Rational Passion

I'd like to associate myself with this post by Keith Lockitch (PhD, theoretical physics) :

"Everyone who participates in the political process has a responsibility to judge controversial issues for themselves. When it comes to technical scientific questions that have major policy implications, one must often rely on the testimony of experts, but not by surrendering one’s judgment to them. In such situations, one must judge the experts themselves. Are they credible? Are there other credible experts who disagree with them? Are there reasons to question the motives and the integrity of scientists advancing a certain theory?

"It is true that I am not a climate scientist. But the scientific background that I do have puts me in a good position to judge the competing scientific claims that are made on this issue. My position, based on my assessment of the science and the broader policy debate surrounding it, is that even if human activity were causing large-scale changes to the climate, there is no reason to think this would constitute an unmanageable 'planetary emergency' justifying the draconian regulations and economic interventions sought by environmentalists and their political fellow-travelers.

"The fact is that there is a large gap between the scientific claims being advanced regarding the causes and effects of global warming and the political policies being proposed to address it. And that raises a legitimate question about whether the science itself has been corrupted by a questionable moral/political agenda."


(via Yaron Brook)

There are so many things wrong with this article that an article of equal length would be required to refute them all.

All I want to ask Ms. Dalmia is this: if Smith and Locke and Hayek understand the "other-interested" side of human behavior so well, why have the Libertarian and conservative movements (both of which embrace these figures) been such dismal failures at reining in the welfare state?  Why is it that, for the past century--the Reagan-Thatcher pause (which I think is fair name for the 80's and 90's) notwithstanding--the state has grown and grown with no end in sight?  Yes, there was the Reagan-Thatcher pause, and yes, there have been some reductions of some regulations in some fields (though the idea, popular among lefty commentators, that we live under anything approaching a laissez-faire government is ludicrous).  But with the bankruptcy of the welfare state assured at some point in the next 20-30 years (absent a massive overhaul that radically cuts benefits or increases taxes, neither of which promises to be popular in the short-term) due to basic demographic and economic facts, why is it that the Libertarian movement (and the conservative movement, to the extent it overlaps with the Libertarian movement on economic issues) hasn't made more headway in cutting the welfare state down to size?  If Ms. Dalmia is to be believed, unlike us mean, self-interested Objectivists, "other-interested" Libertarians ought to be taking over the country by now.  But they're not.  Why not?  Because morality matters.  And altruism in any form, however limited, means collectivism, statism, and, ultimately, dictatorship.

The piece goes on at some length, piling error upon error in its characterization of Ayn Rand's ideas.  As Libertarians always do, Ms. Dalmia claims Ayn Rand for a movement she wanted nothing to do with.  And then Ms. Dalmia, having improperly described Objectivism and claimed this awful (by her standards) ideology for the Libertarian movement, goes on to worry that Ayn Rand will become popular and set back the case for liberty that Ms. Dalmia and other "other-interested" Libertarians are (supposedly) so good at making.  My advice to Ms. Dalmia and to the Libertarian movement is: stop claiming Objectivists as part of your movement out of one side of your mouth and denouncing us out of the other side.  Admit that, though Smith, Locke, and Hayek are ultimately useless in the battle against an ever-expanding state, and Ayn Rand makes a moral case for unapologetic individualism better than anyone in history, you'll side with the former because you're "grown-ups" who understand that individualism is an ideal one must discard in order to value other people.  And watch as, confronted with your arguments, society continues its march toward ever-greater statism undeterred.

I'm newly busy as a student, and have not had a chance to respond to phamos818 in a considered, concise way.  I will now attempt to do so.  But first, I highly recommend reading my previous post, including the comments--this post presumes familiarity with my comments there, especially these two.  I did most of the heavy lifting there.  (Note: there was no Part III--which was meant to be my summation.  Instead this post will sum up my view of the views of Jack Donnelly and, to the extent she agrees with him, of the views of phamos818.)

