Saturday, May 08, 2004
Row over Rowe: [Update: Welcome Southern Appeal readers. Please see my responses to Courreges here, here, here, here, and most recently, here.]
Clayton Cramer attacks former Freespace guest-blogger Jonathan Rowe; he says that the state’s authority to prohibit private, adult, consensual sexual activity is recognized by the Tenth Amendment. He says this amendment “gives the states authority to outlaw murder, obscenity, price-gouging (for intrastate commerce), diploma mills, and thousands of other acts,” including private, adult, consensual sexual activity. But this is not right. The Constitution says that in 1787, the states are not deprived of any of the powers that they have in 1787, except where specifically stated in the Constitution. That’s essentially the meaning of the Tenth Amendment.
So to answer whether states have the power, we must look to where the states got their power before 1787. And that is in the Declaration of Independence. There, the “one people” of the United States declared that the states may “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” (emph. added). The states do not have the power to do things which states may not do of right, and the Tenth Amendment conveys no greater power on the states. In other words, states have no right to do wrong, regardless of the Tenth Amendment. This is also the context in which the Ninth Amendment must be understood—the people have “other[ ]” rights, beyond the enumeration. These are the rights referred to in the Declaration, and which just government only “secure[s].” If that’s the case, then government may not justly deprive them of rights without some good reason—that is, there is a presumption of liberty, as Barnett has argued. Unless it can be shown that it is right for the states to send armed agents into your bedroom to drag your loved one from your arms, then the Declaration and its Constitution cannot convey that power.
I can hear it already—Courreges and these other (shall I call them) political-philosophy-agnostics saying “No, you’re getting into all that philosophical stuff, and you shouldn’t do that when talking about the law.” Nonsense. The question of what is a legitimate state interest cannot be answered by anything other than political philosophy. And the political philosophy of the founding generation is logically incompatible with laws like the one struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. Certainly the American people have accepted and written and voted for laws that are logically incompatible with the founding philosophy—they do that all the time; witness slavery.* But that doesn’t change the fact that the state has no rightful authority to regulate private, adult, consensual sexual activity, and that the Constitution can convey no such authority.
Cramer says “The people are, within these constraints, sovereign. They are free to pass all sorts of laws as they see fit.” But, once again, that is just the opposite of what the Declaration and the Constitution say. The “sovereignty” of the people is limited by the natural rights of those who are going to be regulated. As Jefferson put it, it is a “sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” Just as there are “just powers,” there must also be “unjust powers.” And the people have no “sovereign” right to exercise unjust powers; if they try to do so, then the victims have the “right” and the “duty to throw off such government.” In other words, the people do not have any “sovereign” right to pass an unjust law. They are not free to pass all sorts of laws as they see fit. As Jefferson put it, “the people in mass...are inherently independent of all but moral law.” (emph. added; See also the Lincoln quote below).
So what is the difference between a just law which the people in the states have the right to pass, and an unjust law which the people in the states do not have the right to pass? The Declaration, again, suggests the answer. Government is institute to “secure these rights,” among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not exist to ensure that people, in the privacy of their bedrooms, are doing only things that Clayton Cramer approves of. Moreover, if it does the latter, then it is violating the rights that government is created to secure. The Declaration itself complains about “officers…harass[ing] our people,” and “arbitrary government,” and specifically repudiates Mr. Cramer’s belief that legislatures are “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
In short, the Declaration and the political philosophy behind it make clear that a just law is a law which protects the people’s natural rights: which “shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Without some proof that the state has the right to “protect” us from people having sex in the privacy of their own bedrooms, then, the state cannot lay claim to that power under the fundamental charter of our government—the Declaration—or under the Tenth Amendment, which only recognizes the powers which the Declaration conferred.
*-Prof. Solum has just posted a lengthy post referring to the importance of a thorough historical review of the original intent and original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is certainly indispensable, but it is also important to note that even if it was universal historical practice for American governments to illegalize private, adult, consensual sexual activity, that does not prove that this power is just. People ignore inconsistencies all the time, especially when these inconsistencies only harm unpopular minorities, such as slaves in the 19th century, or homosexuals today.
Clayton Cramer attacks former Freespace guest-blogger Jonathan Rowe; he says that the state’s authority to prohibit private, adult, consensual sexual activity is recognized by the Tenth Amendment. He says this amendment “gives the states authority to outlaw murder, obscenity, price-gouging (for intrastate commerce), diploma mills, and thousands of other acts,” including private, adult, consensual sexual activity. But this is not right. The Constitution says that in 1787, the states are not deprived of any of the powers that they have in 1787, except where specifically stated in the Constitution. That’s essentially the meaning of the Tenth Amendment.
So to answer whether states have the power, we must look to where the states got their power before 1787. And that is in the Declaration of Independence. There, the “one people” of the United States declared that the states may “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” (emph. added). The states do not have the power to do things which states may not do of right, and the Tenth Amendment conveys no greater power on the states. In other words, states have no right to do wrong, regardless of the Tenth Amendment. This is also the context in which the Ninth Amendment must be understood—the people have “other[ ]” rights, beyond the enumeration. These are the rights referred to in the Declaration, and which just government only “secure[s].” If that’s the case, then government may not justly deprive them of rights without some good reason—that is, there is a presumption of liberty, as Barnett has argued. Unless it can be shown that it is right for the states to send armed agents into your bedroom to drag your loved one from your arms, then the Declaration and its Constitution cannot convey that power.
I can hear it already—Courreges and these other (shall I call them) political-philosophy-agnostics saying “No, you’re getting into all that philosophical stuff, and you shouldn’t do that when talking about the law.” Nonsense. The question of what is a legitimate state interest cannot be answered by anything other than political philosophy. And the political philosophy of the founding generation is logically incompatible with laws like the one struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. Certainly the American people have accepted and written and voted for laws that are logically incompatible with the founding philosophy—they do that all the time; witness slavery.* But that doesn’t change the fact that the state has no rightful authority to regulate private, adult, consensual sexual activity, and that the Constitution can convey no such authority.
Cramer says “The people are, within these constraints, sovereign. They are free to pass all sorts of laws as they see fit.” But, once again, that is just the opposite of what the Declaration and the Constitution say. The “sovereignty” of the people is limited by the natural rights of those who are going to be regulated. As Jefferson put it, it is a “sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” Just as there are “just powers,” there must also be “unjust powers.” And the people have no “sovereign” right to exercise unjust powers; if they try to do so, then the victims have the “right” and the “duty to throw off such government.” In other words, the people do not have any “sovereign” right to pass an unjust law. They are not free to pass all sorts of laws as they see fit. As Jefferson put it, “the people in mass...are inherently independent of all but moral law.” (emph. added; See also the Lincoln quote below).
So what is the difference between a just law which the people in the states have the right to pass, and an unjust law which the people in the states do not have the right to pass? The Declaration, again, suggests the answer. Government is institute to “secure these rights,” among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not exist to ensure that people, in the privacy of their bedrooms, are doing only things that Clayton Cramer approves of. Moreover, if it does the latter, then it is violating the rights that government is created to secure. The Declaration itself complains about “officers…harass[ing] our people,” and “arbitrary government,” and specifically repudiates Mr. Cramer’s belief that legislatures are “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
In short, the Declaration and the political philosophy behind it make clear that a just law is a law which protects the people’s natural rights: which “shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Without some proof that the state has the right to “protect” us from people having sex in the privacy of their own bedrooms, then, the state cannot lay claim to that power under the fundamental charter of our government—the Declaration—or under the Tenth Amendment, which only recognizes the powers which the Declaration conferred.
