::Freespace::

Other blogs: Erik Peterson has had a lot of cool things on his blog of late—go check it out.

Bloggery byes: And thank you, Eric. You’re totally wrong about Christianity but I forgive you.

Libertarian Bookworm: This week, I recommend Justice And Its Surroundings by Anthony de Jasay. I’ve mentioned this book frequently on this blog, because it is a book of superb insight and precision. I read it on the strength of this review by Tom G. Palmer.

Jasay chooses his title to emphasize one of his primary complaints: that people tend to talk about “justice” and “rights” and “fairness” and “freedom” with great inaccuracy because they don’t define their terms. Jasay therefore carefully defines his terms: liberty means the ability to act without constraint; nobody has a right to stop you from doing the thing. A right is an obligation owned by one person which requires another person to do or not do something. You have a right not to be deprived of your liberty to speak, for instance. The freedom of contract is the “transformation of a freedom into an obligation for oneself and a right for another”—e.g., when you sell your labor to an employer.

Justice, however, is a controversial term because there are two competing views of it. The classical view, suum cuique, [Latin for “give to each that which is his own”] and the more modern view, which Jasay calls the “no-fault” theory of justice. “The ‘no-fault’ concept of justice…consider[s] states of affairs in relation to a norm, an ideal state of the world. Actual states may be found unjust if they diverge from the ideal in certain ways….without an unjust act of man bringing it about. It is, in this essential sense, ‘nobody’s fault.’” The no-fault concept posits a value—say, equal distribution of all property—and then measures the “justice” of the “system” by its diversion from this goal. “Blaming ‘the system’ or the lack of suitable institutions is characteristic of this holistic way to justice.” The suum cuique concept, by contrast, “pursues fault. It is guided by an older, rival concept, where justice is inseparably united with responsibility. Redress is not called for if blame or guilt is not shown.” Under this notion of justice, if a fool and his money are soon parted, that may be unfair, but it is not an injustice, and it certainly does not warrant a coercive redistribution of wealth from the smart man to the fool (so long as the smart man did not use coercion, which would be an injustice requiring redress). Under suum cuique, unequal and unfair states of the world are just so long as no injustice has occurred on the part of any person.

Under “suum cuique,” the exercise by everyone of their liberties and the fulfillment of their obligations distributes benefits and burdens. A just state of affairs prevails unless an unjust act violates it. Under “To each, according to,” certain benefits or burdens must be distributed to chosen persons according to a common criterion. The class of persons and the distributive criterion must be chosen justly. Unlike in the realm of “suum cuique,” the distribution here is the product of a deliberate act…. An unjust state of affairs ensues unless a certain just act is performed.

Throughout the book, Jasay explains why suum cuique is the only system of justice that can or ought to work. The “no-fault” concept of justice inevitably tends to seek redress of natural and inevitable phenomena, and in the process, commits further injustices. In both cases, and more, the “no-fault” concept must continually redistribute wealth, because after every running every round of the social “game,” the result will be unequal:

Under “suum cuique,” justice operates with an initial datum telling it what is a person’s own. It is an ascertainable fact, or, failing that, a presumption, that he has certain liberties, good title to his possession and valid claims to what is owing to him under outstanding contracts. He has his own, and gets his own, as long as he and others do no more than exercise their liberties and fulfill their obligations, with their interactions being confined to voluntary exchanges and the rendering of unilateral benefits. “Suum cuique” is breached when a person’s liberties are violated, his possessions are taken from him or trespassed upon, when his obligor defaults, or when he is forced to render voluntary benefits to others. Under “to each, according to,” each person in some defined class must get some benefit, or carry some burden, according to some defined criterion…. [I]f an act of Nature, say a calamitous flood, is held to be an injustice to the flood victims, then the actor committing the injustice cannot be made responsible for repairing it. If the injustice is to be repaired just the same, the repair must be exacted from those who had the prudence or blind luck not to build their homes on the flood-plain; but making them repair the injustice they have not committed is an injustice, suggesting that a concept of justice that demands this is incoherent, a product of disorderly minds.

Another problem “social justice” advocates have is to define the relevant classes who receive the relevant rewards. You don’t want a society which, though it promises to give all musicians instruments, ends up giving tubas to trumpet players. Instead, you must define the relevant class for rewards as narrowly as possible by the relevant details. Ideally you’d say “engraved brass trumpets for engraved brass trumpet players”—and similarly precise detail. But doing so requires a decentralized justice machine of some sort. And indeed, freedom of contract is the best option there is for such a thing. A free market is the best mechanism for distributing property in a just manner because no unjust act occurs without redress, and because the relevant classes for distribution are defined by people on the spot, and constantly checked by third parties, as it were.

But what about unequal initial distributions? Jasay admits this is one of the weakest spots in his argument—most people would agree that if an initial outlay of resources is just, and every subsequent transaction is just, that the final outcome must be just even if it is unequal. (Rawls wouldn’t agree, but Jasay has appropriate contempt for Rawls.) Jasay answers that argument on pp. 160-63. But I’ll let you get the book to find it for yourself.

One of my favorite sections of the book is when he discusses the “haystack problem,” as I mentioned when discussing New State Ice Co. v. Leibmann. The suum cuique notion of justice rests on the presumption that you are free to act so long as you do not violate anyone else’s freedom—but the “no-fault” concept of justice tends to hold that you are only free to act if your action has some social benefit:

Consider feasible acts. An actor proposes to perform an act. There could be an objector, an authorized representative of society, or just another party speaking for himself, who might affirm that the act would cause sufficient harm to a public or a private interest to justify its being stopped, prohibited, sanctioned. The presumption of liberty implies that the act will remain free and will not be stopped until the affirmation of its objectionable nature is not only made, but also verified. The opposite presumption would stop the actor doing the act in question until he could show it to be proof against possible objection. There is an indefinitely large number of potential objectors having a potentially infinite number of objections, some of which may be sufficiently strong. To falsify the hypothesis that the act is objectionable, and therefore not one of the actor’s liberties, is a needle-in-the-haystack type of task, very difficult and costly if the set of potential objections is large, and logically impossible if the set is not finite (which, in a strict sense, it never is). Taking the haystack apart blade by blade to falsify the supposition of its harboring a needle would take long enough to mean an indefinite suspension of the act whose free performance depended on there being a needle. Taken literally, the presumption that every act may be harmful and hut some interest would freeze everything into total immobility…. [O]pting for the presumption of liberty is hardly a matter of ethics, of a liberal temperament, or even of efficient social and economic organization. It is a matter of epistemology….

Or, as a previous generation, every man is born free. But tell that to the California Coastal Commission, and the zoning boards, and the licensing boards, which all declare that you may not act on your freedom until you (in the words of the Supreme Court) “negative every conceivable basis which might support it, whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320-321 (1993). With Prof. Barnett’s new book on the presumption of liberty coming out, I thought this passage especially timely.

You can get Justice And Its Surroundings from the very affordable LibertyFund books.

An index of previous Libertarian Bookworm entries is here

It’s been wonderful: When Tim invited me to blog with him for a week, I wasn’t sure it was something I’d be able to do. After all, how could I come up with enough material to post for seven days?! Well, I did it, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed every moment!

I thank Tim sincerely for his invitation and support. Truly, Tim lives by his principles: despite our intellectual differences, some of them great, he invited me to blog with him and supported my free and honest expression of ideas every step of the way. He is not only a true friend, but a good man.