I was trying to draw out phamos818's views on the topics of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, the branches of philosophy which underpin and justify one's political philosophy.  I got, in her words, "mainstream liberal universalist thinking" on human rights specifically, but I think I got enough of the underlying philosophy, particularly in epistemology and ethics, to better understand her approach to politics.  Now I take it that Jack Donnelly and phamos818 are (largely) of one mind, and if she disagrees with him, she is welcome to jump into the comments and do so.  But Jack Donnelly's epistemology and ethics seems to be: what is true and good is whatever society believes to be true and good, so long as said society is one in which social-democratic left-liberals like Jack Donnelly are the leading authorities on truth and goodness and the public unquestioningly follows their lead.  Donnelly's book is one long "because I--and here, I speak not just for myself, but for pretty much the whole democratic world outside of crazy right-wing Americans, so let's say 'we' instead--because we said so!"  I could say much more, but my previous comments--along with some perceptive comments by ilcylic on the previous post--pretty much capture my views.  Rather than drone about how insipid and ludicrous I find the left-liberal approach, I'll outsource the job to William Voegeli, a conservative with whom I disagree on, for example, abortion--I'm pro-choice, while he, as far as I can tell, is not.  And he uses "liberal" where I would use "left-liberal."  Plus, he has attacked Objectivism--par for the course among conservatives to prove that they are neither Godless nor "extremists."  Otherwise, it's a great article!  (Hey, if phamos818 can outsource, so can I!)  I've quoted this article before, but I suggest phamos818--and anyone else interested in these matters--read the whole thing.  Even in the age of Obama--whom phamos818 has recently criticized from the left (with the assistance of Matt Taibbi)--I think left-liberals like phamos818 and Donnelly have a major intellectual problem to solve.  Here's Voegeli's conclusion:

"Ultimately, a public philosophy based on the common good won't work unless it can make useful distinctions about what is and isn't common, and what is and isn't good. As it stands, common-good liberalism is just case-by-case liberalism on stilts. In the fight between those who say big ideas are indispensable to the resuscitation of liberalism and those who say big ideas are incompatible with the essence of liberalism, the scorecard shows that, so far, both sides are right."

Over at her LJ in a private thread, which I have been given permission to excerpt in this public post, phamos818 wrote:

But it's a generational rights issue between us at this point: You believe rights stop at what HR folks call first gen rights (civil and political) where as I also believe in 2nd gen rights (economic and social).

"HR," for those who don't know, stands for "human rights."  While I reject this manner of discussing rights ("first generation rights" seem to have some degree of overlap with individual rights, while "second generation rights" are basically "rights" to welfare-state benefits, and "third generation rights" are too bizarre for me to even grasp--you can find out more about this stuff at Wikipedia here), I accept that phamos818 accepts it to some extent, and in particular that she supports "second generation rights."  The Wikipedia article says, of these supposed "rights" (as of the time of this post--Wikipedia changes from time to time, though this article appears to have been unchanged for several months--and with links to other Wikipedia articles removed for ease of reading):

Second-generation human rights are related to equality and began to be recognized by governments after World War I. They are fundamentally social, economic, and cultural in nature. They ensure different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. Secondary rights would include a right to be employed, rights to housing and health care, as well as social security and unemployment benefits.

My question for phamos818 is a simple one: why do (or should) human beings have these "second generation rights?"  Your answer may be as short or as long as you like, and if you'd prefer not to spend the time answering yourself, you can outsource the job to someone else via a link provided a.) the link is publicly accessible (i.e. requires no subscriptions or registration) and b.) you indicate any significant disagreements you have with the person(s) you're linking to.  I'm not looking for a book, let alone a course of study, here, merely the basic case for your views--something between a few sentences and a few pages long.  I realize that the shorter the case you make (or link to), the more that will have to be left out.  So I want to let you know that I am asking in good faith--I know a lot will be left out, and I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here.  I truly want to understand why it is that you think as you do.  I may have criticisms--in fact, I almost certainly will--but my primary goal is to understand.

NB to phamos818: If I've asked you this before--perhaps more than once--please pardon me.  If I have, your answer(s) faded from memory.  I'd like to have this in writing so that I can appreciate your thinking better.  If you feel uncomfortable--for whatever reason--discussing the matter publicly, please email me and I'll leave this post up with an update saying that you choose not to discuss the matter publicly.  Also, see the NB to others immediately following this.

NB to others: if phamos818 chooses not to discuss this matter publicly, I encourage my other readers to draw no negative inferences about her.  She is under no obligation to discuss it publicly--or at all, for that matter.  In terms I think phamos818 would appreciate, it's her "first generation right" not to do so!  Do I have that right, phamos818?  Or is the right to speak (or not to speak) somehow "second generation" or "third generation?"

Paul Hsieh says, contrary to the claims of Obamacare supporters: "The free market is not another form of rationing."  He's right!  Read the whole thing.

There are some comment threads in the previous two posts that you may have missed and that may heat up shortly.

They can't deal with it.  Here's Jonah Goldberg:

"The reason for the panic is simple. Obama and the Democrats feel entitled to have their way on health care. This sense of entitlement is understandable. They won the election and control everything.

