Tibor's space

Column on how the World is Now

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:10:00 GMT

My Mother the Historian

Tibor R. Machan

Heidelberg, Germany. My mother, who lives in Germany now, is nearly 90
years old and enjoys full use of her mental faculties. If anything, she
is sharper now than she has ever been, partly because at her age she no
longer can be bothered with trivial problems and has come to accept her
situation for exactly what it is. One reason she is in such good shape,
both mentally and to a considerable extent physically, is that all her
life she has been an athlete, competing for many decades and later
coaching in the sport of fencing.

On a recent visit I asked her whether judging by the stream of television,
radio, and print media news reports she finds the world she is aware of
now much worse, roughly the same or much batter than it had been
throughout her life. I figured she would have a reasonably educated
opinion about this, having lived through so much, smack in the middle of
Europe. The incredible economic upheavals in the first third of the 20th
century, then World War II and the Holocaust, then the cold war which she
spend in communist Hungary, and then the post 9/11 years. So I asked her
whether she thinks that today we are in such dire straits as so many
commentators claim we are?

As usually, my mother doesn’t make snap judgments but in the end the gist
of what she said was this: “Over the nearly 80 years of my conscious life
I have found that the worst thing was my and millions of other people’s
lives under Soviet style communism, with only the brief but horrible
experience with the Third Reich to match it. Apart from that, things have
been up and down but pretty decent during most times and the current
hysteria is just that, a way for politicians to scare people so they will
entrust them with the job of solving problems by taking everyone’s money
and imposing numerous restrictions of individual liberties and claming
this is necessary so as to remedy whatever ails us.”

My mother and I do not share each other’s overall philosophy, not by a
long shot. She certainly is no libertarian. But on this issue she and I
see eye to eye. I have never been convinced that the hyperbole broadcast
at television viewers gives an accurate picture of how things are with the
world. Nearly every day’s headlines suggest that everything is going to
hell in a hand-basket.

So with my mother’s admittedly amateurish but not ignorant help, I go back
to my old adage: “For every minute of watching TV news, also watch a
minute of some travel program.” Between the two sources of how the world
is doing, one is likely to get an accurate and balanced picture. Nearly
everything reported on the news presents the world as a miserable, failed
arena of human affairs, while nearly everything shown on travel programs
gives us a rosy view wherever the host is taking us, whatever aspect of
human life he or she shares with us.

No doubt there are overall better and worse times we all face around us
but they are rarely as lousy as the reporters, anchors, and commentators
at Fox TV, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC make them out to be. A quick clue to
this is available by comparing the facial expressions of the anchors,
reporters, and commentators in the media to the facial expressions of the
people one encounters in restaurants, sporting events, family dinners and
so forth. Indeed, if the former were an accurate representation of the
mood of the world, I suspect there would be far more suicides than there
actually are. Hardly anyone could carry on with the attitude these media
folks convey to us. A great many more of us than actually do would throw
in the towel.

Sadly, the mood conveyed in the media has its influence and that is
something highly lamentable. But if one remembers that those folks have a
personal stake in making things look much worse than they are, one may
regain a more levelheaded perspective on the world as well as about one’s
own—and one’s children’s and grandchildren’s—prospects.

Column on CNN's Statism

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:59:39 GMT

The Statism of CNN

Tibor R. Machan

Should one ever claim that mainstream media is statist, let alone Left
leaning, a bunch of voices will rise in protest. How could that be?
After all, don’t giant corporations own the media? Which, of course,
assumes something totally unwarranted, namely, that corporations are
managed by champions of free enterprise. Baloney. Corporate managers can
be just as devoted to trying to get government to redistribute wealth in
their direction as are educators, artists, scientists, farmers, or any
other “special interest” group.

The charge that is worth considering is that the media, especially news
organizations with their commentators and reporters, lean toward statism,
which is to say, they favor turning to government with nearly any problem
people face in their communities. The only exception is where the press
itself faces problems, and when it comes to religious matters, mainly
because the fairly strong tradition of separation of journalism and
government, as well as religion and government, at least in the United
States of America.

On a recent lecture tour through a good bit of Europe I had a chance to
watch BBC-TV and CNN-TV quite regularly. Although I speak and understand a
smattering of German, English is the language I use routinely for
obtaining information on current affairs.

On one occasion I was watching a report on Kenya which just went through
an especially violent election season. I turns out that one result of
this has been a serious reduction of tourism in that country the economy
of which is usually the vital beneficiary of this industry.

At the beginning of the broadcast CNN’s anchor introduced the topic and
then brought in a stringer from Kenya who elaborated on it, giving some
specifics, numbers, and anecdotal evidence. Once this was over, the
camera went back to the anchor who promptly posed the following question:
“What is the Kenyan government doing about this problem?” Exactly why it
is the government’s task to do anything at all about tourism in Kenya
viewers were not told. Just what skills does the government possess that
would especially qualify it to do something about this problem? Nothing
was said about that.

Imagine for a moment that the TV audience was being given a report on a
sporting event, say the recent Wimbledon tennis tournament. As was the
case this year, many of the games, especially during finals, experienced
inclement weather. Frequent showers led to stoppage of matches and a few
had to be extended into the wee hours of the night. But, lo and behold, no
commentators raised the question, “What are the referees doing about the
inclement weather?”

But, you may say, well the weather is something very different from
violent interruptions of political elections. Yes, in some ways it is.
But in some ways it isn’t. Both manage to interrupt normal proceedings
and neither can be dealt with post facto, including by those charged with
upholding the rules. While the government might have done something about
the violence that interrupted Kenyan electoral politics, once the
interruption occurred, what could it do? Nothing.

The best way to improve the climate for tourism in Kenya has nothing much
to do with government. It has to do with merchants getting back to work,
resorts opening their doors, oil companies revving up their productivity,
and business in general hiring reliable security agents; this might well
make Kenya into an especially appealing place for tourists to visit with
no help from the government.

It is, of course, ironic that a CNN’s anchor would assume that government
will solve Kenya’s tourism problem, given that governments tend to pose
rather annoying obstacles to tourism in most places around the globe.
Moreover, the violence during the election campaigns had been prompted, in
large measure, by the political circumstances of Kenya, so it isn’t likely
that politicians are going to manage to remedy matters.

In any case, the point I wish to focus on is just how readily CNN buys
into the government habit, how it is nearly second nature to its anchors
to expect all problems to be solved by government, never mind whether it
is government’s expertise that best addresses the problem. And CNN isn’t
alone, only a clear cut example. For CNN the government is treated as the
almighty. Not only is it not the task of news anchors to perpetuate the
myth of almighty government but such a myth will reinforce false
expectations.

It is bad enough that too many ordinary folks place their trust in
government—the use of physical force—but to have the supposedly impartial,
unbiased media reinforce this is unprofessional and truly lamentable.

Column on Scientists & Morality

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:40:52 GMT

Scientists and Morality

Tibor R. Machan

Natural scientists are pretty much committed to understanding the world
without reference to morality since if what happens does so because of
impersonal forces of nature, there would seem to be no room for
consideration of right versus wrong, good versus bad, at least not so far
as human beings could do anything about it. So, for example, human
misbehavior or misconduct doesn’t depend on people but is due to
ineluctable natural determinants. Even the misconduct of scientists, the
few who fake evidence or plagiarize, simply happens the way a disease or
earthquake does. All one can do is lament it, the way one laments a
tsunami or tornado. No one is to blame. Nor, of course, are achievements
anything but welcome but impersonal events. No one is to be praised for
them, no one gains credit.

Yet, while many scientists are committed to expunging morality or ethics
from human life—at most they admit that there are undesirable and
desirable features of it—they also act as if morality or ethics did
matter. As when some of them, say ecologists or climatologists, blame
people for anthropogenic global warming or anything else that many believe
is due to irresponsible human behavior. They chide millions for imprudent
conduct; they denounce people who drive SUVs, fail to recycle, or ignore
the scientists’ warnings about what is or isn’t environmentally proper.
And, of course, medical scientists routinely blame patients for failing to
heed warnings about overeating or smoking or lack of exercise. There is,
also, the ubiquitous internal quarreling among some scientists about who
is right or wrong about various predictions and projections.

In short, even though many scientists are committed to viewing human
conduct as no different from the behavior of the weather or the change of
seasons—these just happen, never mind choice or decision—they also
frequently engage in moral chiding, blaming which assumes we can make
choices, for better or for worse. They talk of what would have happened
had people only done this or not done that, just as if they believed that
it is quite in people’s power to act differently from how they do actually
act, or to have done so in the past.

