rawls' contention that, in a family, members should act to improve the lot of the family member who is worst off, and as Rawls words it, the example does fall flat. However, Nozick's idea is even worse, as it would seem to indicate that family members had no obligation whatsoever to their fellow who was worse off. Perhaps "maximizing" the position of the one who's worst off might be too stringent a condition (among other things, how would you know when there was no more room for improvement?), but ignoring your own brother/sister/cousin because you have a right to your own property is surely worse. And I think, in practice, Rawls' ideas would lead not so much to concern about "maximizing" the minimum, but more in the direction of "making the minimum not an entirely awful place to be." Perhaps with a few generations of that attitude, we would manage to maximize the minimum, but even improving the minimum would be a worthy goal.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Revolutions

We discussed the Communist Manifesto in class today. The thing that most intrigued me was the potential explanation for why some revolutions "work", meaning that they accomplish what they set out to do without causing more problems than they solve, and some fail. This is something that's puzzled me at least since high school. We had the American Revolution, which is considered one that "worked." Then, roughly a quarter century later, we had the French Revolution, which was a miserable failure in terms of its goal of improving people's lives.

One of the key differences is which group of people was revolting, and how much did they have to lose? Essentially, the American Revolution was not being run primarily by "radicals." It was being run by people with property, land, business interests. Yes, there were radicals, but it was not the radicals calling the shots. The ones calling the shots had a vested interest in not upsetting the existing society too much. They had something to lose if the entire social order were overturned.

Contrast that to the French Revolution. That one was being run by the radicals, by the extremists, by people with nothing left to lose. They had no interest whatsoever in preserving anything of the previous social order. It had brought their lives to utter misery, so there seemed to be no reason to keep any of it. Starting over from scratch, however, is very difficult to do well, particularly for something as complicated as an entire country.

This idea would also suggest that, if you want a successful revolution, you need to get the middle and upper classes involved. They'll have a better perspective for what parts of the system really do work well enough, and which parts can just be disposed of. The people at the bottom of the scale, with the most reason to revolt, are less likely to be able to recognize, or even care about, such issues.

It's interesting stuff to think about. While it seems unlikely that this is the only factor influencing the success of a revolution, it does seem like an idea worth applying and examining. I don't know of any counter-examples, but I'm hardly a historian. I would also suggest that this gives a reason even for those who claim to act solely for their own self-interest to avoid driving any segment of society to the point where it feels that it has nothing left to lose. There are other, better, reasons, of course, but here's one more.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

On Liberty

Sometime last week I finished reading On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. Excellent, excellent reading. For a bit of background, Mill was a Utilitarian, meaning that his system of ethics emphasizes maximizing total happiness for a society. While there are problems with pure Utilitarianism, that's not my focus here. It's not obvious from most parts of this book that Mill was using Utilitarian principles, so it can be read and interpreted in other ways.

"Look for the innocent victim." That was Pelletti's summary of Mill's views, meaning that if a behavior harms no one, there is no reason for society or the government to restrict it. Mill takes it further, arguing that if a behavior harms a person with that person's informed consent, there is still no justification for restricting it. Mill includes freedom of expression and lifestyle in these. In fact, Mill just might be more radical in this direction than I am. One issue that came up in class is where to draw the line for "informed consent." Can there be informed consent if a drug is instantly addictive to, say, a quarter of the people who try it? Maybe if there were a way to screen out those who would be instantly addicted, but otherwise, it doesn't seem to hold up.

Interestingly, Mill would not object to gun licensing and registration, at least it seems safe to infer this from his discussion of purchasing poison. I'm going from memory, but essentially he says that there is no need to restrict access to poisons, but that it would be acceptable to require people to sign for them and to state the intended purpose of use (killing rats, for instance) in the presence of a witness. That way there would be both a paper trail and a material witness should the poison be used in some other manner. It seems intended to serve the same purpose as our seven-day-waiting-period: make someone less likely to purchase the dangerous item and use it in the heat of the moment. Of course, certain types of people will then just steal the item, but that's a different problem.