"The problem is that Americans don’t like what they’ve heard about the plan, and Obama is incapable of selling, or unwilling to sell, it on the merits (perhaps because he knows the plan will lead to the single-payer system he has long sought but now denies wanting). That’s why Obama spends most of his time either attacking critics or denouncing the status quo.

"Simply put: This administration believes it knows best. It feels it is the only legitimate beneficiary of 'people power.' It thinks it has a monopoly on democratic organizing. And it is terrified that it will be hobbled if it loses this fight.

"So, it just stands to reason that anyone who stands in the way must be a fraud, a puppet, a goon — or even a Nazi."

Read the whole thing.

I am not a big fan of "compassion"--I certainly don't consider it a virtue, let alone the greatest of virtues.  But neither is it necessarily a vice.  It's a nice thing--provided it's directed at someone who deserves it and it doesn't require self-sacrifice.  Today, via Hot Air, I came upon this woman's story.  Just watch it:


UPDATE: Embedding didn't go so well and has now been removed.  Click the link to Hot Air above to watch.


The "compassionate" government agency wanted the woman to drop dead and save them a few dollars.  The private company--out of sheer generosity, a desire for good publicity, a combination of the two, or some other motive--saw fit to give the woman the medication she needed for no charge.  Does every profit-seeking entity give away its products, even if only on rare occasions?  No.  But unlike government officials, who have the power of the state backing them up, profit-seeking entities have reputations to maintain and customers can--at least in a free market (I hasten to point out: our current healthcare system is not a free market)--take their business elsewhere.  Under the single-payer system that the President thinks is ideal, there are no choices.  The whole country would be this woman's story writ large.  Sure, sure--if you have oodles of money left after the new taxes that are raised to pay for Obamacare, or if you have political clout, or if you are treated particularly egregiously by the health bureaucracy and can generate mass media attention and public outrage, you may be able to get what you need.  But if those descriptions don't apply to you, and you're an older person with a serious disease that may cut your sunset years short, the state will help you die!  Isn't the state "compassionate?"

I find it disgraceful that the advocates of an even more statist healthcare system than we have at present think they can get away with calling themselves "compassionate."  In fact, to quote Ayn Rand, "the advocates of altruism are motivated not by compassion for suffering, but by hatred for man’s life."

Nate Silver proves it using statistics.

Ezra Klein is right about the healthcare debate: it's not primarily an economic issue--it's primarily a moral issue.  Of course, as a lefty, Klein's for altruism and collectivism and opposed to egoism and individualism--i.e. he's on the immoral side of the issue--but he's right that a big part of the reason that Obamacare is stalling is that its supporters seem unwilling to make their case in moral terms.  Perhaps it's because they fear (and with some reason) that the American people still haven't been persuaded by the left that the rights of the individual--the country's founding political principle--are outdated and must be jettisoned in favor of collectivism and state-worship.  This is a big problem for the left.  (I've blogged about it previously, e.g. here.)  They want to reduce all ideological debates to "either you're reasonable and decent--like us--or you're crazy/evil/stupid like our opponents" and, their principles supposedly established as beyond debate, spend their time arguing over the details of their statist plans and over how to foist statism on a public that shows signs of resistance.  Here's the bulk of Ezra's post:

"This year, however, it's not just been the opponents of the policy who have relied on the 'mellifluous language of the standard economic theory of markets.' It's been the advocates of reform. Ask yourself what the administration's one-line goal is on health-care reform. Is it 'equal treatment for everybody?' Is it 'if every American is guaranteed a lawyer, why not a doctor?' Is it even 'guaranteed health care for everyone?'

"No. It's 'bend the curve.' And the problem with 'bending the curve' is that it's a broadly testable proposition. This is, in part, why the Congressional Budget Office's skeptical assessments pose such a threat to health-care reform. If the White House's primary objective was health care for every American, or guaranteed care that you could keep even if you lost your job, or choice of insurance plans for every American, you could spend a bit more on health care and say you were achieving your goal. But if you say that the point of health-care reform is to save money, and then the outfit charged with estimating such things says it won't, that strikes at the heart of the project.

"The economic case for health-care reform requires a really radical version of reform. Single-payer, say, or the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act. The consensus Democratic health-care plan -- the basic approach that the Obama campaign committed itself to and that Democrats in Congress are pushing -- is primarily a coverage plan. It has some cost-saving features on the margins, but it's primarily a way of getting to universal coverage. You can argue for that plan in primarily moral terms, with some economic arguments around the margins. But the administration has been pushing it in primarily economic terms, with some moral arguments around the margins. And now they're caught in that dissonance."