*-Prof. Solum has just posted a lengthy post referring to the importance of a thorough historical review of the original intent and original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is certainly indispensable, but it is also important to note that even if it was universal historical practice for American governments to illegalize private, adult, consensual sexual activity, that does not prove that this power is just. People ignore inconsistencies all the time, especially when these inconsistencies only harm unpopular minorities, such as slaves in the 19th century, or homosexuals today.
Libertarian Bookworm: The great grand-daddy of all libertarian books is John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government. Because it’s so old (written in the 1680s) students tend to regard it as an artifact, or a burden, but in fact it’s quite readable, and just as relevant today as when it was published. Read it for its arguments, not for its “importance” or merely to chart its “influence.”
Locke’s argument wasn’t entirely original. Many of his most important ideas had been around for decades by the time he wrote. John Milton, or Algernon Sidney, had written essentially the same thing as Locke. Still, it was the Second Treatise that exerted the most profound influence on the generation that founded America. (Incidentally, a school of modern conservative historians try hard to downplay the influence of Locke. Because Locke’s arguments are so corrosive to conservatism, they try to claim that the founding generation didn’t really care that much for him. But the fact of the matter is that, as Bernard Bailyn puts it, Locke’s arguments were “clearly dominant,” “wholly determinative,” and “authoritative” among the founding generation. See Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 30, 36 (Belknap, 1976) (1967).
Locke begins by challenging Thomas Hobbes’ argument that there’s no such thing as right and wrong outside the boundaries of government. For Hobbes, life without government would be a “war of all against all,” in which people would go about beating each other up and taking their resources. This isn’t a shocking insight, and Locke didn’t necessarily disagree. But Hobbes went further: he argued that there would be nothing wrong with such a situation. “Where there is no common power,” he wrote, “there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” In other words, without a lawgiver, pre-political man’s rights are created and defined by his capacity to defend those rights with the sword. Might really does make right: in the state of nature “there [can] be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man’s that he can get: and for so long, as he can keep it.” In fact, without government, people have “a right to every thing, even to one another’s body,” because the only limit to their rights is their ability to enforce their claims through physical violence. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 101-03 (M. Oakeshott ed., 1962) (1651).
On this point, Locke disagreed. He argues that justice is not the same thing as the will of the lawgiver. “The State of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason...is that law....” Right and wrong are not, as Hobbes argues, a social construct: “Truth and keeping of Faith belongs to Men, as Men, and not as Members of Society.” This means that the measures a state undertakes can also be an injustice. And this also means that people have rights even when there is no state around to protect those rights.
Since rights precede the state, then, the state cannot rightfully exceed the bounds of those rights. When it does, then it is not a “state” so much as a gang of robbers and or murderers: force without reason, Locke says, is aggression, whether done by a burglar or by the legislature. Government, therefore, rightly acts to protect their rights. They delegate their moral right to defend their natural rights, to the government (in part).
Locke also argues that the individual does not belong to others, but is an end in himself. But he does not argue that the individual owns himself outright. Rather, God owns the individual, because He created the individual. God then allows the individual to run his life—gives him a sort of life-estate in himself.
This is important because it is what allows Locke to argue that some rights are inalienable. Hobbes argued that, in creating society, individuals yielded up the rights they had in the state of nature. But for Hobbes, these rights were, as I’ve said, whatever the person could defend by force—including claims to own other individuals. Therefore, Hobbes said, when they create society, they give up absolute power to the state. Locke also argues that the people delegate the vindication of their rights to the government, but because he says those rights are simply the life-estate over the self, the people aren’t able to give up absolute power over themselves to the government. They don’t have an absolute power over themselves to begin with. This is how Locke responds to the commonly heard question, “Well, what if the people choose tyranny, or want to enslave themselves?” For Locke, not only can you not enslave an innocent person, because this would be stealing God’s property, but you also cannot enslave yourself, because this, too, would be stealing God’s property. Locke also uses this argument to say that the individual does not have the right to commit suicide. Atheist libertarians, like Ayn Rand, have disagreed with this, obviously. They argue that the individual owns himself outright. For them, however, the question of how these rights can be inalienable is a tougher question. Randy Barnett, in his recent Restoring the Lost Constitution, makes what I think is the only real answer to that: it is the nature of the right itself which makes it inalienable.
This is getting a little off track, but my point is that Locke’s arguments are still highly persuasive, and worthy of consideration by modern political thinkers—consideration for their own sake, not just for historical influence.
There is a lot more to Locke’s Second Treatise. Arguments defending the concept of property, or of the origin of natural rights from our capacity to reason, for instance. If you haven’t read it, you’re missing out on a wealth of powerful and insightful ideas.
Other Libertarian Bookworm entries are here.
Locke’s argument wasn’t entirely original. Many of his most important ideas had been around for decades by the time he wrote. John Milton, or Algernon Sidney, had written essentially the same thing as Locke. Still, it was the Second Treatise that exerted the most profound influence on the generation that founded America. (Incidentally, a school of modern conservative historians try hard to downplay the influence of Locke. Because Locke’s arguments are so corrosive to conservatism, they try to claim that the founding generation didn’t really care that much for him. But the fact of the matter is that, as Bernard Bailyn puts it, Locke’s arguments were “clearly dominant,” “wholly determinative,” and “authoritative” among the founding generation. See Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 30, 36 (Belknap, 1976) (1967).
Locke begins by challenging Thomas Hobbes’ argument that there’s no such thing as right and wrong outside the boundaries of government. For Hobbes, life without government would be a “war of all against all,” in which people would go about beating each other up and taking their resources. This isn’t a shocking insight, and Locke didn’t necessarily disagree. But Hobbes went further: he argued that there would be nothing wrong with such a situation. “Where there is no common power,” he wrote, “there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” In other words, without a lawgiver, pre-political man’s rights are created and defined by his capacity to defend those rights with the sword. Might really does make right: in the state of nature “there [can] be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man’s that he can get: and for so long, as he can keep it.” In fact, without government, people have “a right to every thing, even to one another’s body,” because the only limit to their rights is their ability to enforce their claims through physical violence. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 101-03 (M. Oakeshott ed., 1962) (1651).
On this point, Locke disagreed. He argues that justice is not the same thing as the will of the lawgiver. “The State of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason...is that law....” Right and wrong are not, as Hobbes argues, a social construct: “Truth and keeping of Faith belongs to Men, as Men, and not as Members of Society.” This means that the measures a state undertakes can also be an injustice. And this also means that people have rights even when there is no state around to protect those rights.
Since rights precede the state, then, the state cannot rightfully exceed the bounds of those rights. When it does, then it is not a “state” so much as a gang of robbers and or murderers: force without reason, Locke says, is aggression, whether done by a burglar or by the legislature. Government, therefore, rightly acts to protect their rights. They delegate their moral right to defend their natural rights, to the government (in part).
Locke also argues that the individual does not belong to others, but is an end in himself. But he does not argue that the individual owns himself outright. Rather, God owns the individual, because He created the individual. God then allows the individual to run his life—gives him a sort of life-estate in himself.
This is important because it is what allows Locke to argue that some rights are inalienable. Hobbes argued that, in creating society, individuals yielded up the rights they had in the state of nature. But for Hobbes, these rights were, as I’ve said, whatever the person could defend by force—including claims to own other individuals. Therefore, Hobbes said, when they create society, they give up absolute power to the state. Locke also argues that the people delegate the vindication of their rights to the government, but because he says those rights are simply the life-estate over the self, the people aren’t able to give up absolute power over themselves to the government. They don’t have an absolute power over themselves to begin with. This is how Locke responds to the commonly heard question, “Well, what if the people choose tyranny, or want to enslave themselves?” For Locke, not only can you not enslave an innocent person, because this would be stealing God’s property, but you also cannot enslave yourself, because this, too, would be stealing God’s property. Locke also uses this argument to say that the individual does not have the right to commit suicide. Atheist libertarians, like Ayn Rand, have disagreed with this, obviously. They argue that the individual owns himself outright. For them, however, the question of how these rights can be inalienable is a tougher question. Randy Barnett, in his recent Restoring the Lost Constitution, makes what I think is the only real answer to that: it is the nature of the right itself which makes it inalienable.
