ObjectivelyHouston.com is a collaborative effort by Houstonians who
reject the ideas that dominate our culture today. Our purpose is to
present an integrated, rational alternative to Houstonians.
Politically,
we are neither progressive (the term that many on the political Left
are now using) nor are we conservative. We are advocates of laissez
faire capitalism, not the mixture of controls and freedom that exists
today. While we will write extensively on political issues, politics is
not a primary. Political positions derive from more fundamental
philosophical ideas. And so, our focus will be on the fundamental
philosophical ideas that underlie whatever issue, event, or topic that
we are addressing.
Ethically, we are neither altruists--the view
that individuals have a moral duty to self-sacrificially serve others (a
view held by both progressives and conservatives)--nor hedonists. We
advocate rational self-interest. We hold that it is proper and moral for
individuals to pursue their own personal happiness.
Epistemologically
(the theory of knowledge), we reject the positions of both progressives
and conservatives. Progressives hold that truth is determined by a
consensus of "the people," while conservatives hold that truth is
revealed to the enlightened few. We hold that truth is accessible to all
individuals who choose to use their rational mind and reject emotions
as a means for evaluating the facts.
Esthetically, we espouse
Aristotle's view that art should depict life as it could be and should
be. Art should show man at his heroic best.
We disagree with
progressives that humans are inherently poor at making personal
decisions and need a paternalistic government to make it through life.
We disagree with conservatives that humans are inherently sinful.
Certainly some humans make poor decisions and some are sinful, but
neither is inherent in human nature. We hold that humans are capable of
greatness, and the history of Houston stands as testament to that fact.
For
the past century, Houston has stood as a unique city in America. More
than any large city in the country, it has rejected the intrusive
controls and regulations of city government. Houston's growth and
prosperity is a direct result of that fact.
But there are many who
want to change Houston and make it more like other cities. They have
embraced the ideas and policies of progressives. Despite their criticism
of progressives, conservatives have done little to stop the tide,
because fundamentally conservatives agree with progressives on every
important philosophical issue.
If Houston is to retain its
greatness, it must reject these false alternatives. Houston must
discover the source of its greatness, and then defend it with the
courage and moral rectitude of the defenders of the Alamo.
We invite you to join us in discovering what makes Houston great. Let the Renaissance begin.
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Individual Rights and Government Wrongs
Politicians and pundits regularly decry the increasingly divisive nature of American politics. From the Tea Parties to Occupy Wall Street, Americans are not happy with their government, and they are making their displeasure known. But what is causing this divide? And what is the solution?
"In his book, Individual Rights and Government Wrongs, Brian Phillips has contributed a much needed corrective to the debate over capitalism today. Phillips adeptly drills below the froth of contemporary debate that blames the market for our problems to investigate and explain how the free market has actually worked in the past. Rich in historical examples, the book illuminates the diverse ways in which free individuals can solve social problems without government intervention. Phillips also does well to integrate these examples within a theoretical framework that justifies and explains the moral case for freedom."Eric Daniels, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor, Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, Clemson University
Individual Rights and Government Wrongs examines two fundamentally different views regarding what type of nation America should be. Using examples from history and the contemporary world, this book looks at what happens when individuals are free and what happens when government intervenes in the lives of citizens. In every issue examined—mail delivery, education, roads, energy, land-use, employer/employee relations, and more, government intervention has led to higher costs, fewer choices for consumers, violations of individual rights, and destroyed lives. In contrast, freedom—the recognition and protection of individual rights—has led to economic progress, prosperity, and individual liberty.
“Brian Phillips takes the fundamental principles of our Founding Fathers, which made America great, and interprets them in light of a modern industrial society. Well worth reading.”
John Allison
Retired Chairman & CEO, BB&T
Distinguished Professor of Practice
Wake Forest University
Individual Rights and Government Wrongs challenges both conservatives and progressives. It rejects the notion that government intervention is ever practical or moral, no matter the issue, no matter the “general welfare” that will allegedly result, no matter the “will of the people.” If you are concerned about the future of America, Individual Rights and Government Wrongs will give you the intellectual ammunition you need to fight current trends.
“Are you appalled by the increasing intrusion of government in to every area of our lives? Brian Phillips’ remarkable book, Individual Rights and Government Wrongs, articulates how and why this menace spread. He examines a broad range of areas where the government is inappropriately and ineffectively engaged in activities that should be the province of private individuals and businesses, and provides many eye-opening examples that demonstrate just how the areas have been successfully addressed without government. Through these examples Phillips provides repeated evidence for the essential role of individual rights.”
Jeri Eagan, former CFO, Shell Oil Company
You will learn how government intervention destroys jobs, stifles energy production, institutionalizes racism, and leads to polluted air and water. You will also learn how the protection of individual rights, including property rights, creates jobs, encourages the discovery of new energy sources, combats racism and other irrational ideas, and leads to clean air and water. Individual Rights and Government Wrongs shows what is possible when individuals are free.
Click below to order:
Individual Rights and Government Wrongs in paperback is $19.95 $17.96
Individual Rights and Government Wrongs
for Kindle is $8.99Individual Rights and Government Wrongs for ePub (Nook and iBooks) is $8.99
Individual Rights and Government Wrongs in PDF is $7.49
Individual Rights and Government Wrongs in PDF is $7.49
I am available for interviews, guest blogging, and speaking engagements. Click here to contact me.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
I'm back, sort of
It has been a long since since I last posted. I have a very good reason--I have been writing a book.
Late last year I grew weary of writing about negative aspects of our culture. I decided that I would start writing about more positive topics. As I did research, I realized that I was uncovering information that was unknown to many people. I also realized that the information, if properly integrated, was perfect for a book.
The idea for the book actually began nearly twenty years ago. I have long been interested in the idea of financing government without taxation. In the early 1990s I delivered a paper on the topic at the Texas Objectivst Societies Conference. Since that time, I have wanted to develop the idea into a book. In early 2010 I started to do so. However, I soon realized that government without taxation was only a small part of a bigger issue--how a capitalist society functions.
My book explores this topic. I look at a multitude of topics--parks, mail, education, roads, sanitation, charity, and much more--and show how these services are provided by private companies and individuals, rather than government. I also examine the destructive consequences of government involvement in these areas. I present actual examples from history and the contemporary world.
In support of the book, which is scheduled to be published later this year, and to give myself a fresh start, I have a new blog, Individual Rights and Government Wrongs. I do not plan to post on a daily basis, but hope to do so several times a week. I still have considerable work to do on my book, and that will be my priority.
This blog was instrumental in making it possible for me to write my book. I'd like to thank everyone who helped make Live Oaks a success.
Late last year I grew weary of writing about negative aspects of our culture. I decided that I would start writing about more positive topics. As I did research, I realized that I was uncovering information that was unknown to many people. I also realized that the information, if properly integrated, was perfect for a book.
The idea for the book actually began nearly twenty years ago. I have long been interested in the idea of financing government without taxation. In the early 1990s I delivered a paper on the topic at the Texas Objectivst Societies Conference. Since that time, I have wanted to develop the idea into a book. In early 2010 I started to do so. However, I soon realized that government without taxation was only a small part of a bigger issue--how a capitalist society functions.
My book explores this topic. I look at a multitude of topics--parks, mail, education, roads, sanitation, charity, and much more--and show how these services are provided by private companies and individuals, rather than government. I also examine the destructive consequences of government involvement in these areas. I present actual examples from history and the contemporary world.
In support of the book, which is scheduled to be published later this year, and to give myself a fresh start, I have a new blog, Individual Rights and Government Wrongs. I do not plan to post on a daily basis, but hope to do so several times a week. I still have considerable work to do on my book, and that will be my priority.
This blog was instrumental in making it possible for me to write my book. I'd like to thank everyone who helped make Live Oaks a success.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Addendum to “Justice for Leonard Peikoff”
The following article was written by Glenn Jorgensen to address an issue not raised in his previous article.
I previously wrote about the fundamental issue in the Peikoff/McCaskey controversy; namely that McCaskey’s viewpoint is inconsistent with the principles of Objectivist epistemology and therefore Dr. Peikoff was right in demanding McCaskey be removed from the board of ARI. This addendum discusses another issue that deserves attention as well. For reference, see Peikoff’s private email to Arline Mann of the Ayn Rand Institute that was subsequently made public.1 The issue is a premise underlying the attacks leveled against Peikoff for making the statement “…I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism….” The premise in these attacks is altruism and, by implication, a lack of understanding what objectivity is.
As Objectivists know, justice demands judging a man’s character and actions objectively and granting to each that which he deserves. What Peikoff’s detractors don’t understand is that this principle applies equally in judging oneself. These detractors are demanding that Dr. Peikoff deny his own achievements. It is objectively verifiable that he is the pre-eminent living Objectivist scholar. Peikoff’s lifelong commitment to learning, teaching and writing about Objectivism has earned him this status. To validate this, one can listen to his lecture courses and read his works, including; The Ominous Parallels, The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, Fact and Value, and most importantly Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. These works (and many others) make it clear that he understands Objectivism down to the root. And, as further evidence, he was considered by Ayn Rand as the person most knowledgeable of her philosophy and so she chose him as her intellectual heir.
Now let’s turn to the email referenced above. It is clear that Peikoff and some board members of ARI (I do not know who, or how many) had prior discussions over McCaskey’s continued presence as an ARI board member. The details of these discussions are not known, however, the evidence indicates the issue was not resolved in a timely manner. Whether the board’s inaction was a result of outright disagreement with Peikoff, an indifference to the issue, or pragmatism on the part of some members, or something else, is not known. What is known is that a resolution was needed on a very important issue, and one was not forthcoming.
Peikoff identified a fundamental philosophical disagreement between McCaskey’s position and Objectivism. In addition, while advancing Objectivism as a board member of ARI, McCaskey disagreed with the essence of Objectivist epistemology, thereby endorsing a breach between thought and action. This shows a lack of integrity and is an instance of the mind/body dichotomy; a dichotomy that Objectivism emphatically rejects.
Knowing that McCaskey’s position was inconsistent with Objectivism and that allowing him to remain would be equally inconsistent, what should Peikoff have done when faced with reluctance on the part of the board to removing McCaskey? For a clue to the answer, I refer to the following quote from Ayn Rand’s article The Age Envy:
To suggest that Peikoff not assert his status when it is appropriate to do so, is to demand self-denial, self-abnegation, and self-sacrifice on his part i.e. altruism. If Peikoff had acquiesced on this issue, as many of his detractors are suggesting he should have, he would have been inconsistent with the virtues of justice, integrity, and pride as defined by the Objectivist ethics. And, as noted by Peikoff in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, when a person abandons even one virtue, this would lead to a compromise on all the Objectivist virtues, and to the eventual loss of the values one is trying to gain. In the midst of this entire controversy and all the criticisms of Peikoff, it is he who has been the most consistently objective.
This whole McCaskey incident has been disturbing to many Objectivists, but to a large extent for the wrong reasons. What is disturbing to me is that the attacks on Leonard Peikoff show that some very prominent Objectivists lack a thorough understanding of epistemology and ethics. It is interesting that these two areas are where the lack of understanding is, because there is a common concept uniting the two. Just as concepts in epistemology are objective, so too are values and the virtues required to attain them. Objectivity pertains to the relationship between existence and consciousness. It means adhering to reality and accepting reason as one’s only means of acquiring knowledge of reality. If one understands and accepts objectivity, one’s concepts are tied to reality and are formed in accordance with the requirements of man’s conceptual faculty; one chooses values and practices virtues with man’s life as the standard; and one judge’s people according to whether or not their ideas and actions promote man’s life. Objectivity leaves no room for dogma or whim when acquiring knowledge, choosing values, or judging people.
But, if one fails to grasp what objectivity is, one falls into the intrinsicist/subjectivist trap. Typically, a person like this embraces Objectivism as dogma, then recognizes conflicts in the two positions, but cannot resolve them objectively. They then swing to the subjectivist side. To such a person, the only alternatives when judging people are either dogmatic authority, or tolerance for all viewpoints. They will view the disagreements between McCaskey and Peikoff/Harriman as merely a “difference of opinion” between scholars. And they will condemn Peikoff as “authoritarian” for his stance against McCaskey. The possibility of an objective condemnation does not occur to them.
And, as Dr. Peikoff states in Fact and Value:
(Thanks to Brian Phillips for very valuable suggestions in writing this article.)
References:
1) http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html
2) The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, page 152
3) http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv
I previously wrote about the fundamental issue in the Peikoff/McCaskey controversy; namely that McCaskey’s viewpoint is inconsistent with the principles of Objectivist epistemology and therefore Dr. Peikoff was right in demanding McCaskey be removed from the board of ARI. This addendum discusses another issue that deserves attention as well. For reference, see Peikoff’s private email to Arline Mann of the Ayn Rand Institute that was subsequently made public.1 The issue is a premise underlying the attacks leveled against Peikoff for making the statement “…I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism….” The premise in these attacks is altruism and, by implication, a lack of understanding what objectivity is.
As Objectivists know, justice demands judging a man’s character and actions objectively and granting to each that which he deserves. What Peikoff’s detractors don’t understand is that this principle applies equally in judging oneself. These detractors are demanding that Dr. Peikoff deny his own achievements. It is objectively verifiable that he is the pre-eminent living Objectivist scholar. Peikoff’s lifelong commitment to learning, teaching and writing about Objectivism has earned him this status. To validate this, one can listen to his lecture courses and read his works, including; The Ominous Parallels, The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, Fact and Value, and most importantly Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. These works (and many others) make it clear that he understands Objectivism down to the root. And, as further evidence, he was considered by Ayn Rand as the person most knowledgeable of her philosophy and so she chose him as her intellectual heir.
Now let’s turn to the email referenced above. It is clear that Peikoff and some board members of ARI (I do not know who, or how many) had prior discussions over McCaskey’s continued presence as an ARI board member. The details of these discussions are not known, however, the evidence indicates the issue was not resolved in a timely manner. Whether the board’s inaction was a result of outright disagreement with Peikoff, an indifference to the issue, or pragmatism on the part of some members, or something else, is not known. What is known is that a resolution was needed on a very important issue, and one was not forthcoming.