I hope my posts have been entertaining, if not thought-provoking, and perhaps I’ll blog here again someday.

Faith can be reasonable: I finish my blogging with this thought: religious faith need not be either against reason or unreasonable. Tim posts much against this idea, and so I feel I must, however feebly, defend it.

Whether in our everyday affairs, in science, or in religion, we all begin with assumptions we cannot prove, then from them reason to conclusions, ideas, and beliefs that we do and must evaluate. When they prove helpful to us, we keep them and name them reasonable; when they do not, we discard them and name them unreasonable.

For many people, the proof is in the pudding: leading a Christian (or other religious) life is genuinely beneficial. They decide that believing in a God, and living according to the tenets of a religion, is reasonable because it proves to be in every practical way good for them, and they encounter no persuasive reason to cease their belief and devotion.

By such a measure, their faith is reasonable.

It is well known that God’s existence can be neither proved nor disproved. However, there are some persuasive arguments that suggest God might exist. Some of the modern arguments from design, as for example the one presented by Stephen M. Barr in Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, are based on the best modern physics.

Religious faith needn’t be unreasoned, unreasonable, or against reason. Tim is correct that faith is not entirely a matter of proof, because proof of God would render belief in Him necessary, rather than a matter of choice and free will. However, to have faith in Him without any reason whatsoever is more than God asks of us.

Capitalism, Christianity, Congruous: I began last Sunday with a post about capitalism and followed on Monday with quotes from my favorite Christian theologian, Irenaeus of Lyons. I strongly believe in both Christianity and capitalism, and so I suppose I ought to explain why I think they’re fundamentally cordant (to pen a word that ought to exist).

Matthew 22:34-40 reads:

34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together.
35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him, testing him,
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
37 And He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 “This is the great and foremost commandment.
39 “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Now, one needn’t be a Christian to take from the passage this: the foundations of moral law are, first, an overriding love of virtue, and, second, mutual respect for fellow man.

These moral foundations apply in equal measure to the free market. First, one must be honest and peaceful in one’s conduct with others, placing these even above the need to earn a profit, for without honesty and peacefulness in transactions, the market won’t be free, but coerced.

Second, the only way to earn a profit in the free market is to offer others something that they value, and at a low price. One must, by definition, not only consider the needs and wants of one’s fellow man, but try to satisfy them.

In this, Christianity and capitalism make comfortable bedfellows (though of course not out of wedlock!).

I’ve just begun reading Wealth, Poverty, & Human Destiny, a collection of essays both for and against the idea that capitalism and Christianity are consonant, and what’s most impressed me so far is the argument that the free market is the greatest tool for creating wealth—and distributing it even to the poor—that is known to man. Peter J. Hill makes the strongest argument for this, though Michael Novak also touches on it. So also, even in caring for the poor, capitalism handsomely complements Christianity.

One might object that though the market satisfies both the basic and the higher needs and wants of man, it also satisfies the base ones. Pornography, for example, is a rather larger industry than religion. This, however, does not conflict with Christian principles, for free choice is a common tenet of both capitalism and Christianity. One must choose virtue or morality; one cannot be forced to it. Similarly, the market functions only when each can choose freely how to allocate his resources.

I believe very strongly that capitalism and Christianity are consonant. There do exist no end of tensions between the two, but I believe these result more from misunderstandings about their fundamental natures rather than from genuine conflicts thereof.

Too much on Moore: Me thinks Tim doth protest too much when he accuses Moore of longing for war and the draft. When Moore writes, “the male nature … longs for some ‘againstness’ … which the boy can overcome,” the whole spirit of the article suggests that Moore only desires challenges in which boys can test themselves, learn and expand their limits, and thereby become men. I will say no more on this.

Election year advice: The Kingston Trio sagely advises us, as November nears, to remember: “if God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us—candidates.”

Infographics: Finally some information that we can use! (Saw it onSignifying Nothing.) I went to college in “Pop” land, and it damn near killed me. My grandfather was from “Coke” land, and I will call it all Coke till the day I die. It’s supposed to go like this: “What do you want?” “A Coke.” What kind?” “Root beer.”

Afghanistan: I pointed to this Cox & Forkum cartoon a while back. A disturbing confirmation of it here. (From Hit & Run.)

More on Moore: Anderson says that “Moore nowhere advocates the draft, or forcing young men into battle.” I’m not sure how else to characterize his statement:

the male nature, in order to prove itself, in order to distinguish itself from the potentially emasculating feminine world into which the boy is born, longs for some “againstness” in the natural or moral world which the boy can overcome. But in our culture everything is too easy. Boys are not compelled, indeed not allowed, to fight anymore. They cannot fight on the playground. Nor can they fight for grades, for a girl, for God, or for country (though September 11 has altered this last).

Sure seems to me like he’s longing for the good old days when boys were made men by being sent against their will to fight in foreign lands. Worse—it’s an argument that becoming a man is some sanguinary and brutal process. So maybe men and boys do like to engage in physical combat more often—I believe that’s true, and I think sports are a healthy way of dealing with that. But to suggest that the world’s going to hell because we don’t have war anymore strikes me as worse than irresponsible. “We need another Vietnam,” says Bart Simpson, talking about Generation X. “Thin out their ranks a little.” But who knew that someone would take him seriously? If you want to be in the Army, then best of luck to you, and I will always honor you for defending this nation and me against our enemies. But it does not make you more manly than the electronics engineer who supports his family, puts his kids through college, and wouldn’t harm a fly. Mark Twain wrote that

The reason why there was so much slaughtering done, was, that in a new mining district the rough element predominates, and a person is not respected until he has “killed his man.” That was the very expression used. If an unknown individual arrived, they did not inquire if he was capable, honest, industrious, but—had he killed his man? If he had not, he gravitated to his natural and proper position, that of a man of small consequence; if he had, the cordiality of his reception was graduated according to the number of his dead. It was tedious work struggling up to a position of influence with bloodless hands; but when a man came with the blood of half a dozen men on his soul, his worth was recognized at once and his acquaintance sought....

To be a saloon-keeper and kill a man was to be illustrious. Hence the reader will not be surprised to learn that more than one man was killed in Nevada under hardly the pretext of provocation, so impatient was the slayer to achieve reputation and throw off the galling sense of being held in indifferent repute by his associates. I knew two youths who tried to “kill their men” for no other reason—and got killed themselves for their pains. “There goes the man that killed Bill Adams” was higher praise and a sweeter sound in the ears of this sort of people than any other speech that admiring lips could utter.

Is this the sort of thing we’re advocating? If not, why not? Could it be because we are past those famine days, and should be past those famine virtues?

Update: Tim may be tearing down a straw man in his critique of Moore’s article. Moore nowhere advocates the draft, or forcing young men into battle. He mentions the military in saying that the places in which young men may find spirited competition are growing fewer, in the same paragraph as the closing of the frontier and the emergence of political correctness in academe.

Nor is it fair to say what Moore would have advocated had he lived in generations past.