This is getting a little off track, but my point is that Locke’s arguments are still highly persuasive, and worthy of consideration by modern political thinkers—consideration for their own sake, not just for historical influence.
There is a lot more to Locke’s Second Treatise. Arguments defending the concept of property, or of the origin of natural rights from our capacity to reason, for instance. If you haven’t read it, you’re missing out on a wealth of powerful and insightful ideas.
Other Libertarian Bookworm entries are here.
Friday, May 07, 2004
Freer then?: I’ve been asked, as part of my presentations at Freedom Fest next weekend, to address the question of whether we are freer now than we were 100 years ago. An interesting, if essentially meaningless question. I thought I’d do some research on a few things that came to mind as examples of improvements in the last century. The first thing that came to mind was racial strife, and in particular, lynchings. What I found was so extremely disturbing that it simply escapes words. But of course.
In 1904, there were 83 lynchings, 76 of them of black people. This was actually a significant improvement over previous years. On March 25, 1904, in St. Charles, Arkansas, rampaging whites murdered thirteen blacks. On February 7, Luther Holbert, suspected of murdering a white plantation owner, was captured by a white mob. So was his wife. They were tied to a tree and tortured for hours by a crowd of over 1000 white people. They cut off the Holberts’ fingers, stabbed them repeatedly with a corkscrew, and finally burned them alive, while the crowd refreshed themselves with lemonade and eggs.
Three years earlier, Mark Twain wrote his essay, “The United States of Lyncherdom,” in which he begged American missionaries in China to return to the United States, and convert the heathen southerners.
Conclusion: most Americans are a hell of a lot freer today than they would have been a century ago.
In 1904, there were 83 lynchings, 76 of them of black people. This was actually a significant improvement over previous years. On March 25, 1904, in St. Charles, Arkansas, rampaging whites murdered thirteen blacks. On February 7, Luther Holbert, suspected of murdering a white plantation owner, was captured by a white mob. So was his wife. They were tied to a tree and tortured for hours by a crowd of over 1000 white people. They cut off the Holberts’ fingers, stabbed them repeatedly with a corkscrew, and finally burned them alive, while the crowd refreshed themselves with lemonade and eggs.
Three years earlier, Mark Twain wrote his essay, “The United States of Lyncherdom,” in which he begged American missionaries in China to return to the United States, and convert the heathen southerners.
Conclusion: most Americans are a hell of a lot freer today than they would have been a century ago.
Booker T. Washington papers: This is a cool resource.
Courreges v. the Constitution: Owen Courreges has been sufficiently vanquished by Prof. Barnett to not need my piling on. But I will point one thing out. Courreges complains that courts might “impose morality” on us. He believes this is a danger which ought to be averted by restricting the power of the courts. It’s perfectly okay with him, however, if the legislature “imposes morality” on us. He believes that when the legislature does this, it’s acting democratically.
Courreges’ entire political faith rests on ignoring the difference between the wolf and the sheep. It rests on ignoring the difference between rightful and wrongful acts of the majority. He believes that when the majority decides to violate the rights of the individual, the judiciary is violating the majority’s rights when it steps in and says no.
To that, the right answer was rendered by Abraham Lincoln. Simply put, democracy is not a primary value. Individual liberty is a primary value, and just democracy is only a derivative of that:
Now, perhaps Courreges says that’s all well and good; that he doesn’t like mob rule, but that we daren’t allow courts to act on it, because they might become corrupted. So what? That is an argument against all government, and all human institutions, period. Is there no virtue among us? Then we are indeed in a wretched state. No theoretical checks can save us.
I think Courreges’ skepticism toward the courts is really a ruse. I think it’s a ruse for his belief that there are no such things as rights precedent to majority rule. I think this is buttressed by the fact that he thinks Lawrence was wrongly decided. He thinks this because he believes that, while it may be wise or unwise to do so, in the end, the legislature has the right to regulate our private, consensual, adult, consensual sexual activity. And he feels that his rights are violated when someone steps in and says and says “no, you may not govern another person’s life in this way.” Fine enough—let him believe in elective despotism. But don’t let him pretend that he can find any originalist backing for that position. Courreges’ fight isn’t with Randy Barnett—it’s with the Declaration of Independence and its Constitution; it’s with the very concept of individual rights.
Courreges’ entire political faith rests on ignoring the difference between the wolf and the sheep. It rests on ignoring the difference between rightful and wrongful acts of the majority. He believes that when the majority decides to violate the rights of the individual, the judiciary is violating the majority’s rights when it steps in and says no.
To that, the right answer was rendered by Abraham Lincoln. Simply put, democracy is not a primary value. Individual liberty is a primary value, and just democracy is only a derivative of that:
My faith in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own, lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me. I extend the principles to communities of men, as well as to individuals.... The doctrine of self government is right—absolutely and eternally right—but it has no just application [in allowing some to control the lives of others]. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government—that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.... [N]o man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent. I say this is the leading principle—the sheet anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.”When the legislature acts despotically—when it sends its armed agents to break down our doors in the middle of the night and drag our loved ones from our arms—then that is not self-government: that is more than self-government. It’s mob rule. And the Constitution simply does not sanction the mob rule that Courreges continues to defend. He says “We do indeed run the risk legislative tyranny. That’s the price of being a democracy.” But we are not in a democracy. Our founders consciously rejected the idea of a democratic form of government. Why? Because “a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.” A prime solution to this, wrote Hamilton and Madison, was judicial review.
Now, perhaps Courreges says that’s all well and good; that he doesn’t like mob rule, but that we daren’t allow courts to act on it, because they might become corrupted. So what? That is an argument against all government, and all human institutions, period. Is there no virtue among us? Then we are indeed in a wretched state. No theoretical checks can save us.
I think Courreges’ skepticism toward the courts is really a ruse. I think it’s a ruse for his belief that there are no such things as rights precedent to majority rule. I think this is buttressed by the fact that he thinks Lawrence was wrongly decided. He thinks this because he believes that, while it may be wise or unwise to do so, in the end, the legislature has the right to regulate our private, consensual, adult, consensual sexual activity. And he feels that his rights are violated when someone steps in and says and says “no, you may not govern another person’s life in this way.” Fine enough—let him believe in elective despotism. But don’t let him pretend that he can find any originalist backing for that position. Courreges’ fight isn’t with Randy Barnett—it’s with the Declaration of Independence and its Constitution; it’s with the very concept of individual rights.
Martin?: I love Steve Martin; really I do. But this is just not going to work.
Wow!: Light-emitting concrete. How cool is that?
Comet!: Check out Comet NEAT, if you can. Tonight is its closest approach to the Earth. At magnitude 3, you may have a little trouble seeing it, so get to a dark spot, and get out some binoculars.
Censorship: If this story is accurate, then the school is clearly wrong for punishing the teacher. A teacher has every right to tell students that he is a Christian, or that he believes in any particular religious perspective. The school’s lawyer is wrong to suggest that the Constitution requires teachers to answer religious questions with no reference to their own religious views.
However, it’s entirely possible that this news story is misleading, and that the teacher actually did something that was offensive or unreasonable.
However, it’s entirely possible that this news story is misleading, and that the teacher actually did something that was offensive or unreasonable.