Peikoff identified a fundamental philosophical disagreement between McCaskey’s position and Objectivism. In addition, while advancing Objectivism as a board member of ARI, McCaskey disagreed with the essence of Objectivist epistemology, thereby endorsing a breach between thought and action. This shows a lack of integrity and is an instance of the mind/body dichotomy; a dichotomy that Objectivism emphatically rejects.
Knowing that McCaskey’s position was inconsistent with Objectivism and that allowing him to remain would be equally inconsistent, what should Peikoff have done when faced with reluctance on the part of the board to removing McCaskey? For a clue to the answer, I refer to the following quote from Ayn Rand’s article The Age Envy:
As a rule, a man of achievement does not flaunt his achievements…If, however, he encounters an envious hater who gets huffy, trying to ignore, deny or insult his achievements, he asserts them proudly. 2While I’m not suggesting the board members of ARI were “envious haters” this quote does identify an important principle; one must stand up for oneself and proudly assert one’s achievements when appropriate. Note that Peikoff gave ARI an ultimatum; choose either him or McCaskey. Peikoff, like everyone else, has a right to remove support from an organization if he thinks that organization is inconsistent with the ideals he upholds. Think about how much more important this is for Peikoff when the organization in question is one he founded, and one that has a mandate to spread the ideas of a philosophy that he is more familiar with than anyone else. A decision had to be made regarding McCaskey and when agreement could not be reached, Leonard Peikoff had every right to assert his status as the pre-eminent Objectivist scholar.
To suggest that Peikoff not assert his status when it is appropriate to do so, is to demand self-denial, self-abnegation, and self-sacrifice on his part i.e. altruism. If Peikoff had acquiesced on this issue, as many of his detractors are suggesting he should have, he would have been inconsistent with the virtues of justice, integrity, and pride as defined by the Objectivist ethics. And, as noted by Peikoff in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, when a person abandons even one virtue, this would lead to a compromise on all the Objectivist virtues, and to the eventual loss of the values one is trying to gain. In the midst of this entire controversy and all the criticisms of Peikoff, it is he who has been the most consistently objective.
This whole McCaskey incident has been disturbing to many Objectivists, but to a large extent for the wrong reasons. What is disturbing to me is that the attacks on Leonard Peikoff show that some very prominent Objectivists lack a thorough understanding of epistemology and ethics. It is interesting that these two areas are where the lack of understanding is, because there is a common concept uniting the two. Just as concepts in epistemology are objective, so too are values and the virtues required to attain them. Objectivity pertains to the relationship between existence and consciousness. It means adhering to reality and accepting reason as one’s only means of acquiring knowledge of reality. If one understands and accepts objectivity, one’s concepts are tied to reality and are formed in accordance with the requirements of man’s conceptual faculty; one chooses values and practices virtues with man’s life as the standard; and one judge’s people according to whether or not their ideas and actions promote man’s life. Objectivity leaves no room for dogma or whim when acquiring knowledge, choosing values, or judging people.
But, if one fails to grasp what objectivity is, one falls into the intrinsicist/subjectivist trap. Typically, a person like this embraces Objectivism as dogma, then recognizes conflicts in the two positions, but cannot resolve them objectively. They then swing to the subjectivist side. To such a person, the only alternatives when judging people are either dogmatic authority, or tolerance for all viewpoints. They will view the disagreements between McCaskey and Peikoff/Harriman as merely a “difference of opinion” between scholars. And they will condemn Peikoff as “authoritarian” for his stance against McCaskey. The possibility of an objective condemnation does not occur to them.
And, as Dr. Peikoff states in Fact and Value:
…if you grasp and accept the concept of “objectivity,” in all its implications, then you accept Objectivism, you live by it and you revere Ayn Rand for defining it. If you fail fully to grasp and accept the concept, whether your failure is deliberate or otherwise, you eventually drift away from Ayn Rand’s orbit, or rewrite her viewpoint or turn openly into her enemy.3If Objectivism is to have a future, anyone who admires Ayn Rand and wants to promote her philosophy must fully understand objectivity and apply it consistently. This includes passing judgment objectively, and never granting equal status to truth and falsehood. But if they don’t grasp what objectivity is, they will either abandon the movement, or, in their attempts to rewrite Ayn Rand’s viewpoint, they will empower the enemies of Objectivism. This can only lead to failure in their goal of trying to gain a world wide influence for Objectivism.
(Thanks to Brian Phillips for very valuable suggestions in writing this article.)
References:
1) http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html
2) The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, page 152
3) http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Justice for Leonard Peikoff
The following article was written by Glenn Jorgensen, a friend and fellow member of the Houston Objectivism Society. I agree with, and endorse, the contents.
Many Objectivists are aware of the fact that John McCaskey has resigned from the board of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). This article assumes familiarity with the events that have occurred in this controversy.
Briefly, McCaskey criticized a major ARI project - David Harriman’s book The Logical Leap. Leonard Peikoff issued an ultimatum to ARI demanding McCaskey’s removal from the board, or Peikoff would end his support for ARI. A flurry of internet activity ensued on various blogs (such as a site run by Paul and Diana Hsieh), 1 podcasts, and by newsletter editors, including Craig Biddle (editor of The Objective Standard).2
Leonard Peikoff has been denounced as unjust for publicly condemning McCaskey and non-objective for offering no evidence to support that condemnation, yet those making these accusations have ignored the fundamental issue in this controversy, focused on non-essentials, and failed to consider all of the available evidence.
In an email to ARI Peikoff stated that McCaskey’s “disagreements … often go the heart of the philosophic principles at issue.”3 An enquiring Objectivist might ask “what are these philosophic principles, and are they identifiable from the evidence available?” This is the fundamental issue in this controversy and there is very clear evidence that Leonard Peikoff is right. Yet virtually all of the commentary has focused on non-essentials such as Peikoff’s phrase “…I hope you still know who I am?”, or his comment about a “higher rung of Hell,” or the fact that Peikoff did not give details of the reason for his position and therefore was being non-objective and unjust.
For evidence of the philosophic principles Leonard Peikoff is referring to, one need only go to McCaskey’s review on Amazon.com,4 and to a series of emails he sent to David Harriman (which are posted on McCaskey’s website).5 The salient statement in his Amazon.com review is:
(Harriman calls the development of a needed concept a “green light” to induction, and the lack of a needed concept a “red light” to induction. In other words, a valid concept is required for the inductive process to proceed.)
However, Galileo was not conflating “two (or three) very different things.” His experiments of dropping different objects through various media enabled him to abstract away the drag (or resistance) imposed on the objects by the media. He then omitted the measurements of the drag to form the concept “friction.” As Harriman states in The Logical Leap, this led to Galileo’s discovery that all free bodies fall to earth at the same rate, regardless of material and weight. (“Free” in this context means not impeded by friction.)
But McCaskey insists that inductive generalizations can proceed without the requisite concepts in place. More evidence of this is provided in a quote from McCaskey’s website when he discusses his emails to David Harriman:
David Harriman sums up McCaskey’s position very succinctly in a letter to Diana Hsieh (this can be found on the Hsieh’s website):
Is McCaskey’s viewpoint consistent with the Objectivist theory of concepts, or as Peikoff puts it, “the heart of the philosophical principles at issue”? As Ayn Rand states, “The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction.”6 Briefly, concept formation begins with perception of concretes in reality. We mentally isolate essential similarities among these concretes, omit the measurements, and group similar concretes into a single mental unit – a concept. First level concepts are those where the similarities among referents are directly perceivable (e.g. “table”, “chair”, etc.), and higher level concepts are then formed by observing essential similarities among the lower level concepts (e.g. “furniture” is formed from “table”, “chair”, etc.). The first level concepts have similarities that allow integration into the next higher level concepts, and so on up the conceptual ladder. Thus concepts are developed in a hierarchy, with higher level concepts based on the earlier formed lower level concepts.
Notice that one cannot perceive “furniture” directly; one perceives “tables,” “chairs,” etc. For a higher level concept to be valid it must be reducible down through the hierarchy to the directly observable first level concepts. And to understand a concept one must be able to perform this reduction. As Ayn Rand states, “The meaning of furniture cannot be grasped unless one has first grasped the meaning of its constituent concepts; these are its link to reality.”7 One must be able to trace the link from the concept “furniture” down to the observable concretes of “tables” and “chairs”. Reduction is the means of connecting concepts to the perceptual level – i.e. reality.
Once concepts are formed they are used to acquire knowledge. Quoting Harriman:
He then goes on to explain that generalizations are hierarchical, just as concepts are. The generalizations discovered by scientists rest on a large number of preceding generalizations. And throughout the entire process of observation and experiment, new concepts are formed that aid scientists in discovering further knowledge. Galileo’s discovery of the law of free fall, after forming the concept friction is an example of this.
How does one know that this advanced scientific knowledge corresponds to reality? By the same process that higher level concepts are validated – reduction. Again, reduction is the means of connecting higher level generalizations to reality.
Now consider McCaskey’s viewpoint that progress can be made using “a concept that conflate[s] two (or three) very different things.” How could a valid concept be formed if it tried to integrate concretes that are essentially different? A “concept” like this could not be reduced to the perceptual level. And how valid would an inductive generalization be if it used a “concept” that was not tied to reality? Just like the “concept that conflated two (or three) very different things,” this generalization also could not be reduced to the perceptual level. McCaskey provides more evidence for this same viewpoint when he states “a concept’s final formation completes rather than begins an induction.”
McCaskey denies the Objectivist view of what a concept is: he claims that a concept can be formed that “conflates[s]… very different things.” In other words, concepts are formed on the basis of loose similarities – a matter of convenience –rather than on the basis of the essential characteristics of the constituent concretes. This amounts to the subjectivist view of concepts that says “anything goes” when it comes to forming a concept, and therefore denies the objectivity of concepts that is the essence of the Objectivist theory of concepts.
And what of McCaskey’s view that Galileo could discover the law of free fall while simultaneously claiming “friction” was an “immature” concept at the time? This denies the hierarchical nature of knowledge. It ignores the requirement that higher level generalizations of reality be reducible to the perceptual level. In effect, he claims knowledge of reality is possible without reference to reality. And, while it is outside the scope of this article to discuss the details of scientific history, analyzing McCaskey’s own discussion of Galileo’s concept of friction (on his website) demonstrates that Galileo did have the proper concept, which supports Harriman’s viewpoint in The Logical Leap, not McCaskey’s non-Objectivist view of concepts.
Whether one is talking of Newton’s identification that force is the product of mass and acceleration, or a first level generalization like “pushing a ball causes it to roll,” the constituent concepts must be understood to draw a valid conclusion. Can you imagine a child understanding that a ball will roll when pushed, without understanding “ball” or “roll” or “push”? The principle is the same regardless of the level of knowledge.
So, how should we evaluate John McCaskey? Should he be evaluated based on Craig Biddle’s claim that he was always “thoughtful, professional, and polite”? Should we take the stance, as Biddle has done, that “… even if McCaskey did issue criticisms amounting to such claims [that Peikoff and Harriman are misguided or that Objectivism is inadequate on this issue], unless he did so in a dishonest, unjust, or baseless manner, such criticisms would not warrant moral condemnation”? Should he be evaluated based on his “…remarkable achievements with the Anthem Foundation” or that “In every interaction, Dr. McCaskey has always been the consummate gentleman -- unfailingly polite and even-keeled. He's a scholar in the best sense -- concerned to draw the proper conclusions…” as the Hsieh’s state on their website? Some of these statements may be true, but they are irrelevant to the issue raised by Peikoff – an issue that has been ignored by his detractors. It should be noted that the Hsieh’s softened their stance somewhat in a later post, though their view of McCaskey apparently has not changed.
For the answer to how McCaskey should be evaluated, I suggest reviewing Leonard Peikoff’s excellent article “Fact and Value”, which is available for viewing on the ARI website.9 Discussing Ayn Rand’s evaluation of Kant in that article, Leonard Peikoff states:
In summary, ideas require an evaluation with man’s life as the standard of value. McCaskey should be evaluated for what he said about scientific induction, and what it would mean for science. He should be evaluated for a viewpoint that denies the fundamental principles of Objectivist epistemology, and for the consequences of what that viewpoint would lead to. The results of such a viewpoint can be seen today with notions such as “the big bang theory” and “string theory.” These theories float with no connection to reality (see The Logical Leap for details). Science cannot advance with a method that severs concepts from reality because the generalizations that are based on such “concepts” are equally severed from reality. How could science aid man’s life, if it does not deal with reality? And wider, what are the implications if one were to try to defend egoism, individual rights, or capitalism using this epistemological method? How could you defend a statement such as “Capitalism is the only moral social system” with the epistemological method underlying McCaskey’s view? This is precisely what conservatives do when they argue capitalism “works” while advocating altruism; it is what Libertarians do when they advocate “freedom” divorced from ethics.
The Logical Leap is a great book. David Harriman and Leonard Peikoff should be commended for the work they have done to produce this ground breaking theory on induction. McCaskey has done more than just question the validity of that theory. He has attacked its epistemological foundation – the Objectivist theory of concepts.
Should McCaskey be excused for condemning the book? Should he be a board member of ARI, which is dedicated to spreading Objectivism, when he denies the foundation of Objectivism? I think the answers are obvious. Contrary to the claims of many, this controversy is not about McCaskey’s accusation of historical inaccuracy. This is, to quote Leonard Peikoff, a disagreement that goes “to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue.”
Leonard Peikoff was not being “authoritarian” in issuing an ultimatum, nor was he unjust in his evaluation of McCaskey. It should also be pointed out that he never intended his condemnation of McCaskey to be made public. The condemnation was made public by McCaskey himself, when he posted Leonard Peikoff’s private email to ARI on his website (with the permission of Peikoff and ARI).
The sign of a great philosopher is his or her ability to get to the essence of an issue and understand its implications. Ayn Rand was the pre-eminent expert at this – for example, see her reviews of Kant and Aristotle. When the essence of an issue is not identified, however, volumes of words are written on irrelevancies, non-essentials, and minutiae that cloud the intellectual horizon and distract people from the truth. And in the process the people who do not see the essence of a given issue level non-objective accusations against those who do. This is what has occurred in this controversy.
Leonard Peikoff was able to identify the essence of McCaskey’s viewpoint and properly condemned him as being inconsistent with Objectivism. Peikoff should be commended and admired for having the courage to take a firm stance towards ARI. He should be given the justice he deserves.