Yet, this internal inconsistency among many scientists who are also quite
moralistic about human behavior is not at all widely scrutinized. There
is almost a kind of polite silence about it all. When scientists complain
about how little attention people pay to their own warnings about one
thing and another, few if any ever raise the issue of whether people had
any choice about this—maybe they had to pay the little or no attention
they did, maybe that is all a matter of the unfolding of impersonal
evolutionary forces.

When a great many scientists, writing, say, for publications such as
Science or Science News, chide government for not supporting science with
enough funds—something that many of them do routinely vis-à-vis the
administration of George W. Bush and in anticipation of a new
administration—they forget all about their assumption of que sera, sera,
“what will be will be” and no choice exists about these matters, free will
being a pre-scientific illusions according to them—few take up this
paradox in their own stance. If, indeed, there is no choice about any of
this, then does it make any sense to complain that certain politicians
aren’t choosing to do enough about global warming and other environmental
issues? After all, they are powerless to do anything other than what they
do, are they not? But if so, what’s all the fuss about, why complain, why
chide?

It seems to be intellectually confused, if not outright dishonest, for
thousands of scientists to avoid this issue. They maintain that they are
the most reliable source of information about how we ought to be going
about many of our concerns in life, yet they are also committed to the
notion that whatever we do must happen and nothing can be altered as a
matter of our decision, our choice.

Perhaps the answer is that scientists, contrary to the conceit of many of
them, are not the only ones who can have something useful to contribute to
the understanding of human affairs. Perhaps they need to consider that
some of what is true about people isn’t informed only by their
relentlessly deterministic outlook. After all, they themselves aren’t able
to explain what they do from that perspective alone.

They should perhaps heed the words of one of their colleagues, the British
psychologist Bannister, who pointed out that a theorist “cannot present a
picture of man which patently contradicts his behavior in presenting that
picture.” (Borger & Cioffi/Bannister, eds., Explanation in the
Behavioural Sciences [Cambridge UP, 1970], p. 417.)

Column on Capitalism Commpared

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:37:25 GMT

Some Sources of Anti-capitalism

Tibor R. Machan

There is, of course, the idea Marx made prominent that no one ought to
benefit from another’s need. So doctors and nurses and actually nearly
everyone who is working for another who has a need for this work should
just doing pro bono, out of the goodness of his or her heart. As all of
one’s clients and customers were one’s bosom buddies or one’s family. We
should just share our resources, our time, in the end ourselves with the
rest of humanity! That’s the ideal against which free market capitalism,
the arena of the deal, is being compared. No wonder it comes up short.
Anything would when compared with such a fantasy.

But there is another thing the matter with capitalism or what may come
close to it here and there in the world. This is another thing that’s
held against the system, namely, that lots of people like to obtain loads
of stuff that gets produced in it. Yes, consumerism is this supposed
evil, the thing the Pope recently complained about.

Now no doubt sometime people who are working hard or just got lucky like
to spend their money on lots of stuff, on vacations, and fine dining and
the like. The more the merrier, for some, it would seem, and refined
folks just won’t have any of that. Instead of finding this quaint and
understandable, consider that all these consumers come from families with
histories of poverty and bare subsistence—so a bit of indulgence could be
entirely forgivable (not to mention useful in creating millions of jobs).
The snooty ones, however, want everyone to purchase only articles that
come from museums and galleries. They deride those of us who just want to
have some goodies that our parents and grandparents never had the choice
to get. And for such accesses we are denounced as hedonists and
materialists! Oh, give me a break.

No doubt some of the exuberant acquisition that goes on in free markets
may look a bit over the top, even tacky. But why make such a big deal
about it? It doesn’t hurt anyone when people go shopping—they are
creating jobs, too, not just satisfying their wants and desires (as if
there were something wrong with that). There is little else people do with
strangers that comes as close to realistic good relations as what goes on
in free markets, even as people make deals and money off each other. When
people lash out at consumerism I get to thinking they haven’t got much of
a life and need to meddle too much in others’ affairs. A friend ascribes
nearly all of it to sheer envy but I suspect that the legacy of Puritanism
has more to do with it. You know puritans, whom H. L. Mencken accused of
being worried that someplace someone might just be happy and we cannot
have such a thing happen!

It is rue that in substantially liberal—classical not modern
liberal—societies men and women have the opportunity to be self-indulgent
to a fault. Such is it with freedom—a great variety of human tendencies
are given vent in free systems. But so long as the normal state of affairs
involves peaceful interaction among people, even this bit of
self-indulgence will be contained and have few negative externalities.
Moreover, with a little help from one’s family, friends and neighbors,
these can be reigned in.

Compare these awful liabilities of substantially capitalist systems with
those of socialism or fascism or communism. Now there are experiments
that take their toll on human societies big time. Concentration camps,
gulags, oppression, madness and such are routine when those dreams get
tried for real. All these attempts to coercively regiment human beings,
to force them to be good, noble, generous, valiant and the like may look
good on paper and in Hollywood movies but wherever they are seriously
implemented they produced disaster, misery, poverty and acrimony.

I bet all of us would be better of in a country where freedom is the
default position and on one gets to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on
the lives of the population. Sure, there will still be human failings
about. Yes, perfection will not descend upon us all. No, the critics will
not have exhausted their list of beefs with their fellow human beings.

But a free society is head and shoulders superior to any of the utopian
dreams the critics of capitalism invoke when they decry that system.

Column on What's with the Pope

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:16:35 GMT

What’s the Pope’s Problem?

Tibor R. Machan

Salzburg, Austria. BBC TV broadcast the news a few days ago that Pope
Benedict has condemned “popular culture and consumerism” during his trip
to Australia. I am not sure why this is important to report—would BBC TV
inform its viewers about the pronouncements of the “Reverend” Moon, the
current leader of the Mormon Church or, indeed, of the leaders of the 4000
plus different religions registered in the USA alone? What makes this
particular church leader so special?

I ask this as a former Roman Catholic, one who was raised in that religion
as a kid in Communist Hungary and who is fully aware of the myriads of
negative side effects this can produce for a person (namely, guilt, guilt,
and more guilt for just wanting to have a reasonably joyful life). Since
that time I have come to be very, very suspicious of the claims of Roman
Catholics and, actually, members of most other churches to having a sound
understanding of human affairs. And one area where I am especially weary
of what men like the Pope say is concerning the mundane purposes people
have, such as wishing to live prosperously, wanting to gain some pleasures
and wealth in their lives, of hoping to enjoy themselves instead of
suffering, which is what many religions teach is the noble way for us all
to live. No, that just won’t do for me and, I suspect, for increasingly
many people.

It is, by the way, one thing for Jesus to have suffered since, after all,
he was supposed to be both man and God and as such suffering couldn’t
possibly amount for him to what it does for an ordinary mortal. So
imitating Jesus in this and many other respects simply cannot be something
humanly noble—why should a mortal human being seek to suffer? There is
simply no sense in that at all.

But even apart from the wrongheaded idea that we ought to reject what
pleasures and enjoyments this world can offer us—i. e., condemn
consumerism—there is the sheer audacity of the head the Vatican City
chiding other people for their embrace of abundance and wealth. Have you
ever visited the Vatican? I have and the measure of its ostentatious and
very mundane wealth—no, opulence—is something to behold.

Indeed, the very first attraction on the way around the City is a gaudy
shop with thousands of Catholic trinkets for sale. Talk about
consumerism—few places match this blatant display of commercial savvy.
(If you don’t know the place, just think of those shops you find at art
museums, with all those reproductions of the works displayed and the books
about them for sale! And then multiply these several hundredfold.)

All of this really comes down to the great likelihood of Papal hypocrisy.
And this cannot be news to most Catholics, either, given their awareness
of the display of splendor, glitter, and pomp at high mass. I don’t know
where else we would find the likes of this other than at some of the
palaces that remain as reminders of the obscene plunder of kings and other
monarchs and the dictators such as “communist” Rumania last dictator.
Who, then, is the Pope to condemn consumerism which, by my study of
history, is a feeble attempt of ordinary human beings, ever since the
emerges of relatively free markets, to acquire, honestly, a tiny fraction
of the world’s goodies compared to what the upper classes, including
religious leaders, of the past got their hands on mostly illicitly.