Twain: Readers of this blog know that Mark Twain ranks very highly on my list of gods. To deal with my new hour-long commute, I’ve been listening to the book on tape of A Tramp Abroad, one of his many travel books. It’s absolutely brilliant. This chapter about his sufferings on a night in a hotel room when he can’t sleep, but his travel companion can, had me laughing out loud. If you get a few minutes with nothing to do today, take a look. And this chapter, about duelling in France, is even funnier.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be appropriate to call Twain’s writing a “prose poem.” His gift for metaphor was superior to any other writer I’ve ever encountered. And he manages to evoke a feeling in the reader with such accuracy and power—in a way that average novelists rarely accomplish. Other writers tell you a compelling story; Twain manages to transport the feeling of a sleepless, frustrating night in a hotel room right into your brain.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be appropriate to call Twain’s writing a “prose poem.” His gift for metaphor was superior to any other writer I’ve ever encountered. And he manages to evoke a feeling in the reader with such accuracy and power—in a way that average novelists rarely accomplish. Other writers tell you a compelling story; Twain manages to transport the feeling of a sleepless, frustrating night in a hotel room right into your brain.
Spain bombings: What a curious story.
Activism: Randy Barnett is the man. But all one needs to do is actually read Restoring The Lost Constitution, to discover how totally absurd it is to accuse him of advocating “judicial activism,” whatever that might mean.
Clarification: Regarding the post about the doctor injecting people with AIDS, reader James M. Cameron writes:
I think you should read the referenced story again—more slowly this time. It is the Libyans who are claiming that the Palestinian Doctor and Hungarian Nurses were trying to run an experiment to find a cure for AIDS by infecting patients with the virus—not the accused as your post implies.
I think there are two points that cast severe doubt on the veracity of the Libyan claim. The first is that Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, and a World recognized authority on the AIDS virus, stated that the infection was likely due to poor hygiene at the hospital and he estimated that the contamination started in 1997, more than a year before the Doctors and Nurses were hired. The second is that Libya first claimed the AIDS outbreak was a CIA and Israeli intelligence conspiracy before backing away from that.
As I read the story, I get the impression that the Gadhafi government is attempting to absolve itself of responsibility for a breakdown in or a poorly operated Health Care System. When the CIA, Israeli story wouldn’t fly (the “somebody’s out to get us” defense) they needed another scapegoat, hence the foreign Doctors and Nurses (the “its those damn foreigners fault” defense). It is also apparent from the story that I have a lot of company in my conclusions.
Sweden myths: Interesting post at Samizdata.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Fame!: I’ll be a guest on “Libertarian Counterpoint,” a locally-produced public access show here in Sacramento, two weeks from today. (I hadn’t known till just now that my colleague Arthur Mark had been a guest in the past.)
Where blame falls: Did you see this story? A Palestinian doctor and five Bulgarian nurses intentionally infected 400 children with AIDS; they claim they were trying to run an experiment to find a cure. They’ve been sentenced—and, I think rightly—to death.
If we were to apply to this story the same logic that the Libertarian Jackass uses with regard to the Iraq war, we would conclude that doctors are just corrupt, and that all medicine should be condemned as evil.
If we were to apply to this story the same logic that the Libertarian Jackass uses with regard to the Iraq war, we would conclude that doctors are just corrupt, and that all medicine should be condemned as evil.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
There was a right side in the late war: Libertarian Jackass has responded to my questions, and in the process, revealed how inaccurate the term “libertarian” is, when applied to him.
First, he says that it’s wrong to say that the treatment of the Iraqis today is better than the treatment of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein’s government because “that’s a bit like tallying up a murderer’s victims and pronouncing him ‘more evil’ than the second place finisher. Whatever makes you happy.” But he is horselaughing at something perfectly valid. The American government has certainly killed many innocent people. But it has come nowhere near the atrocities of, say, Josef Stalin. Any sensible person dedicated to liberty would have to say that the American government has been “less evil” than the Soviet Union’s. Jackass equates these things on a pretext of moral superiority, but what he’s really doing is ignoring the difference between a systematically brutal dictatorship and a government based on freedom. This betrays a lack of principle.
Second, Jackass says “[f]irst, the U.S. did ‘something’ for many years: they supported the Iraqi regime.” Okay, granted. But it is also totally irrelevant. The point is, the United States has freed the Iraqi people from the reign of a murderous dictator. In the process, some American soldiers abused some inmates at a prison in Iraq. The Jackass has said that the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein was equally evil with the abuse of the prisoners. The fact that the Reagan era government supported Iraq against Iran has absolutely nothing to do with this claim. Nor does it in any way undermine the United States’ current effort to eliminate Hussein and his followers. If we did wrong before, is this not all the more reason for us to do right now?—but to the Jackass, America’s just wrong, period.
Third, the Jackass asks “[w]hy should one government (the U.S.) coerce its people into overthrowing another government (Iraq)?” Yet again, this is irrelevant. The question I am asking is not whether the Iraq war was a wise thing to do, but whether it was the morally wrong thing to do. One can reasonably believe that America was unwise to go into Iraq, or that it’s remaining in Iraq is a mistake, and yet still believe that the removal of Hussein was a good thing. The Jackass, however, does not make this distinction. To him, it’s equally bad to attack an oppressive dictatorship and depose the dictator as it would be to bomb a day-care center. What does this reveal about the Jackass’ principles?
The questions, in fact, are distinct, and this distinction is extremely important. America has—as any nation has—the right to overthrow a brutal, oppressive dictator like Hussein. He has no legitimate claim to sovereignty. Whether we choose to do so or not, however, should be based on a weighing of the alternatives, the cost and benefits to ourselves, and so forth. Americans certainly have the right to “sacrifice blood and treasure to free the world from dictators,” if they choose to do so. But whether it’s a good idea to do so or not is an entirely separate matter.
Jackass then says that we haven’t really freed Iraq because Saddam didn’t act alone. He says this, mind you, while decrying our efforts to root out the people who helped Saddam. With Jackass, America is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t. Again, this betrays a lack of principle.
And as for this comment, I really don’t know what to make of it: “Maybe you spent too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh in junior high (don’t worry, I was listening, too), but ‘communism’ is not a viable economic system! It did not need to be combatted by U.S. Cold War statism. It will always devolve into chaos and fail. More violence and statism is not the answer to every variant of evil statism.” He says this in response to my statement that the United States military protected the world from the spread of Soviet communism.
When have I—or Rush Limbaugh, for that matter—ever suggested that communism is a viable economic system? But if Jackass means by this to say that communism’s economic flaws would have prevented it from spreading, then he needs an introduction to the most basic historical facts. Communist nations, with their flawed economics, nevertheless managed to take and to retain a significant portion of Europe and Asia in the 20th century, and to murder countless millions in the process. Does Jackass seriously believe that, had we ignored communism, it would simply have gone away? This is absurd! The fact is, that communism’s economic flaws forced it to expand aggressively against free nations: the flight of entrepreneurial talent from communist nations to free nations; the communist’s belief that the prosperity of free nations ought to be forcibly redistributed—as Prof. Shtromas used to say, communism cannot create, it can only redistribute; so it must continually expand, and when it cannot expand, it must die. Thus, writes Alan Kors, “No cause in the history of mankind has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than communism. It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead.... Communism was not a ‘god that failed.’ Rather, it was an intellectually organized slaughter and slavery that succeeded, but that could not sustain itself against the productivity and resistance of free men and women.”
The Jackass ends by pretending to take the high road: he says I have “undying love and devotion for the U.S. State (or any State) which is the greatest threat to human liberty and security.” Well, it’s certainly true that I have undying love for America’s principles—those principles being liberty—and undying admiration for those who have given their lives to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. But to suggest that I support the American government because it is a government is too ridiculous to need refutation.