I've blogged previously on the USPS.  Myrhaf, having recently experienced the frustrations of dealing with the postal service, explains that we can expect similar treatment from the US Health Service (or whatever it ends up being called) if/when medicine is socialized.  Here's an excerpt:

"Government bureaucrats don’t pursue profits. They follow regulations. The customer is just a nuisance, one of the many unpleasant obstacles to happiness they must deal with throughout the day. The supermarket manager delights to see more and more customers because it means more and more profits. The postal worker sees more customers as just more work, and he gets paid the same regardless of how many customers he makes happy.

"When we socialize medicine in America, going to the doctor will be like a combination of going to the post office and the DMV. We’re talking lines, bureaucratic procedures, and little incentive for government workers to give a damn. Imagine: doctors who resent every new patient as just so much more work they are forced by the system to do.

"We’re destroying our country, and when you ask Obama voters why they voted for him, they don’t really know. He made them feel warm and fuzzy. That’s good enough, isn’t it?"

As for me, I wonder about Obama's supporters--I don't mean anti-McCain voters who chose Obama in order to vote "Not McCain," but rather people who actually supported and celebrated the rise of this odious man.  I wonder what precisely they thought they were doing.  And I fear that, for many of them, "yes we can" meant "yes we can destroy America."  For the record, I abstained on the grounds that at some point the two evils become so evil that neither is acceptable.

Debi Ghate, an immigrant from Canada, warns us what will happen if/when Obamacare passes by quoting Atlas Shrugged's Dr. Hendricks:

"'I quit when medicine was placed under State control some years ago,' said Dr. Hendricks. 'Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the "welfare" of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, but "to serve." That a man’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards—never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in the operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.'

"Instead of bickering about the price tag of Obama-care, it’s time to fight the battle against socialized medicine on moral grounds. It’s time for doctors to defend their moral right to practice medicine free from government interference. And it’s time for their patients to defend their moral right to purchase health-care on a free market."

Couldn't have said it better myself--read the whole thing.

So my friend phamos818 posts on her tumblr blog a link to a link to a piece by Peter Singer in the NYT.  For those of you who don't know, Peter Singer has little problem with infanticide (since, by his bizarre definition, newborns are not persons) but has a big problem with harming animals (while infanticide can be acceptable, "speciesism" is not).  So I was tempted, in seeing Peter Singer's name, to just dismiss the whole thing.  But I've found I cannot.  I want to reply to this part of phamos818's post:

"Anyway, the most important point Singer makes in talking about the British system is that they’re in better shape than we are with regards to prescription coverage because they aren’t beholden to the whims of drug companies the way we are.  Because we are a system wherein most are covered by private insurers, the drug companies can put any ridiculous price on their patented drugs that they want to, and there’s no way to bargain them down.  The Medicare drug benefit was actually designed to add to that, to the benefit of the drug companies — the government does not negotiate costs with drug companies.  But in England, as Singer says, 'Pharmaceutical manufacturers often charge much more for drugs in the United States than they charge for the same drugs in Britain, where they know that a higher price would put the drug outside the cost-effectiveness limits set by NICE.'  Hey, look at that — single payer helps keep costs down for the government AND the tax payer.  You know who it doesn’t benefit?  The private insurance companies and the drug companies.  Hmmmmm.  CAPITALISM WILL SOLVE THIS!!  JOHN GALT TO THE RESCUE!!"

Only two points: 1.) Our current bastardized mixed economy health system is hardly an example of "capitalism."  2.) The reason those countries can bargain down these companies is that the costs of R&D can presently be covered by selling to the (relatively) more free US market.  If and when the United States joins the rest of the world in refusing to be "beholden to the whims of drug companies"--instead being beholden to the whims of government bureaucrats--the flow of powerful and cutting-edge drugs--including the kind that have extended the life of phamos818's father--will slow to a trickle, if not stop altogether.  Yep, socialized medicine will be wonderful!!!  Yes we can!!!

Surprising no one who pays the slightest bit of attention, Ron Paul has made it abundantly clear that he is an enemy of liberty.  Here's the text of the resolution he opposed:

"Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

"Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

"(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

"(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

"(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections."

I've been commenting on the Iranian regime on my Facebook page.  Here, I only want to say "about time!" in response to this admission from moderate lefty Ezra Klein:

"There are a couple things to say about this, all of them depressing. First, those of us who have long argued for the fundamental rationality of the Iranian regime have seen our case fundamentally weakened. A rational regime might have stolen the election. But they would not have stolen it like this, where there is no doubt of the theft. This is like robbers leaving muddy footprints and a home address. Tehran's evident vote-tampering is tempting both domestic revolution and international isolation. That they appear to fear neither says something very unsettling about the mental state of the regime."

Some of us have been saying this for quite some time.  This regime must go!

