A Reasonable Man   

I'm occasionally asked why I seem to side more with conservatives than progressives.

Well, I'm absolutely not conservative. I acknowledge that there is some inexplicit knowledge embedded within traditions, and I'm hesitant to change things very radically when the likely consequences of these changes are uncertain. But, I resist revering things that appear stupid, just because they have a long history. I want to do what makes sense. I want people to be free to challenge orthodoxy. I want people to be able to be weird. I don't have to understand and appreciate what they're doing. I think progress is made by people who go against traditions. And, even though people will often be mistaken, I think it's more respectful to let them make their (peaceful) mistakes than to force them to conform to traditions they disagree with.

So, I share many values with progressives. I value individual liberty. I care about human welfare, and justice. I'm against the state getting involved in private aspects of our lives (like religion, expression, sex, etc.).

Where I differ with progressives is that I don't share their romantic notion of the state. The two major party candidates do seem to share it, unfortunately.

I think the state, being an agency of force, should be limited as much as logically possible. It should only do those things that are appropriate to do with force (i.e. defend people from force and fraud, establish and enforce a legal framework that enables private trade and cooperation, etc.). It shouldn't go beyond these things, because it will cause more problems than it solves, and may lead to tyranny.

There's a joke about everything looking like a nail when your only tool is a hammer. It seems that many on the left think that the state is the only appropriate tool for the big problems that they see.

But, it's usually the wrong tool.

I think that many people are confused between the collective action of civil society and that of government. They're two very different things.

I can understand how the predisposition to use the power of the coercive leadership of the collective to address major problems may have evolved during times when tools for communication and cooperation among individuals were extremely limited. But, we don't live in that time now. We have lots of predispositions that most of us have chosen to overcome (like rape, assault, murder...) . This should be one of them.

Now, people can solve all sorts of problems via voluntary cooperation; both via private for-profit companies and markets, and private non-profit organizations that marshal the resources of people who agree with the cause.

The primary "advantage" gained by doing things through government is that the government can force the unwilling to contribute to causes they wouldn't otherwise support (or support as much as the proponents demand). This is a very dangerous path. Not only is it unfair and disrespectful to unwilling individuals, but this power created with good intentions will inevitably become controlled by those with the most political skill and influence, not those with the most noble intentions. The incentives are all wrong, and reducing existing government power is very difficult.

So, while I agree with many of the ends, I think that progressives have chosen the wrong means. I think they revere collective action over individual action too much, and state action over private action too much, and I think they are sabotaging the institutions that are likely to actually improve our condition and solve our problems.

So, at present, while both major parties are a threat to individuals and the positive institutions of civil society, I think that Democrats' agenda will do more harm more quickly and we're better off if they're slowed down by a vibrant Republican opposition and conservative judges.

So, when Democrats are ascendant, I'll probably spend most of my time criticizing them. When Republicans gain power and fail to act on their limited-government rhetoric, I criticize them as well.

I hope we can get enough gridlock to allow private civil society to progress quickly enough to make the government's destructive initiatives relatively harmless.

It's a race, and I'm rooting for technology to beat politics.

I hope you're all enjoying your Fourth of July.

I'll probably watch 1776 (yes, I finally bought it), and maybe go to see WALL·E later tonight.

By the way, if you're on Facebook and are so inclined, you can join my blog network here (I'm not clear on what the purpose is, but I'm sure it will lead to something or other).

UPDATE: WALL·E was very good. It did have some annoying, preachy, messages; but, they were overshadowed by the high-quality animation and humor.

It's sad when (almost) anybody dies. But when I think about the recent deaths of Tim Russert and George Carlin, I have to say that the media got it backwards in terms of the importance of the losses.

I suppose it was to be expected that Russert would get a lot of glowing coverage, being a member of the press and having died fairly young. But, it was a bit outrageous for it to go on and on as much as it did. I don't remember that much of a fuss when Gerald Ford died. Russert was a decent television show host, and I'm sure he had many admirable qualities; but many equally competent and admirable people die all the time.

Carlin, on the other hand, was a giant. He was able to find and express humor in life and language as few others will ever hope to equal. And he wasn't afraid to point out stupidity wherever he saw it. That's something we need.

I'll always fondly remember his classic routines like Baseball vs. Football, the Seven Words, Voting, and many more.

And, by the way, What is all this shit about angels?

I had to laugh to myself, at Tech·Ed last week, because attendees entering the party at Universal Studios in Orlando were offered large turkey legs to grab and eat while walking around.