Moore’s point is simply this:

Manhood is not simply a matter of being male and reaching a certain age. These are acts of nature; manhood is a sustained act of character. It is no easier to become a man than it is to become virtuous. In fact, the two are the same. The root of our old-fashioned word “virtue” is the Latin word virtus, a derivative of vir, or man. To be virtuous is to be “manly.” As Aristotle understood it, virtue is a “golden mean” between the extremes of excess and deficiency. Too often among today’s young males, the extremes seem to predominate. One extreme suffers from an excess of manliness, or from misdirected and unrefined manly energies. The other suffers from a lack of manliness, a total want of manly spirit. Call them barbarians and wimps.

In this I think him correct. The idea that the battlefield is the only place to prove oneself would likely be to Moore as absurd as it is to Sandefur, an idea fit only for Barbarians.

Update: Youth crime, drug-use, pregnancy, etc. are falling, yes, but from what reference point? From the '60s and '70s, when these ideas became prevalent, and perhaps from a decade later when the consequences of living according to these ideas had taken its toll.

Stasis: I, of course, disagree with Anderson on the Moore article. It’s just more conservative bitching about modernity. Society has a right to change; such change may bring problems, but these problems are vastly overstated by Moore. Five hundred years ago, it would have been easy to write a similar article complaining about the rise of the nuclear family. A century and a half ago, Moore would have been wailing about the Married Women Property Acts. The fact is, adolescent drug use is falling. Teen pregnancy rates are falling. Violent crime among youth is also falling.

What I find most upsetting about the Moore article is the suggestion that “manhood” means going out on the battlefield—no, no, being forced to go out on the battlefield—and then come home if you survive, to lay your head on the breast of your little wifey. The fact is, manhood means today something very different from what it meant a century ago, and it meant a century ago something very different from what it meant a thousand years before that. And a century from now, when technology and society has changed even more, there will be conservatives who spend their time bitching and quoting C.S. Lewis because men have lost essentially male characteristics. This is just more stasist moaning.

When I was in school, a professor once said to us that Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis was evil because Bacon’s agenda was “to use science and technology to liberate man from the signposts by which he had lived his life.” The result of this would be alienation, misery, and a gradual distraction from God’s design. I pointed out then that we ought to be clear that these “signposts” were smallpox, child bed fever, and the burning of witches. Moore isn’t as extreme a reactionary as my professor, but the underlying view is the same. He is railing against the liberation of women and the eradication of the military draft! As Jacob Bronowski writes,

I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the west by a sense of a terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into—into what? Into Zen Buddhism; into falsely profound questions bout, Are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensory perception and mystery. They do not lie along the line of what we are able to know if we devote ourselves to it….. If we do not take the next step in the ascent of man, it will be taken by people elsewhere…. And yet, wedded as I am to the civilization that nurtured me, I should feel it to be infinitely sad.

The Ascent of Man 437 (1973).

Big government conservatism: W. James Antle, a reader of this blog, has a good article about the conservative welfare state—and includes a great picture of the Grand Old Man himself. (Via Southern Appeal.) Federally funded marriage counselors, folks. Federally funded marriage counselors. Conservatives are a total joke. Sure glad I didn’t “throw my vote away.”

Wimps and Barbarians: There’s been a lot of criticism of this story in the blogs. As for example here, the critique is that Moore is pining for a bygone era, rather than figuring out how to live in this new one, and that his social criticism is just more of the whining that he attributes as characteristic of the Wimps of his article.

If Moore’s article is just more of the whining of which he complains, then we ought to classify all critique as whining, including Will Wilkinson’s post. More constructive is recognizing that Moore paints a detailed picture of what he considers a serious social crisis today, and why. How can we improve ourselves and our civilization if we don’t first recognize what needs improving?

On Moore’s behalf, in my experience he is largely correct: wimps and barbarians are the norm, young men with either too much or too little θυμός. Summarizing this situation is popular music, dominated either by violent rap or by downbeat, heroin-inspired pop—as Charlie Daniels sings, “some orange-haired feller singin’ ‘bout suicide.”

Wilkinson states that “the world has changed,” and that “there are new conventions, for better or worse.” What Moore is saying is precisely that some of these new conventions are for the worse. Radical feminism tries to obliterate differences between the sexes, in saying that any differences are purely cultural. Yet, as Tim pointed out yesterday, there are some conventions, like men proposing marriage to women, that remain regardless of culture, and therefore likely go deeper than culture.

The idea that one parent is as good as two is another fallacious idea propagated today, also inspired by radical feminism, and one that Moore correctly attacks. The Heritage Foundation offers much research showing how harmful single parenthood really is.

Moore shouldn’t be pilloried for failing to provide a clear solution to the problems that modern culture presents. To be sure, recognizing problems and detailing solutions are both important, but often those best at one are not also those most suited to the other.

Correction: In a post yesterday, I wrote that Texas had caved in to the times and ceased to uphold its long legal defense of the use of force in the defense of property. I am very, very please to report that I was wrong. The Curmudgeonly Clerk corrects me here.

Partisanship in the media: If you haven’t already, then check out Lying in Ponds, a site that rates journalists’ bias in their reporting, both for and against Democrats as well as for and against Republicans.

True to form, Ann Coulter tops the 2003 Top Ten most-biased list, but nipping at her heels is Princeton “economist” Paul Krugman (if you haven’t, then check out Donald Luskin’s “Krugman Truth Squad”). Two other very biased reporters are, respectively numbers three and four, Robert Scheer and Molly Ivins.

Close to the bottom of the page is the Neutral Index, which ranks highest the least-biased journalists. I knew only a few of them (does that imply that I’m not widely read or that I prefer the really biased reporters?). After reading a number of articles from several of the journalists I’d not known, and knowing what I do of the few with whom I am familiar, I tend to think the rankings are justified. In fact, I’d say that all of their Indexes are rather justified.

Criminal procedure: Good post on yet more crim. pro. nonsense from the Supreme Court, at CrimLaw. By the way, Mr. Lammers, what the heck is this?

17200: Another bill to reform California’s abusively vague “Unfair Competition Law”—a law that makes everything illegal that the prosecutor finds distasteful—was shot down. The report is in the Daily Journal, a pay site. Linda Rapattoni writes that

It was no surprise to anyone that the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 9-4 to defeat, for a second time, AB102 by Assemblyman Robert Pacheco, R-Walnut.... The bill would have required a plaintiff to have suffered a “distinct and palpable injury” before suing under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code. Currently, a plaintiff need not suffer any injury in order to sue under Section 17200.... Under Pacheco’s proposal, a plaintiff also would have had to give a defendant a 90-day notice of his intent to sue, and if a public prosecutor or consumer had already filed an action against the same defendant, another could not be filed.

(emphasis added). Pacheco says he’ll try the initiative route. Good luck.

Denny’s: Two great news stories, thanks to Alicia, about everyone’s favorite 24-hour-eatery. First, two old guys get into a knock-down, drag–out fight over a handicapped spot in a parking lot at Denny’s. But better still is this story: two men who decided to run naked through a Denny’s for kicks, ran back outside to find someone stealing their car.

Masculinity: Great response here to the Claremont Review of Books article to which the Curmudgeonly Clerk replied earlier. (Via Hit & Run.)

Fame!: Thanks to Prof. Bernstein and Virginia Postrel for the links.

Too good to be true: British MP Stephen Pound promised to enact whichever piece of legislation was voted most popular by BBC Radio 4 listeners. When they voted for the Martin Law, which permits homeowners to use lethal force in confronting intruders, he petulantly called them “bastards”.

The Sun now reports that the Dishonorable Pound has broken his promise, refusing to enact he Martin Law. Of course, this is only Britain’s latest affront in its century-long campaign to disarm its citizens and leave them unable to defend themselves against criminals.

In the United States, one may only employ lethal force in the defense of life, and only when the ability, opportunity, and intent of the adversary to inflict serious bodily injury are simultaneously present. I think Texas was among the last of the states to keep legal the use of force in defending one’s property, though it too has caved in to the times.

The Declaration of Independence contains a passage of particular beauty and truth:

all men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

Gun control, and restricting the use of force in defending our most fundamental rights, are two abominable fashions today that directly oppose THE CENTRAL FOUNDING PRINCIPLE of our government. To those who favor these trends, I ask:

From where does this or any government derive the moral and practical authority to divest its citizens of the means to defend their lives, liberty and property?

In other news, this year Britain expects its earliest spring on record, following closely upon last year’s sunniest year on record.

Whom: Here’s a useful site on how to use the word “whom.” I know so many people who need this. (Southern Appeal, I’m looking in your direction.) My handy trick is to think of it this way—if the question is going to be answered “him,” then it should be asked as “whom.” “To whom did you speak?” “To him.” See? “With whom did you go to the theater?” “With him.” Pretty easy, eh? “Bill Clinton nominated him…” so then, “…whom Bill Clinton nominated.”

Update: Scipio informs me that such posts are “snarky.” But I’m in a snarky mood.

Special interest law: Steve Simpson’s Chapman Law Review article, Judicial Abdication And The Rise of Special Interests, is online here. You really must read it. Unfortunately, the rest of that Chapman symposium, including my article, is still not on line, almost a year after the symposium! Come on guys!

Kazan: Great article, found via Samizdata (the next best thing to being American.)

Stereotypes: Interesting post about sexual stereotypes. (Found it on some blog or other.) Ampersand concludes ironically “After all, what’s ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ is immutable biology, and never, ever changes over time or culture.” I suppose there are some people who think that, but many of us think that there are many things which depend solely on culture and other things which are much more deeply connected to nature. In every culture, for instance, it is the norm for the man to propose marriage to the woman. Matt Ridley, The Red Queen 178 (1993). This suggests something deeper than culture—although we should never underestimate the deepness of culture. Now, even human nature is in flux to a degree; our genes are changing over time, also. So when we speak of an unchanging human nature, we ought probably to say human nature that is unchanging other than the speed at which evolution changes us all.

Conservatism: Have I mentioned how much I love the Curmudgeonly Clerk?

Baseball caps in class! Verily, I say unto you, the end times are upon us. Repent, repent! Moore also goes on to disapprove of, horror of horrors, rock music. Other concerns include “[u]nchaperoned girls” and, of all things, Charlotte’s Web. He neglects to mention the baleful influence of motorized carriages and such, but I am certain that this oversight is inadvertent.

Nice guys: Very helpful advice from Sarah Hempel.

Brasserie: It does not, however, serve Alsatians.

Update: Or brassieres, come to think of it. What are you trying to sell us, Eric? Fraud, again!

Another restaurant to try: Brasserie Jo serves “classic Alsatian and regional French” cuisine, and it’s exquisitely light and delicious, regardless of which location you visit. The Chicago restaurant is the original, but the Boston location is just as fine (though the two menus do differ slightly). The décor is decidedly formal—less cozy but more grand—than that of the Harvest that I recommended earlier. The staff is at least as well trained and also courteous.

Brasserie Jo is located at 59 West Hubbard Street in Chicago (312-595-0808) and at 120 Huntington Avenue in Boston (617-425-3240).

Civil Rights Cases: I really like Prof. Bernstein and admire his work and his VC posts. I’m not so sure I agree entirely with his view of the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), though. He writes that “the majority’s opinion is solely based on federalism and has nothing to do with economic liberty or property rights.” That’s true, in that the Civil Rights Cases is known as the fountainhead of the “state action” doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment; since the Amendment only prohibits states from denying people equal protection of the laws, “[s]ome obnoxious state law [must be] passed…in order to lay the foundation of any federal remedy in the case, and for the very sufficient reason that the constitutional prohibition is against state laws….” Id. at 13. I’ve discussed before the plausibility of the public-private distinction at the heart of the Civil Rights Cases, where I pointed out Frederick Douglass’ response to the opinion: “What is a State, in the absence of the people who compose it?” he asked.

Land, air and water. That is all. As individuals, the people of the State of South Carolina may stamp out the rights of the Negro wherever they please, so long as they do not do so as a State. All the parts can violate the Constitution, but the whole cannot. It is not the act itself, according to this decision, that is unconstitutional. The unconstitutionality of the case depends wholly upon the party committing the act. If the State commits it, it is wrong, if the citizen of the State commits it, it is right.

The response to this from libertarians has generally been that racial discrimination is economically inefficient and that combating it by eliminating government discrimination is sufficient, but that government should not go further and prohibit private discrimination; we’ve tended to support the public/private distinction because market forces will tend toward racial equality and because government intervention is unjust and a dangerous precedent.

Liberals see this as overlooking what is a common liberal (and increasingly conservative) premise: that all property and all individuals belong to the state. Like Douglass, the liberals tend not to see a fundamental distinction between the political character of the state and its social character. They would point out (as Justice Harlan did in his Civil Rights Cases dissent) that slavery was never created by statute—it was a social condition which was simply accommodated by the law before abolition. And they would argue that simply eradicating government discrimination wasn’t enough in the Reconstruction era; sharecropping and other contract-based social structures sprang up which excluded the former slaves just as effectively as slavery had. In Parting The Waters, Taylor Branch describes how black Mississippi farmers in the 1950s would be evicted by their white landlords if they dared register to vote. Yet in a libertarian regime, they would be allowed to do that. Liberals would point out that after the Supreme Court struck down the Montgomery bus segregation ordinance, the bus company adopted it as its own policy. David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Kennedy, King, Shuttlesworth and Walker: The Events Leading to the Introduction of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 29 U.S.F.L. Rev. 645, 651-652 (Spring, 1995). (In Boman v. Birmingham Transit Co., 280 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1960), the private segregation policy was struck down when the Court of Appeals held that “the conduct of the Bus Company ‘may fairly be said to be that of the’ State of Alabama through its franchising of the Bus Company and its authorizing it to adopt the rule in question.” Id. at 536). And what about racial covenants in real estate? The Court dealt with that in Shelley v. Kramer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), by cleverly finding state action, but that was such a clever ploy that the Court has shied away from it ever since, because in Shelley are the seeds of eradicating the private/public distinction entirely.

Anyway, while it’s true that the Civil Rights Cases is a federalism decision, and the majority doesn’t talk about Lochner-style theory, the reason that “liberal scholars will sometimes refer to the Civil Rights Cases as an example of the evils of constitutional protection for economic liberty” is because back of the Civil Rights Cases is a view of the state and of society which leads to a Lochner-style understanding of the limits of government. The attack on Lochner was mounted precisely by those who wanted to break down that distinction—and argue that private contracts between employers and employees were of such social importance that they could be regulated by the state, as had already been allowed in Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1877). Breaking down the distinction between public and private, in fact, was fundamental to the Progressive Movement, which followed the Populists in rejecting the principle that third parties had no right to interfere in voluntary agreements between private parties. See further Timothy Sandefur, A Natural Rights View of Eminent Domain…, 32 Sw. U. L. Rev. 569, 654-55 (2003). The Civil Rights Cases suggests that the state must treat people equally but that private agreements are beyond the reach of third parties (or government) and that is anathema to the Progressivist notions that underlie hostility to Lochner.