Overall, I think Mill's principle is a good one to think about in any situation. I'm not sure that it's enough for every situation, but it's certainly good to consider whether there is an innocent victim for an action before attempting to restrict it. As a final note before I lose coherence, Mill's principles fall under "freedom from". That is, the government should not intervene without good reason; all actions not specifically restricted are permissible. Highly recommended reading (and the full text is available online).

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Pot - Kettle

The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry "eternal truths," all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public.

~Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto)

We're reading the Communist Manifesto for Political Philosophy, and this quote alone makes reading the thing worthwhile. Why? Because the entire work is little more than "speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment." What little "evidence" Marx attempted to present for his position was largely anecdotal and speculative. If it was a Wikipedia article, someone would have gone through and put "citation needed" on most paragraphs.

The part that makes sense is the desire to do something about the horrid condition of the working class in this time period. With little to no restraint on pure capitalism, their condition was little better than slavery ... and possibly worse than some forms of slavery. I sympathize there, but Marx's supposed solution is never explained sufficiently. Essentially, he claims that it is inevitable that the proletariat will rise up against the bourgeoisie ... then the proletariat will institute a series of reforms which do away with classes ... then there will be a perfect society. The end. He does list some specific types of reform that should be instituted, but then acts as if it is self-evident that these reforms will bring about perfection in society. He talks about it in terms of natural laws, as if such a sequence of events were completely and utterly inevitable.

The other big problem with this, and the one that would come back to eat Communism away from the inside, is Marx's Rousseau-inspired assumption that he can treat the proletariat as a single, unified entity. Now, you would think that since, at that time, the one Rousseau-inspired revolution, i.e. the French Revolution, had led to complete and utter chaos and despotism, that Marx would have known better than to trust Rousseau's principles. According to Rousseau, there was no need for checks and balances in a true democratic government, as the People would not vote to harm Itself, any more than a hand would vote to harm a foot on the same body... Unfortunately, the "People" are not truly one body. There are diverse interests across the board. Now, Rousseau did realize this, and allowed for it by requiring uniform education and property holding for everyone in his ideal society. How this is to be brought about from a state of complete inequality is never made clear, but Marx clearly thinks a simple Revolution is all that is needed.

Of course, we know how that ended. Class antagonism didn't end; it was just no longer acknowledged. The government was (claimed to be) the People! The People were the government! So... why were they starving? Why were the working classes of East Berlin so eager to get away from the system that a Wall had to be built to keep them in? Orwell's Animal Farm summed up the result rather nicely, even if it ignored the genuinely good intentions that began the movement.

On different note, a few years back I read In Exile from the Land of Snows, describing experiences of Tibetans through the Chinese conquest. One oddity was that the Maoists seemed to be following a recipe book, expecting to bring about utopia. In particular, they instituted something like a bourgeois class for the express purpose of having something for the proletariat to rebel against. No, I'm not making that up. The reason for this, er, Pythonesque approach became clear after reading Marx's Manifesto. He insists that first the bourgeoisie must establish itself, then that will result in the creation of a proletariat class, and finally the proletariat will become so disenchanted that it will rebel. Since China had started in the "aristocratic epoch," it had to move into the "bourgeois" epoch before the proletariat could rebel, and, er, somehow or other, create a utopia.

And that's the biggest problem with the Manifesto. It posits the Revolution, suggests a few reforms, but there is no indication of how this is to accomplish all the miracles Marx expects. The conclusion is assumed to be obvious and inevitable, which would suggest that the plan's failure was also obvious and inevitable.