UPDATE: Or, as Instapundit puts it: "You know, one of the things I thought I’d like about Obama was his gay-rights position. But now I’m wondering if a Cheney administration wouldn’t be more liberal on this subject."  Is it time to start a Cheney For President movement?  (Ultimately, I'd say "no.")

In addition to a long-promised post on "elitism," it is becoming clearer to me that I will have to do a (relatively brief, non-technical) taxonomy of political ideologies--until and unless I see someone else do it better than I could.  For now, here's Dr. Harry Binswanger explaining how racial collectivism is the antithesis of an individualistic, pro-capitalist politics--and how it is the left that takes the side of the Palestinians against Israel.

The Conservatives are crushing Labour.

This gives me a chance to clarify a previous post on the Stupid Party (the GOP) and the Evil Party (the Democrats).  (I'm not sure to what extent those terms fit the corresponding parties in the UK, though they certainly do to some extent.)  Anyway, to the clarification: the Evil Party is actually more stupid than the Stupid Party. That's why if Olympia Snowe (more stupid than the average Republican but less than the average Democrat) left the Stupid Party, she would increase the average IQ of both parties. The Democrats get the title "Evil Party" because their massive evil is what distinguishes them from the Stupid Party.  Similarly, the Stupid Party is also somewhat evil, but it's not nearly as evil as it is stupid. In short:

Evil Party: extremely evil and very stupid
Stupid Party: pretty evil and very stupid (less stupid than the Dems but still very stupid)

I know it makes lefty heads explode, but yes, non-white non-males can be racists and/or sexists.  Sotomayor is both--she has repeatedly said, using slightly different words, that a Latina woman should be a better judge than a white male because of her life experiences.  This is a wanton embrace of racism, sexism, and, more deeply, subjectivism.  But it should be no surprise that the left has leaped to the defense of this woman: subjectivism (and racism and sexism) are a-okay with leftists, so long, of course, as the subject (in this case, Sotomayor) subjectively prefers the right sorts of people (racial minorities, women, the powerless) to the wrong sorts of people (whites, men, the powerful).  Here is an example of a leftist proudly embracing the subjectivism David Brooks is so fond of--not only embracing it, but also expressing incredulity that anyone could think that objectivity is possible:

"Reading David Brooks' 'case for an emotional justice' (sure to draw sneers from 'purer' conservatives), it occurred [sic--should be a "to" here] me: What's troubling me about the Sotomayor critics rambling on with such arch intellectual piety about how a jurists' emotions and experiences shouldn't inform her interpretations of the law isn't that I suspect these grumblers are racist or sexist or hard-hearted; it's that they really seem to believe that certain people (themselves included, of course) operate largely free from such messy, imprecise, irrational influences.

"Not to state the obvious, but an upper-middle class white guy reared in the suburbs is shaped by his experiences, carries certain assumptions, and views the world through a particular prism as much as a working-glass Puerto Rican gal from the Bronx, or, for that matter, the half-black son of a single mom raised in Hawaii. The person belonging to the cultural/ethnic/religious/gender/racial demographic that has traditionally dominated a field (and thus whose perspective has long been the default) may not have given as much thought to his prism as a member of a non-dominant group. But that does not make his prism a neutral one. It aimply allows him to more freely indulge his delusions of pure rationality and objectivity.

"In his column, Brooks wonders if Sotomayor 'is aware of the murky, flawed, and semiprimitive nature of her own decision-making, and has she accounted for her own uncertainty.[sic--should be an end-quote here.] It's a sensible question--and one that many high-minded legal experts, politicians, and other members of the chattering class clearly could stand to ask themselves."

What's troubling me is the extent to which lefties think that they can get away with being racists and sexists because they feel "empathy"  for the "oppressed."  Maybe they can get away with it and get Sotomayor onto the court, given the rotten state of our culture, but I won't let it pass without comment.  Whether they know it or not, anyone who supports the moderately racist and sexist Sonia Sotomayor has no case against the moderately racist Lawrence Auster.  Of course, lefties don't think they need to make a case for their views since shouting "racist" at all of their opponents, racist or not--while nominating an actual racist to the Supreme Court--has proven so effective.

UPDATE: I've broken my pledge to stop mentioning Auster, but I do think his case and that of Sotomayor are analagous: I doubt very much that he ever dons a white hood or that she says "kill whitey!" when among her comrades, but both are racists nonetheless--hence my claim that they are both "moderately racist."  In a rare move for me, I'll solicit opinions from my readers: is my pledge appropriate?

UPDATE II: Bob Sanders has some thoughts in the comments.

Must-see: