As a scientist and a libertarian, I often struggle to find solutions that satisfy my seemingly adversarial worldviews. I say "seemingly" because I believe that the culture of academic science fails to think outside of the box when coming up with solutions and that sometimes the right thing to do isn't as pleasant to hear.
For instance, I'm often confronted with criticisms of my stance concerning the governmental funding of research. There are diseases out there that don't affect many people and these "orphan diseases" are not commonly researched by pharmaceutical companies because there is not a large enough market to justify the expense. Even without red tape from the FDA, getting a drug to market ethically would be expensive. Researchers who are interested in finding a treatment for this disease might appeal to the pharmaceutical company, but the incentives just aren't there. What happens next is where my scientist peers and I part ways:
"Let's get the government to fund this work!" A perfect solution! Except money doesn't come out of thin air, at least not without causing harm. The government pays for grants with taxes. In that case, people are involuntarily robbed "for the greater good". Most people are empathetic and would willingly help out someone in need. If you don't believe that the majority of people would do this, then how do you justify taking their tax dollars? Taxes aren't the only solution the government has up its sleeves. The Federal Reserve could just put more money into circulation and then it really does come out of thin air. This creates the larger problem of dollar devaluation and inflation (a leading cause of high gas prices, btw).
My solution is not as pretty. It is not as popular in academia. But my solution has the distinct advantage of not robbing anyone. Get the money to fund the research voluntarily, or don't do the research. Pharmaceutical companies get a bad rap for charging money for life-saving drugs. But at least they ask you to pay for the drugs. They never force you to buy the drugs or pay for drugs you don't need or use. Compared to the government, drug companies are saints.
But it's not as though scientists are encouraged to question this system of asking the thieves for some of the spoils. Rather, universities, research organizations, and professional science organizations actively advocate (read: "lobby") Congress for increased funding. The sad thing is, that this is a calculated investments in thousands to millions of dollars each year. Rather than spending more on research (which is a positive step), some of the money donated to these organizations is used to "lobby" for more federal funding. I assume the thousands to millions of dollars are just spent on airfare, food, and hotel stays, because giving donated money to senators and representatives would be too disgusting for me to contemplate.
Science is no place for sentimentality. By that, I mean that science progresses by maintaining skepticism toward hypotheses (remember, we are always trying to disprove our hypotheses). If one gets too attached to a pet theory or model, then one can no longer maintain that healthy skeptical objectivity. Scientists pride themselves on maintaining that critical view of new evidence and even old dogma. And yet, when it comes to how science ought to be funded, the nobler scientific side gives way to the irrational political side. How dare I begin to question the legitimacy of using tax dollars to fund science! Outrageous!
When I dare to open my mouth in front of other scientists, I get a few of these old chestnuts: "Don't you want to keep your job?" "Is it better that taxes are being used to bomb people in other countries?" "You aren't like the unwashed masses. You know better how to spend their money!" I would like to address each of these in turn:
Yes. I love my job. Science is a noble profession and one I would do even if no one paid me. The difference would be that it would become a hobby and not a way to earn a living. But that's assuming no one would pay me without the federal grant system. This is a scare tactic, not unlike many similar tactics employed by proponents of big government. I dare Chicken Little. I play chicken with Chicken Little. In time, other methods of funding science would emerge without the federal grant system. A truly free market would respond to this niche and science would continue. Of this, I have no doubt.
The idea that funding science is somehow diverting money from blowing up people is providing me with a false choice. I am against using tax dollars to fight offensive battles, so I would choose the unspoken third option: don't take money from people for either of these things.
This third tactic plays on the ego. Who wouldn't like to believe that they were special and more capable of knowing how to spend someone else's money? But I don't buy it. Am I smart? Yes. Does this justify robbing someone who isn't? No. If you're really concerned with how badly people handle money, try improving education. Also, read a book on Austrian economics. On a side note, Hayek's vision of a free market as emerging from the ground-up has a definite appeal as a biologist.
There are more questions in science than all the money in the world could ever address. The current grant system vets many different grant proposals against one another in a microcosm of a free market. But the method used to fund many of those granting institutions is an illegitimate use of government power and should therefore be usurped by the private sector. Furthermore, scientists should maintain their healthy skepticism in other aspects of life.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Wealth inequality and what not to do about it
One of the common complaints I hear about the current economic state of the country is the large gap between the wealthy and the poor. These complaints mostly come from people who resent the very notion of being wealthy and who quickly make the suggestion to tax the rich heavily and give the money to the poor. These people suggest that "wealth redistribution" is just because the rich can afford to give "their fair share". There are several problems associated with this line of reasoning.