Now, I said the liberals have a point. I think they do. I guess this shows a weakness in my libertarianism, but I am not convinced that laissez-faire could solve the problem of racial discrimination in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. I’m not ready to reject the state action doctrine or embrace racial paternalism—certainly not 130 years after the fact—but I do find Justice Harlan’s Thirteenth Amendment argument in his Civil Rights dissent pretty convincing. Oh, I should also note that Prof. Bernstein has written on this matter of laissez-faire in the wake of the Civil War in a great article about state laws which prohibited blacks from leaving southern states to escape these oppressive contract-based social structures: David E. Bernstein, The Law And Economics of Post-Civil War Restrictions on Interstate Migration by African Americans, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 781 (1998). There he argues “that state action played a far larger role in the economic oppression of African-Americans before the modern civil rights era than is generally acknowledged.” Id. at 785.

Fame!: Thanks to Law Pundit, It Can’t Rain All The Time and Signifying Nothing for the permalinks, and to Arbitrary Aardvark for the link.

Poetry criticism: Being a bad poet is like being bad in bed. It’s something we may joke about, but not something you really seriously admit to. Well, so I’m told. I wouldn’t know, because I’m not bad at either. But anyway, the point is, poetry is just something so intimate and emotionally charged (well, some of it is, anyway) that if you’re a bad poet, that suggests not that you lack practice or training but that you lack something of the soul. Perhaps it’s a relic of romanticism that suggests that if you really feel something powerful sincerely, you’re just automatically a good poet. Milton would have known better—poetry, like sculpture, is at least half skill or hard work; inspiration and sincerity aren’t enough.

I write poetry, though not much and not often. But I’ve never blogged it because 1) Nothing on earth is worse than reading someone’s bad poetry when they think it’s good, so I didn’t want to inflict that on readers, and 2) The poetry I write is often very personal to me, and it would feel like too serious a rejection for someone to read a poem I had written and then ridicule it or attack it. If I blog about Christianity and someone disagrees and calls me an idiot, that’s fine—I can reply with equal contempt and the world returns to its balance. But if I post a poem that I sat down and wrote with all the sincerity and all the reach of my heart, and someone says “Har, har, Sandefur’s an idiot; look at his stupid poem”—well, I’m sorry, but that just gives me too much of a Junior High School-flashback. Silly, I know. Perhaps the person who would ridicule a poem is just confessing what a fool he is. Or perhaps constructive criticism would improve the quality of my poems. But that’s not an aspect of my life I feel comfortable exposing to constructive criticism—and that is why I will never be a great poet.

Update: More here.

Flamingo update: I’ve been following the case of United States Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries, which asks whether the Postal Service can be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act (for its non-mail-delivery operations). The oral argument transcript has been posted (thanks to SCOTUS Blog). My favorite bit:

Question: Of course, this only becomes a real problem when the Postal Service turns a profit on its monopoly business, which it has not yet succeeded in doing, has it?

Mr. Kneedler: Well, and—and it’s not—over the long term, over the long term since the Postal Reorganization Act, I believe that the Postal Service is within about a billion dollars of breaking even.....

(pp. 22-23, emphasis added). Only government, man. Only government could have a monopoly power—be able to tax, regulate, or absolutely prohibit its own competition—and still end up a billion dollars in the hole. Yes, we definitely need to put these folks in charge of the nation’s health care.

Ah, reform: The California Legislature is considering a bill to ban tobacco in the state’s prisons. This has been talked about for a while, but I had thought it was as dead as it ought to be, considering the fact that this is one of the stupidest ideas ever! It will increase violence, eliminate a potential source of discipline, and endanger the lives of prison guards. Not long ago I spoke to a man who had been a prison guard. He told me about the time the state decided to take away the exercise equipment at the prison. They had to do it in the dead of night, under a total lockdown, for fear of a riot. These inmates get few luxuries. Taking them away is a dangerous matter—and when we’re talking about cigarettes—notorious for making people irritable when they quit…. What a dangerously stupid idea.

Progress: I find it extremely implausible, given the observable facts of the present day, to suggest that “[t]echnology has marched forward throughout history, regardless of the religion that has predominated in the civilization in which it has developed.” One might make a far more convincing argument that what matters is a society’s view of the role of reason versus dogmatism: that some cultures, such as eighteenth and nineteenth century America, have accommodated both rapid technological growth and deep religious sensibility, because the religion of that era was one which embraced (however incompletely) the values of skepticism, curiosity, experiment, and so forth, while other cultures have embraced dogmatism, and punished curiosity. One might then say that the particular religion is not so important as the underlying question of dogmatism versus freedom of inquiry. That argument would certainly be supported by the fact that, a thousand years ago, Christianity was in the role that Islam plays today, while Islam was in the position that Christianity is today. Then, the Christian west was the barbarian culture, and the Islamic East the civilized, scholarly culture. As Rose Wilder Lane wrote,

The fanatic Catholic Europeans [of the fifteenth century] regarded the Saracens as anti-Christ, the devil, on earth. Saracens regarded Europeans as barbarians…. In Spain, the Saracens built great centers of science and art and production and commerce, Cordova, Grenada, Seville. From Indian and Africa and Cathay, students came to the universities in Spain, and from Spain students went to the universities in Baghdad and Delhi…. [O]ut of the cities poured an increasing wealth of goods, woolens and linens and cottons and silks, mosaics, enamels, porcelain, glass, gloves….

The Discovery of Freedom 93-94 (R. McBride ed., 1993)

Christian culture turned toward the real world and to advancement and discovery as a result of the revival of Aristotle in the Scholastic movement, which attempted to reconcile reason and religion. Meanwhile, the Islamic world turned to dogmatism, faith, asceticism and tyranny, from which it has never recovered.

Dissent…is the surface mark of a deeper value. Dissent is the mark of freedom, as originality is the mark of independence of mind. And as originality and independence are private needs for the existence of a science, so dissent and freedom are its public needs…. The safeguards which [society] must offer [for science to flourish] are patent: free inquiry, free thought, free speech, tolerance. These values are so familiar to us, yawning our way through political perorations, that they seem self-evident. But they are self-evident, that is, they are logical needs, only where men are committed to explore the truth: in a scientific society. These freedoms of tolerance have never been notable in a dogmatic society, even when the dogma was Christian. They have been granted only when scientific thought flourished once before, in the youth of Greece.

Jacob Bronowski, Science And Human Values 61-62 (2d ed. 1965). So if, like me, you think that the mystical spirit is essential to “religion,” then you will tend to see technological advancement as inverse to religion. But if you retain the Enlightenment confidence that religion is compatible with science, then you’ll want to make the finer distinction I’ve suggested.

As far as war is concerned, yes, I do agree that there are wars that must be fought. Twain’s moving and depressing argument isn’t really convincing on that front. But the language! Oh, the language! That’s what I meant by calling him a god—his use of English was awesome. When Twain was on the march, he mustered his words like troops, deployed his armies about him, and blasted his way through every humbug he encountered. It’s awesome to behold even when you disagree.