Final thought: Before reading the Manifesto, I had considered Communism to be "One of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but doesn't actually work." After reading it, I have to say it doesn't even sound good on paper. So I'm going to revise that to, "One of those ideas that can be made to sound good by a persuasive speaker, but doesn't actually work." When only the goals are described, it can sound quite promising. When the methods are included... it's a bit like someone saying he's going to fly to the moon on a chair with 47 rockets strapped to it, and that his reaching the moon is therefore inevitable.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Me Heap Progressive

Via Thoughts in a Haystack, I came across this quiz that purports to tell you how "progressive" you are. As progressive is no where defined on the site, this probably isn't particularly meaningful, but I scored 340/400, compared to the national average of 209.5. Apparently liberal democrats scored an average of 247.1 ... No wonder I'm not overly fond of either party (but I'll take semi-progressive democrats over ridiculously reactionary republicans any day).

Inquire Further

Relinquish

First Paper of the Semester...

...is now in a semi-final draft format. I need to read through it after a night's sleep to make sure it's coherent (particularly since "incoherency" is part of the title). It's for my political philosophy class, and I almost wound up using one of the tentatively suggested topics. Almost. I had thought about contrasting Locke and Montesquieu on the role of monarchy, but I couldn't get into the topic enough. One of the suggested topics was to contrast the views of Rousseau and Mill on the role of dispute in a democracy. I wound up arguing that an official system of censorship was incoherent in a democracy, using Montesquieu, Rousseau and Mill as sources. So my topic is very closely related to the suggested topic, but with a different primary focus.

Next paper of the semester will be an in-class "midterm experience" for existentialism; Levenson doesn't like the word "exam" or "test", and uses them only reluctantly. Thus it will be a "midterm experience" not a "midterm exam."

Inquire Further

Relinquish

John Stuart Mill - On Liberty

I haven't read the whole book yet, but I can certainly recommend the second chapter, which is his discussion of freedom of thought and ideas. I like it well enough that I could practically blockquote the whole thing (and taking smaller quotes got my quoteslist up to 999), but I'll content myself with three paragraphs, and I'd highly recommend the whole thing to everyone. This is probably the most cogent defense of free speech and press that I've ever read. (excerpts below the fold due to length)

When we consider either the history of opinion, or the ordinary conduct of human life, to what is it to be ascribed that the one and the other are no worse than they are? Not certainly to the inherent force of the human understanding; for, on any matter not self-evident, there are ninety-nine persons totally incapable of judging of it, for one who is capable; and the capacity of the hundredth person is only comparative; for the majority of the eminent men of every past generation held many opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or approved numerous things which no one will now justify. Why is it, then, that there is on the whole a preponderance among mankind of rational opinions and rational conduct? If there really is this preponderance--which there must be, unless human affairs are, and have always been, in an almost desperate state--it is owing to a quality of the human mind, the source of everything respectable in man, either as an intellectual or as a moral being, namely, that his errors are corrigible. He is capable of rectifying his mistakes by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognizant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter--he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.

It is not too much to require that what the wisest of mankind, those who are best entitled to trust their own judgment, find necessary to warrant their relying on it, should be submitted to by that miscellaneous collection of a few wise and many foolish individuals, called the public. The most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, even at the canonization of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a "devil's advocate." The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admitted to posthumous honors, until all that the devil could say against him is known and weighed. If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as they now do. The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may rely on having attained such approach to truth, as is possible in our own day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it.

Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Thoughts on Locke

Our first primary source for political philosophy was John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. It was both fascinating and frustrating: fascinating in that I got to see some of the first inklings of the ideas that helped to form the United States; frustrating in that the justifications Locke uses for his ideas are problematic at best, and quite possibly incoherent. That was especially frustrating when I found myself agreeing with his conclusions, but still knowing that there was no real foundation under them.