Yes, just think of it: consumerism amounts mainly to folks making a try at
acquiring, fair and square, all sorts of useful and enjoyable goods and
services now available to millions of us. In the past comparable stuff
was only available to a select few and they didn’t come by it honestly but
mostly by plunder and conquest. We today go shopping, after we have
earned some coins in the market place doing work that other people freely
chose to purchase from us.

Honest trade is a central feature of consumerism and this is what the Pope
finds so abhorrent. Would he rather have us return to an era when only the
leaders of Church and assorted monarchs were in the position to obtain
such merchandise, mostly by intimidation and extortion—such as selling
forgiveness to gullible well to do folks who went along with the deal
through ignorance and fear rather than free judgment and by threatening
subjects within the realm, respectively?

Furthermore is it not curious that the Pope’s pronouncements seem to
escape the scrutiny of the chattering classes? Perhaps not, since the bulk
of them also lament it endlessly that ordinary human beings would rather
go shopping than sacrifice themselves for various more or less dubious
objectives like taking precaution with the environment (whatever that grab
bag idea really is supposed to mean). Although many of these intellectuals
are doubtful about religion, they do share with the myriad of churches a
disdain for the popular pursuit of earthly joys.

So no wonder that the Pope condemns popular culture and consumerism—they
are in competition with him in the effort to gain people’s devotion and
loyalty. Trouble is what the Pope claims to offer is something quite
elusive and mysterious, whereas what we find in the market place, at the
mall for example, has the advantage of bringing us concrete, clearly
understandable satisfaction. No wonder we are implored to feel guilt for
wanting it in our lives!

Maybe I am just harboring resentments against the Catholics for having
made my childhood and adolescence so full of misery—guilt, shame,
self-denial, self-loathing, and so forth. Probably I just wish to warn
people off of falling for the ruse I went along with for a couple of
decades of my early life.

Column on a Chance for Freedom?

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:26:10 GMT

A Chance for Freedom?

Tibor R. Machan

Lugano, Switzerland: Over the last two and a half decades or so I have
been attending conferences organized by the Business & Economics Society
International that has its home at Assumption College in New Hampshire.
This summer I believe I have attended for the fifth or sixth time, often
presenting papers and taking part in discussions about business ethics and
political economy.

When I first decided to submit a paper I was very skeptical, given how
hostile so many academics are toward a fully free market. And indeed,
aside from the organizers who seem to have a penchant for a bit of
fireworks at these events, nearly all those who encountered my defense of
free markets, private property rights, globalization, free trade
agreements, and so forth found what I was saying nearly abhorrent.
Nonetheless, given the at least nominal commitment of academics to wide
open discussions in their various disciplines, I managed to find some who
would carry on a civilized conversation about my radical capitalist,
libertarian position. But as far as sympathies for it, there was very
little of that to be found and some were pretty hostile, charging me with
the usual stuff about being an apologist for the ruling class, etc.

But because I do have a bit of a knack for presenting these ideas in a
civil tone, the organizers kept accepting my submissions and in time
invited me to give one of the keynote addresses at two or three of these
meetings. That is just what happened this year when I presented my
critique of stakeholder theory—or Corporate Social Responsibility—to a
surprisingly packed house at the conference in Lugano, Switzerland.

Although there were several people who showed their disdain, even
hostility toward the position I laid out, I have to say things were quite
different this time from what they had been back when I started to attend
these meetings. To my very pleasant surprise a great many in this year’s
audience were very receptive and even went out of their way to express
their approval of someone with my position having been provided with a
prominent spot in the proceedings. And some of these were among the ones
who showed little patience back a few years ago for anything that smacked
of support for free market capitalism.

It is, of course, very difficult to assess whether a set of arguments is
gaining favor with a proportionately growing number of people in some
field but my impression over the last few years has been that around the
globe capitalism is gaining ground, at least as a way to understand how
economies should work. Scholars from New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan,
Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and many other places who attend these
conferences appear to be looking with greater favor at privatization,
globalization, the system of private property rights and freedom of
contracts than they did just a few years ago. Indeed, it is most often
academics from America and Great Britain who voice vehement opposition,
even outright hostility, while those from newly emerging countries, ones
who are just now beginning to join the international economic and business
community as active participants, show much interest and express support.

Of course I am under no illusion that these ideas I find most sensible are
sweeping the globe, especially in academic institutions. Even this last
time several of the scholars in the audience actually booed me, not just
once but repeatedly, when I argued my case for the right of shareholders
to set the direction managers should follow instead of having public
authorities and folks like Ralph Nader call the shots. The governmental
habit is still quite pervasive! This reactionary trust in top down
organization and management of the economic affairs of countries, one so
reminiscent of mercantilism despite the self-serving term “progressive”
its cheerleaders use to call it, is very disconcerting for anyone who
wishes economic well being for people throughout the globe.

It always baffles me a bit that a great many educated folks just stick to
the faith that when government undertakes to address a problem, there will
be solutions bubbling out all over the place, as if those in government
possessed magical powers. At the same time, oddly, their distrust of
people in business persists, as if free men and women had some innate
proclivity toward mendacity the moment they entered the market place.

Still, I am again encouraged and perhaps so should be all those who hold
out for the promise of liberty. It is no utopia but beats all alternatives
hands down with what it has achieved and has the potential for achieving.

Column on Anti-American Paradoxes

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:31:00 GMT

An Anti-American Paradox

Tibor R. Machan

Over the decades, ever since I got smitten by the American experiment in
community life, it has been one of my more masochistic tasks to watch out
for criticisms, denunciations, derisions, ridiculing of and expressions of
contempt for the country, mostly by erudite intellectuals. It began with
my college professors who, nearly without exception, had only disdain for
the general ideas that have been associated with America. I am talking,
of course, the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of
Rights. Scorn is what a long line of such critics—well, that may be too
flattering a term for most of them since the bulk merely looked down their
noses at the place—expressed in class after class, book after book, paper
after paper, and article after article. Even as recently as the early
2000s I ran across a bunch of books in which the purpose was clearly to
invalidate notions of liberty, justice, and rights associated with
America. Thus we have professors writing books, published by the most
prestig
ious houses, on how ownership—the right to private property so prominently
featured in the U. S. Constitution, both explicitly and implicitly—is a
myth. Or how the rights listed in the Declaration and the Constitution are
far less significant than those invited in, say, the era of the New Deal.

Ok, so there are many critics of the American political tradition at
colleges and universities, at magazines that are sold to folks who
consider themselves sophisticated way beyond the simpletons who forged the
founding documents. That would be something to be expected. Colleges and
universities demand of their faculty “original research and scholarship”
and nothing passes better for that than tomes attacking the ideas and
ideals of the Founders and their teachers, like John Locke. It is beneath
the lofty self-image of the bulk of these educated people to actually
admit that those people who founded the country had identified true
principles of community life. No, instead what they are accused of having
done is incorporated their class biases into the foundations of American
society. They were, in short, mere ideologues, pretending that their
preferences amounted to basic principles—exactly as Karl Marx and his
followers had argued about John Locke and Adam Smith. (See, for the
clearest instance, Marx’s
posthumously published book, Grundrisse.)

Yet if you dig deep enough into the mass of critical works, there is
something rather peculiar that becomes evident. Nearly all the critics
deploy standards by which to denigrate American society, which are part of
the American political tradition itself. Take slavery. It is by reference
to the principles of the Declaration of Independence that this institution
turns out to be utterly peculiar, as Lincoln understood very well. Or take
the oft heard lament that American society has been unjust toward women
and minorities. This, too, is a complaint that gains its soundness from
taking the principles in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights very
seriously. All the concerns in the criminal law about the unjust
treatment of suspects make sense in light of the conception of justice
that the founding documents embody.

Even the more alien charges, say about the lack of equal pay for equal
work or the mistreatment of illegal immigrants, can be related, perhaps a
bit awkwardly, to certain notions in the American political and legal
tradition. Yes, some of those charges are based on a far more egalitarian
political stance that is incorporate in the American viewpoint but they
resonate with many Americans because they appear to be based on that
viewpoint—“all men [i.e., human beings] are created equal” and “they are
endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.” That surely includes
both citizens and foreigners!

Even criticisms of America’s frequently ill conceived foreign and military
policies gain their strongest backing from distinctly American principles.
Of course, from the inception of the country there has been a debate
afoot about how best to interpret the founding principles, with some
favoring a strong central government—including what this may imply for
foreign affairs—some championing limited (though perhaps not necessarily
small) government and how that would influence foreign policy. But the
basic notions about individual rights, due process, free markets, and
equal justice for all found few outright enemies apart from defenders of
chattel slavery and some reactionary male chauvinists.