Update: And have you noticed how the Christian concept of “loving one’s enemies” is elastic enough to suit absolutely any action and any response to a situation? If you refuse to bomb your enemy’s villages, it’s because you love your enemies. If you do bomb your enemy’s villages, it’s because you love your enemies. How convenient!

Twain a poor prophet: Tim’s Twain excerpt holds Christian civilization responsible for developing the greatest weapons of war history has ever known. If Christianity is in fact responsible, then this is a severe indictment, because Christianity ought to be about love. However, Twain’s prophecy is rather implausible.

Technology has marched forward throughout history, regardless of the religion that has predominated in the civilization in which it has developed. It seems technology’s march is something quite separate from religion.

Technology progresses through science, which Tim has taken utmost pains to separate from religion. One is based on reason, he says, and the other on a rejection of reason.

Third, if Christianity is indeed the dogmatic and reason-rejecting religion that Tim makes it out to be, then a genuinely Christian civilization would make either little or no progress whatsoever in science and technology, especially if the Christians were the scientists and officials in charge of weapon research and development.

(Also, gunpowder is a Chinese invention—or is that a Buddhist invention?)

I must conclude that Christianity itself is not to blame for the development of the most destructive weapons of war the world has ever know, but rather science.

Also, though I am no philosopher, I am aware of Thomas Aquinas’s Just War Principle, the idea that some wars are just and, by Christian charity, must be fought. If such is the case, then is it not better that a country like the U.S., in which so many Christians live, has the technological means to guide bombs into a military headquarters while leaving the school next door unscathed?

A Barry-quote: What sort of Barry Goldwater conservative would I be without posting a Barry-quote? During his presidential campaign he said:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Hurray! Reading this, it's no surprise that he didn't win the election, but his words are enough to make me want to vote Republican. That says a lot at a time when the Republican party seems determined to abandon every principle that won it such an overwhelming Congressional victory in 1994, race to the center-left, and obliterate the Democrats' reason for being.

The Republican party's behavior, while marginalizing Democrats, does seem to open the possibility for a strong third party to emerge, representing the principles of liberty and limited government that the Republicans have now abandoned, if indeed they ever widely supported them.

Well, don't ridicule me for being hopeful!

Prophecy: From The Mysterious Stranger by Mark Twain:

“‘Now,’ said Satan, ‘you have seen your progress down to the present, and you must confess that it is wonderful—in its way…. [Y]ou have made continual progress. Cain did his murder with a club; the Hebrews did their murders with javelins and swords; the Greeks and Romans added protective armor and the fine arts of military organization and generalship; the Christian has added guns and gunpowder; a few centuries from now he will have so greatly improved the deadly effectiveness of his weapons of slaughter that all men will confess that without Christian civilization war must have remained a poor and trifling thing to the end of time….’

“Satan laughed his unkind laugh to a finish; then he said: ‘It is a remarkable progress. In five or six thousand years five or six high civilizations have risen, flourished, commanded the wonder of the world, then faded out and disappeared; and not one of them except the latest ever invented any sweeping and adequate way to kill people. They all did their best—to kill being the chiefest ambition of the human race and the earliest incident in its history—but only the Christian civilization has scored a triumph to be proud of. Two or three centuries from now it will be recognized that all the competent killers are Christians; then the pagan world will go to school to the Christian—not to acquire his religion, but his guns. The Turk and the Chinaman will buy those to kill missionaries and converts with…. And what does it amount to?’ said Satan, with his evil chuckle. ‘Nothing at all. You gain nothing; you always come out where you went in. For a million years the race has gone on monotonously propagating itself and monotonously reperforming this dull nonsense—to what end? No wisdom can guess! Who gets a profit out of it? Nobody but a parcel of usurping little monarchs and nobilities who despise you; would feel defiled if you touched them; would shut the door in your face if you proposed to call; whom you slave for, fight for, die for, and are not ashamed of it, but proud; whose existence is a perpetual insult to you and you are afraid to resent it; who are mendicants supported by your alms, yet assume toward you the airs of benefactor toward beggar; who address you in the language of master to slave, and are answered in the language of slave to master; who are worshiped by you with your mouth, while in your heart—if you have one—you despise yourselves for it. The first man was a hypocrite and a coward, qualities which have not yet failed in his line; it is the foundation upon which all civilizations have been built. Drink to their perpetuation! Drink to their augmentation! Drink to—’ Then he saw by our faces how much we were hurt, and he cut his sentence short and stopped chuckling, and his manner changed. He said, gently: ‘No, we will drink one another’s health, and let civilization go….’”

Mark Twain was not a writer but a god.

My New Year’s Resolution: Yup. Sounds about right.

Faith, Force, Fraud: Eric Anderson says “[f]orce is getting others to do something to satisfy your ends that isn’t in their interests; persuasion is getting others to do something to satisfy their ends that is in their interests. The robber gets you to give him your money to satisfy his desires; Bill Gates gets you to give him your money to satisfy your desires.” I’m not sure that definition is quite accurate. Surely I can persuade someone to do something that serves my ends and not their interests. That’s fraud. And I can coerce someone to do something that satisfies their ends that is in their interests, as when a mother makes her child take medicine he doesn’t want to, even though doing so is good for him.

In contract law, we use the term “undue influence” to refer to someone who gets you to sign a contract through overbearing and unfair bargaining tactics. It occupies a grey area between force and persuasion, and the best definition of it is to be found in In re Donovan’s Estate, 140 Cal. 390, 394 (1903): “it overcomes the will without convincing the judgment.” Of course, that isn’t all that narrow—surely someone could argue that advertising alone does this!—but it seems at least that it is necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, for any definition of coercion. Coercion, and fraud, which is a subdivision of coercion, is a way of short-circuiting the logical process that goes on in a person’s mind. You must give me your money, says the robber. Why, you ask. You didn’t earn it, you don’t satisfy the requirements for me voluntarily giving it to you. Because I will kill you if you do not, is the reply—and that means, to hell with logic, do this thing because I command it. And that’s why, as Mr. Anderson says, civilization is based on persuasion; barbarism on force.

But here’s what I want to know: what is the difference between force and fraud on one hand, and faith on the other? Faith is the will to believe things in the absence, or in spite of, evidence: it is precisely like faith in that it declares that something ought to be believed regardless of logic, because of consequences unrelated to the legitimacy of the proffered arguments.

[F]aith and force are corollaries, and...mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communications, or understanding are [possible].... Anyone who resorts to the formula: “It’s so because I say so,” will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later.

Ayn Rand, Faith And Force: Destroyers of The Modern World, reprinted in Philosophy: Who Needs It 58, 70 (1982).

Schools to be proud of: A South Carolina school, which had completely banned all talking before and between classes and at lunch time, has relaxed its policy. This is the crap that your tax dollars go for, folks! Meanwhile, also silent, under glass in building in Washington, D.C., is a document that says that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,” a provision applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. (Thanks to Jim for the pointer.)

Fame!: Thanks to Prof. Volokh for the link.

Definitions and implications: Yesterday I said that force and persuasion are the only two languages with which men may communicate. I think I ought provide for each a rough definition (dedicated to my brother-in-law, Karl.)

