For those of you keeping track, he got less than 1.4% of the vote.
*head-desk*
Comments Off on Kucinich Wants New Hampshire Recount
Posted in Certainty, Elections, Political Animals
A letter I sent while away over Christmas.
Editor, Washington Post:
Michael Gerson’s attempt to reconcile evolution and belief in God is laudable (“Divine Evolution,” Dec. 21, A35). But his implication that theism is a requirement for virtue is unnecessary.
Gerson writes of religious skepticism’s “disturbing moral and political implications,” and asserts that “those who believe that men are meat are more likely to treat men as meat.”
In other words, only religiosity ensures human decency. Not so.
Those who do not believe in the hereafter have all the more incentive to ensure that this life is one well lived. After all, it is the only one we get. Virtue is crucial for making this life the best we can.
It means less weight on one’s conscience. It means earning the love of family and friends, and returning it in kind. In our careers, honesty, integrity, and reputation are good for business.
Faith can help some people be more virtuous; it is good that they have that recourse. But to say that virtue crumbles without faith is wrong. There are good, honest people throughout the world who live without Gerson’s faith. I try every day to be one of them.
Ryan Young
Arlington, VA
Comments Off on Faith and Virtue
Posted in Philosophy, The Old Religion
Some people believe faith is necessary for decency. Some think it hinders it. The truth is far more nuanced, but here’s a pithy example of one skeptic’s point of view:
“If a man needs a religion to conduct himself properly in this world, it is a sign that he has either a limited mind or a corrupt heart.”
Comments Off on Religion and Decency
Posted in Great Thinkers, Philosophy, The Old Religion
Back when monarchy was en vogue, most people favored an ironclad, hereditary succession. This prevented “a periodic invitation to anarchy,” as historians Will and Ariel Durant put it.*
Presidential elections in the United States seem to have disproved this hypothesis. Even in the most hotly contested elections, anarchy has not ensued. Just low approval ratings in polls.
Does this mean that people are more docile these days?
Hear me out. Recall the assaults on the Bill of Rights in recent years. The PATRIOT Act. The War on Drugs. The War on Terror. McCain-Feingold. Eminent domain abuse. The TSA. The list goes on.
What popular uprisings have sprung up to protest these intrusions on our rights? The Ron Paul R3VOLution?
Oh, bother.
(* Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Reason Begins, p. 627)
Comments Off on On the Succession of Kings, and Ron Paul
Posted in Elections, Great Thinkers, Philosophy, Political Animals
P.J. O’Rourke has an interesting review of Taylor Clark’s Starbucked, an anti-corporate biography of the coffee chain. O’Rourke paints a kindly portrait of the author as a young groupthink anti-corporatist who, in writing his book, came to realize some of the limits of his dogma:
“I never came to like “Starbucked.” But I grew very fond of its writer. Most books about social and business phenomena give the reader something to think about. This book gave the author something to think about… I experienced the pleasure a teacher must feel when he watches a kid with promise outgrowing the vagaries and muddles of immaturity (and the jitters of too many coffee-fueled all-nighters) and coming into his own as a young man of learning, reason and sense.”
Comments Off on Coffee and Corporations
Posted in Certainty, Economics, Philosophy, The Market Process, The Partisan Mind
Special report from the AP:
Victims of climate change, real and potential, appealed Tuesday for a vast increase in international aid to protect them from and compensate them for rising seas, crop-killing drought and other likely impacts of global warming.
Where to begin? Al Gore says sea levels will rise by 20 feet. His co-Nobelist IPCC’s number is less than that by a factor of ten.
Consensus!
Other impacts? John Brignell has about 600 of them. Highlights: “Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, bananas destroyed, bananas grow, billions of deaths, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink…” and that’s only a sample of A through C. More consensus!
The article goes on to advocate a replacement for Kyoto when it expires in 2012, “aviation taxes or direct taxes on all fossil-fuel use,” and so on.
I might suggest actually identifying the problem before prescribing a solution.
These people have what I call The Certainty. They are Certain of the problem, and Certain of its solution. If you are not also Certain, or (worse!) disagree, well then you just have to be wrong, no matter your reasoning. Almost sounds like a religion…
Comments Off on Climate Fund
Posted in Certainty, The New Religion
Rousseau is something of an intellectual godfather to today’s environmental movement. This is a shame; his philosophy was vicious and anti-human to its core.
Like Locke, he thought that man in the state of nature was basically good. Locke also thought man was better off in civil society than in the state of nature.
Rousseau, on the other hand, thought man better off in nature than in civil society. He denounced civilization itself and had a distaste for any technology, even as fundamental as fire, fishhooks, or bows and arrows.
His ideal man was solitary, meeting others only as necessary for procreation. Higher thought was to be avoided, as it may lead to dangerous ideas like property rights and civilization. Rousseau’s ideal man isn’t much different from any other animal, except that some primates and birds are known to use tools.