The fact is, liberty is often threatened by tyrants. When those tyrants attack us directly, it is our right and our duty to defend ourselves. When those tyrants attack others, then it is our right, though not necessarily our duty, to defend those others. And it is right to fight, and to kill, and to destroy, those who would threaten the freedom to which we are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature’s God. These are the true principles of libertarianism.
I am reminded of Frederick Douglass’ 1878 speech “There Was A Right Side in The Late War.” “In the language of our greatest soldier, twice honored with the Presidency of the nation, ‘Let us have peace.’ Yes, let us have peace, but let us have liberty, law, and justice first.”
First, he says that it’s wrong to say that the treatment of the Iraqis today is better than the treatment of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein’s government because “that’s a bit like tallying up a murderer’s victims and pronouncing him ‘more evil’ than the second place finisher. Whatever makes you happy.” But he is horselaughing at something perfectly valid. The American government has certainly killed many innocent people. But it has come nowhere near the atrocities of, say, Josef Stalin. Any sensible person dedicated to liberty would have to say that the American government has been “less evil” than the Soviet Union’s. Jackass equates these things on a pretext of moral superiority, but what he’s really doing is ignoring the difference between a systematically brutal dictatorship and a government based on freedom. This betrays a lack of principle.
Second, Jackass says “[f]irst, the U.S. did ‘something’ for many years: they supported the Iraqi regime.” Okay, granted. But it is also totally irrelevant. The point is, the United States has freed the Iraqi people from the reign of a murderous dictator. In the process, some American soldiers abused some inmates at a prison in Iraq. The Jackass has said that the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein was equally evil with the abuse of the prisoners. The fact that the Reagan era government supported Iraq against Iran has absolutely nothing to do with this claim. Nor does it in any way undermine the United States’ current effort to eliminate Hussein and his followers. If we did wrong before, is this not all the more reason for us to do right now?—but to the Jackass, America’s just wrong, period.
Third, the Jackass asks “[w]hy should one government (the U.S.) coerce its people into overthrowing another government (Iraq)?” Yet again, this is irrelevant. The question I am asking is not whether the Iraq war was a wise thing to do, but whether it was the morally wrong thing to do. One can reasonably believe that America was unwise to go into Iraq, or that it’s remaining in Iraq is a mistake, and yet still believe that the removal of Hussein was a good thing. The Jackass, however, does not make this distinction. To him, it’s equally bad to attack an oppressive dictatorship and depose the dictator as it would be to bomb a day-care center. What does this reveal about the Jackass’ principles?
The questions, in fact, are distinct, and this distinction is extremely important. America has—as any nation has—the right to overthrow a brutal, oppressive dictator like Hussein. He has no legitimate claim to sovereignty. Whether we choose to do so or not, however, should be based on a weighing of the alternatives, the cost and benefits to ourselves, and so forth. Americans certainly have the right to “sacrifice blood and treasure to free the world from dictators,” if they choose to do so. But whether it’s a good idea to do so or not is an entirely separate matter.
Jackass then says that we haven’t really freed Iraq because Saddam didn’t act alone. He says this, mind you, while decrying our efforts to root out the people who helped Saddam. With Jackass, America is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t. Again, this betrays a lack of principle.
And as for this comment, I really don’t know what to make of it: “Maybe you spent too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh in junior high (don’t worry, I was listening, too), but ‘communism’ is not a viable economic system! It did not need to be combatted by U.S. Cold War statism. It will always devolve into chaos and fail. More violence and statism is not the answer to every variant of evil statism.” He says this in response to my statement that the United States military protected the world from the spread of Soviet communism.
When have I—or Rush Limbaugh, for that matter—ever suggested that communism is a viable economic system? But if Jackass means by this to say that communism’s economic flaws would have prevented it from spreading, then he needs an introduction to the most basic historical facts. Communist nations, with their flawed economics, nevertheless managed to take and to retain a significant portion of Europe and Asia in the 20th century, and to murder countless millions in the process. Does Jackass seriously believe that, had we ignored communism, it would simply have gone away? This is absurd! The fact is, that communism’s economic flaws forced it to expand aggressively against free nations: the flight of entrepreneurial talent from communist nations to free nations; the communist’s belief that the prosperity of free nations ought to be forcibly redistributed—as Prof. Shtromas used to say, communism cannot create, it can only redistribute; so it must continually expand, and when it cannot expand, it must die. Thus, writes Alan Kors, “No cause in the history of mankind has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than communism. It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead.... Communism was not a ‘god that failed.’ Rather, it was an intellectually organized slaughter and slavery that succeeded, but that could not sustain itself against the productivity and resistance of free men and women.”
The Jackass ends by pretending to take the high road: he says I have “undying love and devotion for the U.S. State (or any State) which is the greatest threat to human liberty and security.” Well, it’s certainly true that I have undying love for America’s principles—those principles being liberty—and undying admiration for those who have given their lives to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. But to suggest that I support the American government because it is a government is too ridiculous to need refutation.
The fact is, liberty is often threatened by tyrants. When those tyrants attack us directly, it is our right and our duty to defend ourselves. When those tyrants attack others, then it is our right, though not necessarily our duty, to defend those others. And it is right to fight, and to kill, and to destroy, those who would threaten the freedom to which we are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature’s God. These are the true principles of libertarianism.
I am reminded of Frederick Douglass’ 1878 speech “There Was A Right Side in The Late War.” “In the language of our greatest soldier, twice honored with the Presidency of the nation, ‘Let us have peace.’ Yes, let us have peace, but let us have liberty, law, and justice first.”
[V]iewed merely as a physical contest, [the war] left very little for self-righteousness or glory on either side. Neither the victors nor the vanquished can hurl reproaches at each other, and each my well enough respect the honor and the bravery of the other.... But this war will not consent to be viewed simply as a physical contest. It is not for this that the nation is in solemn procession about the graves of its patriot sons today. It was not a fight between rapacious birds and ferocious beasts... It was a war of ideas, a battle of principles and ideas which united one section and divided the other: war between the old and new, slavery and freedom, barbarism and civilization; between a government based on the broadest and grandest declaration of human rights the world ever heard or read, and another pretended government based upon an open, bold, and shocking denial of all rights, except the right of the strongest.... There was a right side and a wrong side in the late war, which no sentiment ought to cause us to forget, and while today we should have malice toward none, and charity toward all, it is no part of our duty to confound right with wrong....reprinted in Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches And Writings 629-32 (P. Foner & Y. Taylor, eds., 1999)
Fame!: Thanks to Dispatches from The Culture Wars for the link.
Standoffish: Why is it that David Souter is just a quiet, hardworking man who treasures his privacy, while Clarence Thomas is a bad guy for not being more public? (Saw it on Southern Appeal.)
Lawyer absurdities: This seems pretty dumb to me. Is it common?
CrimLaw: I don’t link to CrimLaw nearly as often as it deserves. A really great blog about the life of a criminal defense attorney. I am so, so glad I don’t have to do that work. But I suppose there are those who like it.
John Quincy Adams on women:
Why does it follow that women are fitted for nothing but the cares of domestic life? for bearing children, and cooking the food of a family? devoting all their time to the domestic circle—to promoting the immediate personal comfort of their husbands, brothers, and sons? Observe, sir, the point of departure between the chairman of the committee and myself. I admit that it is their duty to attend to these things. I subscribe, fully, to the elegant compliment passed by him upon those members of the female sex who devote their time to these duties. But I say that the correct principle is, that women are not only justified, but exhibit the most exalted virtue when they do depart from the domestic circle, and enter on the concerns of their country, of humanity, and of their God. The mere departure of woman from the duties of the domestic circle, far from being a reproach to her, is a virtue of the highest order, when it is done from purity of motive, by appropriate means, and towards a virtuous purpose.quoted in William Lee Miller, Arguing About Slavery 321-22 (1996).