The point to remember here is that anti-American lambastes tended and
still tend to rest on America’s very own distinctive principles, ones that
may be present to some extent in other societies (Great Britain,
Australia, France and some other European countries come to mind).
Foreign interventionism is ill fitted for a country that tends to rest on
the idea that force may only be used in self-defense. Never mind that
this has never been that closely adhered to, mostly with the excuse that
survival required expansion or humanitarian concerns imply exporting
American ideals abroad. The point is that the operative terms of debate
in all these instances arise from the American political and legal
tradition, not from those that form the basis of the countries in Europe,
Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. When the American government and
military are charged with the inhumane treatment, even torture, of “enemy
combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, the basic premise underlying the charge is
that individuals may not be
subjected to harm unless they have been shown to deserve this. Mere
“reasons of state” do not suffice to justify such treatment and that is
very much a tenet of the individualist social philosophy with which
American is so closely associated.

So all the while the intellectuals have frowned on the allegedly
simplistic and false 18th century notions drawn from Locke & Co., they
have not hesitated making use of those very notions as they have drubbed
American left and right. Not a bad record for such an awful system, me
thinks, comparatively speaking.

Column on Spains Granting Rights to Apes

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:43:12 GMT

Spain “gives” rights to Great Apes

Tibor R. Machan

A committee of the Spanish government, concerned with environmental
issues, has recommended that Spain “give” rights to these animals. The
committee is being guided in its thinking about this issue by philosophers
Peter Singer (USA) and Paola Cavalieri (Italy) who are directors of the
Great Ape Project.

The gist of the legislation is not quite what it seems. Great Apes will
not be understood to have the rights the American Founders, following the
English philosopher John Locke, identified in the Declaration of
Independence. There will not be protection of the right to freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, or even the right to life and liberty, which
are the central rights Locke and the American Founders set out to secure
for human beings. Indeed, the very idea of giving apes rights is alien to
the tradition of individual human rights—no one gives us rights; we have
them because of our human nature (ergo, “natural” rights).

The basis of these rights is that human beings make choices in their
lives, possess free will, and can act responsibly or not. It is to secure
their sphere of sovereignty or self-governance that the concept or human
rights has been identified. Within their sphere of personal authority
they are free to decide what they will do and no one may force them to act
against their will. This is necessary because in society fellow human
beings can intrude on them, interfere and rob them of their freedom to
make their own moral choices. Thus, for example, even though someone may
write something obscene or say something offensive, no one may stop that
person from doing so other than by peaceful means, such as convincing him
or her to do otherwise. Without the acknowledgment of human rights some
people, usually oppressive governments, take it upon themselves to make
others their subjects, to deny them their sovereignty.

The bottom line is that human beings are, as a rule, moral agents, while
no ape has that capacity. Which is why despite all the talk of the rights
of great apes, no one seriously proposes that apes be judged morally, that
they may be guilty of misdeed or gain credit for commendable actions.
That would be to treat them like human beings but despite the fact that
the DNA of these animals “is 95 percent to 98.7 percent the same as that
of humans,” the difference is crucial. It means no great ape will be
taken to court for devouring its young, whereas infanticide when committed
by a person is severely punishable because human beings can choose to do
the right or wrong thing and are held responsible for this.

Some speak of human beings “deserving” rights but that is wrongheaded.
They have them or do not. It’s not as if they did something commendable
and so they deserve to be given rights. (Who is to do this giving,
anyway? That was something that monarchs might have done, grant a certain
standing to some of their subjects. But the authority to make such grants
was exposed as a fiction.)

Others rail against the supposed claim that human rights are absolute but
that’s a fabrication. It is clear enough that human beings can be so
badly damaged that their rights would need to be seriously qualified, as
are the rights of children and senile persons. In nearly all realms of
human affairs there are borderline cases and fuzzy delineations—for
example, between an infant and a child, a child and an adolescent and the
latter and an adult. No precise border exist here but intelligent people
still know the difference and make ample use of it.

Ultimately the Spanish effort to treat apes as if they were people serves
but one clear purpose: it empowers government officials who would eagerly
regiment the rest of us who may be dealing with great apes. And the effort
is rather ironic, to boot: isn’t it in Spain that there is widespread bull
fighting? One might suppose that it is those bulls who need protection
from abuse by Spain’s citizens, not great apes (of whom there are but a
few in Spanish zoos).

Column on Foreign Affairs Determinism

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:33:09 GMT

Foreign Policy Determinism?
Tibor R. Machan
The two Iraqi wars have put the issue of American foreign policy on the
agendas of many pundits, writers, intellectuals, and politicians. Why this
did not happen when Granada, Panama, Kosovo, and other places were at
center stage of actual foreign and military affairs is unclear to me. But
somehow the military targeting of Iraq managed to turn a lot of people’s
attention to American foreign policy--both the motives for it and its
consequences.
In his book, published between the two Iraqi wars, From Wealth to Power
(Princeton UP, 1998), current Newsweek International editor--and host of
CNN-TV’s very good news magazine program, GPS (Global Public
Square)--Fareed Zakaria argued that America has always had an impulse
toward expanding its sphere of influence, often through coercive force,
rarely only because of the need to defend the country against foreign
aggression. And most recently Robert Kagan makes the case, in the new
publication World Affairs, A Journal of Ideas and Debate (Spring 2008),
that the policy of spreading American influence by aggressive means is by
no means an invention of neo-conservatism but some a nearly innate impulse
evident throughout the history of the foreign policies of many American
administrations.
Both Zakaria and Kagan seem to embrace a form of determinism, Zakaria more
directly than Kagan. The fact that America is a prosperous society impels
the nation and its governments to be expansionist, even imperialist, in
foreign affairs. This is not a matter of choice, nothing that could be
otherwise. It is simply the way the world works--big, prosperous countries
just aim to grow bigger, even if they do not always succeed with this
ambition. Kagan simply claims that contrary to what too many commentators
and critics of the George W. Bush administration have argued, the desire
to spread democracy by force is a well established tradition evident
throughout American history, from the beginning to the present. He
believes that the fact that the American Founders believed that the
principles sketched in the Declaration of Independence are universal,
apply to human community life everywhere, makes the expansionist foreign
and military stance unavoidable.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with showing that certain policies,
foreign or domestic, are closely linked to a country’s history in view of
the principles embraced by its constitution and the convictions of its
citizenry (especially its leadership). But does this support the
suggestion that these policies are somehow unavoidable?
Certainly the Founders’ choice of first principles wasn’t something they
couldn’t help making. Quite the contrary--they chose very deliberately and
rejected alternative regimes as they reached their conclusion about what
kind of community the United States of America ought to be. Now with that
choice came a long series of institutions and policies. At each stage some
changes could be made and many have been--throughout America’s political
and legal history the big government versus limited government positions
have kept battling it out, and this continues to our day. (Initial
commitments have considerable but not inevitable influence--one need but
think of marriage where “I do” does but need not determine how things will
turn out!)
Many foreign--as well as domestic--policy theorists embrace a certain
positivist methodology as they “explain” the world. That is, they often
have a firm conviction that they need to identify certain natural causes
that produce states of affairs and shy away from dwelling about normative
matters, namely, what policies ought to be carried. The idea of free human
choices that may be judged right and wrong is not deemed scientific
enough. So there is a kind of self-fulfilling real political bias in their
analysis. Because of this stance, evaluations and proposals are shunted
since they involve value judgments, something that too many such thinkers
consider mere biases, nothing rationally defensible.
But, in fact, a good deal of foreign and military policy rests on what
public policy makers believe should be done, how the country ought to
behave abroad (as well as at home). The sooner the leading thinkers in
these areas recognize that values are what matter most and need to be
rationally explored, the more sensible will the country’s policies become,
both abroad and at home.

Column on the Rights of the Rich

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:58:28 GMT

The Rights of The Rich
Tibor R. Machan
No, the rich have no special rights, none at all. But since so many people
insist on trying to violate the human rights they do have, it is
worthwhile mentioning that no one has any moral authority to violate,
abrogate, restrict the rights of the rich. Even when they spend their
money on what some people believe are trivial pursuits.
This all comes to mind because The New York Times carried an Op Ed column
on Thursday, July 10, 2008, written by a professor, Professor Ray D.
Madoff of Boston College School of Law attacking the late Leona Helmsley
for giving billions of dollars to a charity that cares for dogs. Her
argument is that "The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy from the
federal government. The government, in effect, makes itself a partner in
every charitable bequest. In Mrs. Helmsley’s case, given that her fortune
warranted an estate tax rate of 45 percent, her $8 billion donation for
dogs is really a gift of $4.4 billion from her and $3.6 billion from you
and me."
This is nonsense, of course. The estate tax is sheer extortion and, in any
case, if one gives one's fortune to charity, it doesn't apply. No
subsidies were made to the dogs! By recognizing the right of the rich to
bequeath their wealth as they see fit, including for some arguably
ridiculous causes, nothing is lost to anyone. If Mrs. Helmsley got her
money fair and square, in the free market place, it's hers to do with as
she sees fit. In no way did her decision to help out dogs hurt us? How,
for example, was her decision different from millions of people's decision
to keep and care for their dogs and other animals, money that might well
be spent by them on something the professor believes is more important?
Since it is their money, they get to spend it as they want, no? It's a
free country and just as with having to tolerate the silly things other
people say and write--e.g., Professor Madoff's Op Ed--so we will just have
to tolerate how others choose to peacefully spend their resources, however
much we don't like it.
Professor Madoff's idea is similar to that of many politicians, such as
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the money other people earn, inherit,
or happen to come by some other legitimate way doesn't really belong to
them but to the government. This is sheer socialism, whereby no right to
private property exists and needs to be secured by the government in its
capacity of the protector of the rights of the citizenry. And we should
remember that those rights are equally held by all persons, not excepting
the wealthy. Just think, would killing a wealthy person be any less of a
violation of the right to life than killing someone poor? Certainly not.
Nor would robbing a poor person amount to any more of a rights violation
than robbing someone who is rich. These are rights we all have as human
beings, not as members of an economic class!
Then there is the bizarre notion, advanced in Professor Madoff's column,
that making a charitable contribution to an organization that cares for
dogs is something petty, inconsequential. I say this as someone who has
for years dispute the idea that animals have rights and finds the recent
decision by the Spanish government to "recognize" the rights of great apes
absurd. But the fact that animals have no rights does not mean at all that
animals do not experience hardship, hunger, pain, even torture and thus do
not ever deserve to be provided with care by human beings, especially
those who have the wealth to spend on them. In fact, instead of talk about
animal rights we should continue with the much more sensible moral
position that it is decent to be caring toward animals. From childhood on
most of us are taught that cruelty to animals is morally wrong. Any decent
human being will refuse to inflict unnecessary pain and hardship on other
animals even if it makes sense to use animals in certain situations for
various human purposes, such as medical research, transportation,
nourishment and so forth. Such use does not amount to wanton cruelty.
The late Mrs. Helmsley, who amassed a large fortune, may well have done
something quite admirable by leaving a large amount of her wealth to be
used to care for dogs. At any rate, it was her money and she had every
right giving it away for this purpose. And so are all of us perfectly
within our rights to spend our honestly come by resources for similar
purposes. It is scandalous that Professor Madoff would propose otherwise.
Nonetheless, the fact that she does advocate such nonsense is just another
example of how human rights work--they may be exercised wisely and not so
wisely. She accuses the late Mrs. Helmsley of having exercised her rights
unwisely and I am accusing her of having done the same when she choose to
write her Op Ed piece. In both cases, that is the price of having basic
rights and living in a country where they are protected.

Column on Building Paradoxes

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:43:20 GMT

Building Paradoxes
Tibor R. Machan
Never have I resided in or visited a locale in America where there hasn’t
been an active historical preservation society. These are the
organizations that impose all sorts of restrictions on property owners
about what may or may not be build, renovated, restituted within the
borders of what the activist consider to be “their community.” Now and
then I even attend planning commission meetings where I live, just to
witness the utter, unabashed arrogance of these preservers of
architectural history. Members of such committees are invariably convinced
that they own everyone’s property and may dictate to all concerned what
may be done with what is, after all, supposed to be private property. (Not
that these are the only such organizations surrounding communities across
the land and, indeed, the globe. The sense of entitlement to butt in where
folks ought to have no authority to decide is sadly almost universal.)
Now this is something one can lament forever and it is quite clear, at
least to many decent folks, that the tyranny of such groups is
intolerable, however much various quirks in the legal system manage to
make them legitimate. That’s not what I want to consider here. An aspect
of this situation, however, is worth taking not of because it points up
just how convoluted is the thinking of advocates of such intrusiveness.
All the while that the preservationists are hell bent on leaving things as
they used to be, thus retarding development, some of those very same
people insist that all buildings conform to up to date technical standards
when it comes to safety, health, and security. Thus the standards laid
down by such governmental bodies as the federal agency OSHA--Occupational
Safety and Health Administration--and various local bodies that determine
the building codes--are also vigorously promoted and imposed on property
owners everywhere.
Just exactly how these two equally widely embraced objectives of people
who love to meddle in others’ lives can be reconciled has always puzzled
me. If you want to preserve what’s old because of its historical
significance, how can you insist that it be updated to conform to the
latest technological standards? And if that’s not possible, which is going
to take precedence? Is it more important for us all--because, after all,
these goals are all supposed to serve the public interest, the common
good, as opposed to serving private profit, which is what builder of new
structures are supposedly committed to--to be as safe as possible or is it
more important to enjoy authentic historical structures in our
neighborhoods?
Of course, there is no answer to this question because for different
people and groups, different objectives could easily be more vital. Some
folks ought to live and work in places fully equipped with the most
affordable up to date gadgetry, while others may be much better of--pursue
their happiness for more effectively--if they embrace the architectural
and construction treasures of history. Some like their abode to be a
historical exhibition, some a model of the latest and highest options of
building technology. And there are, I am sure, all kinds of valid
combination of objectives that no group of meddling bureaucrats can even
imagine yet have no hesitation about imposing on everyone.
Of course, this is not the only paradox that is inherent in the policy of
meddlers. Another one of my favorites is that these folks actually manage
to convince themselves of the utterly conceited notion that they alone
know what is right and good for all when it comes to planning buildings,
neighborhoods, and communities. Does it not occur to them, to quote
Abraham Lincoln, that “No man is good enough to govern another man,
without that other's consent”?
I guess not. Instead they probably live in the reactionary past when kings
and dukes and barons thought they had it all over the rest of humanity
when it came to giving direction to human lives. I say bunk to that and
hope you will in time agree with me!

Column on Ideas Have Consequences

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 04:27:49 GMT

Ideas Have Consequences
Tibor R. Machan
My discipline, philosophy, is often lambasted for being too abstract, for
not dealing with concrete matters, for not being practical. Socrates took
a lot of flack for devoting much of his time to searching for fundamental
principles and definitions of prominent ideas, such as justice, truth, and
virtue. I’d be very rich if I had a buck for each time someone has told me
over the decades that philosophy is useless.
Perhaps this is simply the fallout of a common attitude. That is for
people to favor the significance of their line of work over and above all
others. A great many economists, I can personally testify, are good at
this--nothing is as relevant and pertinent to our lives as economics! Some
have even written for a book unabashedly titled “economic imperialism.”
But many sociologists, psychologists, biologists, and the rest exhibit
such chauvinism as well.
In recent weeks there has been evidence of the practical impact, mostly
for the worse, of certain philosophical ideas and the prestigious position
of those who propound them. I am talking about animal “rights” or
liberation champions, like the now world famous Princeton University
philosopher Peter Singer.
First, in Spain the government has declared that great apes have the
rights to life and liberty, rights that had been understood to belong only
to human beings. It isn’t immediately obvious how this legal declaration
is going to be implemented--do they have a lot of great apes in Spain? But
it probably will have an impact at zoos and circuses, as well as, and more
importantly, at medical research centers. And that, in turn, will very
likely pose impediments to certain activities, some vital to human well
being, others less so.
On this side of the Atlantic the animal rights/liberation doctrine has had
dire consequences and continues to be deadly for human beings. The New
York Times recently editorialized against making DDT available for
fighting malaria around the world, in part because some penguins in
Antarctica were found to have a little of it in their bodies. No, they
didn’t die of this, nor seem to have had any serious illness associated
with it but merely because there is that possibility, based on Rachel
Carson's terribly influential 1964 book, Silent Spring! And admittedly
there is evidence that DDT has done harm to the eggs of some birds.
So what? Why shouldn’t some birds suffer, even die, in the effort to
improve the chances of human beings to survive certain deadly diseases?
Well, because, as animal rights/liberation advocates like Singer (and
another philosopher, Tom Regan), maintain, it would be to unjustly harm
these animals to permit DDT to be used to help human beings.
This misanthropic doctrine is widely promulgated in various publications,
including the most recent issue of Philosophy Now which has devoted most
of its pages to making the case for animal rights/liberation. Sadly, no
opponents to the doctrine were given space, although in fairness that's
partly due to the simple fact that very few philosophers are on record
defending the use of animals for purposes of helping human beings even
with fatal medical problems such as malaria. It is estimated that millions
of Africans have died because of the influence of Rachel Carson and other
opponents of the medical use of DDT.
In much of moral philosophy or ethics it is taken as an article of faith,
though not much defended, that human beings ought to live lives of
self-sacrifice. As Singer put it, several years ago, “Animal Liberation
will require greater altruism on the part of mankind than any other
liberation movement, since animals are incapable of demanding it for
themselves, or of protesting against their exploitation by votes,
demonstration, or bombs.” So even though animals routinely kill and maim
fellow animals for their own benefit--albeit, as a matter of their hard
wired instincts, not from free choice--there is something lowly about
human beings making use of other animals for their own good. Why so?
Nothing much of an answer is given to that question--indeed, in Singer’s
case, it rests, ultimately, on his intuitions or, as I would call them,
sentiments. What is needed is a vigorous philosophical and related defense
of human life and flourishing, including human rights, and rejection of a
sadly widespread misanthropic outlook that goes nearly unopposed now in
the community of moral philosophers.
---------------------------
Tibor Machan is the author of Putting Humans First (Rowman & Littlefield,
2004).

Column on the Common Good Sense of Liberty

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:44:33 GMT

The Common Good Sense of Liberty
Tibor R. Machan
In the sciences a great many initially controversial ideas have reached
the status of common sense. Yes, the earth revolves around the sun. No,
leaches do not cure all the diseases they had been used to try to cure.
The earth is really quite old, unlike what the literal reading of the good
book suggests. And, no, women aren’t inferior to men because somehow their
emotions render them stupid.
Now as far as I see matters, freedom is superior to any and all forms of
servitude, now and ever, however little this had been acknowledged in the
past and still is in other parts of the globe. That is now common sense to
me. Just as rape is plainly immoral and sexual unions must be voluntary,
so all human conduct that’s peaceful must also be undertaken as a matter
of choice. Subjugating anyone to another’s will is not much different, no
matter what area of human life it involves, from subjugating an unwilling
woman to the will of a forceful man.
But for some odd reason that escapes me, really, a great many quite
prominent and intellectually prestigious people disagree with me. It seems
to all of them quite OK to coerce others to do various things that these
others do not agree to doing. Like paying into the social security fund,
or following the orders of the Food and Drug Administration or the Drug
Enforcement Authority. Thousands of such institutional arrangements,
whereby some more or less large group of people get the legal authority to
order others around, are approved of by prominent people. The excuse is
usually that unless this authority is granted to these folks, some very
good things will not get accomplished.
But that is simply a lousy excuse for running roughshod over other people,
to limit their liberty and hand over to others the power to run their
lives. It is again common sense to me that if you aim to enlist some
fellow human beings in a project that is important, valuable, noble or
such, you must confine your means to convincing, never to coercing them.
How could it be otherwise? I stick with Abraham Lincoln here, who said,
famously, that “No man is good enough to govern another man, without that
other’s consent.” Just seems so obviously true that I find objections to
the idea bordering on insanity. I can only have some measure of patience
with such objections based on my realization that for centuries and
centuries human beings have lived under the yoke of a bunch of pretenders
to higher authority and this has warped their good sense.
No, I am not naïve. I realize well enough that dozens and dozens of fancy
arguments, theories, motivations and such back the case for subjecting
some people who want to go their own way--who want to follow their own
choices--to the will of others. In the history of political philosophy and
theory hundreds of brilliant figures have advanced interesting, often very
sophisticated, arguments defending the divine right of kings, the absolute
authority of majorities, and the like. Thousands and thousands of pages
have been written to promote the fiction that some men are good enough to
coerce others, in the name of various goals, desires, dreams, ideals, or
notions of the common good. But none of these, I have come fairly early in
my reading to realize, carries the day. Freedom simply--as well as in all
its complicated renditions--triumphs over all the more or less oppressive
alternatives.
Why then so much resistance to the idea? Well, the governmental habit is
one explanation I have discussed often and find still to be a powerful
notion. But there is also the fear of liberty--some just believe that
unless powerful hands take over the running of human affairs, vital
matters will be neglected. Why those powerful hands should manage to
escape the same obstacle, namely human folly, to running matters properly
that seem to such folks to prevent free man and women doing it beats me.
The evidently blind confidence in some magic selection process that will
put only wise and virtuous people into the positions of the coercers is
baffling.
It is time that the superior regime of freedom becomes an article of
common sense, not in constant need of having to be defended,
intellectually, politically and physically!

Column on Whether America is Still Special

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:54:06 GMT

America Was Special
Tibor R. Machan
Despite its awful flaw, slavery, at the start, America had begun as a
country founded on very special, radical principles. More importantly,
these principles are true--they aren’t merely myths or superstitions men
and women held for a period of time. That we all have basic rights to our
lives, liberty, etc., is true and not just some fiction (as the late
George Carlin liked to maintain in his curmudgeonly fashion). After all,
nearly all of the criminal law across the globe recognizes it, at least
implicitly. But few countries incorporated these truths into the daily
fabric of their citizens’ economic lives.
Of course not even in America was the economy fully free. Nor did freedom
of speech or even religion rule the realm completely, without some serious
exceptions. But compared to other regimes around the globe, the ideals and
ideas of a free society took greater hold here than elsewhere. That is
what made the place exceptional, that’s why millions fled to it, that’s
what made it a sanctuary to so many and still does.
The differences between countries are not like those between geometrical
shapes. They are more gradual, so that while North Korea is a radically
different place from America, Germany or New Zealand is not. And today
more and more countries are adopting legal principles, institutions, and
public policies that resemble those favored by the American Founders and
Framers.
In some regions of the globe, such as India and China, some of these
principles, especially those bearing on economic matters, have been
embraced quite adamantly. That wouldn’t yet make them fully free
countries; not even the US can be so called, given its oppressive drug
laws and some other public policies. But in certain vital areas of human
affairs, such as commerce, science, technology, and the like, embracing
even less than fully the principles of liberty will mean a great deal. And
one thing it will mean is that the people of these countries will become
far more productive --and they will also be consuming a lot more--than
they used to. So America is gradually having to face people from elsewhere
who are competing in the global economy. And they are enjoying the fruits
of this competition and making matters more difficult for those in the USA.
Just as when America fielded the famous basketball “dream team” but
eventually faced teams from other countries that learned to play equally
well, so America has been enjoying considerable advantage in many areas
which it no longer does, if only because the obstacles to being part of
the competition are being removed in other places. That would mean, among
other things, that Americans will have to work harder and smarter in all
areas of production than they did previously in order to keep up their
standard of living.
In addition to these geopolitical changes, there is also all the
technological developments that face people in many industries. No one can
sit on his or her laurels and expect to just coast to easy success. As
with a marathon race that is being run now by millions more than earlier,
so with the global economy the contestants are facing a great deal of
pressure now. (A good book about this is Fareed Zakaria’s recent
Post-American World.)
All of this would of course be welcome news to those who find it thrilling
to face new challenges in life. But if statis is one’s habit or
preference, if one wants to be settled into a job, business, or profession
without making adjustments, without having to be alert to the new
opportunities that keep coming up, one will not be enjoying the current
market place.
In fairness, of course, one needs to acknowledge that quite apart from the
global economic changes facing us, there are also all the obstacles we
face that bureaucrats, meddling politicians, and their cheerleaders in the
media and the intellectual arena place before us and that make matters
doubly difficult as we come to terms with challenges in the market place.
Free men and women are more likely to meet these than are those whose
minds and bodies are in partial bondage to mal-practicing governments.
So beside learning to deal with new peaceful developments around the
globe, it is also vital to work on removing the artificial, indeed
criminal, intrusions that make it difficult to adjust to novel situations.
This is why politics is no luxury but a realm where vigilance in making
improvements is as necessary as anywhere else in our lives.