Locke starts by talking about the "State of Nature." Most political philosophers of the same time period seem to have been very interested in how humans first came together to form societies governed by laws, and refer to the prior time as a "State of Nature." Locke's take on it is fairly unique. It rests on an assumption that there would have been plenty of resources to go around in the State of Nature, and thus little competition for them, and little reason to squabble for them. It would only be as population increased sufficiently to start consuming the resources (particularly land) that conflicts would arise. However, even in the absence of any sort of human governance, these conflicts would still be regulated by "Natural Law." Short version: In the State of Nature, every person has a right to defend his own life and/or body and/or property against attack, and every person has a right to punish anyone who attempts to attack anyone else's life/body/property. There's more to it, but those are the key points. Oh, and the reason for this Natural Law is that "God" granted humans life, and it is going against "God" to attack his creations.

First problem: all available evidence indicates that, with a few exceptions when people moved into new continents, there has always been a scarcity of resources, so there would always have been conflicts over resources. Hobbes' version of the State of Nature did assume scarcity of resources, and was much, much more violent than Locke's.

But moving on from there, even in Locke's more plentiful State of Nature, enough conflicts would arise that people would find it advantageous to band together somehow, and form a compact for mutual aid and protection, i.e. a "Social Contract" ... which leads to the second problem: all available evidence indicates that humans have always lived in social groups. Even our ape ancestors lived in social groups. Any social group will need to have rules of some kind, which might eventually rise to the status of laws. Third problem: even if isolated humans came together and made a compact for their mutual aid and protection, it's not clear that the compact would be binding on their descendants.

Locke does try to deal with this. He says that children are not bound by the Social Contract until they come of age. In particular, if they accept an inheritance of property within an area bound by the Social Contract, they must tacitly accept the contract in order to accept that inheritance. If they wish to go against the contract, they must forfeit the inheritance. There's a bit of muddling about what happens to children who come of age and do not inherit anything immediately, or else I missed something. Others have argued that accepting the benefits of living in a regulated society amounts to tacit acceptance of its Social Contract ... as if one always had an option to just leave and go some place free of any such contract. Hume refuted that one fairly soundly. The vast majority of people have no means to leave, and no familiarity with customs outside their native land, and so do not really have a choice about staying. Also, there aren't too many places left on earth where it's possible to be free of every country's jurisdiction. There may not be any nowadays.

And that's the fatal flaw with any sort of voluntary Social Contract Theory. Only the ones who found the society seem to have any genuine choice about whether to accept the contract or not. Anyone born into the society later simply inherits the results, whether he/she likes it or not. Immigrants may be made to jump through certain hoops to indicate acceptance of the existing contract, and in Locke's view it seems this should make them more loyal to their newfound state than to their old ... yet the opposite is usually the case. Since much of Locke's case rests on the voluntary nature of his Social Contract, this is a rather significant problem.

I think the idea of an implied contract between government and governed might be salvageable (and maybe it will be in our later readings), with the idea that people can withhold their consent should the government be out of hand, but not if the idea rests on them knowingly and voluntarily accepting the contract in the first place. The voluntary nature of the contract would have to rest on the government, then, not the governed. To be allowed to govern, one enters into a contract with the governed, and if one breaks it, then the governed can withdraw their consent. I think that is workable ... except, perhaps, in hereditary governments, where people get born into their position with no more choice than the citizens born into the state.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Bus Warfare

Probably everyone's heard about the atheist bus campaign, the one running ads on buses like:

There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

and

Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake.

but

You Can Be Good Without God

was deemed too offensive. They wouldn't run the ad unless it was "toned down". *stares at the ad in puzzlement*

Predictably, the ads that did run caused histrionics among some folk, and some retaliatory ad campaigns, also on buses. I find it laughable that some have described the atheist campaigns as bigoted when ads depicting nonbelievers burning in hellfire (some of which inspired the original) are allowed and do not get criticized.

As for the web, there are many inviting commenters to come up with their own bus-ad slogans: The Friendly Atheist, Faith and Theology both have some interesting ones. My favorite, though, has to be from Think Buddha:

Neither an entity nor a nonentity
Moves in any of the three ways.
So motion, bus
and route are nonexistent.

But I have to wonder, why all the fuss over adverts in the first place? Are Christians really so insecure that an ad on the side of the bus will cause them to question their deepest beliefs? Or is this yet another example of attempted thought-control? These represent just about the mildest expressions of disbelief possible, and yet are attacked as "militant" and "offensive". Why? I suspect the answer is simple. The religious are used to having their viewpoint privileged in society, and are suddenly losing some of that privilege. I say, it's about time we put everyone on equal footing. And here's my contribution to the signage:

God is and is not. So be and not be, and be and let be.

I doubt I'll win anything for that, but that's the type of sign I'd like to see up.


Oh, there's also at least one streetcar campaign.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Freedom

In political philosophy, a rather interesting distinction came up today. It's one that, at some level, I had recognized, but I'd never seen it put into words before. It's the distinction between "freedom to" and "freedom from."

"Freedom to" is often described as "positive freedom," yet it is the more problematic of the two. Jean Jacques Rousseau devised a (theoretical) societal system full of "freedom to" but lacking in "freedom from." Citizens had the freedom to vote, and the freedom to follow the laws, and the freedom to follow the required civil religion, but had no freedom from interference by the government in every aspect of life. There could be no dissent from the "general will," decided by consensus during voting. Once the general will was known, citizens were free to follow the general will, but not free to express dissent in any fashion.

"Freedom from", similarly, is described as "negative freedom," yet, of the two, it is to be preferred in most cases. It is more difficult to restrict freedom in the very granting of it using "freedom from." Examples:

One can be free from governmental restrictions on religion ... or one can be free to join the Christian church of one's choice. One can be free from governmental restrictions on marriage ... or one can be free to marry someone of the opposite gender. One can be free from restrictions about which schools and university one can attend ... or one can be free to attend a school to be designated by some authority. Note how the granting of freedom in the "to" construction is so easily used to restrict it at the same time.

All of the "freedom from" phrases can be reworded as "freedom to", with no significant change in meaning. "Free to join any church, or abstain from church." "Free to marry the person of one's own choosing without interference." "Free to attend any school." But how would we reconstruct the above "freedom to" phrases as "freedom from"? It's a bit convoluted, but here are my attempts: "Freedom from tolerating non-Christian creeds and attitudes." "Freedom from respecting another's choice to marry someone who offends my church's antiquated sensibilities." "Freedom from tolerating certain classes of individuals at my university." Notice how much more obvious the bigotry becomes with this phrasing?

Thus I have now become very suspicious of "freedom to." When in doubt, try to turn it into "freedom from," and see if the freedom really applies to everyone.

Incidentally, we don't actually have a party in the U.S. that's rooted in "freedom from." The Democrats tend to advocate "freedom from" on the social front, but not on the economic front, while the Republicans are just the opposite. Good or bad? I think an entire system based solely on "freedom from" would collapse fairly quickly; some restrictions on freedom are required for society even to function, imo. Yet, a bit more "freedom from" might do both sides good.

EDIT: I can think of one place where using "to" might be better. "Freedom to express one's opinions" vs. "Freedom from exposure to dissenting opinions." But that seems to be an exception to the general pattern. And the first, while awkward, can be worded as "Freedom from interference with expressing one's opinions." The second...is problematic to express as a "freedom to." Maybe, "Freedom to disallow dissenting opinions"? There are probably other exceptions, but this one occurred to me about five minutes after posting.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Stopping Torture

"torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough. It's also perhaps the greatest recruiting tool that the terrorists have."

~Major General Paul Eaton

Via Dispatches from the Culture War

Obama just signed an executive order reversing the tolerance for torture shown by the previous administration.