I immediately thought about how offensive this would seem to Leon Kass, and that nobody there seemed to have a problem with it.

So, I took one and enjoyed my "shameful behavior."

I'm off to Orlando for Tech·Ed 2008 next week.

I won't be doing any blogging while I'm gone.

I've complained about Leon Kass and his "Wisdom of Repugnance" before.

Recently, several bloggers have noted Steven Pinker's "ice cream" quote from Kass that shows pretty clearly that his repugnance shouldn't be considered by anybody to be wise or a justification for limiting other people's options.

Here's Pinker's quote:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone--a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. ... Eating on the street--even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat--displays [a] lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. ... Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. ... This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if we feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior.

Here's an even longer version:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone --a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive.

I fear I may by this remark lose the sympathy of many reader, people who will condescendingly regard as quaint or even priggish the view that eating in the street is for dogs. Modern America's rising tide of informality has already washed out many long-standing traditions -- their reasons long before forgotten -- that served well to regulate the boundary between public and private; and in many quarters complete shamelessness is treated as proof of genuine liberation from the allegedly arbitrary constraints of manners. To cite one small example: yawning with uncovered mouth. Not just the uneducated rustic but children of the cultural elite are now regularly seen yawning openly in public (not so much brazenly or forgetfully as indifferently and "naturally"), unaware that it is an embarrassment to human self-command to be caught in the grip of involuntary bodily movements (like sneezing, belching, and hiccuping and even the involuntary bodily display of embarrassment itself, blushing). But eating on the street -- even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat -- displays in fact precisely such lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. Hunger must be sated now; it cannot wait. Though the walking street eater still moves in the direction of his vision, he shows himself as a being led by his appetites. Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. Eating on the run does not even allow the human way of enjoying one's food, for it is more like simple fueling; it is hard to savor or even to know what one is eating when the main point is to hurriedly fill the belly, now running on empty. This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior."

Kass, Leon: The Hungry Soul at 148-149. (University of Chicago Press, 1994, 1999)

Amazing. It's sad and scary that this guy, and many others, think that their internalization of eternal truths like these, revealed to them by their parents, teachers, and clergy, should be taken seriously as arguments to guide public policy and oppose promising research.

By the way, I agree with almost all of what Pinker has to say in the article, and I think it's worth a read if you have the time.

Here's the embarassing report on Human Dignity and Bioethics. It's largely stupid, but I enjoyed Dennett's article and his commentary on Kraynak.

It seems to me that Hillary Clinton's continued competitiveness in these late primary elections (she just won big in West Virginia) may be a very bad sign for the Democrats' chances in November.

It's been very clear for quite a while that 1) the delegate math is such that Obama is a huge favorite to eventually win the nomination, and 2) the longer the primary goes on, the more damage it does to the eventual nominee's chances of winning (more money wasted, more weaknesses exposed, more bad feelings of the losing faction, etc.).

If I were a Democratic voter in one of these primaries, and had a moderate preference for Clinton over Obama, but a strong preference for a Democrat victory in November, and I thought my single vote mattered, I'd probably vote for Obama to help stop the bleeding for the good of the party. I'm sure some of Clinton's supporters have done just that.

So, the fact that there are so many voters who are still voting for Clinton in these primaries indicates (to me) that there are many, many, Democrats who have such a strong preference for Clinton and/or dislike of Obama that they are willing to risk helping the Republicans in November in order to express their preference now.

I don't know how many of these people will fail to vote for Obama in the general election, but if I were a Democrat I'd be concerned about it.

Megan explains it all.

It's just a stupid gimmick that will do nothing to make most people better off.

While I don't like any taxes, I see the gas tax as a better way to raise money for government highway construction than others, because the costs are borne by the beneficiaries.

But, this proposal doesn't do any good. Good would be to reduce spending.

It's hard (impossible) to believe that Clinton and McCain don't know this (or have advisors who know this). It's just further evidence that politicians care less about the truth than about what will help them get elected. They'd much rather cause further damage and cater to the mistaken biases of voters, than advocate genuine improvements.

Obama may be against this particular example, but he's got plenty of his own.

May 1 always makes me contemplate the tragic legacy of communism, and the stupidity of those who continue to romanticize the awful totalitarian ideas behind it.

I urge you all to review the great collection of articles in the May Day tradition at The Distributed Republic.

Here are some more of their collections from 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004.

Note: It seems that many of the links in these pages can be fixed by replacing "catallarchy.net/blog" with "distributedrepublic.net"