There is wealth inequality; that much is true. But what keeps the rich getting richer while the rest of us stay fairly stagnant? In a word, INTEREST.
The old adage is that it takes money to make money and this certainly seems to be the case. But this is not an inherent problem of being wealthy necessarily, so much as it is a problem of big government. Liberals like to suggest that big government can cure all our ills by taking from the rich and giving to the poor under penalty of law, like some kind of mafioso Robin Hood. But I argue that it is big government itself that allows for the vast discrepancies in wealth with every passing generation. Consider the fractional reserve banking system. In this system for example, a bank can loan you $200,000 for a new home. You make a down payment, say $20,000, and the bank fronts the rest. But wait? Did the bank really front that $180,000 from their own coffers? Hardly. Rather, by providing 10% of the loaned amount to the Federal Reserve, the bank is effectively getting the remaining 90% of the money in the form of an INTEREST-FREE loan. After 20 years, you might have paid back the loan to the bank, along with a hefty amount of interest. The bank pays back the capital to the Fed and keeps the interest as profit. Bankers also win the house in the event you can't pay back the difference, so they win no matter what basically. This is unjust because the bank puts no more on the line than you and gets an interest-free loan while you pay the interest. And if that bank still manages to lose money, the benevolent big government will use your tax dollars to bail them out.
To be fair to the wealthy, some individuals actually invested a great deal of time and money and risked everything on their dreams in order to get where they are today. These are not typically the individuals demonized for "not earning" their wealth. The example most used to promote the inheritance tax is the rich children of someone who did the work and died. These people didn't work for their money, they just had good luck that they were born to wealthy parents. This is the justification for taking their money and giving it to people who really had no connection to the earning of it. But what makes money so special? There are plenty of examples in which people have benefited simply because they were born to the right parents. Race, height, attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, healthy genes; these are all accidents of heredity. If you were born below average height, should the government step in and pay for bone lengthening surgery? What about people born with above average height? Cosmetic surgery for the unattractive and face mangling for the overly attractive? GPA leveling for intelligence? (BTW, there is an excellent consideration of GPA redistribution here). When Jefferson wrote that "...all men are created equal," he wasn't an idiot. He knew that there were some who had more or less intelligence, looks, money, etc. The best we can hope for is to ensure that children have equal access to the basics of food, water, shelter, clothing, and learning so as to provide some level of fairness when the time comes for them to accept the responsibility for their lives as adult individuals. A capitalistic society can provide equality of opportunities without guaranteeing equality of outcomes. But big government actually ensures worse outcomes for the have-nots by stacking the deck in favor of the wealthy. I have one more example.
The income tax. A code of over 17,000 pages, so complex that you'd need to be a rich person to hire the accountants required to tease it apart. Additionally, lobbyists often suggest amendments and loopholes to insert into the code so that they have legal work-arounds. And the real kicker: The income tax only applies to income and many of the wealthiest live off of dividends from investments (INTEREST!!!). So while we can talk about raising the income tax level against the wealthiest 1%, it doesn't have the impact because the taxes paid on dividends are meager in comparison. For this and many other reasons, I support a tax based on consumption rather than income (because apparently wealthy people purchase things too).
Trusting wealthy politicians to help close the gap between the haves and the have-nots will not solve our problems. Additionally, it is a mistake to base one's opinions of capitalism on the corporatism we have today (where the government actively helps keep big businesses free from competition). Changing the tax structure, ending the Fed and its ability to conjure money out of thin air (inflation), and reducing the influence of big corporations over the market (by reducing their influence over politicians and reducing government's influence over the market) will be key to setting the economy on a path toward closing the gap between the poor and the wealthy.
There is wealth inequality; that much is true. But what keeps the rich getting richer while the rest of us stay fairly stagnant? In a word, INTEREST.