Chauvinist collectivism: Daniel Moore replies to my post. First he says that I’m not sufficiently “open” to “ideas that challenge” mine. This is inaccurate. I read Mr. Moore’s post, sifted through it for ideas, and instead found groundless, offensive sexism in the place where the ideas should have been. I therefore rejected his “ideas” with the contempt they deserve.
Second, I did not say that Kant was necessarily a libertarian. I don’t know enough about Kant to say one way or the other on that. What I said was that he arrived at the same conclusion about man’s being an end in himself that Ayn Rand did, even though the two shared very little in common elsewhere. This was an illustration of the fact that people with different philosophical backgrounds can nevertheless share political principles. Incidentally, many of those who know much about Kant say that he was, indeed, a “classical liberal,” a term synonymous with “libertarian.”
Third, Moore says that I am wrong to reject postmodernism because “[w]ords…have power, often times power that is very difficult for us to see because we are somewhat captive to them.” That is certainly true, but it is hardly what postmodernism is all about (if postmodernism can be said to be “about” anything). But I will let this point pass, as I do not intend to get drawn into a discussion about the value of postmodernism in general. Rather, I think the emptiness of postmodern “analysis” is demonstrated well enough by Mr. Moore’s arguments.
Now, Moore insists that I have “misrepresent[ed]” his views and “done a disservice to [my] readers” when I said that he believes that women ought to stay in the kitchen where they belong and not trouble themselves about thinking rationally about objective facts. I am confident that anyone who considers his original post will see that I am right. He says that libertarianism, by which he meant Objectivism, gives “women…no real place,” and “ignores the importance of places that are traditionally considered the homestead of women.” This, he says, is because what women are really all about is “subjective experience,” “emotion,” “altruism,” and “communalism.” He says that “emotion is associated with women and reason with men.” He contrasts “male logic” with “female emotion.” He says “women are associated with consideration towards an individual’s subjective experiences.” Couching his comments in passive voice, Moore says women are really all about “[t]he raising of children,” and “[t]he making of a home,”—and he believes that the fact that women have “traditionally” run these things is due to the fact that women are not “independent, self-sufficient, rational, [or] capitalist,” but that they are instead “dependent, emotional, cooperative.”
And in support of his sexism, he claims now to have given a “well-reasoned philosophical argument including exercises and references.” What he actually said was that “[i]t would be needlessly lengthy to recount the reasons why these are measures of masculine superiority over the feminine, but I will recount some, well, subjective knowledge as to why it is.” He then cited an essay, and then went on to posit his “dichotom[ies]” of reason (masculine) versus emotion (feminine). And then he said we should close our eyes and imagine an “independent, self-sufficient, rational, capitalist,” and claimed that we would naturally imagine a man, and that if we imagine a “dependent, emotional, cooperative” person, we’d imagine a woman. Well, a sexist pig like Daniel Moore might make such assumptions, but I don’t. These are “well reasoned philosophical argument[s]”?
Of course, he uses word games to escape the burden of his sexist assumptions—it’s not that he thinks these things, you see; it’s that society’s metanarrative has subverted women and placed them in this position, &c., &c. Yet Moore’s argument is not that women ought to be free to make their own place in this world, or that they ought not to be limited to raising children and making a home. No, because such freedom would mean that women were capable of independence, self-sufficiency, rationality, and capitalism: such freedom would leave women “homeless.” Let me emphasize this point. It is undoubtedly true that our culture historically considered women as unreasoning, emotionally driven creatures who were therefore fit only for the domestic sphere; it is undeniable that many people today continue to make this assumption. Objectivism and libertarianism, however, hold that women are capable of thinking straight, and that they ought to have the freedom to do so: which means, a free, individualistic, capitalistic society. That is just what Moore is condemning.
Moore set out to attack libertarianism. What he ended up doing was revealing his own sexist presumptions—revealed by the connotations that he assigns to words. He might “take” my post “as a personal insult” if he likes, but I think it’s appropriate to call out sexist pigs for what they are, especially when they’re the ones throwing stones. And the fact that he nowhere actually addresses the substance of my post—just takes offense at it as if that were a response—shows that I’m on to something here.
In short, Moore says: women are (as Wollstonecraft put it), “a swarm of ephemeron triflers,” who are only capable of emotion, communalism, the raising of children, the making of a home; libertarianism, however, demands reason and an attention to the facts; therefore libertarianism is fundamentally masculine and leaves women “without a home.” One might expect such things from some bloated caricature of the 1950s. Moore’s dressed it up in a snazzy new pomo suit—but he’s still hangin’ out at the same bowling alley. I therefore reiterate my charge that Moore’s argument is a revolting absurdity.
Second, I did not say that Kant was necessarily a libertarian. I don’t know enough about Kant to say one way or the other on that. What I said was that he arrived at the same conclusion about man’s being an end in himself that Ayn Rand did, even though the two shared very little in common elsewhere. This was an illustration of the fact that people with different philosophical backgrounds can nevertheless share political principles. Incidentally, many of those who know much about Kant say that he was, indeed, a “classical liberal,” a term synonymous with “libertarian.”
Third, Moore says that I am wrong to reject postmodernism because “[w]ords…have power, often times power that is very difficult for us to see because we are somewhat captive to them.” That is certainly true, but it is hardly what postmodernism is all about (if postmodernism can be said to be “about” anything). But I will let this point pass, as I do not intend to get drawn into a discussion about the value of postmodernism in general. Rather, I think the emptiness of postmodern “analysis” is demonstrated well enough by Mr. Moore’s arguments.
Now, Moore insists that I have “misrepresent[ed]” his views and “done a disservice to [my] readers” when I said that he believes that women ought to stay in the kitchen where they belong and not trouble themselves about thinking rationally about objective facts. I am confident that anyone who considers his original post will see that I am right. He says that libertarianism, by which he meant Objectivism, gives “women…no real place,” and “ignores the importance of places that are traditionally considered the homestead of women.” This, he says, is because what women are really all about is “subjective experience,” “emotion,” “altruism,” and “communalism.” He says that “emotion is associated with women and reason with men.” He contrasts “male logic” with “female emotion.” He says “women are associated with consideration towards an individual’s subjective experiences.” Couching his comments in passive voice, Moore says women are really all about “[t]he raising of children,” and “[t]he making of a home,”—and he believes that the fact that women have “traditionally” run these things is due to the fact that women are not “independent, self-sufficient, rational, [or] capitalist,” but that they are instead “dependent, emotional, cooperative.”
And in support of his sexism, he claims now to have given a “well-reasoned philosophical argument including exercises and references.” What he actually said was that “[i]t would be needlessly lengthy to recount the reasons why these are measures of masculine superiority over the feminine, but I will recount some, well, subjective knowledge as to why it is.” He then cited an essay, and then went on to posit his “dichotom[ies]” of reason (masculine) versus emotion (feminine). And then he said we should close our eyes and imagine an “independent, self-sufficient, rational, capitalist,” and claimed that we would naturally imagine a man, and that if we imagine a “dependent, emotional, cooperative” person, we’d imagine a woman. Well, a sexist pig like Daniel Moore might make such assumptions, but I don’t. These are “well reasoned philosophical argument[s]”?