Column on What Kind of Equality

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:36:16 GMT

What kind of Equality?
Tibor R. Machan
So called progressives--who wish to sell us on the idea that their
rejection of the principles of the Declaration of Independence amounts to
moving forward whereas it is, in fact, blatantly reactionary--like to make
fun of the American Founders’ and Framers’ ideas. One of those ideas that
has come in for some drubbing is where we are told that “All men are
created equal.” In fact, several elements of this statement have received
much ridicule. One is that it talks of “men,” another that even if it is
taken more honestly as referring to adult human beings, it is plainly
false. There is, of course, yet another part of it that is often derided,
namely, that human beings were created by God, even though by “create” one
can mean both something religious and secular.
What about the idea that human beings are created equal? Aldous Huxley is
reported to have dismissed this as follows: “That all men are equal is a
proposition which at ordinary times no sane individual has ever given his
assent.” Yet, Huxley and all whose who gleefully join him in his attempt
to debunk the Founders seem not to have been paying sufficient attention
to the actual words of the Declaration. Immediately following “That all
men are created equal” is the sentence “that they are endowed, by their
creator, with certain unalienable rights.” Which pretty much implies that
this is where all of us are equal, namely, in our possession of the
unalienable rights--among others--to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
What is clear from this is that the Founders didn’t believe something
ridiculous like Huxley suggests they did, namely, that “all men are
equal.” Just look at any group of human beings and it is patently absurd
that they are equal. We are all individuals, with a great variety of
unique, distinct, different, and even special attributes that make up who
we are. Despite this, however, we are also equally in possession of our
rights.
Just consider this: all marathon runners differ from one another yet they
are also equal in having to start from a certain spot and having to finish
at another. But this equality is very limited and contributes just
minimally to their status as marathon runners. The students in my
university classes are clearly unequal on many fronts yet they are equal
in having to pass certain tests, write certain papers, take part in class
discussions.
So the equality that the American Founders identified about human beings
makes perfectly good sense: however much they all differ--however unequal
they may be in their talents, opportunities, physical prowess, wealth,
health, and beauty--they are equal in having fundamental, unalienable
individual human rights to their lives, liberty, pursuit of happiness and
many others not possible to list.
Yes, the Founders proposed that human beings have many more than just
those basic rights. That is why when the Bill of Rights was crafted, it
included the Ninth Amendment which states that “the enumeration in this
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.” The Framers worried that listing
some of the most basic rights may mislead folks into thinking that they
meant human beings have only those, whereas in fact human beings have
many, many more rights than what the Declaration or the Bill of Rights
could possibly list.
This is not difficult to grasp. Neither the Declaration nor the Bill of
Rights states that human beings have the right to, say, laugh, sing, play
billiards, or to get on their knees and say prayers yet, of course, every
adult human being has the right to do these things. And how do we tell
that the Founders and Framers thought so? Because they listed very broad
principles only, such as the rights to life and to liberty. If one has the
right to one’s life, it clearly means that one has the right to a whole
bunch of peaceful, non rights-violating undertakings, given that life
consists of innumerable such undertakings. Similarly, to have the right to
liberty means to have the right to act in innumerable ways that do not
violate anyone else’s rights. But a brief, succinct declaration, or a
brief list, cannot possibly mention all the rights human beings have. The
terms used are abstract ones, indicating a great many more concrete
elements--just as when one uses the term “furniture” to indicate all those
chairs, tables, beds, sofas, drawers, etc., that is meant by it.
My suspicion is that in the battles for people’s minds and hearts a lot of
people who find it inconvenient that others would have the rights the
Founders and Framers indicated wish to make it appear the American
Founders and Framers were confused and what they proposed can be simply
dismissed. Well, they are very wrong about this.

Column on Public TV bash

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:17:33 GMT

My Uninvited Speech at KOCE-TV’s 35 Anniversary Bash
Tibor R. Machan
A colleague asked me to come and sit with him and his pals at the table to
celebrate KOCE-TV’s 35th anniversary celebration. I went, though with some
trepidation, given that KOCE-TV is a “public” television station in Orange
County, CA. It is mostly funded from contributions but does receive about
10% of its operating expenses from the government, via the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, I was informed by one official at the organization.
Compared to many other subsidized undertakings, the amount isn’t huge but,
still, it does involve robbing Peter a bit so as to support Paul with the
latter’s preferred projects.
As I was driving to the bash, I was toying with the fantasy of giving a
little talk at the event, just in case I had the chance to make clear to
some folks what I have against such “public” funding. No one asked! I just
sat at the table with some familiar people and listened to glowing reports
about KOCE-TV’s contribution to Orange County’s cultural scenery. But I
figure it might be of some use if I did jot down what I would have said to
the assembled celebrators. Here it goes:
“Ladies and Gentlemen. Thanks for the opportunity to be at this
celebration. I am very much in favor of what KOCE-TV has done and is doing
here in OC, excepting perhaps a few programs that tend toward statist
propaganda instead of bona fide education or entertainment. This mirrors
my support for numerous other similar projects and programs partially
funded from taxation, including AIDS research, the jazz and blues
offerings at KKJZ-FM, Long Beach, CA, as well as numerous scientific,
medical, artistic, and even some environmental undertakings.
“What I find morally unacceptable, however, is how some of the funds for
these and other worthy projects are obtained, namely, by confiscatory
taxation. Taxation is a relic of feudal times when the monarch and his
minions extorted funds from those who lived ‘within the realm.’ In those
systems it was governments--the king, for example--that owned nearly
everything (other than one’s soul). So one had to pay for the privilege of
making use of the monarch’s property. But numerous revolutions, in
American and France, for instance, finally corrected this idea, namely,
that governments own the resources in a society. Instead, the Lockean idea
of individual private property rights was identified as the proper
principle of ownership. Locke also defended the idea that human
individuals own their own lives--ergo, the unalienable right to one’s life
and liberty--and thereby undermined the feudal doctrine of serfdom and
indentured servitude.
“So, ultimately the funds being used at KOCE-TV and innumerable other
public undertakings must be obtained from people by voluntary means,
something that KOCE-TV and many other ‘public’ radio and television
stations seem to accept since they, too, tend to prefer obtaining support
from voluntary contributions. I am simply making note of the fact that
this is what should happen with all the funds, not just the bulk of them.
Thanks for your attention.”
Of course, no one asked me to say anything like this. Nor did anyone ask
some others in the audience who shared these ideas, even though several
people from KOCE-TV did stop by our table and smiled about how we were
critical of some of their funding methods. (In Orange County, CA., there
is at least some general awareness of these ideas, even if only in a
somewhat condescending fashion, as if those who hold them hailed from some
bizarre region of the globe!)
On a more general note, this issue raises the question, also, of what it
means when a country is called “free.” For some, like the famous Venetian
political thinker Machiavelli, it meant that the country isn’t being ruled
by another one in the neighborhood; it means, in other words, political
independence. For the American Founders, however, being free was spelled
out in the Declaration of Independence. A country is free if it
established, maintained, and secured all of its citizens’ unalienable
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Accordingly, then, if governments deprive citizens of their resources,
some of which they would devote to pursuing their happiness as they judge
fit, the freedom of the country they are supposed to govern is
compromised.
So, the larger issue for me when I was sitting through KOCE-TV’s 35th
anniversary bash was one of human individual freedom. Maybe this wasn’t a
major assault on that freedom but wherever I notice such an assault, major
or minor, I choose to make some hay about it.