The old adage is that it takes money to make money and this certainly seems to be the case. But this is not an inherent problem of being wealthy necessarily, so much as it is a problem of big government. Liberals like to suggest that big government can cure all our ills by taking from the rich and giving to the poor under penalty of law, like some kind of mafioso Robin Hood. But I argue that it is big government itself that allows for the vast discrepancies in wealth with every passing generation. Consider the fractional reserve banking system. In this system for example, a bank can loan you $200,000 for a new home. You make a down payment, say $20,000, and the bank fronts the rest. But wait? Did the bank really front that $180,000 from their own coffers? Hardly. Rather, by providing 10% of the loaned amount to the Federal Reserve, the bank is effectively getting the remaining 90% of the money in the form of an INTEREST-FREE loan. After 20 years, you might have paid back the loan to the bank, along with a hefty amount of interest. The bank pays back the capital to the Fed and keeps the interest as profit. Bankers also win the house in the event you can't pay back the difference, so they win no matter what basically. This is unjust because the bank puts no more on the line than you and gets an interest-free loan while you pay the interest. And if that bank still manages to lose money, the benevolent big government will use your tax dollars to bail them out.
To be fair to the wealthy, some individuals actually invested a great deal of time and money and risked everything on their dreams in order to get where they are today. These are not typically the individuals demonized for "not earning" their wealth. The example most used to promote the inheritance tax is the rich children of someone who did the work and died. These people didn't work for their money, they just had good luck that they were born to wealthy parents. This is the justification for taking their money and giving it to people who really had no connection to the earning of it. But what makes money so special? There are plenty of examples in which people have benefited simply because they were born to the right parents. Race, height, attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, healthy genes; these are all accidents of heredity. If you were born below average height, should the government step in and pay for bone lengthening surgery? What about people born with above average height? Cosmetic surgery for the unattractive and face mangling for the overly attractive? GPA leveling for intelligence? (BTW, there is an excellent consideration of GPA redistribution here). When Jefferson wrote that "...all men are created equal," he wasn't an idiot. He knew that there were some who had more or less intelligence, looks, money, etc. The best we can hope for is to ensure that children have equal access to the basics of food, water, shelter, clothing, and learning so as to provide some level of fairness when the time comes for them to accept the responsibility for their lives as adult individuals. A capitalistic society can provide equality of opportunities without guaranteeing equality of outcomes. But big government actually ensures worse outcomes for the have-nots by stacking the deck in favor of the wealthy. I have one more example.
The income tax. A code of over 17,000 pages, so complex that you'd need to be a rich person to hire the accountants required to tease it apart. Additionally, lobbyists often suggest amendments and loopholes to insert into the code so that they have legal work-arounds. And the real kicker: The income tax only applies to income and many of the wealthiest live off of dividends from investments (INTEREST!!!). So while we can talk about raising the income tax level against the wealthiest 1%, it doesn't have the impact because the taxes paid on dividends are meager in comparison. For this and many other reasons, I support a tax based on consumption rather than income (because apparently wealthy people purchase things too).
Trusting wealthy politicians to help close the gap between the haves and the have-nots will not solve our problems. Additionally, it is a mistake to base one's opinions of capitalism on the corporatism we have today (where the government actively helps keep big businesses free from competition). Changing the tax structure, ending the Fed and its ability to conjure money out of thin air (inflation), and reducing the influence of big corporations over the market (by reducing their influence over politicians and reducing government's influence over the market) will be key to setting the economy on a path toward closing the gap between the poor and the wealthy.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
“What is the dividing line between the public’s right to know and the government’s right to some confidentiality in light of the current Wikileaks controversy?”
This is an essay I wrote recently and it seemed relevant.
The United States government is a leviathan and possesses a monopoly on force. When combined with the power of printing a currency used essentially worldwide, one must wonder why anyone would risk leaking documents and incurring the wrath of Uncle Sam. Right now, there is a 23-year-old man sitting in solitary confinement, awaiting a trial for, amongst other charges, aiding the enemy. The documents were not released to any specific enemy of the United States; they were released to the public. But perhaps to the government, the public IS the enemy. The guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality that encourages the warrantless wiretaps and airport gropings does seem to indicate that the attitude of the government toward the people is adversarial. However, maybe the government is legitimately concerned about supposed threats to national security. But in the words of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, “When governments stop torturing and killing people, and when corporations stop abusing the legal system, then perhaps it will be time to ask if free speech activists are accountable.”
“I’d rather have a free press and no government than a government and no free press.” This sentiment of Thomas Jefferson is well represented within the first amendment of the United States constitution, wherein the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are explicitly protected. These freedoms were included because free expression is an essential element of a functioning democracy. Free expression enables the dissemination of information between individuals and allows differing opinions to compete in what John Stuart Mill referred to as “The Marketplace of Ideas”. Furthermore, freedom of expression enables the governed to raise grievances against their government with impunity.
Perhaps at one point in our nation’s history, the news media was concerned about providing society with vital information and actively criticizing bad governmental policies. Today, the main concerns of the majority of news media are needlessly scaring the public, serving as outlets for government propaganda, and maintaining the status quo. Thankfully, a news source appeared in 2006 that treated the people of the world like rational adults, capable of handling the truth without being spoon-fed regurgitated half-truths from society’s paternalistic elites. The whistle-blowing website Wikileaks was established as a means for exposing corruption in the realms of the nameless and blameless: namely government and corporations.
The most famous leak occurred in April 2010, when Wikileaks released video footage of a July 12th, 2007 incident. In the video, American soldiers are seen opening fire on a group of Iraqi civilians and laughing. During the attack, at least 12 Iraqis were killed and 2 children were wounded. The video shocked many Americans and many more worldwide, because we’re supposedly the good guys. We follow the rules of engagement and such events are reported up the chain of command. This is America, where criminals are prosecuted and justice is served. And yet, the government’s response to the leak was one of denial. People were told that this was taken out of context and that in these events need to be considered in the context of a war. No soldiers involved in the attacks were found guilty of any wrong doing and the official military report on the day of the attack was that two journalists and nine insurgents were killed. The alleged leaker of this video and approximately 260,000 diplomatic cables to Wikileaks is PFC Bradley Manning. Manning remains in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps Brig in Quantico, Virgina while awaiting a pre-trial hearing.
Wikileaks clearly affirms the notion that the public has a right to know, but does the government have a right to confidentiality? Making sure the government has confidentiality is akin to making sure David plays fair against Goliath. Thanks to the Patriot Act, endorsed by Bush and Obama, warrantless wiretaps can be used against regular private individuals like you and me. Maybe if the government respected the confidentiality of the people, they could expect reciprocity. Ironically, individuals actually deserve privacy. However, a publicly elected and publically funded government has no such expectation of privacy. In fact, we as citizens have a responsibility to know how our tax dollars are being spent and how we are being represented around the world.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Post #3: What scares me the most about my generation
Compassion. Compassion is a noble part of the human psyche. It separates us from the purely calculated risk-aversive 'thinking' executed by computers. It's that understanding which helps us smooth out our differences and allows us the ability to walk in someone else's shoes. Compassion is what drives most people to want to help the people around them. It isn't always logical (people are more likely to help someone they can physically see than someone suffering the same plight in a far away country), but it provides emotional cues to get us thinking about the big picture. After all, humans are feeling creatures that can think.
Helping others is a good thing, but one should always use caution when considering laws which try to replace individual compassion with huge bureaucratic framework. Sure, it starts out as "We all MUST chip in and help the less fortunate", or "It's everyone's RIGHT to ___________." It sounds nice, and it wins votes (who doesn't like free stuff?). There's a popular saying often quoted in biology courses: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." In biological terms it's referring to entropy and the properties of matter and energy (spoiler alert: they can't be made out of thin air). However, I'm invoking this phrase simply to describe where this "free" stuff comes from. Politicians garner support by telling their constituents that they'll give them _______. But this isn't the compassion of an individual. This politician isn't running to his bank and withdrawing all his money for his constituents. Rather, he's buying votes with YOUR money. All the legislators have to do is raise taxes or hope the federal reserve prints more money. Either way, the taxpayer can afford less. The benefactors in this situation are the constituents whose votes have just been paid for and the politician who gets to keep his cush job for another term. "Who cares? I want money to go to _________ so they can afford ___________." Well that's not your decision to make for everyone else. "But in a democracy, the majority rules." So, 50.1% of the population can make huge decisions which violate the other 49.9% of the population's Pursuit of Happiness (because their money will be stolen in the form of taxes)?
That's the attitude of a great number of Americans sadly.
This situation is even worse in Europe, but they can't get far beyond their old habits. The Europeans had monarchy after monarchy and then America proved that the old notion of a democratic republic was more just and fair. Europe eventually got on board with this concept (although there are many figure-head monarchs still floating around), but the 20th century demonstrated that the Old World couldn't stray far from their old idea of the government taking care of their every need, as a slave owner might tend to his slaves. In the 1900s, the United States was sold out to the 'genius' of Central Banking. This has been accused of causing the stock market crash and resultant Great Depression. What followed was the so-called "progressive era". This meant a bunch of 'shovel-ready' jobs from the government to keep people busy. What few people care to mention is that the majority of shoveling was digging ourselves into an inescapable pit of unfulfilled promises. Social Security is essentially a Ponzi scheme which uses the money as it's paid in. So long as there are more people paying in than are taking out, it will seem ok. But what has happened in recent history is that too few of workers are paying in and everyone who lives long enough is taking out. Tack on the welfare/warfare state and thousands of subsidies promised to individuals and businesses and you have the current economic debacle.
So why do some people in my generation keep pushing for more government take over of private sectors? Well, in principle, if all the goods and services in the world were controlled by the state (you keep 0% of your income), then presumably everyone could have equal access to goods and services. But time and time again, such governments fail to treat individuals with dignity and those in power exploit their positions such that there is no longer any semblance of equality. Workers, realizing that they will get the exact same thing regardless of their workload, will opt for less and less (Europe is ahead of us on this one, trust me). I think what socialists... er democrats... er liberals... er progressives want is for those who have money to be forced (ultimately at gun point if they fail to pay their taxes) to give it all away to those who have less (for any number of reasons). Many wealthy individuals give large sums of money away to worthwhile causes as it is (Bill and Melinda Gates, for example). But that's not enough for some politicians. They want the control and the power to take from one and give to another. They get to play Santa with someone else footing the bill. But it doesn't ever change anything for those worst off. Why? Because it pays to keep people victimized. A politician who eliminates poverty could get an entire generation of votes. But a politician who keeps people just above homelessness will always get votes as long as he's "fighting the bad guys". Giving away the rich people's money (politicians love a good class war to distract you from the real bad guys, themselves) is the equivalent of giving someone a fish. But if politicians wanted people to avoid the problem of poverty for good, they would do more to ensure a fair shot for children (that is, before they should be able to take care of themselves). Unfortunately, our government does a crummy job of providing affordable quality education. But that's another topic for another day.
The bottom line is that the role of the government is not to provide you with everything in the world you might ever need or want. The role of government is to protect your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They don't guarantee the happiness, just the pursuit. I have three arguments against socialism: moral, economic, and pragmatic. Socialism is unethical on the grounds that it violates the very rights governments are sworn to protect. Furthermore, it treats citizens like children who require the nanny state to provide everything for them (if you don't take control of your own life, someone in D.C. will). The economic principles underlying socialism are farcical. Capitalism (not what we have today; that's corporatism or crony-capitalism) makes more economic sense as people pursuing their own interests will always outperform people who can get away with working less and obtaining the same reward. Historically, socialism has generally resulted in economic collapse, gross violations of human rights (you can't spell 'Nazi' without 'socialist'), and a more miserable existence for everyone but the politicians.
I sincerely hope that my generation can see through the broken promises of career politicians and rediscover the principles upon which the country was founded. I hope they find libertarianism.
Helping others is a good thing, but one should always use caution when considering laws which try to replace individual compassion with huge bureaucratic framework. Sure, it starts out as "We all MUST chip in and help the less fortunate", or "It's everyone's RIGHT to ___________." It sounds nice, and it wins votes (who doesn't like free stuff?). There's a popular saying often quoted in biology courses: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." In biological terms it's referring to entropy and the properties of matter and energy (spoiler alert: they can't be made out of thin air). However, I'm invoking this phrase simply to describe where this "free" stuff comes from. Politicians garner support by telling their constituents that they'll give them _______. But this isn't the compassion of an individual. This politician isn't running to his bank and withdrawing all his money for his constituents. Rather, he's buying votes with YOUR money. All the legislators have to do is raise taxes or hope the federal reserve prints more money. Either way, the taxpayer can afford less. The benefactors in this situation are the constituents whose votes have just been paid for and the politician who gets to keep his cush job for another term. "Who cares? I want money to go to _________ so they can afford ___________." Well that's not your decision to make for everyone else. "But in a democracy, the majority rules." So, 50.1% of the population can make huge decisions which violate the other 49.9% of the population's Pursuit of Happiness (because their money will be stolen in the form of taxes)?
That's the attitude of a great number of Americans sadly.
This situation is even worse in Europe, but they can't get far beyond their old habits. The Europeans had monarchy after monarchy and then America proved that the old notion of a democratic republic was more just and fair. Europe eventually got on board with this concept (although there are many figure-head monarchs still floating around), but the 20th century demonstrated that the Old World couldn't stray far from their old idea of the government taking care of their every need, as a slave owner might tend to his slaves. In the 1900s, the United States was sold out to the 'genius' of Central Banking. This has been accused of causing the stock market crash and resultant Great Depression. What followed was the so-called "progressive era". This meant a bunch of 'shovel-ready' jobs from the government to keep people busy. What few people care to mention is that the majority of shoveling was digging ourselves into an inescapable pit of unfulfilled promises. Social Security is essentially a Ponzi scheme which uses the money as it's paid in. So long as there are more people paying in than are taking out, it will seem ok. But what has happened in recent history is that too few of workers are paying in and everyone who lives long enough is taking out. Tack on the welfare/warfare state and thousands of subsidies promised to individuals and businesses and you have the current economic debacle.
So why do some people in my generation keep pushing for more government take over of private sectors? Well, in principle, if all the goods and services in the world were controlled by the state (you keep 0% of your income), then presumably everyone could have equal access to goods and services. But time and time again, such governments fail to treat individuals with dignity and those in power exploit their positions such that there is no longer any semblance of equality. Workers, realizing that they will get the exact same thing regardless of their workload, will opt for less and less (Europe is ahead of us on this one, trust me). I think what socialists... er democrats... er liberals... er progressives want is for those who have money to be forced (ultimately at gun point if they fail to pay their taxes) to give it all away to those who have less (for any number of reasons). Many wealthy individuals give large sums of money away to worthwhile causes as it is (Bill and Melinda Gates, for example). But that's not enough for some politicians. They want the control and the power to take from one and give to another. They get to play Santa with someone else footing the bill. But it doesn't ever change anything for those worst off. Why? Because it pays to keep people victimized. A politician who eliminates poverty could get an entire generation of votes. But a politician who keeps people just above homelessness will always get votes as long as he's "fighting the bad guys". Giving away the rich people's money (politicians love a good class war to distract you from the real bad guys, themselves) is the equivalent of giving someone a fish. But if politicians wanted people to avoid the problem of poverty for good, they would do more to ensure a fair shot for children (that is, before they should be able to take care of themselves). Unfortunately, our government does a crummy job of providing affordable quality education. But that's another topic for another day.
The bottom line is that the role of the government is not to provide you with everything in the world you might ever need or want. The role of government is to protect your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They don't guarantee the happiness, just the pursuit. I have three arguments against socialism: moral, economic, and pragmatic. Socialism is unethical on the grounds that it violates the very rights governments are sworn to protect. Furthermore, it treats citizens like children who require the nanny state to provide everything for them (if you don't take control of your own life, someone in D.C. will). The economic principles underlying socialism are farcical. Capitalism (not what we have today; that's corporatism or crony-capitalism) makes more economic sense as people pursuing their own interests will always outperform people who can get away with working less and obtaining the same reward. Historically, socialism has generally resulted in economic collapse, gross violations of human rights (you can't spell 'Nazi' without 'socialist'), and a more miserable existence for everyone but the politicians.
I sincerely hope that my generation can see through the broken promises of career politicians and rediscover the principles upon which the country was founded. I hope they find libertarianism.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Post #2- Why I'm a Libertarian
I was born in Indiana and raised as a Catholic. My parents didn't talk a great deal about politics or philosophy per se, but I had gathered many opinions on these subjects from them and (as I would suspect is the case for most children) adopted those opinions as my own. It wasn't until I was 14 that I really questioned my core values. I suppose adolescence is the time when many individuals deconstruct those principles they took for granted growing up and evaluate them for personal consistency. I stopped believing in spiritual things as a freshman in high school, but saw no reason to quit behaving as morally as I had before. But I soon realized there were some aspects of my Catholic upbringing that could rightly apply to any sane human being. Basic morality including not killing or stealing was clearly wrong. Other things, like going to church on Sunday, seemed less of an offense against people and more of an offense against God (which I was no longer worried about). Still there were some things I chose to keep, like avoiding drugs, which I maintained were not 'moral' concerns, but rather 'personal value' concerns. These personal values required non-spiritual reasoning to support them. Drugs never interested me and they seemed to be a health concern, but other things are health concerns too. I avoid drugs primarily because I like being in control of myself. But I had friends who did drugs and I respected that they owned themselves and could make their own choices about their lives.
Four years on high school debate team led to a profound interest in philosophy. John Stossel's "In the Classroom" series was often shown during government class and I realized that being a libertarian made more sense than being a socially conservative republican (because who am I to tell you what to do to yourself?) and it made more sense than being a fiscally liberal democrat (because why should someone else have to pay for your life?). After high school, I joined the Libertarian Party and attended my undergrad to study biology (because it interested me AND could pay the bills), but I minored in philosophy because I had such an interest in the subject. Throughout this time, I tried to get the word out about the Libertarian Party, but it was greatly overshadowed by the democrats and republicans. Interestingly, it seemed as though many Libertarian activism ideas were being co-opted by the republicans on campus, but not the democrats. Like many in the sciences, my plan after college was to get my PhD and become a professor.
It was not until earning my MS that I began to see how truly entrenched the democrats are in the sciences. The word diversity was everywhere but I feel the liberal use of the word is only skin deep. Universities do demonstrate that they love racial diversity (to the point of excluding students with better credentials), but they have not fooled anyone into believing that they care about political diversity. To be fair, social liberalism is quite conducive for promoting a healthy learning environment. But fiscal liberalism fosters a mentality of dependence on the government, which is anything but healthy.
The discovery of the Free Talk Live podcast/radio show enlightened me about the possibilities of putting one's money where one's mouth is. It might not have been enough to simply try and vote the right people in or send letters to my congressmen (though I still do), if I want to achieve freedom for my fellow Americans I might have to protest and get active. The notion of civil disobedience had always seemed taboo and radical, but I was told these things by those in power to begin with. Overcoming that taboo required linking the idea to people who are nearly universally admired; people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. But this put me in a predicament. Here I am, a libertarian fighting the system and yet my PhD stipend money is coming from the very federal grants I oppose. One the one hand, I do deserve to get paid for my work. On the other hand, the idea that the money is coming from the theft of the people is disturbing to say the least. My current resolve is to try and secure my own funding from a private source and to find a career free from government handouts.
Why do I ascribe to the Libertarian philosophy?
Consider anarchy. Many associate the word with chaos or horrors or murder in the streets. If you associate the word anarchy with that then big brother has succeeded in redefining the word. An-archy is simply the lack of a government, just as a-theism is the lack of religion. Neither, patently means murdering in the streets. That is just a successful smear campaign from big government and big religion.
So, as I was saying, consider anarchy. No taxes, no government breathing down your neck, people being generally peaceful. Then some jerk tries to murder you. Well, it's pretty obvious that he's violating you somehow. Specifically, he's violating your right to life. Well, it turns out he decided not to kill you, but to merely lock you up in a room. Again, he's violated something. Specifically, your right to liberty. In the end, he ran off with your stuff and violated your right to property. Something must be done! Well, you and your neighbors agree to form a government. A government is simply a contractual agreement to protect the rights of the governed. The cost to the governed is simply giving up the liberty to violate those rights of your neighbors. Result: I no longer have the freedom to punch Larry, but he's no longer allowed to steal my stuff. The other costs associated with this government include the costs required to protect these rights (police, courts, etc.) Ah, now that everyone has to play by the rules, everyone is more secure. This is all good and fine for responsible individuals like adults, but what about kids? Well, to be sure the role of government in the lives of children would be very different. The concern with the government typically is the protection of rights. For children, the concern would just be protection of life to the degree which that wasn't already provided by the family. And since this government is not alone in the world, a small military should probably exist as a last resort in the event diplomacy fails.
That is my ideal Libertarian world. You and you alone are responsible for your decisions and your rights are sacrosanct. How did that Lockean ideal become the gnarly mess we have today? Beats the hell out of me.
Four years on high school debate team led to a profound interest in philosophy. John Stossel's "In the Classroom" series was often shown during government class and I realized that being a libertarian made more sense than being a socially conservative republican (because who am I to tell you what to do to yourself?) and it made more sense than being a fiscally liberal democrat (because why should someone else have to pay for your life?). After high school, I joined the Libertarian Party and attended my undergrad to study biology (because it interested me AND could pay the bills), but I minored in philosophy because I had such an interest in the subject. Throughout this time, I tried to get the word out about the Libertarian Party, but it was greatly overshadowed by the democrats and republicans. Interestingly, it seemed as though many Libertarian activism ideas were being co-opted by the republicans on campus, but not the democrats. Like many in the sciences, my plan after college was to get my PhD and become a professor.
It was not until earning my MS that I began to see how truly entrenched the democrats are in the sciences. The word diversity was everywhere but I feel the liberal use of the word is only skin deep. Universities do demonstrate that they love racial diversity (to the point of excluding students with better credentials), but they have not fooled anyone into believing that they care about political diversity. To be fair, social liberalism is quite conducive for promoting a healthy learning environment. But fiscal liberalism fosters a mentality of dependence on the government, which is anything but healthy.
The discovery of the Free Talk Live podcast/radio show enlightened me about the possibilities of putting one's money where one's mouth is. It might not have been enough to simply try and vote the right people in or send letters to my congressmen (though I still do), if I want to achieve freedom for my fellow Americans I might have to protest and get active. The notion of civil disobedience had always seemed taboo and radical, but I was told these things by those in power to begin with. Overcoming that taboo required linking the idea to people who are nearly universally admired; people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. But this put me in a predicament. Here I am, a libertarian fighting the system and yet my PhD stipend money is coming from the very federal grants I oppose. One the one hand, I do deserve to get paid for my work. On the other hand, the idea that the money is coming from the theft of the people is disturbing to say the least. My current resolve is to try and secure my own funding from a private source and to find a career free from government handouts.
Why do I ascribe to the Libertarian philosophy?
Consider anarchy. Many associate the word with chaos or horrors or murder in the streets. If you associate the word anarchy with that then big brother has succeeded in redefining the word. An-archy is simply the lack of a government, just as a-theism is the lack of religion. Neither, patently means murdering in the streets. That is just a successful smear campaign from big government and big religion.
So, as I was saying, consider anarchy. No taxes, no government breathing down your neck, people being generally peaceful. Then some jerk tries to murder you. Well, it's pretty obvious that he's violating you somehow. Specifically, he's violating your right to life. Well, it turns out he decided not to kill you, but to merely lock you up in a room. Again, he's violated something. Specifically, your right to liberty. In the end, he ran off with your stuff and violated your right to property. Something must be done! Well, you and your neighbors agree to form a government. A government is simply a contractual agreement to protect the rights of the governed. The cost to the governed is simply giving up the liberty to violate those rights of your neighbors. Result: I no longer have the freedom to punch Larry, but he's no longer allowed to steal my stuff. The other costs associated with this government include the costs required to protect these rights (police, courts, etc.) Ah, now that everyone has to play by the rules, everyone is more secure. This is all good and fine for responsible individuals like adults, but what about kids? Well, to be sure the role of government in the lives of children would be very different. The concern with the government typically is the protection of rights. For children, the concern would just be protection of life to the degree which that wasn't already provided by the family. And since this government is not alone in the world, a small military should probably exist as a last resort in the event diplomacy fails.
That is my ideal Libertarian world. You and you alone are responsible for your decisions and your rights are sacrosanct. How did that Lockean ideal become the gnarly mess we have today? Beats the hell out of me.
Post #1: Where I'm coming from
This is my first blog post on my first blog. I find it's difficult for opinions outside the designated boundaries of the status quo to get any real consideration without labeling oneself as 'radical' or 'weird'. This leads to a society in which we claim to love diversity but not of opinions and ultimately reinforces the status quo. And just as politicians have learned over the years, the more stances one takes on any given issue, the more likely one is to lose friends. Thus, I no longer feel free to speak my mind on Facebook because I don't want to hurt my friends' feelings. Weak? Maybe. But it's not because I can't stand alone (like a politician). It's because I truly believe my friends are good people who have some notions with which I disagree. I've certainly had some incorrect ideas in my day and I'm always trying to correct them. But I didn't correct anything by getting lectures from my friends. I correct my notions by seeking out information and opinions from the written word. So the purpose of this blog is to be a resource to individuals seeking out a perspective on different topics related to philosophy, science, politics, morality, and life in general.
So what are my qualifications for writing on these subjects? I'm human and alive. I'm guessing if you're reading this you meet those criteria. While I am a scientist and I've read my share of philosophy books, this doesn't make me any more qualified than you the reader. These facts merely helped to inform my opinions, just as every event in our lives helps to form our opinions. You don't have to agree with me, but I would ask that your comments are respectful and constructive. I'm an open-minded person and I will consider alternatives to any of the opinions discussed in this blog.
So what are my qualifications for writing on these subjects? I'm human and alive. I'm guessing if you're reading this you meet those criteria. While I am a scientist and I've read my share of philosophy books, this doesn't make me any more qualified than you the reader. These facts merely helped to inform my opinions, just as every event in our lives helps to form our opinions. You don't have to agree with me, but I would ask that your comments are respectful and constructive. I'm an open-minded person and I will consider alternatives to any of the opinions discussed in this blog.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)