Of course, he uses word games to escape the burden of his sexist assumptions—it’s not that he thinks these things, you see; it’s that society’s metanarrative has subverted women and placed them in this position, &c., &c. Yet Moore’s argument is not that women ought to be free to make their own place in this world, or that they ought not to be limited to raising children and making a home. No, because such freedom would mean that women were capable of independence, self-sufficiency, rationality, and capitalism: such freedom would leave women “homeless.” Let me emphasize this point. It is undoubtedly true that our culture historically considered women as unreasoning, emotionally driven creatures who were therefore fit only for the domestic sphere; it is undeniable that many people today continue to make this assumption. Objectivism and libertarianism, however, hold that women are capable of thinking straight, and that they ought to have the freedom to do so: which means, a free, individualistic, capitalistic society. That is just what Moore is condemning.
Moore set out to attack libertarianism. What he ended up doing was revealing his own sexist presumptions—revealed by the connotations that he assigns to words. He might “take” my post “as a personal insult” if he likes, but I think it’s appropriate to call out sexist pigs for what they are, especially when they’re the ones throwing stones. And the fact that he nowhere actually addresses the substance of my post—just takes offense at it as if that were a response—shows that I’m on to something here.
In short, Moore says: women are (as Wollstonecraft put it), “a swarm of ephemeron triflers,” who are only capable of emotion, communalism, the raising of children, the making of a home; libertarianism, however, demands reason and an attention to the facts; therefore libertarianism is fundamentally masculine and leaves women “without a home.” One might expect such things from some bloated caricature of the 1950s. Moore’s dressed it up in a snazzy new pomo suit—but he’s still hangin’ out at the same bowling alley. I therefore reiterate my charge that Moore’s argument is a revolting absurdity.
Addendum: Or Meredith Kapushion.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Don’t ask me, I’m just a girl (giggle): Will Baude is not an Objectivist libertarian. I am. Nevertheless, I agree entirely with his response to this revolting absurdity. Objectivism is a philosophy—an attempt to construct a coherent vision of man and the universe in which he lives. It includes politics, and those politics happen to be the politics going by the name of libertarianism. But others arrive at the same destination of libertarianism from different backgrounds. For example, as a matter of history, most libertarians have been religious. John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Lord Acton (after whom an entire organization of Christian libertarians is named), Rose Wilder Lane, Thomas Jefferson: all these people were libertarians who believed in God. Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand were hardly philosophical allies, but both concluded as a matter of politics that the individual is an end in himself and not a means to the ends of others—a fundamental libertarian premise. So it’s wrong to suggest that all libertarians are Objectivists.
On to the substance of Daniel Moore’s post, however—such as it is. It’s written in that vacuous postmodernist lingo that is little more than pumped up stereotyping and word games. The general thesis is that “libertarianism is extensively masculine in its world-view.... [It] ignore[s] women completely.” The irony of resting this on the assumption that libertarians are Objectivists—when Objectivism was devised by a woman—is lost on Mr. Moore. It would not have been lost on Isabel Paterson. Or on Rose Wilder Lane. Or on Virginia Postrel. Or Dana Berliner. Or Donna Matias. Or Wendy McElroy. Or Mary Ruwart. Or Lynn Scarlett. Or Cathy Young. Or Marty Zupan. Or E. This list could go on. Women may be “homeless” in other political philosophies, but they have constructed a substantial part of the libertarian home.
Moore’s thesis is “supported” by the assertion that for the libertarian—or, to be accurate, for the Objectivist—“Objective facts...are placed in a superior position to subjective experiences; Reason maintains a superiority over emotion; self-interest is ethically maintained as superior to altruism or group-interest; and capitalism is considered superior to communalism. It would be needlessly lengthy to recount the reasons why these are measures of masculine superiority over the feminine, but I will recount some, well, subjective knowledge as to why it is.” (first emphasis added). In brief, Mr. Moore’s argument is: women are sweet cuddly little bags of emotion, not mean old rational thinkers, and libertarianism is based on mean old rational thinking, so it’s masculine. Or, to put it more mildly, women don’t worry their pretty little heads over things like economics and political science and Aristotle’s moral philosophy. “[W]ithin our society,” writes Moore, “emotion is associated with women and reason with men.” Note the passive voice. In reality, it is Mr. Moore who assumes that women just care about the children, and the pretty little birdies, and the sugar and spice and all things nice. These, says Moore, are the “places that are traditionally considered the homestead of women.” But Objectivists just care about “objective facts,” so that proves that Objectivism is somehow essentially masculine.
Objectivists believe that all people have the right to live their own lives, pursue happiness, and make a place for themselves in this world, and we are quite confident that people, including women, have the capacity to do so. We believe that women are rational beings and therefore are created equal, with the equal right to the ownership of themselves. Mr. Moore, by contrast, believes that women are “dependent, emotional, cooperative.”
Now, before we excoriate Mr. Moore for his blatant sexism, we might ask whether he has any evidence to support his assumption that women can’t think reasonably about objective facts. Yet he admits: no, he has none. Indeed, insisting on such evidence is itself the sort of masculine-ist sin that he’s attacking. Rather, he’ll just give us his “subjective knowledge” about why little Tommy’s Birthday Party and the latest releases from Clairol are the real “homestead of women.”
Is Mr. Moore a conservative, or a modern liberal? I leave that puzzle as an exercise for the reader. But as an aid, I refer him to Mary Wollstonecraft, an early libertarian woman, who wrote, in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman, that “when he tells us that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true [Islamic] strain, he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind obedience, to gratify the senses of man when he can no longer soar on the wing of contemplation. How grossly do they insult us who thus advise us only to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes...!”
Well, I guess I’ve just known too many smart women to fall for that.
On to the substance of Daniel Moore’s post, however—such as it is. It’s written in that vacuous postmodernist lingo that is little more than pumped up stereotyping and word games. The general thesis is that “libertarianism is extensively masculine in its world-view.... [It] ignore[s] women completely.” The irony of resting this on the assumption that libertarians are Objectivists—when Objectivism was devised by a woman—is lost on Mr. Moore. It would not have been lost on Isabel Paterson. Or on Rose Wilder Lane. Or on Virginia Postrel. Or Dana Berliner. Or Donna Matias. Or Wendy McElroy. Or Mary Ruwart. Or Lynn Scarlett. Or Cathy Young. Or Marty Zupan. Or E. This list could go on. Women may be “homeless” in other political philosophies, but they have constructed a substantial part of the libertarian home.
Moore’s thesis is “supported” by the assertion that for the libertarian—or, to be accurate, for the Objectivist—“Objective facts...are placed in a superior position to subjective experiences; Reason maintains a superiority over emotion; self-interest is ethically maintained as superior to altruism or group-interest; and capitalism is considered superior to communalism. It would be needlessly lengthy to recount the reasons why these are measures of masculine superiority over the feminine, but I will recount some, well, subjective knowledge as to why it is.” (first emphasis added). In brief, Mr. Moore’s argument is: women are sweet cuddly little bags of emotion, not mean old rational thinkers, and libertarianism is based on mean old rational thinking, so it’s masculine. Or, to put it more mildly, women don’t worry their pretty little heads over things like economics and political science and Aristotle’s moral philosophy. “[W]ithin our society,” writes Moore, “emotion is associated with women and reason with men.” Note the passive voice. In reality, it is Mr. Moore who assumes that women just care about the children, and the pretty little birdies, and the sugar and spice and all things nice. These, says Moore, are the “places that are traditionally considered the homestead of women.” But Objectivists just care about “objective facts,” so that proves that Objectivism is somehow essentially masculine.
Objectivists believe that all people have the right to live their own lives, pursue happiness, and make a place for themselves in this world, and we are quite confident that people, including women, have the capacity to do so. We believe that women are rational beings and therefore are created equal, with the equal right to the ownership of themselves. Mr. Moore, by contrast, believes that women are “dependent, emotional, cooperative.”