Glenn Jorgensen
Houston, Texas
(Thanks to Brian Phillips for many valuable suggestions in writing this article.)
References:
Many Objectivists are aware of the fact that John McCaskey has resigned from the board of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). This article assumes familiarity with the events that have occurred in this controversy.
Briefly, McCaskey criticized a major ARI project - David Harriman’s book The Logical Leap. Leonard Peikoff issued an ultimatum to ARI demanding McCaskey’s removal from the board, or Peikoff would end his support for ARI. A flurry of internet activity ensued on various blogs (such as a site run by Paul and Diana Hsieh), 1 podcasts, and by newsletter editors, including Craig Biddle (editor of The Objective Standard).2
Leonard Peikoff has been denounced as unjust for publicly condemning McCaskey and non-objective for offering no evidence to support that condemnation, yet those making these accusations have ignored the fundamental issue in this controversy, focused on non-essentials, and failed to consider all of the available evidence.
In an email to ARI Peikoff stated that McCaskey’s “disagreements … often go the heart of the philosophic principles at issue.”3 An enquiring Objectivist might ask “what are these philosophic principles, and are they identifiable from the evidence available?” This is the fundamental issue in this controversy and there is very clear evidence that Leonard Peikoff is right. Yet virtually all of the commentary has focused on non-essentials such as Peikoff’s phrase “…I hope you still know who I am?”, or his comment about a “higher rung of Hell,” or the fact that Peikoff did not give details of the reason for his position and therefore was being non-objective and unjust.
For evidence of the philosophic principles Leonard Peikoff is referring to, one need only go to McCaskey’s review on Amazon.com,4 and to a series of emails he sent to David Harriman (which are posted on McCaskey’s website).5 The salient statement in his Amazon.com review is:
Galileo’s concept of resistance is not the same as our concept of friction but an immature concept that one would expect Harriman to call a “red light” to scientific progress. The remarkable thing is how much progress Galileo actually made using a concept that conflated two (or three) very different things.
(Harriman calls the development of a needed concept a “green light” to induction, and the lack of a needed concept a “red light” to induction. In other words, a valid concept is required for the inductive process to proceed.)
However, Galileo was not conflating “two (or three) very different things.” His experiments of dropping different objects through various media enabled him to abstract away the drag (or resistance) imposed on the objects by the media. He then omitted the measurements of the drag to form the concept “friction.” As Harriman states in The Logical Leap, this led to Galileo’s discovery that all free bodies fall to earth at the same rate, regardless of material and weight. (“Free” in this context means not impeded by friction.)
But McCaskey insists that inductive generalizations can proceed without the requisite concepts in place. More evidence of this is provided in a quote from McCaskey’s website when he discusses his emails to David Harriman:
I express reservations about the principle that an inchoate concept provides a “red light” to induction and sympathize with William Whewell’s view that a concept’s final formation completes rather than begins an induction.
David Harriman sums up McCaskey’s position very succinctly in a letter to Diana Hsieh (this can be found on the Hsieh’s website):
In effect, scientists stumble around in the dark and somehow discover laws of nature before they grasp the constituent concepts.
Is McCaskey’s viewpoint consistent with the Objectivist theory of concepts, or as Peikoff puts it, “the heart of the philosophical principles at issue”? As Ayn Rand states, “The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction.”6 Briefly, concept formation begins with perception of concretes in reality. We mentally isolate essential similarities among these concretes, omit the measurements, and group similar concretes into a single mental unit – a concept. First level concepts are those where the similarities among referents are directly perceivable (e.g. “table”, “chair”, etc.), and higher level concepts are then formed by observing essential similarities among the lower level concepts (e.g. “furniture” is formed from “table”, “chair”, etc.). The first level concepts have similarities that allow integration into the next higher level concepts, and so on up the conceptual ladder. Thus concepts are developed in a hierarchy, with higher level concepts based on the earlier formed lower level concepts.
Notice that one cannot perceive “furniture” directly; one perceives “tables,” “chairs,” etc. For a higher level concept to be valid it must be reducible down through the hierarchy to the directly observable first level concepts. And to understand a concept one must be able to perform this reduction. As Ayn Rand states, “The meaning of furniture cannot be grasped unless one has first grasped the meaning of its constituent concepts; these are its link to reality.”7 One must be able to trace the link from the concept “furniture” down to the observable concretes of “tables” and “chairs”. Reduction is the means of connecting concepts to the perceptual level – i.e. reality.
Once concepts are formed they are used to acquire knowledge. Quoting Harriman:
Concepts are tools of knowledge … but are not by themselves claims to knowledge (although they presuppose knowledge)… If we are to gain knowledge with these tools, they must be used to create a cognitive product, such as a generalization which either does or does not correspond to reality.8
He then goes on to explain that generalizations are hierarchical, just as concepts are. The generalizations discovered by scientists rest on a large number of preceding generalizations. And throughout the entire process of observation and experiment, new concepts are formed that aid scientists in discovering further knowledge. Galileo’s discovery of the law of free fall, after forming the concept friction is an example of this.
How does one know that this advanced scientific knowledge corresponds to reality? By the same process that higher level concepts are validated – reduction. Again, reduction is the means of connecting higher level generalizations to reality.
Now consider McCaskey’s viewpoint that progress can be made using “a concept that conflate[s] two (or three) very different things.” How could a valid concept be formed if it tried to integrate concretes that are essentially different? A “concept” like this could not be reduced to the perceptual level. And how valid would an inductive generalization be if it used a “concept” that was not tied to reality? Just like the “concept that conflated two (or three) very different things,” this generalization also could not be reduced to the perceptual level. McCaskey provides more evidence for this same viewpoint when he states “a concept’s final formation completes rather than begins an induction.”
McCaskey denies the Objectivist view of what a concept is: he claims that a concept can be formed that “conflates[s]… very different things.” In other words, concepts are formed on the basis of loose similarities – a matter of convenience –rather than on the basis of the essential characteristics of the constituent concretes. This amounts to the subjectivist view of concepts that says “anything goes” when it comes to forming a concept, and therefore denies the objectivity of concepts that is the essence of the Objectivist theory of concepts.
And what of McCaskey’s view that Galileo could discover the law of free fall while simultaneously claiming “friction” was an “immature” concept at the time? This denies the hierarchical nature of knowledge. It ignores the requirement that higher level generalizations of reality be reducible to the perceptual level. In effect, he claims knowledge of reality is possible without reference to reality. And, while it is outside the scope of this article to discuss the details of scientific history, analyzing McCaskey’s own discussion of Galileo’s concept of friction (on his website) demonstrates that Galileo did have the proper concept, which supports Harriman’s viewpoint in The Logical Leap, not McCaskey’s non-Objectivist view of concepts.
Whether one is talking of Newton’s identification that force is the product of mass and acceleration, or a first level generalization like “pushing a ball causes it to roll,” the constituent concepts must be understood to draw a valid conclusion. Can you imagine a child understanding that a ball will roll when pushed, without understanding “ball” or “roll” or “push”? The principle is the same regardless of the level of knowledge.
So, how should we evaluate John McCaskey? Should he be evaluated based on Craig Biddle’s claim that he was always “thoughtful, professional, and polite”? Should we take the stance, as Biddle has done, that “… even if McCaskey did issue criticisms amounting to such claims [that Peikoff and Harriman are misguided or that Objectivism is inadequate on this issue], unless he did so in a dishonest, unjust, or baseless manner, such criticisms would not warrant moral condemnation”? Should he be evaluated based on his “…remarkable achievements with the Anthem Foundation” or that “In every interaction, Dr. McCaskey has always been the consummate gentleman -- unfailingly polite and even-keeled. He's a scholar in the best sense -- concerned to draw the proper conclusions…” as the Hsieh’s state on their website? Some of these statements may be true, but they are irrelevant to the issue raised by Peikoff – an issue that has been ignored by his detractors. It should be noted that the Hsieh’s softened their stance somewhat in a later post, though their view of McCaskey apparently has not changed.
For the answer to how McCaskey should be evaluated, I suggest reviewing Leonard Peikoff’s excellent article “Fact and Value”, which is available for viewing on the ARI website.9 Discussing Ayn Rand’s evaluation of Kant in that article, Leonard Peikoff states:
In the final issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand described Kant as “the most evil man in mankind’s history.” She said it knowing full well that, apart from his ideas, Kant’s actions were unexceptionable, even exemplary. Like Ellsworth Toohey, he was a peaceful citizen, a witty lecturer, a popular dinner guest, a prolific writer. She said it because of what Kant wrote—and why—and what it would have to do to mankind. [bold added]
In summary, ideas require an evaluation with man’s life as the standard of value. McCaskey should be evaluated for what he said about scientific induction, and what it would mean for science. He should be evaluated for a viewpoint that denies the fundamental principles of Objectivist epistemology, and for the consequences of what that viewpoint would lead to. The results of such a viewpoint can be seen today with notions such as “the big bang theory” and “string theory.” These theories float with no connection to reality (see The Logical Leap for details). Science cannot advance with a method that severs concepts from reality because the generalizations that are based on such “concepts” are equally severed from reality. How could science aid man’s life, if it does not deal with reality? And wider, what are the implications if one were to try to defend egoism, individual rights, or capitalism using this epistemological method? How could you defend a statement such as “Capitalism is the only moral social system” with the epistemological method underlying McCaskey’s view? This is precisely what conservatives do when they argue capitalism “works” while advocating altruism; it is what Libertarians do when they advocate “freedom” divorced from ethics.
The Logical Leap is a great book. David Harriman and Leonard Peikoff should be commended for the work they have done to produce this ground breaking theory on induction. McCaskey has done more than just question the validity of that theory. He has attacked its epistemological foundation – the Objectivist theory of concepts.
Should McCaskey be excused for condemning the book? Should he be a board member of ARI, which is dedicated to spreading Objectivism, when he denies the foundation of Objectivism? I think the answers are obvious. Contrary to the claims of many, this controversy is not about McCaskey’s accusation of historical inaccuracy. This is, to quote Leonard Peikoff, a disagreement that goes “to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue.”
Leonard Peikoff was not being “authoritarian” in issuing an ultimatum, nor was he unjust in his evaluation of McCaskey. It should also be pointed out that he never intended his condemnation of McCaskey to be made public. The condemnation was made public by McCaskey himself, when he posted Leonard Peikoff’s private email to ARI on his website (with the permission of Peikoff and ARI).
The sign of a great philosopher is his or her ability to get to the essence of an issue and understand its implications. Ayn Rand was the pre-eminent expert at this – for example, see her reviews of Kant and Aristotle. When the essence of an issue is not identified, however, volumes of words are written on irrelevancies, non-essentials, and minutiae that cloud the intellectual horizon and distract people from the truth. And in the process the people who do not see the essence of a given issue level non-objective accusations against those who do. This is what has occurred in this controversy.
Leonard Peikoff was able to identify the essence of McCaskey’s viewpoint and properly condemned him as being inconsistent with Objectivism. Peikoff should be commended and admired for having the courage to take a firm stance towards ARI. He should be given the justice he deserves.
Glenn Jorgensen
Houston, Texas
(Thanks to Brian Phillips for many valuable suggestions in writing this article.)
References:
6) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, page 28
7) Ibid, page 22
8) The Logical Leap, page 14
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Racism, Cartels, and Jim Crow
It is often claimed that capitalism leads to all sorts of ills, such as racism and cartels (or monopolies). As with most attacks on capitalism, these claims attempt to blame capitalism for the consequences of government intervention into the economy. The Jim Crow laws illustrate this point.
Following the Civil War former slave owners faced a serious labor problem. Prior to emancipation slaves provided a steady and dependable source of labor. The South's agricultural economy was labor intensive, and this threatened the region's economy.
Initially this problem was addressed as free men solve problems--by mutual consent to mutual gain--and a number of solutions developed. Some plantation owners simply hired laborers as they were needed. This presented certain problems, as the planting and harvest seasons created a high demand for labor and the plantation owners were uncertain if they would have sufficient labor when it was needed. They were also bidding for that labor against other plantation owners, which drove wages up.
Another solution that developed was share cropping. The details varied, but under this arrangement the plantation owner essentially leased his land to a tenant. The land owner supplied the tools and materials to farm his land, and the tenant supplied the labor. The crop was then shared between the land owner and the tenant. This too had certain disadvantages to the land owner, as he had to front the expenses in the hope that he would be repaid. But the tenant had a motivation--his own profit--to work the land efficiently and effectively and thus provide a return to the land owner.
Following Reconstruction and the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, Democratic legislators began to slowly implement laws that disenfranchised blacks. Literacy tests and polls taxes were among the methods used. By 1890 very few blacks were eligible to vote in the Southern states. The voting requirements also excluded many poor whites, but an exception was made for them. Anyone who had been eligible to vote or who was related to someone eligible to vote prior to the Civil War was not subject to the new voting rules (this is the source of the term "grandfather clause").
With blacks now excluded from voting, as well as holding most public offices, the Democratic legislatures began to enact the Jim Crow laws. While the specifics varied from state to state, they generally contained 4 key provisions:
Prior to Jim Crow, plantation owners competed against one another for labor. Though there were informal agreements to refrain from such bidding wars, individual plantation owners ultimately acted in their own self-interest and competed for labor. This of course, increased wages to the benefit of laborers and the detriment of the plantation owners. The plantation owners responded by using government force in the form of Jim Crow to impose restrictions on everyone--neither plantation owners nor laborers could act as they judged best.
When the market was free plantation owners had a motivation--their desire to plant and harvest crops--to put aside their racism and negotiate with black laborers as equals. Those who valued their racist views more than their profit were free to act accordingly and they suffered the consequences. But they couldn't force blacks to accept their terms. It was only through Jim Crow and government's legal monopoly on force that they were able to form a "successful" cartel and impose their racism on others.
Following the Civil War former slave owners faced a serious labor problem. Prior to emancipation slaves provided a steady and dependable source of labor. The South's agricultural economy was labor intensive, and this threatened the region's economy.
Initially this problem was addressed as free men solve problems--by mutual consent to mutual gain--and a number of solutions developed. Some plantation owners simply hired laborers as they were needed. This presented certain problems, as the planting and harvest seasons created a high demand for labor and the plantation owners were uncertain if they would have sufficient labor when it was needed. They were also bidding for that labor against other plantation owners, which drove wages up.
Another solution that developed was share cropping. The details varied, but under this arrangement the plantation owner essentially leased his land to a tenant. The land owner supplied the tools and materials to farm his land, and the tenant supplied the labor. The crop was then shared between the land owner and the tenant. This too had certain disadvantages to the land owner, as he had to front the expenses in the hope that he would be repaid. But the tenant had a motivation--his own profit--to work the land efficiently and effectively and thus provide a return to the land owner.
Following Reconstruction and the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, Democratic legislators began to slowly implement laws that disenfranchised blacks. Literacy tests and polls taxes were among the methods used. By 1890 very few blacks were eligible to vote in the Southern states. The voting requirements also excluded many poor whites, but an exception was made for them. Anyone who had been eligible to vote or who was related to someone eligible to vote prior to the Civil War was not subject to the new voting rules (this is the source of the term "grandfather clause").
With blacks now excluded from voting, as well as holding most public offices, the Democratic legislatures began to enact the Jim Crow laws. While the specifics varied from state to state, they generally contained 4 key provisions:
- Labor contracts had to be negotiated and agreed to at the start of the year. This allowed the plantation owners to negotiate when labor demands were low and also provided them with greater certainty that their labor needs would be met. Breaking a labor contract was a criminal offense, rather than a civil matter.
- It was made illegal to entice laborers to seek employment in another state or county. Prior to Jim Crow employment agents had thrived--they advertised and recruited for plantation owners willing to pay higher wages. This resulted in laborers working for those who most valued their work, and created labor shortages in areas with lower wages.
- Vagrancy laws made it illegal to be out of work, even temporarily. This made it difficult for laborers to seek higher paying work, as they were subject to arrest.
- Those who were unable to pay their fines were sentenced to chain gangs, which were then leased to plantation owners. The mortality rate on the chain gangs was often as high as 45 percent, which meant that the penalty for vagrancy was often a death sentence.
Prior to Jim Crow, plantation owners competed against one another for labor. Though there were informal agreements to refrain from such bidding wars, individual plantation owners ultimately acted in their own self-interest and competed for labor. This of course, increased wages to the benefit of laborers and the detriment of the plantation owners. The plantation owners responded by using government force in the form of Jim Crow to impose restrictions on everyone--neither plantation owners nor laborers could act as they judged best.
When the market was free plantation owners had a motivation--their desire to plant and harvest crops--to put aside their racism and negotiate with black laborers as equals. Those who valued their racist views more than their profit were free to act accordingly and they suffered the consequences. But they couldn't force blacks to accept their terms. It was only through Jim Crow and government's legal monopoly on force that they were able to form a "successful" cartel and impose their racism on others.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Altruism and the USPS Universal Service Obligation
For the past several months I have been researching various examples of the practical results of freedom. At the same time, I have examined the arguments that have been used to justify removing or preventing freedom in various realms of human activity. Invariably, this research has led me back to a fundamental philosophical issue--the mind-body dichotomy. (More specifically, I have been contemplating the moral-practical dichotomy.) For nearly a month my research has been interrupted as I have considered how this false dichotomy impacts the concrete examples I have been researching. What follows are some of my initial thoughts on this matter.
Most people understand that if they wish to achieve a certain goal they must engage in specific actions. If they want a good grade, they must study. If they want to lose weight they must watch their diet and exercise. Further, they understand that the nature of the goal determines what actions are required to reach it, that is, what is practical. For example, if one wants to lose weight, gorging on potato chips, candy, and soda is not practical.
Further still, most people understand that their goals must be realistic—they must be possible, consistent with their other goals, and attainable. For example, it would not be realistic for me to set the goal of becoming the quarterback for the Houston Texans. I don’t have the skills, have no desire to attain them, and my age and physique are inconsistent with that required. For me to pursue such a goal is to guarantee frustration and misery, for no action I take will allow me to achieve it.
These principles hold in the political realm as well. The goals of bureaucrats, politicians, and voters determine what is practical. But often these goals are unrealistic—they are impossible, inconsistent with other stated goals, and unattainable. As an example, consider the universal service obligation (USO) of the United States Postal Service (USPS).
The USO holds that the USPS must offer a certain level of service to all citizens. Further, those services must be “affordable” and uniform. To execute this mandate, the private express statutes (PES) limit the activities of private individuals and businesses, and protect the USPS monopoly on certain postal activities, such as mail box access.
While a number of arguments are used to justify the USO and the resulting limitations on individuals, they all boil down to one thing: Universal service is desirable and therefore the ends justify the means. But why is universal service considered desirable? While the idea of universal postal service dates from the beginning of the republic, a recent report from the USPS offers us a contemporary view of the topic.
In 2008 the USPS issued a report titled “Report on Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly.” The report argued that changes to either the PES or mail box access would adversely impact the USPS’s ability to implement the USO. Therefore, the report concluded, such changes should not be made.
As justification of the USO, the report cited a long-held belief that the mail “binds” the nation together by providing for the exchange of ideas and information among citizens. Further, the report argues that the concept of universal service is embodied in the Constitution and therefore a proper goal of government (page 5).
First, the Constitution says nothing of universal service. It merely authorizes Congress to establish “post offices and post roads.” Second, the fact that the Constitution authorizes some power does not make it proper or just—the Constitution also legalized slavery.
What we are left with is the assertion that universal service is good and government must provide it. It is an assertion that is accepted without question, examination, or discussion. It is accepted with no consideration of context, means, or to whom such a mandate is desirable.
Consider the fact that, according to the report, alternatives to the USPS exist for every piece of mail that it delivers. These alternatives include private companies such as UPS and FedEx, as well as the Internet (page 2). Indeed, the report cites the Internet as a primary reason for declining USPS volume. In other words, the exchange of ideas and information can and does occur without the involvement of the USPS—the nation is “bound” together. So why the continued insistence on universal service? The answer to that question goes to the heart of the matter, and reveals why allowing freedom in postal services is considered impractical.
The report repeatedly argues that relaxing the PES or taking other measures to permit private businesses greater freedom in mail delivery would substantially weaken the financial position of the USPS—private companies would offer services that draw customers away from the USPS, particularly in more profitable, high volume areas. This would leave the USPS to service less profitable routes and areas if the universal service mandate remained in place. Repealing the mandate is dismissed as contrary to “social policy”—it is regarded as immutable as the law of gravity.
The report acknowledges that differential pricing—pricing based on distance and location—is common among private companies and makes economic sense. Such pricing recognizes the fact that low volume routes and remote locations incur more costs to deliver mail, and the users of the service should bear the costs. But the USPS rejects differential pricing precisely because of this:
Not surprisingly, the report claims that this serves the “public interest.” But the fact is, some members of the public benefit through lower postal rates while other members of the public are forced to bear the costs. Some members of the public are protected from the economic consequences of their choices—such as where to live—while other members of the public are prohibited from acting according to their own rational judgment—such as starting a postal service. Some members of the public are forced to sacrifice their money and their dreams for the alleged benefit of other members of the public.
That the USO—like all policies founded on the “public interest”—causes demonstrable harm to some individuals is considered irrelevant. Indeed, it is widely considered proper, just, and moral.
According to the dominant morality in our culture—altruism—each individual has a moral duty to self-sacrificially serve others. Each individual has an obligation to put aside his own interests, desires, and judgment in deference to the “public interest.” The actual consequences do not matter, so long as the intention is to serve others.
Altruism demands the renunciation of personal values and interests. In practice, altruism obligates an individual to serve the needs of others. And there never has been, nor will there ever be, a shortage of individuals in “need” of food, or shelter, or health care, or flat screen televisions. A consistent altruist must sacrifice such values in service to those in need. That such a policy is clearly impractical—if one chooses to remain alive—does not dissuade the advocates of altruism. Service to others is the “right” thing to do.
Altruism requires its advocates to choose between the moral—service to others and the renunciation of personal values—and the practical—attaining and enjoying the values required for human life.
In contrast, egoism holds that the moral is the practical. Egoism holds that the purpose of morality is to provide a set of principles to guide man in the attainment of the values required to sustain and enjoy his life. Egoism holds that each individual should be free to act according to his own judgment in the pursuit of his own values, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. To the altruist, this is impractical—if one wishes to practice service to others, then pursuing one’s own values is impractical.
Altruism is a primary reason why it is often declared that arguments for capitalism are good in theory, but won’t work in practice. Altruism puts forth a false dichotomy between the moral (theory) and the practical. While such a dichotomy necessarily exists when the theory is wrong (such a theory is contrary to reality), the nearly universal acceptance of altruism often leads to the conclusion that such a dichotomy exists with all theories. In other words, it is widely held that theory and morality are useless when it comes to dealing with the issues and choices each of us face in our life. (The epistemological issue involved in this conclusion—skepticism—is beyond the scope of this article.)
It is within this framework that the typical non-egoist considers an argument for capitalism. He may regard the argument as good in theory, that is, logical, but regards theory and logic as unrelated to living one’s life. After all, the altruist regards his own moral creed as “good in theory” but clearly not a practical guide for sustaining and enjoying his life.
An individual will not regard capitalism as practical as long as he accepts altruism. Capitalism provides a sanction for individuals to pursue their personal values, a practice that is inimical to altruism. Only by embracing egoism—the moral right of individuals to live for their own sake—will a social system that sanctions and protects that right be regarded as practical. In other words, what one wishes to practice—service to others or the pursuit of one’s own values—will determine what one regards as practical.
This does not mean that demonstrations of the practical benefits of capitalism are pointless. To the contrary, the practical results are the purpose of a proper theory. However, such demonstrations must also identify the moral context. For example, consider the history of mail delivery in the United States.
As I previously wrote, prior to the Civil War much of the nation’s mail was delivered by private express companies. These companies offered their services at a substantially lower price than the postal service and consumers voluntarily used the private companies. The owners of the private expresses were acting in their own self-interest—their desire to make a profit. The customers of these companies were similarly acting in their own self-interest—their desire to save money. Neither was taken advantage of or forced to engage in the transaction. Neither acted for the benefit of the other as his motivation, yet each party did in fact benefit because each was left free to act according to his own judgment.
Those who chose to live in remote areas were free to do so. One of the consequences of such a choice was irregular mail service, or perhaps none at all. Those who regarded mail service as sufficiently important were free to move to a city or town, pay higher postal rates, or make other arrangements. Each individual could act according to his own judgment and hierarchy of values, so long as he respected the mutual rights of others.
This system was both moral—it recognized each individual’s right to act according to his own judgment—and practical—a multitude of options existed and individuals could choose those that fit their needs and desires. However, the fact that some individuals had a “need” that was unfulfilled did not sit well with some politicians and public officials. To them, the system in place was not practical, and the unsatisfied “need” was their proof. The fact that individuals in remote areas were cut off from metropolitan areas was deemed contrary to the “public interest,” despite the fact that such individuals voluntarily chose to live in isolated areas.
The result was the private express statutes—laws specifically designed to criminalize economic activities that many Americans judged beneficial and voluntarily used. Motivated by altruism, politicians forced some individuals—the owners of the private express companies and their customers—to sacrifice their personal interests and values for the alleged benefit of others. The higher costs paid by some consumers, the destruction of some businesses, and the loss of individual freedom were simply the price to be paid in service to others. That some individuals must sacrifice for others is precisely what altruism demands.
The idea that men could live together with each pursuing his own interests is completely foreign to the altruist. He can’t imagine life without sacrifice, and regards any argument to the contrary as “good in theory.” What he doesn’t, and can’t, understand is that it is also good in practice.
Most people understand that if they wish to achieve a certain goal they must engage in specific actions. If they want a good grade, they must study. If they want to lose weight they must watch their diet and exercise. Further, they understand that the nature of the goal determines what actions are required to reach it, that is, what is practical. For example, if one wants to lose weight, gorging on potato chips, candy, and soda is not practical.
Further still, most people understand that their goals must be realistic—they must be possible, consistent with their other goals, and attainable. For example, it would not be realistic for me to set the goal of becoming the quarterback for the Houston Texans. I don’t have the skills, have no desire to attain them, and my age and physique are inconsistent with that required. For me to pursue such a goal is to guarantee frustration and misery, for no action I take will allow me to achieve it.
These principles hold in the political realm as well. The goals of bureaucrats, politicians, and voters determine what is practical. But often these goals are unrealistic—they are impossible, inconsistent with other stated goals, and unattainable. As an example, consider the universal service obligation (USO) of the United States Postal Service (USPS).
The USO holds that the USPS must offer a certain level of service to all citizens. Further, those services must be “affordable” and uniform. To execute this mandate, the private express statutes (PES) limit the activities of private individuals and businesses, and protect the USPS monopoly on certain postal activities, such as mail box access.
While a number of arguments are used to justify the USO and the resulting limitations on individuals, they all boil down to one thing: Universal service is desirable and therefore the ends justify the means. But why is universal service considered desirable? While the idea of universal postal service dates from the beginning of the republic, a recent report from the USPS offers us a contemporary view of the topic.
In 2008 the USPS issued a report titled “Report on Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly.” The report argued that changes to either the PES or mail box access would adversely impact the USPS’s ability to implement the USO. Therefore, the report concluded, such changes should not be made.
As justification of the USO, the report cited a long-held belief that the mail “binds” the nation together by providing for the exchange of ideas and information among citizens. Further, the report argues that the concept of universal service is embodied in the Constitution and therefore a proper goal of government (page 5).
First, the Constitution says nothing of universal service. It merely authorizes Congress to establish “post offices and post roads.” Second, the fact that the Constitution authorizes some power does not make it proper or just—the Constitution also legalized slavery.
What we are left with is the assertion that universal service is good and government must provide it. It is an assertion that is accepted without question, examination, or discussion. It is accepted with no consideration of context, means, or to whom such a mandate is desirable.
Consider the fact that, according to the report, alternatives to the USPS exist for every piece of mail that it delivers. These alternatives include private companies such as UPS and FedEx, as well as the Internet (page 2). Indeed, the report cites the Internet as a primary reason for declining USPS volume. In other words, the exchange of ideas and information can and does occur without the involvement of the USPS—the nation is “bound” together. So why the continued insistence on universal service? The answer to that question goes to the heart of the matter, and reveals why allowing freedom in postal services is considered impractical.
The report repeatedly argues that relaxing the PES or taking other measures to permit private businesses greater freedom in mail delivery would substantially weaken the financial position of the USPS—private companies would offer services that draw customers away from the USPS, particularly in more profitable, high volume areas. This would leave the USPS to service less profitable routes and areas if the universal service mandate remained in place. Repealing the mandate is dismissed as contrary to “social policy”—it is regarded as immutable as the law of gravity.
The report acknowledges that differential pricing—pricing based on distance and location—is common among private companies and makes economic sense. Such pricing recognizes the fact that low volume routes and remote locations incur more costs to deliver mail, and the users of the service should bear the costs. But the USPS rejects differential pricing precisely because of this:
This would put service in danger for areas of the country whose volumes do not justify the costs to serve, namely isolated rural areas and low income urban areas. This is precisely the portion of the America public who could least afford an increase in postal pricing or a decrease in service. Isolated regions of the country currently depend heavily on the Postal Service to transport prescription medicines, educational materials, and other supplies. Cutting off such areas from uniform, affordable service and access could be devastating for these Americans. (page 81)In other words, because of where they choose to live, some Americans need the USO in order to afford regular mail delivery. This is the “justification” for the USO. The report goes on to acknowledge the existential results: The criminalization of certain economic activities (such as the private delivery of first-class mail), higher costs to other postal customers, and political pressure to keep financially unviable post offices open.
Not surprisingly, the report claims that this serves the “public interest.” But the fact is, some members of the public benefit through lower postal rates while other members of the public are forced to bear the costs. Some members of the public are protected from the economic consequences of their choices—such as where to live—while other members of the public are prohibited from acting according to their own rational judgment—such as starting a postal service. Some members of the public are forced to sacrifice their money and their dreams for the alleged benefit of other members of the public.
That the USO—like all policies founded on the “public interest”—causes demonstrable harm to some individuals is considered irrelevant. Indeed, it is widely considered proper, just, and moral.
According to the dominant morality in our culture—altruism—each individual has a moral duty to self-sacrificially serve others. Each individual has an obligation to put aside his own interests, desires, and judgment in deference to the “public interest.” The actual consequences do not matter, so long as the intention is to serve others.
Altruism demands the renunciation of personal values and interests. In practice, altruism obligates an individual to serve the needs of others. And there never has been, nor will there ever be, a shortage of individuals in “need” of food, or shelter, or health care, or flat screen televisions. A consistent altruist must sacrifice such values in service to those in need. That such a policy is clearly impractical—if one chooses to remain alive—does not dissuade the advocates of altruism. Service to others is the “right” thing to do.
Altruism requires its advocates to choose between the moral—service to others and the renunciation of personal values—and the practical—attaining and enjoying the values required for human life.
In contrast, egoism holds that the moral is the practical. Egoism holds that the purpose of morality is to provide a set of principles to guide man in the attainment of the values required to sustain and enjoy his life. Egoism holds that each individual should be free to act according to his own judgment in the pursuit of his own values, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. To the altruist, this is impractical—if one wishes to practice service to others, then pursuing one’s own values is impractical.
Altruism is a primary reason why it is often declared that arguments for capitalism are good in theory, but won’t work in practice. Altruism puts forth a false dichotomy between the moral (theory) and the practical. While such a dichotomy necessarily exists when the theory is wrong (such a theory is contrary to reality), the nearly universal acceptance of altruism often leads to the conclusion that such a dichotomy exists with all theories. In other words, it is widely held that theory and morality are useless when it comes to dealing with the issues and choices each of us face in our life. (The epistemological issue involved in this conclusion—skepticism—is beyond the scope of this article.)
It is within this framework that the typical non-egoist considers an argument for capitalism. He may regard the argument as good in theory, that is, logical, but regards theory and logic as unrelated to living one’s life. After all, the altruist regards his own moral creed as “good in theory” but clearly not a practical guide for sustaining and enjoying his life.
An individual will not regard capitalism as practical as long as he accepts altruism. Capitalism provides a sanction for individuals to pursue their personal values, a practice that is inimical to altruism. Only by embracing egoism—the moral right of individuals to live for their own sake—will a social system that sanctions and protects that right be regarded as practical. In other words, what one wishes to practice—service to others or the pursuit of one’s own values—will determine what one regards as practical.
This does not mean that demonstrations of the practical benefits of capitalism are pointless. To the contrary, the practical results are the purpose of a proper theory. However, such demonstrations must also identify the moral context. For example, consider the history of mail delivery in the United States.
As I previously wrote, prior to the Civil War much of the nation’s mail was delivered by private express companies. These companies offered their services at a substantially lower price than the postal service and consumers voluntarily used the private companies. The owners of the private expresses were acting in their own self-interest—their desire to make a profit. The customers of these companies were similarly acting in their own self-interest—their desire to save money. Neither was taken advantage of or forced to engage in the transaction. Neither acted for the benefit of the other as his motivation, yet each party did in fact benefit because each was left free to act according to his own judgment.
Those who chose to live in remote areas were free to do so. One of the consequences of such a choice was irregular mail service, or perhaps none at all. Those who regarded mail service as sufficiently important were free to move to a city or town, pay higher postal rates, or make other arrangements. Each individual could act according to his own judgment and hierarchy of values, so long as he respected the mutual rights of others.
This system was both moral—it recognized each individual’s right to act according to his own judgment—and practical—a multitude of options existed and individuals could choose those that fit their needs and desires. However, the fact that some individuals had a “need” that was unfulfilled did not sit well with some politicians and public officials. To them, the system in place was not practical, and the unsatisfied “need” was their proof. The fact that individuals in remote areas were cut off from metropolitan areas was deemed contrary to the “public interest,” despite the fact that such individuals voluntarily chose to live in isolated areas.
The result was the private express statutes—laws specifically designed to criminalize economic activities that many Americans judged beneficial and voluntarily used. Motivated by altruism, politicians forced some individuals—the owners of the private express companies and their customers—to sacrifice their personal interests and values for the alleged benefit of others. The higher costs paid by some consumers, the destruction of some businesses, and the loss of individual freedom were simply the price to be paid in service to others. That some individuals must sacrifice for others is precisely what altruism demands.
The idea that men could live together with each pursuing his own interests is completely foreign to the altruist. He can’t imagine life without sacrifice, and regards any argument to the contrary as “good in theory.” What he doesn’t, and can’t, understand is that it is also good in practice.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Freedom To Choose
It is often argued that government regulations are necessary to protect consumers from unscrupulous businesses. Without such regulations businesses could take advantage of consumers by misrepresenting their products or services, withholding information, or otherwise preventing consumers from making informed buying decisions. Regulations insure that consumers get safe and effective products.
This argument implies that offering safe and effective products is of no self-interest to businesses, that a company would sell anything in order to make money. It implies that a business would invest years of research and development and enormous sums of money only to market a product that posed a risk to consumers.
Certainly, there are companies that take a short-term perspective and focus on immediate results at the expense of long-term success (for one example see Enron). But such companies are rare. A product that is dangerous or ineffective will be discovered. And if the company knowingly and intentionally misrepresents its products, it is engaging in fraud and should be prosecuted. Defining and protecting individual rights is the only proper role of government in regard to "consumer protection." Indeed, protecting individual rights is the only means by which the legitimate rights of consumers and producers can be protected.
Rights sanction an individual's moral right to act according to his own judgment within a social context. The mutual rights of others prohibit him from interfering with their actions. If an individual chooses to market a product or service, he has a moral right to do so. And consumers have a moral right to purchase or boycott his offering. Nobody--including government--has a rational justification for interfering with either producers or consumers.
Yet, this is precisely what government regulations do. The threat of physical force--fines or prison--prohibits producers from offering the products or services they deem fit. That same threat prohibits consumers from purchasing products or services that they judge best serve their needs, desires, and values.
Government regulations prohibit individuals from exercising their own rational judgment and acting accordingly. For the mentally lazy this breeds a false sense of security--if a product or service is sanctioned by government it must be safe and effective. For the independent individual this limits opportunities and choices, and often results in actions the individual would otherwise not choose. As an example, see Social Security, which is forced upon all workers regardless of their own judgment regarding the merits of the program.
Abolishing government regulations does not mean that consumers would be left to the mercy of businesses. Indeed, there are myriad examples of private organizations that provide consumer education, certify the safety and effectiveness of products, and otherwise provide information that assists consumers in making choices that best fit their own needs and desires.
nderwriters Laboratories (UL) is one example. UL is a private product safety testing and certifying organization. Founded in 1894, their web site states:U
MET Laboratories offers a service similar to UL, offering further choices to consumers and manufacturers. MET’s web site describes the difference between its service and that of UL: “The main difference between these two marks is with the level of involvement and partnership between the manufacturer and the test lab.”3 Whether this difference matters is a choice that each manufacturer and consumer is free to decide.
Unlike government regulations, which impose one set of standards upon an entire industry regardless of the judgment of those subjected to the regulations, the free market provides producers with choices. A manufacturer can decide to have his product tested by UL, or by MET, or forgo testing entirely. Consumers are free to purchase products that are certified or not certified (and likely less expensive). While UL and MET focus their efforts on electrical products, other organizations test other consumer products.
Good Housekeeping has been testing and approving products since 1902. The magazine first began testing products “to study the problems facing the homemaker and to develop up-to-date, firsthand information on solving them.”4 In 1910 the magazine built the Good Housekeeping Institute in Springfield, Massachusetts to test products, which included a model kitchen, a domestic science laboratory, and test stations for testing products under household conditions. As with the UL mark, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval has become an important aspect of marketing and brand recognition for many products.
Interestingly, both UL and the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval were started during the Progressive Era—a time when businesses were unjustly under attack for the safety of their products. Recognizing the need for independent evaluation of products, these two private companies moved to satisfy the legitimate concerns of consumers. And they are not alone in helping consumers make informed decisions.
Consumers Union (CU) tests products and publishes the Consumer Reports magazine. Its mission
In addition to its laboratory testing, CU also conducts reader surveys, which results in product reliability reports from the actual users of those products.
Other organizations also provide information to consumers. For example, ConsumerLab.com provides “independent test results and information to help consumers and health care professionals evaluate health, wellness, and nutrition products.”6 Angie’s List allows consumers in more than 120 cities to share their experiences with service providers in more than 450 different categories. The Better Business Bureau “ensures that high standards for trust are set and maintained… so consumers and businesses alike have an unbiased source to guide them on matters of trust.”7 Many trade associations and product manufacturers offer certification programs that insure that professionals meet certain standards, properly install products, and operate ethical businesses.
Each of these is an example of the private sector providing alternatives for consumers to obtain the information that they require to make an informed decision. Unlike government regulations, which are inflexible and coercive, these organizations can respond quickly to changing market conditions and are entirely voluntary. As such, they respect the moral right of producers and consumers to act according to their own judgment. Protecting that right is the only proper function of government, and the only form of "consumer protection" required.
Footnotes
1 "Standards for Safety," http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/standards
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories#About_UL
3 http://www.metlabs.com/pages/AsGood.html
4 "The History of the Good Housekeeping Seal," http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/product-testing/history/good-housekeeping-seal-history
5 "Our Mission," http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/mission/overview/index.htm?CMP=OTC-FOOTER4
6 http://www.consumerlab.com/aboutcl.asp
7 "Vision, Mission, Values," http://www.bbb.org/us/BBB-Mission/
This argument implies that offering safe and effective products is of no self-interest to businesses, that a company would sell anything in order to make money. It implies that a business would invest years of research and development and enormous sums of money only to market a product that posed a risk to consumers.
Certainly, there are companies that take a short-term perspective and focus on immediate results at the expense of long-term success (for one example see Enron). But such companies are rare. A product that is dangerous or ineffective will be discovered. And if the company knowingly and intentionally misrepresents its products, it is engaging in fraud and should be prosecuted. Defining and protecting individual rights is the only proper role of government in regard to "consumer protection." Indeed, protecting individual rights is the only means by which the legitimate rights of consumers and producers can be protected.
Rights sanction an individual's moral right to act according to his own judgment within a social context. The mutual rights of others prohibit him from interfering with their actions. If an individual chooses to market a product or service, he has a moral right to do so. And consumers have a moral right to purchase or boycott his offering. Nobody--including government--has a rational justification for interfering with either producers or consumers.
Yet, this is precisely what government regulations do. The threat of physical force--fines or prison--prohibits producers from offering the products or services they deem fit. That same threat prohibits consumers from purchasing products or services that they judge best serve their needs, desires, and values.
Government regulations prohibit individuals from exercising their own rational judgment and acting accordingly. For the mentally lazy this breeds a false sense of security--if a product or service is sanctioned by government it must be safe and effective. For the independent individual this limits opportunities and choices, and often results in actions the individual would otherwise not choose. As an example, see Social Security, which is forced upon all workers regardless of their own judgment regarding the merits of the program.
Abolishing government regulations does not mean that consumers would be left to the mercy of businesses. Indeed, there are myriad examples of private organizations that provide consumer education, certify the safety and effectiveness of products, and otherwise provide information that assists consumers in making choices that best fit their own needs and desires.
nderwriters Laboratories (UL) is one example. UL is a private product safety testing and certifying organization. Founded in 1894, their web site states:U
UL has developed more than 1,000 Standards for Safety. Our Standards for Safety are essential to helping ensure public safety and confidence, reduce costs, improve quality and market products and services. Millions of products and their components are tested to UL's rigorous safety standards with the result that consumers live in a safer environment than they would have otherwise.1Products that meet UL standards are allowed to display the UL logo as long as it remains compliant. Though UL certifications carry no legal weight, the company’s reputation is such that failure to meet UL standards can mean the death of a product:
[I]t may be extremely difficult to sell certain types of products without a UL Mark. Large distributors may be unwilling to carry a product without UL certification, and the use of noncertified equipment may invalidate insurance coverage. It is common practice in many fields to specify UL Listed equipment or UL Recognized materials.2Unlike government regulations, which are imposed on producers and consumers regardless of their individual choices, UL certifications are entirely voluntary. A manufacturer can choose to market a product that does not meet UL standards, and consumers are free to purchase such products if they choose. While both assume certain risks on the basis of their choices, each remains free to act according to his own judgment. UL is only one example of private companies offering testing and consumer information.