The steps already taken amount to a stunning political turnaround. One of the executive orders places all terror suspects held abroad unambiguously under the protection of the Geneva Conventions, which outlaw any cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Obama also unilaterally closed the C.I.A.’s “black sites,” and set a one-year deadline for closing the military prison camp at Guantánamo. He decreed that, from now on, the International Committee for the Red Cross must have access to all detainees in U.S. custody; the Bush Administration barred the Red Cross from seeing prisoners held by the C.I.A.

...

They debated whether a ban on brutal interrogation practices would hurt their ability to gather intelligence, and the advisers asked the intelligence veterans to prepare a cost-benefit analysis. The conclusions may surprise defenders of harsh interrogation tactics. “There was unanimity among Obama’s expert advisers,” Craig said, “that to change the practices would not in any material way affect the collection of intelligence.”

~Jane Mayer, NY Times Blog

About bloody time.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Political Philosophy

This looks to be an entertaining class. I started to type that "The professor is somewhat eccentric," but then realized that, thusfar, that applies to all of the philosophy faculty. He's got a touch of arrogance, which might be annoying, except that he realizes he has a touch of arrogance, and often seems to laugh at himself for it.

A random yet entertaining tidbit:

We're focusing on the politics of the nation-state, the concept of which, arguably, did not exist before the Hundred-Years-War. There was a sense of unity and loyalty within a single town or city, but not so much a sense of unity with all towns in the same area. In fact, Dr. Pelletti explained, most historians will wrongly tell you that the Hundred-Years-War was between England and France, when no such united country existed at the beginning of the war. In fact, it was between two warring families: the Plantagenets and the Valois. The Valois were French-speaking and the Plantagenets were English-speaking, but many of the people in so-called France supported the Plantagenets. Dr. Pelletti actually suggested that Joan of Arc was the first person in recorded history to voice an idea of something approaching a nation-state. She objected to these English-speakers (not-us) ruling over native French-speakers (us), and hence had some idea of something uniting all the French-speaking-people. He acknowledged that this was an uncommon thesis, but still managed to sound fairly sure of himself.

I think I had another tidbit in mind when I started this, but I seem to be too tired to remember it. Perhaps an addendum will follow in the morning.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Thought for the Day

States clearly possess, or at least claim to possess,political power. The sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) made a similar point, if in more startling language: states possess a monopoly of legitimate violence. Within any state, violence or coercion is seen as primarily the state's business, either directly, through its agents—the police and law courts—or indirectly, through the permissions it gives citizens to be violent to each other on occasion: in self defence, for example. All legitimate violence or coercion is undertaken or supervised by the state.

~Jonathan Wolff
An Introduction to Political Philosophy, pg. 36

I'm taking Political and Social Philosophy this semester, and this is from one of the textbooks we'll be using. So far, it's quite interesting. Hopefully, the class itself will be at least as interesting.

ADDENDUM: This article at Positive Liberty goes well with this quote.

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Here We Go Again

Once again, an atheist holiday display has been stolen. No wonder people are so desperate to post the Ten Commandments in public places: they can't remember that one of them is "thou shalt not steal." However, the sign will be replaced and have a "thou shalt not steal" reminder with it. Let us once again peruse the sign:

At this season of the winter solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

And the winner for most idiotic comment on the story is: "This sign is Anti-Christian. If it were Anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim it would never have been allowed in the firs[sic] place." Ummm... it's anti-religion. Last time I checked, Judaism and Islam were both religions. It's anti-Buddhist, anti-Wiccan, anti-Zorastrian, etc. It's an equal opportunity "anti". And let's not forget that the primary reason for all this was a lawsuit to allow nativities on public property...and the only way to do that constitutionally was to allow any viewpoint to be represented on the same property. So if you want to ban signs like this, you also must ban nativities. It's called equal treatment.

(HT: Pharyngula)

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Civic Literacy Quiz

Well, I didn't do too badly on it:

You answered 32 out of 33 correctly — 96.97 %
Average score for this quiz during December: 74.9%
Average score: 74.9%

I found the quiz through Daylight Atheism. Take it here and see if you know more than your political representatives do. I should admit that, on a few of them, I was able to determine the answer by knowing what it wasn't and eliminating the ones I was certain were incorrect.