Force is getting others to do something to satisfy your ends that isn’t in their interests; persuasion is getting others to do something to satisfy their ends that is in their interests. The robber gets you to give him your money to satisfy his desires; Bill Gates gets you to give him your money to satisfy your desires. Without the robber’s knife inches from my belly, I’d never desire to give him my money. However, my own desires—for example, to work at my job, to e-mail or surf the Web, to blog—all get me to purchase Microsoft products.

If force and persuasion are the two languages of human communication, then each must have its own vernacular. Force speaks through coercion, violence, and deception, while persuasion speaks through peace, trust, and honesty. Of the two, force is the more basic and limited language, and can only tear down. Only persuasion can build and create; all civilization is based on persuasion.

A problem anyone faces who would speak only persuasion is that, because force is the lower language, one cannot use persuasion to communicate with one who is determined to speak force. The one speaking force simply cannot understand. Instead, one must descend to speaking force oneself and in fact prove more fluent than the other speaker.

So understood, one may understand why men institute governments. They form these institutions, founded in force (tax collection, police powers, armed forces), to speak for them in those instances in which they would otherwise have to speak force themselves. This allows them with a minimum of hassle (taxes) to lead a life in which they may speak persuasion almost exclusively.

So it is clear why governments, seen in this light as institutions of force, ought never to institute programs that must to be communicated in persuasion. To be clear, I speak of social spending for programs for welfare (individual or corporate) or collective insurance (for unemployment, for example, or airlines).

Such social programs are aimed at building up, creating value or wealth, when in reality being based on force are simply incapable of doing any such thing. Using an institution founded in force to build or create is anathema to nature. Rather, persuasion in the form of free association is the only means we have to pursue these social ends effectively.

I know this analogy of modes of conduct as languages doesn’t prove any of my points, but I hope someone may find it a new and useful way to examine force and persuasion.

Franchise: Subway is the fastest growing franchise operation in America. Good for them.

Blog widowhood: Funny piece (via Right Coast).

Stossel: The great John Stossel, television reporter/god, is publicizing his new book, titled (get this!) Give Me A Break. He’ll be speaking at the Independent Institute in Oakland on January 30.

And don’t forget Prof. Viet Dinh speaking in Irvine tonight, Manuel Klausner at Chapman on the 19th, and Robert Levy on the 29th.

The draft: There was talk a while ago about a bill to reinstate the national draft. Nobody really took seriously the idea that it might pass, and I suppose the chances are pretty strong against it still. But with the talk of “stop-loss” going on, I’m starting to wonder. Anyway, here’s a story about a petition drive opposing the bill.

Mars: I mentioned earlier that we should have a Homestead Act for the Solar System. Prof. Reynolds agrees: “If you want settlement, and development, you need to give people an incentive. One possibility, discussed by space enthusiasts for some time, is a property-rights regime modeled on the American West, with land grants for those who actually establish a presence on the Moon or Mars. Some have, of course, derided the idea of a ‘Wild West’ approach to space development, but other people like the idea of a ‘Moon Rush,’ which I suppose could be expanded in time to a ‘Mars Rush.’”

Revving up: GM has produced a car that has excited the automotive press?! And it comes from the Pontiac stable?! Wonders never cease.

Pontiac’s new GTO, based on a platform developed by Australian GM subsidiary Holden and manufactured in Australia, is touted for its capable yet comfortable ride, its powerful yet smooth drivetrain, and its comfortable, high-quality, and well-fitted interior.

What’s amazing isn’t that an American Big Three manufacturer can produce a great car. To be sure, they have before! What’s amazing to me is that they have done it suddenly, without lots of painful learning, on a car that was fairly rushed into production.

Therefore, what possible excuse can they have for continuing to produce garbage cans on wheels like the Chevy Cavalier or the Ford Mustang? The answer, I suppose, is that both sell well (only God knows why!).

Eminent domain abuse: I’m going to break my rule against blogging about PLF cases only so long as to say the following: I’ve frequently blogged about the abuse of eminent domain to benefit private parties, often at the expense of the poor and racial minorities. Among the most egregious examples of this is the famous case of Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 410 Mich. 616 (1981). Well, in November, the Michigan Supreme Court granted review in a case specifically to address the question of whether Poletown ought to be overruled. Today the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a brief, co-signed by the ACLU Fund of Michigan, arguing that it ought to be. The press release is here (and here) and the brief is here (and here). Let me add that of all the legal work I’ve yet done, I am proudest of this brief.

Update: Fame! Thanks to Hit & Run.

Update: Fame! Thanks to Prof. Eastman. I’m sure he means that the ACLU is the “stopped clock” in question….right?

What you missed over the weekend: A lot! Among which was Libertarian Bookworm, focusing on Science And Human Values by J. Bronowski. Also, my thoughts on a trip to Mars (plus more thoughts on a trip to Mars); some delightful H.L. Mencken; restaurants in D.C.; I explain the Civil War yet again to the guys at Southern Appeal; and I introduce Freespace’s first guest blogger. who posts on theology, economics, and restaurants in Boston.

Saturn: Last night around 9:30, Erin came over and we looked at Saturn through my telescope. It’s at a great angle, making the rings clearly visible—as well as Titan, I think, although it could have been a background star. Truly beautiful. If you have a good telescope—something better than a tube with eyeglasses taped to the end—take a look on a clear night. You’ll find Saturn near the right hand of Orion about 9pm.

Said better than I: David Farmer of Chicago, IL, explains my Sunday link to the article about the hippie family in their valley better than I did. He writes that it’s “an excellent illustration of free trade. That’s the ‘comparative advantage’ Adam Smith talks about, and it shows how pricing/supply, etc. of goods and services are more favorable when the economy is open. ‘Autarky’ (100% self-sufficient economy that doesn't engage in any trade) is another point on this little scale, and when you do analysis based on that type of economy, you see that supply and price are lower and higher, respectively, than the open economy.” Thanks, David!

Restaurant recommendation: If ever you’re in the Boston area, you owe it to yourself to dine at the Harvest Restaurant, in Cambridge’s charming Harvard Square. They describe their food as “contemporary cuisine”, though I'd call it sublimely delicious American-French (or is that ‘-Freedom’?). The décor is upscale but relaxed, and the staff courteous and professional.

The Harvest Restaurant is located at 44 Brattle Street; for reservations call 617-868-2255.

Irenaeus and the Meaning of Life: Yesterday I posted about human ingenuity and productivity, and today I’ll continue in that vein with some quotes from my favorite theologian, Irenaeus of Lyons.

On God’s purpose and the meaning of life and, he writes, “He [God] has made possible the kind of human being and the kind of values, which come to their fulfillment when man becomes a disciplined co-creator in the realization of values. The kingdom of heaven is the communion of co-creators, finite and Infinite, who live in trust and loving mutuality.”

Man’s nature is that of a creator, but, more than that, man must create according to the values determined by his nature, according to the morality of natural law, “in trust and loving mutuality”.

And Irenaeus’s vision of heaven is the most beautiful I’ve found: rather than a place of idle pleasure, it’s one of creativity and creation in perfect accord with moral law.

Irenaeus means a lot to me with regard to my Christian faith. His creedal statement was the first I found that didn’t require me to accept the Trinity, something I cannot do. The creed’s early date and its author’s importance comforted me in my proto-Catholicism.

This, then, is the order of the rule of our faith . . . God the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith. The second point is this: the Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, Who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the Father’s dispensation; through Whom (i.e. the Word) all things were made; Who also, at the end of the age, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce perfect reconciliation between God and man. And the third point is: the Holy Spirit, through Whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led into the way of righteousness; Who at the end of the age was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man to God.