MET Laboratories offers a service similar to UL, offering further choices to consumers and manufacturers. MET’s web site describes the difference between its service and that of UL: “The main difference between these two marks is with the level of involvement and partnership between the manufacturer and the test lab.”3 Whether this difference matters is a choice that each manufacturer and consumer is free to decide.
Unlike government regulations, which impose one set of standards upon an entire industry regardless of the judgment of those subjected to the regulations, the free market provides producers with choices. A manufacturer can decide to have his product tested by UL, or by MET, or forgo testing entirely. Consumers are free to purchase products that are certified or not certified (and likely less expensive). While UL and MET focus their efforts on electrical products, other organizations test other consumer products.
Good Housekeeping has been testing and approving products since 1902. The magazine first began testing products “to study the problems facing the homemaker and to develop up-to-date, firsthand information on solving them.”4 In 1910 the magazine built the Good Housekeeping Institute in Springfield, Massachusetts to test products, which included a model kitchen, a domestic science laboratory, and test stations for testing products under household conditions. As with the UL mark, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval has become an important aspect of marketing and brand recognition for many products.
Interestingly, both UL and the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval were started during the Progressive Era—a time when businesses were unjustly under attack for the safety of their products. Recognizing the need for independent evaluation of products, these two private companies moved to satisfy the legitimate concerns of consumers. And they are not alone in helping consumers make informed decisions.
Consumers Union (CU) tests products and publishes the Consumer Reports magazine. Its mission
is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves. The organization was founded in 1936 when advertising first flooded the mass media. Consumers lacked a reliable source of information they could depend on to help them distinguish hype from fact and good products from bad ones. Since then CU has filled that vacuum with a broad range of consumer information.5
In addition to its laboratory testing, CU also conducts reader surveys, which results in product reliability reports from the actual users of those products.
Other organizations also provide information to consumers. For example, ConsumerLab.com provides “independent test results and information to help consumers and health care professionals evaluate health, wellness, and nutrition products.”6 Angie’s List allows consumers in more than 120 cities to share their experiences with service providers in more than 450 different categories. The Better Business Bureau “ensures that high standards for trust are set and maintained… so consumers and businesses alike have an unbiased source to guide them on matters of trust.”7 Many trade associations and product manufacturers offer certification programs that insure that professionals meet certain standards, properly install products, and operate ethical businesses.
Each of these is an example of the private sector providing alternatives for consumers to obtain the information that they require to make an informed decision. Unlike government regulations, which are inflexible and coercive, these organizations can respond quickly to changing market conditions and are entirely voluntary. As such, they respect the moral right of producers and consumers to act according to their own judgment. Protecting that right is the only proper function of government, and the only form of "consumer protection" required.
Footnotes
1 "Standards for Safety," http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/standards
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories#About_UL
3 http://www.metlabs.com/pages/AsGood.html
4 "The History of the Good Housekeeping Seal," http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/product-testing/history/good-housekeeping-seal-history
5 "Our Mission," http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/mission/overview/index.htm?CMP=OTC-FOOTER4
6 http://www.consumerlab.com/aboutcl.asp
7 "Vision, Mission, Values," http://www.bbb.org/us/BBB-Mission/
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Television, Phones, and Freedom
On Sunday the Chronicle ran an article that illustrates, at least in part, a practical benefit of freedom. The development of Internet television is creating concern among broadcasters and cable companies, who fear that they will lose viewers. Prior to this innovation, cable television created similar concerns for broadcast television.
In a free market, an individual can offer any product or service that he chooses. The voluntary choices of consumers will determine whether he succeeds or fails.
In a regulated market, an individual must meet the arbitrary mandates of government officials. His success depends partially on his ability to satisfy consumers and partially on his ability to satisfy government bureaucrats. And often the latter is more important than the former.
When I was a child we had 3 choices when it came to television. Because the airwaves are "public property", the government regulated (and still does) their use to promote the "common good." The result was a lack of choice for consumers and the stifling of innovation.
Cable provided (and still does) a way to escape the regulatory burden of the FCC. Because they are not using "public property" cable companies do not need to comply with many FCC regulations. This freedom allows cable companies to offer a wide variety of programming, and the success or failure of these companies depends upon the voluntary choices of viewers.
Today, Internet television is expanding the choices available to consumers. Companies such as Google and Apple have identified an opportunity and are acting according to their judgment.
Government regulations are often defended because alternatives to the status quo cannot be imagined. For example, few can imagine how electricity or water might be provided on a competitive basis. Such industries, it is argued, are "natural monopolies" and should be regulated to protect consumers from gouging.
For decades this argument was made to "justify" regulation of phone companies. Cellular technology--which could not be imagined just a few years ago--has made that argument moot. Even with regulations restricting their actions, entrepreneurs developed alternatives that others could not envision. The same is occurring with television.
It wasn't that long ago that cable television and cell phones were considered luxuries. Today, their availability and affordability make them almost necessities. This development did not occur because of government regulations, but in spite of them. When men are free to act according to their own judgment, they will find innovative methods for providing the products and services that others desire and value.
It is impossible to predict what innovations men would develop if they were free do so. We cannot imagine how water, electricity, roads, and a myriad other services would be provided if men were free to innovate and act according to their judgment. But our lack of vision does not justify stifling the creativity and ingenuity of Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, or Bill Gates. Instead, we should stay out of their way. Not only will we enjoy the practical benefits, it is the moral thing to do.
In a free market, an individual can offer any product or service that he chooses. The voluntary choices of consumers will determine whether he succeeds or fails.
In a regulated market, an individual must meet the arbitrary mandates of government officials. His success depends partially on his ability to satisfy consumers and partially on his ability to satisfy government bureaucrats. And often the latter is more important than the former.
When I was a child we had 3 choices when it came to television. Because the airwaves are "public property", the government regulated (and still does) their use to promote the "common good." The result was a lack of choice for consumers and the stifling of innovation.
Cable provided (and still does) a way to escape the regulatory burden of the FCC. Because they are not using "public property" cable companies do not need to comply with many FCC regulations. This freedom allows cable companies to offer a wide variety of programming, and the success or failure of these companies depends upon the voluntary choices of viewers.
Today, Internet television is expanding the choices available to consumers. Companies such as Google and Apple have identified an opportunity and are acting according to their judgment.
Government regulations are often defended because alternatives to the status quo cannot be imagined. For example, few can imagine how electricity or water might be provided on a competitive basis. Such industries, it is argued, are "natural monopolies" and should be regulated to protect consumers from gouging.
For decades this argument was made to "justify" regulation of phone companies. Cellular technology--which could not be imagined just a few years ago--has made that argument moot. Even with regulations restricting their actions, entrepreneurs developed alternatives that others could not envision. The same is occurring with television.
It wasn't that long ago that cable television and cell phones were considered luxuries. Today, their availability and affordability make them almost necessities. This development did not occur because of government regulations, but in spite of them. When men are free to act according to their own judgment, they will find innovative methods for providing the products and services that others desire and value.
It is impossible to predict what innovations men would develop if they were free do so. We cannot imagine how water, electricity, roads, and a myriad other services would be provided if men were free to innovate and act according to their judgment. But our lack of vision does not justify stifling the creativity and ingenuity of Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, or Bill Gates. Instead, we should stay out of their way. Not only will we enjoy the practical benefits, it is the moral thing to do.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Public Education and the Poor
It is commonly argued that without public education the poor would have few, if any educational opportunities. Without public education, those born into poverty would have little opportunity to escape, and the poor would remain poor generation after generation. To break this cycle, the argument goes, government must intervene and provide the educational opportunities that would otherwise be absent.
Undoubtedly, poverty can pose an obstacle to attaining a quality education, just as poverty can pose an obstacle in the attainment of many other values. But obstacles are simply that, and they can be overcome without government intervention.
Today, education is a virtual monopoly of the government. While home schooling and private schools have grown in popularity in recent decades, public schools remain the dominant source of education for most Americans. Indeed, approximately 85 percent of America’s schoolchildren attend public schools, primarily because these schools are “free” to attend.[1] Of course, these schools are not free—their costs are borne by taxpayers, which includes parents and non-parents alike. Because they are forced to financially support public schools, most parents cannot afford the expenses associated with private schools or home schooling, despite the fact that, according to a survey conducted by the National Association of Independent Schools, only 39 percent of those polled would send their children to public schools if cost and proximity were not factors.[2]
In other words, while the vast majority of parents send their children to public schools, those schools are not their preference. Taxation to support public schools effectively eliminates a meaningful choice for many parents, and prevents them from acting as they would choose if they had complete control over their money.
Prior to the Civil War, public schools were virtually non-existent. As educator Robert Peterson writes, most young children were taught at home: “Home education was so common in America that most children knew how to read before they entered school.”[3] It wasn’t necessary for public officials to dictate the curriculum, compel school attendance, or force citizens to pay for public schools. Parents recognized their responsibility for educating their children and acted accordingly. Combined with vocational training received at home, for many colonial Americans a formal education was simply unnecessary. For those who did desire additional education, churches and private schoolmasters offered an abundance of choices. Peterson writes:
Despite the success of the market in providing educational services, in the mid-nineteenth century many Americans began to demand public schools. Much of the justification for establishing public schools was to meet the needs of the poor and to help immigrants assimilate. The market was considered a failure because some individuals were not receiving the education that others deemed desirable. The fact is however, that the market was providing educational opportunities to these groups. According to Peterson: “In 1767, there were at least sixteen evening schools, catering mostly to the needs of Philadelphia’s hard-working German population…. There were also schools for women, blacks, and the poor. Anthony Benezet, a leader in colonial educational thought, pioneered in the education for women and Negroes.”[5]
In colonial America for example, education was a favorite form of philanthropy for Quakers, and “the poor, both Quaker and non-Quaker, were allowed to attend without paying fees.”[6] Such educational philanthropy is not limited to colonial times: Oprah Winfrey has donated nearly $2 million to the Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta[7] and Providence St. Mel in Chicago.[8] Both schools serve poor, inner-city children. Such examples demonstrate that those who are concerned about education for the poor have the opportunity to provide voluntary financial support to schools for the poor.
However, the poor do not need to rely on alms and philanthropy. If individuals are free of government coercion, entrepreneurs find innovative ways to provide the values desired by consumers, education included. A study by James Tooley, a professor of education policy at the University of Newcastle in England provides a compelling example.
Tooley conducted a two-year study of education among the poor in five cities in Nigeria, Kenya, China, Ghana, and India. His study focused on differences between public and private schools in the poorest areas of his selected cities—areas that lacked indoor plumbing, running water, electricity, and paved roads. What he found was remarkable.
For example, in Hyderabad, India, 76 percent of all schoolchildren attended private schools. Despite the fact that public education was available, many of the city’s poorest parents chose to send their children to private schools, even when then had to pay tuition. Tooley reported similar findings in the other cities: “the poor have found remarkably innovative ways of helping themselves, educationally, and in some of the most destitute places on Earth have managed to nurture a large and growing industry of private schools for themselves.”[9] The students in private schools in Hyderabad had an income of less than $30 per working household member, compared to an average of $46 per month for the city. Tooley’s findings dispel the myth that the poor need government assistance in order to educate their children.
The competitive nature of private education directs schools to provide the curriculum and quality desired by consumers. If the schools fail to do so, parents are free to move their children to a better school. As previously noted, taxation virtually eliminates this option for most Americans.
As we have seen, both historically and currently, the private sector can and does provide ample educational opportunities, even for the poorest of the poor. More importantly, private institutions cannot rely on coercion to obtain funding or customers, but must meet the freely chosen desires of parents and students. In recognizing the right of individuals to act according to their own judgment in the pursuit of their own values, a free market in education is moral. The examples in this article demonstrate that it is also practical.
Footnotes
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Elementary_and_secondary_education
[2]“Public Knows Features That Make a Quality School”, Council for American Private Education, January 2000, http://www.capenet.org/Outlook/Out1-00.html#Story1
[3] Robert A. Peterson, “Education in Colonial America”, The Freeman, September 1983, Vol. 33, Issue 9, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/education-in-colonial-america/
[4]Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6]Ibid
[7] http://blogs.ajc.com/the-buzz/2009/12/17/oprah-gives-1-5-million-to-ron-clark-academy/?cxntlid=thbz_hm
[8] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113683847&ft=1&f=1013
[9] James Tooley, “Private Schools for the Poor”, Catholic Education Resource Center, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0319.htm
Undoubtedly, poverty can pose an obstacle to attaining a quality education, just as poverty can pose an obstacle in the attainment of many other values. But obstacles are simply that, and they can be overcome without government intervention.
Today, education is a virtual monopoly of the government. While home schooling and private schools have grown in popularity in recent decades, public schools remain the dominant source of education for most Americans. Indeed, approximately 85 percent of America’s schoolchildren attend public schools, primarily because these schools are “free” to attend.[1] Of course, these schools are not free—their costs are borne by taxpayers, which includes parents and non-parents alike. Because they are forced to financially support public schools, most parents cannot afford the expenses associated with private schools or home schooling, despite the fact that, according to a survey conducted by the National Association of Independent Schools, only 39 percent of those polled would send their children to public schools if cost and proximity were not factors.[2]
In other words, while the vast majority of parents send their children to public schools, those schools are not their preference. Taxation to support public schools effectively eliminates a meaningful choice for many parents, and prevents them from acting as they would choose if they had complete control over their money.
Prior to the Civil War, public schools were virtually non-existent. As educator Robert Peterson writes, most young children were taught at home: “Home education was so common in America that most children knew how to read before they entered school.”[3] It wasn’t necessary for public officials to dictate the curriculum, compel school attendance, or force citizens to pay for public schools. Parents recognized their responsibility for educating their children and acted accordingly. Combined with vocational training received at home, for many colonial Americans a formal education was simply unnecessary. For those who did desire additional education, churches and private schoolmasters offered an abundance of choices. Peterson writes:
Historical records, which are by no means complete, reveal that over one hundred and twenty-five private schoolmasters advertised their services in Philadelphia newspapers between 1740 and 1776. Instruction was offered in Latin, Greek, mathematics, surveying, navigation, accounting, bookkeeping, science, English, and contemporary foreign languages. Incompetent and inefficient teachers were soon eliminated, since they were not subsidized by the State or protected by a guild or union. Teachers who satisfied their customers by providing good services prospered. One schoolmaster, Andrew Porter, a mathematics teacher, had over one hundred students enrolled in 1776. The fees the students paid enabled him to provide for a family of seven.[4]These schools allowed colonial Americans to attain the education they desired without government intervention. The desire to profit motivated educators to provide the types of classes that individuals wanted, not those demanded by public officials. Both educators and students were free to pursue their own self-interest.
Despite the success of the market in providing educational services, in the mid-nineteenth century many Americans began to demand public schools. Much of the justification for establishing public schools was to meet the needs of the poor and to help immigrants assimilate. The market was considered a failure because some individuals were not receiving the education that others deemed desirable. The fact is however, that the market was providing educational opportunities to these groups. According to Peterson: “In 1767, there were at least sixteen evening schools, catering mostly to the needs of Philadelphia’s hard-working German population…. There were also schools for women, blacks, and the poor. Anthony Benezet, a leader in colonial educational thought, pioneered in the education for women and Negroes.”[5]
In colonial America for example, education was a favorite form of philanthropy for Quakers, and “the poor, both Quaker and non-Quaker, were allowed to attend without paying fees.”[6] Such educational philanthropy is not limited to colonial times: Oprah Winfrey has donated nearly $2 million to the Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta[7] and Providence St. Mel in Chicago.[8] Both schools serve poor, inner-city children. Such examples demonstrate that those who are concerned about education for the poor have the opportunity to provide voluntary financial support to schools for the poor.
However, the poor do not need to rely on alms and philanthropy. If individuals are free of government coercion, entrepreneurs find innovative ways to provide the values desired by consumers, education included. A study by James Tooley, a professor of education policy at the University of Newcastle in England provides a compelling example.
Tooley conducted a two-year study of education among the poor in five cities in Nigeria, Kenya, China, Ghana, and India. His study focused on differences between public and private schools in the poorest areas of his selected cities—areas that lacked indoor plumbing, running water, electricity, and paved roads. What he found was remarkable.
For example, in Hyderabad, India, 76 percent of all schoolchildren attended private schools. Despite the fact that public education was available, many of the city’s poorest parents chose to send their children to private schools, even when then had to pay tuition. Tooley reported similar findings in the other cities: “the poor have found remarkably innovative ways of helping themselves, educationally, and in some of the most destitute places on Earth have managed to nurture a large and growing industry of private schools for themselves.”[9] The students in private schools in Hyderabad had an income of less than $30 per working household member, compared to an average of $46 per month for the city. Tooley’s findings dispel the myth that the poor need government assistance in order to educate their children.
The competitive nature of private education directs schools to provide the curriculum and quality desired by consumers. If the schools fail to do so, parents are free to move their children to a better school. As previously noted, taxation virtually eliminates this option for most Americans.
As we have seen, both historically and currently, the private sector can and does provide ample educational opportunities, even for the poorest of the poor. More importantly, private institutions cannot rely on coercion to obtain funding or customers, but must meet the freely chosen desires of parents and students. In recognizing the right of individuals to act according to their own judgment in the pursuit of their own values, a free market in education is moral. The examples in this article demonstrate that it is also practical.
Footnotes
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Elementary_and_secondary_education
[2]“Public Knows Features That Make a Quality School”, Council for American Private Education, January 2000, http://www.capenet.org/Outlook/Out1-00.html#Story1
[3] Robert A. Peterson, “Education in Colonial America”, The Freeman, September 1983, Vol. 33, Issue 9, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/education-in-colonial-america/
[4]Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6]Ibid
[7] http://blogs.ajc.com/the-buzz/2009/12/17/oprah-gives-1-5-million-to-ron-clark-academy/?cxntlid=thbz_hm
[8] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113683847&ft=1&f=1013
[9] James Tooley, “Private Schools for the Poor”, Catholic Education Resource Center, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0319.htm
Saturday, November 6, 2010
A Good Article on the Preservation Ordinance
A good article on the impact of the new preservation ordinance, complete with informative pictures, can be found at Cynthia Mullins' Real Estate Market Blog. (HT: Barry Klein) The pictures show many alterations to homes that will not be allowed under the new ordinance. The ordinance is wrong in theory, and the pictures show how absurd it will be in practice.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Private Letter Carriers
We are often told that government must provide certain vital services, such as education, roads, and mail delivery. If such services were left in the hands of private companies, service would be poor or nonexistent. But history provides a very different lesson.
Prior to the Civil War private letter carriers flourished throughout the United States. In sparsely settled areas of the country about 300 “western expresses” provided mail delivery.[1] The best known of these companies was the Pony Express. In the more densely populated northeast, two types of delivery companies emerged—“locals” and “eastern expresses”.
The locals were based in the major eastern cities and primarily served local businesses. One of the largest of the locals was Boyd’s City Post in Philadelphia, which employed 45 carriers and delivered up to 15,000 letters a day.[2] The eastern expresses mostly operated between the larger eastern cities, such as Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Both the locals and the expresses offered their service for considerably lower rates than the postal service.
As one example, in 1844 Lysander Spooner founded the American Letter Mail Company. Spooner believed that he could deliver mail anywhere in the country for five cents per letter, versus the 12 cents charged by the postal service. Not surprisingly, the public loved Spooner’s company and the revenues of the postal service plummeted. Congressmen, who often rewarded political supporters with an appointment as the local postmaster, were incensed and responded by lowering postal rates. Spooner was not to be outdone, and lowered his rates further. Finally, in 1851 Congress strengthened the postal service’s monopoly and forced Spooner out of business.[3]
It wasn’t poor service or outrageous prices that closed Spooner’s business, but literally an act of Congress.
The popularity of the private services was so great that one United States Senator estimated that at least half of the letters mailed in the country were being delivered by private carriers.[4] The success of the private mail companies prompted one economist to write in the New York Review in 1841 that, even though postal services in all western nations were a branch of the government, "we might easily imagine it to be carried on by a private association, without its changing in any degree its essential character."[5]
However, this would have meant the end of an important tool for political patronage. When confronted with the possibility that the postal service might be abolished, Selah Hobbie, the first assistant postmaster general at the time, allegedly cried, “Zounds, sir, it would throw 16,000 postmasters out of office.”[6] This would not have been politically popular, and we are paying the consequences today.
It wasn't market forces--the free and voluntary choices of consumers--that led to the demise of the private letter carriers. It was government coercion that literally made it illegal for them to offer a service that consumers willingly paid for.
The lesson from the private letter carriers goes far beyond mail delivery. The same arguments used to justify the postal monopoly--universal service, affordable rates, etc.--are used to justify government monopolies in roads, education, water and sanitation, and now health care. In each instance the private sector is either prohibited from offering such services, or severely restricted by government regulations, i.e., coercion. And in each instance the results are the same as with the postal service--poor service, fewer choices, and higher costs.
While the primary argument in favor of abolishing the postal service is moral--the moral right of each individual to act according to his own rational judgment--there is abundant evidence that private mail delivery is also practical. When individuals are free to pursue their own values without interference from others, they will find ways to attain those values. It was true of private mail delivery, and it is true of every other value as well.
Footnotes
[1] Richard R. John, Jr., “Private Mail Delivery in the United States during the Nineteenth Century: A Sketch”, p. 138, http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v015/p0135-p0148.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lucille J. Goodyear, “Spooner vs. U.S. Postal System”, American Legion Magazine, January 1981, http://www.lysanderspooner.org/STAMP3.htm
[4] John, p. 141.
[5] John., p. 143.
[6] John, p. 144.
Prior to the Civil War private letter carriers flourished throughout the United States. In sparsely settled areas of the country about 300 “western expresses” provided mail delivery.[1] The best known of these companies was the Pony Express. In the more densely populated northeast, two types of delivery companies emerged—“locals” and “eastern expresses”.
The locals were based in the major eastern cities and primarily served local businesses. One of the largest of the locals was Boyd’s City Post in Philadelphia, which employed 45 carriers and delivered up to 15,000 letters a day.[2] The eastern expresses mostly operated between the larger eastern cities, such as Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Both the locals and the expresses offered their service for considerably lower rates than the postal service.
As one example, in 1844 Lysander Spooner founded the American Letter Mail Company. Spooner believed that he could deliver mail anywhere in the country for five cents per letter, versus the 12 cents charged by the postal service. Not surprisingly, the public loved Spooner’s company and the revenues of the postal service plummeted. Congressmen, who often rewarded political supporters with an appointment as the local postmaster, were incensed and responded by lowering postal rates. Spooner was not to be outdone, and lowered his rates further. Finally, in 1851 Congress strengthened the postal service’s monopoly and forced Spooner out of business.[3]
It wasn’t poor service or outrageous prices that closed Spooner’s business, but literally an act of Congress.
The popularity of the private services was so great that one United States Senator estimated that at least half of the letters mailed in the country were being delivered by private carriers.[4] The success of the private mail companies prompted one economist to write in the New York Review in 1841 that, even though postal services in all western nations were a branch of the government, "we might easily imagine it to be carried on by a private association, without its changing in any degree its essential character."[5]
However, this would have meant the end of an important tool for political patronage. When confronted with the possibility that the postal service might be abolished, Selah Hobbie, the first assistant postmaster general at the time, allegedly cried, “Zounds, sir, it would throw 16,000 postmasters out of office.”[6] This would not have been politically popular, and we are paying the consequences today.
It wasn't market forces--the free and voluntary choices of consumers--that led to the demise of the private letter carriers. It was government coercion that literally made it illegal for them to offer a service that consumers willingly paid for.
The lesson from the private letter carriers goes far beyond mail delivery. The same arguments used to justify the postal monopoly--universal service, affordable rates, etc.--are used to justify government monopolies in roads, education, water and sanitation, and now health care. In each instance the private sector is either prohibited from offering such services, or severely restricted by government regulations, i.e., coercion. And in each instance the results are the same as with the postal service--poor service, fewer choices, and higher costs.
While the primary argument in favor of abolishing the postal service is moral--the moral right of each individual to act according to his own rational judgment--there is abundant evidence that private mail delivery is also practical. When individuals are free to pursue their own values without interference from others, they will find ways to attain those values. It was true of private mail delivery, and it is true of every other value as well.
Footnotes
[1] Richard R. John, Jr., “Private Mail Delivery in the United States during the Nineteenth Century: A Sketch”, p. 138, http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v015/p0135-p0148.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lucille J. Goodyear, “Spooner vs. U.S. Postal System”, American Legion Magazine, January 1981, http://www.lysanderspooner.org/STAMP3.htm
[4] John, p. 141.
[5] John., p. 143.
[6] John, p. 144.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Moral is the Practical
A reader--who often does not agree with me--has suggested that I consider the practicality of the ideas I advocate. This is, in essence, a very good suggestion, and it is what I intend to write about more frequently in the future. In the meantime, the suggestion raises an issue worth comment.
Though the reader did not explicitly say so, he implied a dichotomy between theory and practice. This false dichotomy can be traced back to Plato (and perhaps before). It takes form in numerous ways, but each asserts an inherent conflict between the intellectual and the physical, that is, between the mind and the body. And, no matter its form, the physical is always regarded as crass and inferior.Whether it is art versus business, or love versus sex, or reason versus emotions, the physical is regarded as tainted.
This view holds that man's mind is at constant war with his body, that his mind can contemplate the ideal while his body must deal with the practical necessities of life of earth. While the mind can identify what is right, the body must do what is practical. Man can pursue eternal bliss by renouncing this world, or he can seek happiness here on earth. He can save his soul, or he can enjoy life.
As Ayn Rand put it, man is neither a ghost nor a zombie. He is neither a disembodied spirit nor a mindless corpse. He is a being of mind and body, and the purpose of his mind is to identify those actions his body should take. The purpose of the mind is to identify what is practical.
(Of course, what one regards as practical depends upon what one wishes to practice. If one wishes to rule over others then permitting individuals to act on their own judgment is not practical. But this is a different issue.)
To claim that an idea is good in theory but will not work in practice is a gross contradiction. By what standard does one conclude that an idea is good in theory? If a theory does not work in practice, it is not a very good theory.
Each individual has a moral right to live and act according to his own rational judgment, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. In practice, this means that he may not use force or fraud against others--he may not compel them to act contrary to their own judgment--just as they may not use force or fraud against him.
Many claim that, while this sounds good in theory, it won't work in practice. They argue that many necessities, such as roads and education, would not exist if left entirely to the discretion of individuals. Consequently, government coercion must be used to force individuals to do their "fair share," to place the good of the "community" above their own interests. And they then proceed to ignore the abundance of evidence--such as crowded roads and an educational system that does not educate--that demonstrates that such coercive measures are a failure, i.e., are not practical.
Coercion is impractical because it is immoral. Coercion does not "work" in practice because it is wrong in theory. There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical.
Though the reader did not explicitly say so, he implied a dichotomy between theory and practice. This false dichotomy can be traced back to Plato (and perhaps before). It takes form in numerous ways, but each asserts an inherent conflict between the intellectual and the physical, that is, between the mind and the body. And, no matter its form, the physical is always regarded as crass and inferior.Whether it is art versus business, or love versus sex, or reason versus emotions, the physical is regarded as tainted.
This view holds that man's mind is at constant war with his body, that his mind can contemplate the ideal while his body must deal with the practical necessities of life of earth. While the mind can identify what is right, the body must do what is practical. Man can pursue eternal bliss by renouncing this world, or he can seek happiness here on earth. He can save his soul, or he can enjoy life.
As Ayn Rand put it, man is neither a ghost nor a zombie. He is neither a disembodied spirit nor a mindless corpse. He is a being of mind and body, and the purpose of his mind is to identify those actions his body should take. The purpose of the mind is to identify what is practical.
(Of course, what one regards as practical depends upon what one wishes to practice. If one wishes to rule over others then permitting individuals to act on their own judgment is not practical. But this is a different issue.)
To claim that an idea is good in theory but will not work in practice is a gross contradiction. By what standard does one conclude that an idea is good in theory? If a theory does not work in practice, it is not a very good theory.
Each individual has a moral right to live and act according to his own rational judgment, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. In practice, this means that he may not use force or fraud against others--he may not compel them to act contrary to their own judgment--just as they may not use force or fraud against him.