Column on Science and Government

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:02:14 GMT

Politicizing Science
Tibor R. Machan
As many who read my columns would know, I am an avid reader of Science
News, the magazine of the Society for Science and the Public located in
Washington, D. C. It's now been a few decades that I have been kept
abreast of developments in a great variety of sciences, natural and
social, by reading this publication.
Recently the editors have made some changes, some of them quite desirable
but others objectionable. For example, the size and format has changed.
The magazine now is no longer a little thin "book" but is, like so many
others, a formidable size and the writing is more developed than it has
been in the past. Some new features have also been added but one of these
is not a welcome one, at least not by anyone who would insist on keeping
government and science separated other than where military readiness
requires it. The feature I am referring to is called "Comment" wherein
various luminaries opine about science and public affairs.
In the issue before me, for example, Steven Hyman, provost at Harvard
University and former director of the National Institute of Mental Health,
offers his opinion about how attitudes toward governmental support of
science education fare in America versus elsewhere around the globe. Hyman
is, of course, doing what all special interest advocates do, namely,
asking for more money for what concerns them, in this case the growth of
research, development, and science education. Like other special interest
representatives, Hyman makes his wishes clear now that there is likely to
be regime change in Washington: "[I]t is much to be hoped that the next
president of the United States will recognize the benefits of a healthy
scientific enterprise. Ideally the new administration will craft policies
to produce steady growth in federal research budgets, more welcoming
immigration policies for foreign scientists and respect for science...."
Actually, ideally, if that is not too fanciful a term to use in this
context, the federal government--indeed, any government--of a free society
ought to refrain from backing any science that does not directly bear on
its job of securing the rights of its citizens. That is what government is
for in free countries and any other kind of support for science is no
different from supporting special groups of citizens rather than the
public as a whole.
In a free society the support of the public as a whole consists of
providing everyone with the liberty to pursue his or her own ends in
voluntary cooperation with like-minded and willing fellow citizens. It is
wrong--political malpractice--to take funds away from some and transfer
it, without their consent, to others for however worthy a purpose. Whether
other countries breach this principle of free government is irrelevant.
Just as in the United States the freedom of the press and of religious
worship is protected and a proper separation between government and these
elements of society is legally upheld to a substantial degree, so there
should be no involvement in the funding of science.
One example Hyman mentions of what he believes needs more support than it
receives is stem cell research and it is a good one because it illustrates
just how similar government funding of and involvement in science is to
government funding of and involvement in religion. Many citizens believe
it is wrong to do stem cell research, mostly on religious grounds.
Whatever one may think of the merits of this belief, in a free country
citizens have the right to live by their convictions provided they respect
others' equal rights. But taking funds from some of them to support work
they believe is immoral violates this principle. And stem cell research
isn't the only kind that involves such a violation.
Now my ideas on this topic are, of course, radical and will not even get a
fair hearing in the mainstream media (which, being so fond of the First
Amendment, really ought to get on the same page with me here). Nonetheless
the point needs to be made, especially when someone who is as prominent as
Steven Hyman chimes in on the opposite side.
My more immediate concern, however, is that Science News is drifting away
from its mission of giving good coverage to scientific work toward
becoming a platform for what is clearly an insidious political agenda. I
guess the temptation to steal from Peter to fund the work of Paul, if you
like Paul's work a lot, is too powerful to resist.

Column on Human Self Doubt

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:43:05 GMT

Doubting One’s Mind
Tibor R. Machan
A central topic of philosophy throughout the ages has been whether human
beings can trust their minds, including their sensory awareness and
thinking. Skepticism about this has been a major challenge and many from
Socrates to such recent and current thinkers as Ayn Rand and John Searle
have responded with more or less elaborate arguments defending our
capacity to get things right about the world.
Just now a new source of skepticism has surfaced, from within the field of
neuroscience. In a recent review essay of several books on the topic, “How
the Mind Works: Revelations,” published in The New York Review of Books
(6/26/08), Israel Rosenfield and Edward Ziff write, “In fact ‘external
reality’ is a construction of the brain.” Several of the authors they
discuss argue this point. As the review notes, “In general, every
recollection refers not only to the remembered event or person or object
but to the person who is remembering,” meaning that memory is not about an
objective reality but of some mishmash of subjective experience and
external influence.
In essence, then, what one understands about the world and oneself is
really not what actually exists but what is constructed by one’s mind with
the use of other cognitive tools. The problem with this is that it makes
no sense in the end because what the researchers are telling us would also
be covered by their claim and so it is also just some mental construction,
which then is also some further mental construction, ad infinitum and ad
nauseum. But that cannot be. At some point the researchers would have to
accept that what they are telling us about the human mind is actually so,
not also just a construct or invention.
In any case, why would there be so much interest in discrediting the human
mind, of writing elaborate tomes that argue that our understanding of the
world and ourselves is fabrication, not objectively true?
Some folks say that to a question like that one needs to answer by
following the money--that is to say, checking who is gaining from these so
called findings. I am not such a cynic. As far as I can tell, some of
these scientists and the reporters who seem to be so gleeful about what
this work produces may well be sincere. Yet I also suspect there is
something fishy afoot here and my suspicion is that there is a tendency on
the part of many of these experts to come up with findings that assign to
them a special role in the world. They are, in effect, the only people who
have a clear handle on how things go with human beings. They are the only
reliable source of facts--as Rosenfield and Ziff say, “In fact. ‘external
reality’ is a construction of the brain.” You and I are not up to snuff
about the matter, we are deluded and misguidedly think that when we see a
red coffee cup on the kitchen table, there really is such a cup there. But
Rosenfield and Ziff and the scientists they are reviewing will inform us
that “there are no colors in the world, only electromagnetic waves of many
frequencies.”
But if you just think for a moment, this is nonsense. It is like saying
there is no furniture in my living room, only chairs and tables and sofas.
Well, but it is those chairs, tables, and sofas that are the furniture. It
is, then, the electromagnetic waves doing certain work that are the
colors, so colors do indeed exist in the world. Thus telling someone that
there is a red cup on the kitchen table is exactly right! It may not tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what is there but few
people need to have that in order to cope quite well with the world around
them.
The same problem faced some physicists who claimed that there is nothing
that’s solid in the world because everything is composed of atoms and
atoms, in turn, are mostly empty space with only very tiny bits of
material substance swirling within them at enormous speeds. Ergo, solidity
is an illusion. But this is to drop the context of discussions where the
distinction between, say, solidity and liquidity comes up. It is misguided
to make the leap from one context to another where the focus is quite
different.
When we ordinary humans notice the world around us, learn to identify what
it contains, begin to understand the forces at work in it, if we pay
attention we can get it right for the purposes that we need this
understanding. To try to undermine this confidence based on highly
specialized research is misguided and perhaps ill conceived. It appears to
assign to some people some special status even though, by their own
accounts, no one ultimately can figure anything out.

Column on Liberty and Hard Cases

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:57:49 GMT

Liberty and Hard Cases

Tibor R. Machan

One book I edited has the same title as this column and focuses mainly on
how a free society would cope with disasters such as earthquakes, floods,
tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. When the nature of a just society is
discussed, those who defend big government solutions to problems tend to
start with orphaned children and catastrophes, claiming that only by means
of massive government intervention can a society cope. But then, of
course, it becomes evident that big government advocates—actually,
advocates of governments with extensive scope, way beyond the task of
securing the rights of the citizenry—don’t stop with the dire cases.
Instead they move on to advocate government intervention into every nook
and cranny of people’s lives. The tendency is toward totalitarianism, with
just a few exceptions such as freedom for the press and for people
religious choices. Everything else, however, seems to require government
meddling, just as was believed in the thousands of years when monarchies
ruled virtually everywhere because the king was thought to be God’s
representative on earth.

Starting with disasters has considerable emotional advantage for statists.
People are rarely as frightened as when they contemplate the prospect of
facing natural calamities. (The fire that came close to destroying the
canyon in which I have my small house punctuated this for me.) Only
diseases like cancer or sudden heart attacks scare most folks as much.
And in a state of panic one is less likely to be rational, to assess
things calmly, carefully, in a principled way. It was William Pitt who
warned—in 1783—that “Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves.”

So, even dire emergencies are no excuses for forcing people into service
to one another. Their lives belong to them and no one may conscript them
to provide involuntary service! Especially when the proper course to take
so as to reduce the damage from natural calamities is so near at hand.
This is private insurance and the related industries that would develop in
the absence of the state’s promise of bailing people out. Yes, getting
used to not depending on government, the Nanny State, Uncle Sam, and
monarchs of all kinds may be difficult and even difficult to imagine for
those who lack confidence in the capacity of human beings to abide by the
rules of civilized society. Yet, as with all great goals that are
difficult to achieve, it is worth aiming for.

Just as in time people learned to do without serfdom and slavery, they
could similarly learn to do without subjugating their fellows in times of
dire need, even severe emergencies. It may not be an idea whose time has
been fully apprehended, gleaned, but it is one that is, nonetheless,
imperative to aspire to for all human beings.

In most areas of human life we find people subverting principles of
morality and justice but this is no excuse for giving up on those
principles. In whenever those principles are subverted, excuses bubble up
readily—from bank robbers and adulterers to child molesters and rapists.
The strong urge to violate those principles is simply not excuse for
failing to try to purge their violation from our lives.

All this needs to be considered when one approaches the issue of how
people ought to cope with disasters, calamities, emergencies and other
occasions that appear to necessitate the violation of unalienable human,
individual rights. The idea of justice that requires respect for and
protection of those rights may at times seem impossible to put into
practice but that is merely a function of most people’s centuries old
reliance on using other people against their will, without their consent.

A dedication to refusing to yield to such habits could very well bring to
the fore a different era, one in which governments will be confined to
their proper job, securing our rights, and we take up the various more or
less trying tasks of coping with our lives, including in emergencies.