Despite all this, Rousseau chose to live most of his life in major cities such as Paris, Geneva, and Venice.
Nobody, not even Rousseau, denies the material and medical benefits of civilization. Knowing all this, he still placed humanity beneath his personal ideal of nature. People still believe this today; the more hardcore environmentalists advocate technological regress, and would gladly pay the price of a lower standard of living.
This also assumes that progress and technology are bad for the environment; not so.
Most people who consider themselves environmentalists haven’t thought this through. They should. This new religion of theirs can be dangerous for our health.
Comments Off on Speaking of Rousseau…
Posted in Great Thinkers, Philosophy, The New Religion
E.J. Dionne’s latest column praises Maryland governor Martin O’Malley. It begins:
Imagine a place where the leading politician pokes fun at those who “regard all taxes as a pestilence, a plague or a disease.”
Imagine the same politician saying: “Not one of us wants to pay more in taxes. But you know what we want even less? What we want even less is to leave our country to our kids in a worsened condition.”
O’Malley probably thinks he looks Pragmatic and Moderate. That will get him Votes, which are a politican’s lifeblood. Forgive me then, for being more concerned with being correct than popular.
O’Malley gives us a choice here between keeping taxes low and bettering the country – for the children, natch. It is a false choice.
Look at some of Maryland’s new spending initiatives the tax increase will fund: more money for health care. More money for education. Transportation. Environmental cleanup. Wonderful things all. But O’Malley is choosing the wrong means for pursuing these ends.
For example, Maryland has some lousy public schools, especially in Baltimore. But giving them more money literally rewards their failure. This problem is systemic; the solution then is to get government out of the education business. Even if it isn’t Pragmatic or Moderate.
And we’ve all heard the stories about how well government health care intiatives work – they don’t. And when something doesn’t work, you should stop doing it. Even if it costs you Votes.
Someone should tell Governor O’Malley that it is better to do good than to look good. Cut spending. The $550m in cuts this year is a good start, even if it’s negated by other increases. After spending is down and the deficit is under control, cut taxes. The children will thank you for it later.
Comments Off on Doing Good vs. Looking Good
Posted in Economics, education, Philosophy, Political Animals, Public Choice
CNN.com has a scary homepage story today entitled Stock Selloff Deepens.
The headline is misleading. One cannot sell something without a buyer. The headline could just as easily read read “Stock Buyup Deepens,” but that would also be misleading. It should simply note that trading volume is above average today. And despite a 415 point drop, the Dow is still over 12,000, not too far from its record high.
My hunch is that the story’s ominous tone is intentional, even though it is false. A scare-prone investor would be more likely to click on the story if it forecasts impending doom than if it said, “everything’s fine, nothing to see here.”
One could take an anti-corporate stance here. CNN, after all, is trumping up a non-story and scaring people for no reason other than to boost their traffic – and their ad revenues.
Such a stance is too shallow to be correct, though. Going a level deeper, the blame here lies on the human condition itself. As a survival mechanism, people pay attention to things they perceive to be threatening, and they tend to ignore non-threats.
Add to this Say’s Law, which in simplified form, says that where there is a demand, someone will supply it. CNN sees demand for doom-and-gloom, and caters to it. A company that did not do this would go out of business. Natural selection processes would ensure that mostly doom-and-gloom news is supplied, since there is less demand for sunshine and happiness.
The real world, which is neither all doom nor all sunshine, is given short shrift.
In other words, I’m afraid we’re doomed to lousy news coverage forever. And this is just one reason why I don’t watch cable news.
I’m sure this Human Nature + Say’s Law + Darwin framework could be applied to other areas, but I’ll save that for another time.
Comments Off on EVERYBODY PANIC
Posted in Economics, Media, Philosophy
The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036To the Editor:
Much as I enjoy conservative-bashing, I was disappointed in Paul Krugman’s October 5 column, “Conservatives Are Such Jokers.” He almost reflexively assumes that people who disagree with him have checkered motives. He comes off as reluctant to argue policies on their merits, in this case the SCHIP children’s health insurance program.
Why so quick to question his opponents’ motives? SCHIP opponents have put forward arguments that are either right or wrong. Motives have nothing to do with whether those arguments are right or wrong.
SCHIP opponents don’t like the program because they don’t think it will improve childrens’ health outcomes. The disagreement is a question of means, not ends. Does anyone actually favor having sicker children?
While Mr. Krugman clearly favors expanding the SCHIP program, he doesn’t really say why. I invite him to make his case – on the merits.
Ryan Young
Arlington, VA
Comments Off on What Makes Someone Right or Wrong?
Posted in Argumentation, Correspondence, Economics, Health Care, Philosophy, The Partisan Mind
Tagged children, childrens health insurance, Health Care, health insurance, insurance, paul krugman, schip