Many claim that, while this sounds good in theory, it won't work in practice. They argue that many necessities, such as roads and education, would not exist if left entirely to the discretion of individuals. Consequently, government coercion must be used to force individuals to do their "fair share," to place the good of the "community" above their own interests. And they then proceed to ignore the abundance of evidence--such as crowded roads and an educational system that does not educate--that demonstrates that such coercive measures are a failure, i.e., are not practical.
Coercion is impractical because it is immoral. Coercion does not "work" in practice because it is wrong in theory. There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical.
Monday, October 25, 2010
A New Approach
Two weeks ago I announced a holiday from blogging to give me a chance to re-assess my goals and interests. I had several reasons for this.
Most of my posts address irrational ideas or policies. While this is valuable, and I have learned a lot in writing on such topics, it does get a bit depressing at times. It is important to attack and expose evil, irrational ideas. But fighting against something isn't the same as fighting for something. (Implicitly, in doing the former I have done the latter.) That however, isn't enough for me.
Given the state of our culture, writing about the negative provides an endless stream of potential topics. For some time it has been easy to get motivated to expose the hypocrisy and evasion so prevalent among government officials and advocates of statism. Over the past few months I have found myself less and less motivated to write about the sewer.
For years I have been very interested in finding examples of the practical benefits of freedom. In every industry that I have examined, when individuals are free to act according to their own judgment without interference from others, remarkable things happen. When individuals are free to pursue their own values without arbitrary government controls and regulations, they make their lives immensely better.
While such examples are not nearly are prevalent as I would like, they do abound. They are often more difficult to locate, study, and document than the topics I have been writing on. But they are real, they are inspiring, and they represent the best in man. And these are the things that I want to write about.
Life can be and should be better than preservation ordinances, light rail, and land-use regulations. It is important to fight the parasites and the thugs, but it is more important to recognize the producers. It is important to defend my values, but it is more important to celebrate them.
I have yet to work out the logistics of how I will do this. I will need to spend more time researching. I likely will not post as frequently as in the past.
I will continue to address examples of irrational policies and ideas, though that too will likely be less frequent.
Most of my posts address irrational ideas or policies. While this is valuable, and I have learned a lot in writing on such topics, it does get a bit depressing at times. It is important to attack and expose evil, irrational ideas. But fighting against something isn't the same as fighting for something. (Implicitly, in doing the former I have done the latter.) That however, isn't enough for me.
Given the state of our culture, writing about the negative provides an endless stream of potential topics. For some time it has been easy to get motivated to expose the hypocrisy and evasion so prevalent among government officials and advocates of statism. Over the past few months I have found myself less and less motivated to write about the sewer.
For years I have been very interested in finding examples of the practical benefits of freedom. In every industry that I have examined, when individuals are free to act according to their own judgment without interference from others, remarkable things happen. When individuals are free to pursue their own values without arbitrary government controls and regulations, they make their lives immensely better.
While such examples are not nearly are prevalent as I would like, they do abound. They are often more difficult to locate, study, and document than the topics I have been writing on. But they are real, they are inspiring, and they represent the best in man. And these are the things that I want to write about.
Life can be and should be better than preservation ordinances, light rail, and land-use regulations. It is important to fight the parasites and the thugs, but it is more important to recognize the producers. It is important to defend my values, but it is more important to celebrate them.
I have yet to work out the logistics of how I will do this. I will need to spend more time researching. I likely will not post as frequently as in the past.
I will continue to address examples of irrational policies and ideas, though that too will likely be less frequent.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
A Temporary Obstacle
The new preservation ordinance contains a provision that "allows" property owners in a designated historic district to rescind that designation. The Chronicle's print article last week explained the process:
The ordinance goes further than ignoring the desires and judgment of individual property owners. According to the Chronicle, even if every property owner in a district wants to rescind the historic designation, council has no obligation to honor that desire. In short, council can do as it damn well pleases. Council can substitute its judgment for that of the property owners and impose that judgment by coercion.
This is the logical and inevitable result of the principle accepted by council when it passed the first preservation ordinance. At that time council declared that it had the authority to control some uses of some properties. But "some" was only a temporary limitation made necessary by pragmatic political considerations.
Even the current ordinance is a compromise, as acknowledged by Ma Parker. But such compromises are a complete victory for the preservationists. The principle animating preservationists--that the community has the right to regulate private property--is a matter of law. The details, which the preservationists are not entirely happy with, are only another temporary obstacle to their goals. But those obstacles are minor with preservation advocate Ma Parker running the show. After the ordinance was passed, she said:
If 51 percent of property owners oppose the designation, the planning director must either recommend to City Council reducing the size of the district or eliminating it. Council is not bound to follow the recommendation.I previously noted that the principle underlying the preservation ordinance cedes complete control of property use in historic districts to city council. This provision confirms that fact.
The ordinance goes further than ignoring the desires and judgment of individual property owners. According to the Chronicle, even if every property owner in a district wants to rescind the historic designation, council has no obligation to honor that desire. In short, council can do as it damn well pleases. Council can substitute its judgment for that of the property owners and impose that judgment by coercion.
This is the logical and inevitable result of the principle accepted by council when it passed the first preservation ordinance. At that time council declared that it had the authority to control some uses of some properties. But "some" was only a temporary limitation made necessary by pragmatic political considerations.
Even the current ordinance is a compromise, as acknowledged by Ma Parker. But such compromises are a complete victory for the preservationists. The principle animating preservationists--that the community has the right to regulate private property--is a matter of law. The details, which the preservationists are not entirely happy with, are only another temporary obstacle to their goals. But those obstacles are minor with preservation advocate Ma Parker running the show. After the ordinance was passed, she said:
It is possible under this ordinance to have historic districts have a reconsideration and break off and some parts of those historic districts go away. I'm going to do my best to make sure that doesn't happen.Considering that she has a gun at her disposal, while those wishing to leave the historic district can do little more than beg for her cooperation, the prognosis isn't good for property owners in historic districts.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Power of Principles
Last week city council "proved" that I have psychic powers. About 17 years ago I predicted the action that council took last week in regard to the preservation ordinance.
In the early 1990s city council was considering Houston's first preservation ordinance. I spoke before council in opposition to the ordinance. A council member asked me if I had a problem with the 90-day moratorium--which allowed the city to halt demolition of "historic" buildings for 90 days. I replied that I was because in principle there was nothing to stop that council or a future council from extending the moratorium to 120 days, or 200 days, or banning demolition completely. Last week city council banned demolition of "historic" buildings.
Granted, my prediction was not predicated upon psychic powers. It was founded on the power of principles. Having recognized the principle underlying the preservation ordinance, it was easy to predict the future. It was easy to predict how that principle would be applied in the future.
In principle, the preservation ordinance held (as do all land-use regulations) that the use of property is rightfully determined by the community, not the owner. The owner's desires and judgment are to be sacrificed to that of the community. Seventeen years ago the community judged it proper to have a 90 day moratorium. Today it judges it proper to prohibit the demolition of "historic" buildings. The difference is merely a matter of details.
Interestingly, the council member who questioned me about the moratorium scoffed at my answer. I can't predict what future councils might do, he said. He was right, for without principles it is impossible to predict the consequences of any action. Without principles, the future is a realm into which we must blindly venture armed with nothing but a hope and a prayer. Without principles a politician can claim ignorance of what future councils might do--a claim that is not without merit.
Or, he can can make make dire predictions about the failure to address some immediate need--such as Houston's crumbling infrastructure--without reference to other issues, past events, or implications for the future. As a case in point, consider Ma Parker's plea that Houstonians vote in favor of the "rain tax." In Sunday's Chronicle she told us that unless we vote for Proposition 1 we won't be able to pick up our kids from school, will be stranded at work, and will spend sleepless nights watching the bayous.
What she doesn't tell us is precisely how the money will be spent. She doesn't tell us that similar promises by past politicians have almost always fallen far short of the intended panacea (for example, the sports stadiums and the Bayport Cruise Terminal). What she doesn't tell us is that rebuilding Houston's infrastructure will turn into a huge political battle as politicians and voters insist that their pet project receive the highest priority. While she insists that the proposition imposes restrictions on how the new tax money can be spent, she doesn't tell us that politicians make a living finding ways to skirt the law and bring home the bacon to their political supporters. She doesn't tell us because she lacks the means to do so--rational principles.
Just as the eventual result of the original preservation ordinance were easy to predict if one holds rational principles, so the outcome of Proposition 1 (if passed) is easy to predict. It will take longer than promised, cost more than projected, and divide the city into warring factions. I only hope that this time I don't have the opportunity to see my prediction come true.
In the early 1990s city council was considering Houston's first preservation ordinance. I spoke before council in opposition to the ordinance. A council member asked me if I had a problem with the 90-day moratorium--which allowed the city to halt demolition of "historic" buildings for 90 days. I replied that I was because in principle there was nothing to stop that council or a future council from extending the moratorium to 120 days, or 200 days, or banning demolition completely. Last week city council banned demolition of "historic" buildings.
Granted, my prediction was not predicated upon psychic powers. It was founded on the power of principles. Having recognized the principle underlying the preservation ordinance, it was easy to predict the future. It was easy to predict how that principle would be applied in the future.
In principle, the preservation ordinance held (as do all land-use regulations) that the use of property is rightfully determined by the community, not the owner. The owner's desires and judgment are to be sacrificed to that of the community. Seventeen years ago the community judged it proper to have a 90 day moratorium. Today it judges it proper to prohibit the demolition of "historic" buildings. The difference is merely a matter of details.
Interestingly, the council member who questioned me about the moratorium scoffed at my answer. I can't predict what future councils might do, he said. He was right, for without principles it is impossible to predict the consequences of any action. Without principles, the future is a realm into which we must blindly venture armed with nothing but a hope and a prayer. Without principles a politician can claim ignorance of what future councils might do--a claim that is not without merit.
Or, he can can make make dire predictions about the failure to address some immediate need--such as Houston's crumbling infrastructure--without reference to other issues, past events, or implications for the future. As a case in point, consider Ma Parker's plea that Houstonians vote in favor of the "rain tax." In Sunday's Chronicle she told us that unless we vote for Proposition 1 we won't be able to pick up our kids from school, will be stranded at work, and will spend sleepless nights watching the bayous.
What she doesn't tell us is precisely how the money will be spent. She doesn't tell us that similar promises by past politicians have almost always fallen far short of the intended panacea (for example, the sports stadiums and the Bayport Cruise Terminal). What she doesn't tell us is that rebuilding Houston's infrastructure will turn into a huge political battle as politicians and voters insist that their pet project receive the highest priority. While she insists that the proposition imposes restrictions on how the new tax money can be spent, she doesn't tell us that politicians make a living finding ways to skirt the law and bring home the bacon to their political supporters. She doesn't tell us because she lacks the means to do so--rational principles.
Just as the eventual result of the original preservation ordinance were easy to predict if one holds rational principles, so the outcome of Proposition 1 (if passed) is easy to predict. It will take longer than promised, cost more than projected, and divide the city into warring factions. I only hope that this time I don't have the opportunity to see my prediction come true.
Monday, October 11, 2010
A Holiday
My posting is going to be sporadic for a while. I have too many business activities demanding my attention (which is good). I am finding it more and more difficult to find time for blogging.
I am also tiring of commenting on negative policies and ideas all of the time, and want to consider a different approach to the blog.
I am also tiring of commenting on negative policies and ideas all of the time, and want to consider a different approach to the blog.
The Real Tragedy of Bullying
An OpEd in Sunday's Chronicle tells us that we must protect kids from bullying. Citing a growing number of suicides by bullied teenagers, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, write:
Sebelius and Duncan claim that the victims of bullying cannot stand up for themselves. They argue that society must do so. But they fail to tell us why. Instead, all they offer are assertions, which is itself a symptom of the problem.
A proper educational system would teach children to think logically and to judge critically. A proper educational system would provide children with the intellectual tools required to judge the claims and assertions of others. A proper educational system would prepare children for life as rational, independent individuals.
But this is not what public education does. The public educational system is more concerned with protecting a child's self-esteem than teaching thinking skills. The public educational system is more concerned with students passing standardized tests than learning how to solve problems. The public educational system is more concerned with teaching children to get along with others than to think independently.
John Dewey, the father of Progressive education, captured the essence of public education in his book, Democracy and Education:
Bullying is a pathetic activity, but there are far worse actions that an individual can take. And destroying the minds of innocent children is one of them.
The events of the last few weeks have filled many of us with sadness and anger. They should also fill us with determination to do everything we can to stand up for Seth, Tyler, Asher, Billy, Justin and millions of other young people who can't do it for themselves.That a teenager would conclude that his life isn't worth living is certainly sad and tragic. But the cause of these suicides goes beyond the taunts of ignorant peers.
Sebelius and Duncan claim that the victims of bullying cannot stand up for themselves. They argue that society must do so. But they fail to tell us why. Instead, all they offer are assertions, which is itself a symptom of the problem.
A proper educational system would teach children to think logically and to judge critically. A proper educational system would provide children with the intellectual tools required to judge the claims and assertions of others. A proper educational system would prepare children for life as rational, independent individuals.
But this is not what public education does. The public educational system is more concerned with protecting a child's self-esteem than teaching thinking skills. The public educational system is more concerned with students passing standardized tests than learning how to solve problems. The public educational system is more concerned with teaching children to get along with others than to think independently.
John Dewey, the father of Progressive education, captured the essence of public education in his book, Democracy and Education:
Setting up conditions which stimulate certain visible and tangible ways of acting is the first step. Making the individual a sharer or partner in the associated activity so that he feels its success as his success, its failure as his failure, is the completing step. As soon as he is possessed by the emotional attitude of the group, he will be alert to recognize the special ends at which it aims and the means employed to secure success. His beliefs and ideas, in other words, will take a form similar to those of others in the group. (pages 16- 17)Dewey's purpose, and the end result of Progressive education, is to destroy the ability of individuals to think and judge independently. Faced with the taunts and jeers of one's peers, an independent thinking child would reject such bullying for what it is: The mindless ignorance of Neanderthals. However, a child who cannot think for himself can easily allow such harassment to shape his own self-image. He can easily conclude that he is somehow deficient and his life is worthless.
Bullying is a pathetic activity, but there are far worse actions that an individual can take. And destroying the minds of innocent children is one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