I end with a quote from Irenaeus about man’s redemption from the devil’s power. It’s remarkable to me because, well before reading it, I’d already concluded that men may choose between two ways of interacting with each other: force or persuasion. To see a cornerstone of my moral framework reflected, word for word, in his writings was really thrilling.

. . . therefore the Word of God, mighty in all things and not lacking in his own justice, acted justly even in the encounter with the Apostasy itself, ransoming from it that which was his own, not by force, in the way in which it secured the sway over us at the beginning, snatching insatiably what was not its own; but by persuasion, as it became God to receive what he wished; by persuasion, not by the use of force, that the principles of justice might not be infringed . . .

Liberal racism: Is acceptable, cause, you know, it’s not really racism…or something like that.

Antitrust: More on antitrust lawyers narrowing the scope of a market to find a violation. I commented on an example here. But I’m very curious. What does the Discovery Institute—an organization of Christian creationist crackpots—care about antitrust?

Update: Oh, he’s also with Cato. Hmm…why would the guys who run Rule of Reason refer to a guy as being from the Discovery Institute rather than mentioning Cato?

Fame!: Thanks to Mad Prophet Blog for the link. (Why isn’t Technorati working for me?)

Best thing since…: Sliced bread was introduced by Otto Frederick Rohwedder, who, in 1928, created a bread-slicing machine. Wonder Bread mass-produced it beginning in 1930.

Other lives: Here’s a fun blog: the life of a porn store clerk. It’s closed, now—the author found another job—but it’s a lot of fun to read. (Hey, Sandefur, what search terms did you use to find that one? I found it on Belle de Jour, a blog by an English prostitute. And, um, how did you find that? No comment.)

Update: Shouldn’t it be Belle du jour? Or better yet, Belle de la nuit?

Justice: Prof. Solum defines justice. But it’s not that hard: Cicero did it a long time ago—“suum cuique tribuere.” There you go.

John Cage: “...having grasped the point upfront, you wonder if you need to hang around to hear the piece. There’s a broad consensus these days that the ideas are worth more than the results: that he was a theoretician rather than a real composer with enduring output. When I asked Cage if his music would survive, his answer was, ‘I’m afraid it will.’ But he’s been dead 10 years now, and his work has all but disappeared from concert programmes—along with the whole apparatus of the experimental avant-garde, which has effectively become a historical term.” Thank god.

It’s an honor: Thanks for the introduction, Tim! Since Tim’s guest bloggers “aren’t exactly famous”, and “therefore” I’m the first, then I must be the least famous of all! :^) This week I’ll try to change that, while doing my best to uphold the consistently high standard of commentary that Tim has set.

I begin humbly with a link to this wonderful article, a charming and insightful allegory from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Perhaps more effectively than raw theory could, the article refutes the idea that wealth is a fixed pie. (If someone is growing wealthier, then it must be at the expense of someone else.)

Sad to say, many alleged economists today still hold to this idea. It’s absurd, of course, because capital is created from nothing, or made more valuable, anytime anyone puts anything to productive, or more productive, use. There is such a vast palette of natural resources with which to work, and simply no limit to human ingenuity, so that there can be no limit to the amount of capital—and therefore wealth—that humans can create. If we haven’t thought of employing resource x in manner y today, we will tomorrow, and then BLAM there’s a new market!

Guest bloggers: If it’s good enough for the rest of you, I thought I’d give it a try. Now, Freespace has never pretended to be anything but a personal weblog, certainly not a scholarly forum like The Volokh Conspiracy or anything. But I hope it offers some intelligent and unique commentary. My guest bloggers aren’t exactly famous, therefore—first on the list is a college friend of mine, Mr. Eric H. Anderson.

Eric and I attended Hillsdale College together in the heady days of 1996-98. Like me, he received a bachelor’s degree in Political Economy, but unlike me he also holds a Master’s degree in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago. He lives in the slightly chilly town of Belmont, Massachusetts, where he works in the family business (supplying obsolete electronic components to OEMs in Germany and Switzerland) and ruminates in his spare time on classic science fiction, political theory and theology. He’s fluent in German, a crack shot, an enthusiastic biker, and a Christian—although, as he puts it, “the Church and I parted ways around the fourth century.” He calls himself a Barry Goldwater conservative; he’s got good taste in music (Albert King), food (The Roadhouse, Jackson, Michigan) and female pulchritude (whatever happened to “little Sharon”?) He asked me to mention that he’s good looking and single, but I don’t think women read Freespace, so that won’t do him any good. Anyway, welcome Eric Anderson.

Trip to Mars: The Curmudgeonly Clerk is suggesting that we rethink our opposition to government-run space programs. (My opposition is described here.) He writes that “I have yet to see any sort of nuanced cost-benefit analysis that accounts for the terrestial benefits derived from such spending (e.g., spin-off technologies or non-space-related applications of scientific advancements that result from the space program). Indeed, it’s not even clear that most critics are aware that this is not a zero-sum game, in which every dollar spent on space exploration is merely a dollar lost.” But the problem isn’t that we’re overlooking these things—the problem is that people are being told that they must hand over their earnings to a bureaucracy to fund a program for reasons which include an alleged return on the dollar. I’m sure there are technological advances which result from the space program—although the degree of advancement which the program has brought us has been exaggerated—but the same can be said of war, the bubonic plague, and the abuse of eminent domain.

Here, the real questions are, first, does government have the right to do this thing? Second, does government have the Constitutional authority to do this thing? The third question is, can the private sector do this thing? If the answers are no, no, and yes (which they are) that ought to be the end of the matter, because no amount of Tang and Velcro* can justify an immoral, unconstitutional, and unnecessary use of the state’s coercive power. I’m a big fan of space exploration, but to be honest, it must be said: forcing Nebraska farmers and North Carolina factory workers to give up the earnings of their labor to pay for a rocket to Mars is simply not a legitimate state interest, and it is therefore unnecessary to reach the question of NASA’s alleged spinoff benefits.

But if we do reach that question, the facts don’t really exonerate the government space monopoly, either. It’s not easy, of course, to say when something is a “NASA technology transfer”—according to this poster, just about everything qualifies as a NASA technology transfer!—and perhaps government space programs accelerated technological advances already underway. I suppose there is reasonable debate on the technology spinoff issue—and you’ll find some here. But I find the argument that NASA’s (unfair, unconstitutional, unnecessary) government bureaucracy can be justified because it encouraged people to come up with technological innovation appears to be pretty weak. In any case, if we undertake a “cost-benefit analysis,” we would need to know what we would have got if there had not been a forty-year government space program, and we’re once again confronted with unseen costs—what would the private sector have used that money for, if it hadn’t been taken from them in taxes? And how many dollars has NASA wasted on innovations that turned out to be dead ends? The Clerk tends to fall for the “broken-window fallacy,” and I think he’s doing it again. As Charles Murray puts it, “Trying to prove that the current system is better than the one that would have evolved in the absence of government intervention is impossible.” What It Means to Be A Libertarian 98 (1997).

I should perhaps add that I agree government should put up spy satellites and other defense measures. Here’s a great interview with Ed Hudgins on space privatization.

*-Tang and Velcro were not spinoff technologies.