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.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
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)