The one question I did miss is below the fold:

7) What was the source of the following phrase: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”?
A. the speech “I Have a Dream”
B. Declaration of Independence
C. U.S. Constitution
D. Gettysburg Address

I wasn't sure. But once I saw the answer, I thought, "Yeah, that sounds right."

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Deck the Capitol!

I just love this story:

The state Capitol [Seattle] hosts a Nativity scene and a 25-foot "holiday tree." The nearby atheists' sign that sparked a nationwide furor was back in place Friday after being stolen and then dropped off at a country-music radio station.

And joining those displays soon could be a 5-foot aluminum pole in celebration of "Festivus for the Rest of Us." Not to mention a protest, a balloon display and even more signs, this time supporting religion.

What started the ruckus? The Freedom From Religion Foundation's sign, which reads:

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.

Pictures of the sign available here.

And we must also thank the supreme court:

The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution's First Amendment, once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of nonbelievers.

Hence the current multiplicity of signs and displays. Beautiful. I love the sense of a competition of ideas going on in these displays. I love that there isn't the usual monopoly of one display representing exactly one viewpoint. And I love the farcical nature of the whole thing. Now if only we could get some pagan groups in on it... I'd particularly like a representation of the sun's descent into the underworld for the three days of the solstice before returning triumphantly, bringing the promise of spring. ^/^

Inquire Further

Relinquish

A Thought

Imagine if there were states in the country which refused to recognize your marriage. It was risky for you and your family even to travel through such states because, in the event that one member of the family was hospitalized, the others could be forbidden to visit, and would not be consulted on the types of treatments to be applied. Now, what type of marriage is specifically called into question in the so-called bible?

The re-marriage of divorced people.

Mark 10:2-12
2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Now imagine that some of the states in the U.S. refused to recognize the validity of second, third, etc., marriages. There is prominent support for their attitude to be found in the "bible." On the other hand, the prohibitions against homosexual behavior (which are only ever implied) are in rather out-of-the-way places. No where do they receive mention in the "gospels." In fact, some will argue that Jesus implicitly endorsed a gay couple.

Gay couples face the situation I described above the fold every bloody day. They can be barred from visiting their partners in hospital (not "technically" family); they can lose children that they've cared for since birth if the birth parent is killed. There's probably a lot more that I don't know about. If you think that disallowing gay marriage is about protecting families, you're an idiot. It's about destroying existing families, because they don't measure up in some fashion. Exactly the same arguments were made against mixed-race marriage some fifty years ago. Why are you still making them?

And why, when Jesus himself called "remarriage" a form of adultery, are remarried couples recognized nationwide as genuinely married, yet gay couples are in most cases not allowed to marry, and have no recourse should their marriage not be recognized from state to state? Imagine if remarried couples were treated in the same fashion, if they could lose their children without any legal recourse, if they had no guaranteed hospital visitation rights if they crossed a state line. If it's not right for them to be treated this way, why is it right for gay couples to be thus treated?

(discussion of biblical divorce here and here)

Inquire Further

Relinquish

Veteran's Day

On Veterans Day, we as a nation pause to honor those who have served their country. Problem is the Bush Administration doesn’t want us to know about their sacrifice. From refusing to allow the press to photograph flag-draped coffins of the dead, to covering up the suicides of veterans after they come home, the officials in Washington who lead us to war have done everything they can to hide it’s terrible cost.

...

How can we even begin to honor our veterans, if we don’t even track their sacrifice?

~Juan Cole

Read the whole thing.

Support the troops. Stop treating them as playthings to be sent on pointless missions at the whim of a liar and a madman. Thankfully, that liar and his cronies will be out of office soon.

Inquire Further

Relinquish