Now, before we excoriate Mr. Moore for his blatant sexism, we might ask whether he has any evidence to support his assumption that women can’t think reasonably about objective facts. Yet he admits: no, he has none. Indeed, insisting on such evidence is itself the sort of masculine-ist sin that he’s attacking. Rather, he’ll just give us his “subjective knowledge” about why little Tommy’s Birthday Party and the latest releases from Clairol are the real “homestead of women.”
Is Mr. Moore a conservative, or a modern liberal? I leave that puzzle as an exercise for the reader. But as an aid, I refer him to Mary Wollstonecraft, an early libertarian woman, who wrote, in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman, that “when he tells us that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true [Islamic] strain, he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind obedience, to gratify the senses of man when he can no longer soar on the wing of contemplation. How grossly do they insult us who thus advise us only to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes...!”
[F]emales have been insulated, as it were; and, while they have been stripped of the virtues that should clothe humanity, they have been decked with artificial graces that enable them to exercise a short-lived tyranny. Love, in their bosoms, taking place of every nobler passion, their sole ambition is to be fair, to raise emotion instead of inspiring respect; and this ignoble desire, like the servility in absolute monarchies, destroys all strength of character. Liberty is the mother of virtue, and if women are, by their very constitution, slaves, and not allowed to breathe the sharp invigorating air of freedom, they must ever languish like exotics, and be reckoned beautiful flaws in nature;—let it also be remembered, that they are the only flaw.... [Yet] as sound politics diffuse liberty, mankind, including woman, will become more wise and virtuous.Responding to another writer who made an argument similar to Mr. Moore’s, Mrs. Postrel once wrote that “[t]his is a typical move, demonstrating how far American women remain from full public equality.” For Moore, if a woman believes that the individual has the right to pursue his or her own happiness regardless of the “needs” of “society as a whole,” then she’s not a real woman.
Well, I guess I’ve just known too many smart women to fall for that.
Soothing the savage breast: Stuart Buck says
It’s a common misconception that art, including one’s taste in music, is entirely subjective. The truth is a bit more complicated, I think. When you listen to “Ride of the Valkyries,” or Chopin’s funeral march, or Miles Davis’ “Flamenco Sketches,” you have a particular emotional reaction—and everyone has that same emotional reaction. Nobody listens to “Valkyries” and says “ah, what a charming little ditty; I think I’ll sing it to my sweetheart.” Nobody listens to Chopin’s funeral march and says “My, what a cheerful tune.” The emotional impact of the music seems to be universal. But then there’s a second step: you then assess that emotional impact, and it is from that assessment that your reaction to the music is generated. You say to yourself “this ‘Flamenco Sketches’ makes me feel cool and contemplative, and I enjoy feeling that way, therefore I like this music,” or you say “‘Flamenco Sketches’ makes me feel cool and contemplative and I don’t enjoy feeling that way, therefore I don’t like this music.” All of this takes place very quickly and even subconsciously, but that’s a far more accurate explanation of our reactions to music than to just say “Well, it’s all subjective anyway.” No; it’s all psychological and philosophical, which means it’s all highly individualized—but that’s a different thing than subjective.
I got all this from Ayn Rand’s The Romantic Manifesto. I have many disagreements with this book, but on this point, I think she’s right on.
Oh, and yes, it’s “soothes the savage breast,” not “soothes the savage beast.” And it’s not Shakespeare.
Mozart...makes my own children act more civilized. And it’s...like night vs. day. I don’t know exactly why this is so, other than the common-sense explanation that 1) what you watch or listen to affects how you behave; and 2) Mozart is indeed civilized, while children’s TV is spastic, loud, frantic, intense, and made for the shortest of attention spans. Number 1 is quite often attacked, usually by people who want to counter any attempt to censor violence or sex in the media. But I don’t see how what they say could be true. What you watch or listen to has to have some effect, right? Otherwise, what’s the point of advertising?I think it would be absurd to deny that what you listen to affects how you behave. A couple weeks ago, a British thinktank released a study to the effect that listening to certain music in the car makes you a worse driver. In particular, they warned not to listen to Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries.” (Not that I really needed that warning.)
It’s a common misconception that art, including one’s taste in music, is entirely subjective. The truth is a bit more complicated, I think. When you listen to “Ride of the Valkyries,” or Chopin’s funeral march, or Miles Davis’ “Flamenco Sketches,” you have a particular emotional reaction—and everyone has that same emotional reaction. Nobody listens to “Valkyries” and says “ah, what a charming little ditty; I think I’ll sing it to my sweetheart.” Nobody listens to Chopin’s funeral march and says “My, what a cheerful tune.” The emotional impact of the music seems to be universal. But then there’s a second step: you then assess that emotional impact, and it is from that assessment that your reaction to the music is generated. You say to yourself “this ‘Flamenco Sketches’ makes me feel cool and contemplative, and I enjoy feeling that way, therefore I like this music,” or you say “‘Flamenco Sketches’ makes me feel cool and contemplative and I don’t enjoy feeling that way, therefore I don’t like this music.” All of this takes place very quickly and even subconsciously, but that’s a far more accurate explanation of our reactions to music than to just say “Well, it’s all subjective anyway.” No; it’s all psychological and philosophical, which means it’s all highly individualized—but that’s a different thing than subjective.
I got all this from Ayn Rand’s The Romantic Manifesto. I have many disagreements with this book, but on this point, I think she’s right on.
Oh, and yes, it’s “soothes the savage breast,” not “soothes the savage beast.” And it’s not Shakespeare.
Souter mugged: Did you hear about this? (And no, he was not out walking his dog in the park at 3 a.m.) (Saw it on Sapere Aude).
Antiques: Here’s a nice story about the restoration of a beautiful 1908 altar in the Catholic Church in Georgetown (a little town right next to Placerville).
Red Superman: This article talks about the alternate-history Superman comic, in which Superman lands in the Soviet Union instead of America. In fact, John Varley had the idea several years ago, and wrote it in his story “Truth, Justice and the Politically Correct Socialist Path,” published in Superheroes (1995).
ICE CREAM WAR!: Join the resistance!!!!
I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a cone by the summer. Want ice cream prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the “don’t buy ice cream on a certain day” campaign that was going around last April or May! The dairies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to “hurt” ourselves by refusing to buy ice cream. The only way we are going to see the price of ice cream come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their cones!
And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Here!'s the idea: For the rest of this year, DON’T purchase ANY ice cream from the two biggest companies, Thrifty and Baskin Robbins. If they are not selling any ice cream, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.
THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a cone by the summer. Want ice cream prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the “don’t buy ice cream on a certain day” campaign that was going around last April or May! The dairies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to “hurt” ourselves by refusing to buy ice cream. The only way we are going to see the price of ice cream come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their cones!
And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Here!'s the idea: For the rest of this year, DON’T purchase ANY ice cream from the two biggest companies, Thrifty and Baskin Robbins. If they are not selling any ice cream, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.
THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
Ted Rall: MSNBC pulled Ted Rall’s highly offensive political cartoon, in which he calls Pat Tillman an “idiot,” off of its website. I think Rall is actually very helpful to our side. His political views are so absurd, and his form of expression so offensive, that I’m confident he is a detriment to his cause. But no doubt Rall will scream censorship, again.
Update: Cathy Young writes of a similar incident, “[t]his screed is a stark reminder that a hate-America mindset on the left is not just a right-wing slander.”
Update: Cathy Young writes of a similar incident, “[t]his screed is a stark reminder that a hate-America mindset on the left is not just a right-wing slander.”
Monday, May 03, 2004
Thou/you: Prof. Volokh has a comment on the distinction between thou (informal) and you (formal). Note that in Hamlet, when Gertrude says “Hamlet, thou has thy father much offended,” Hamlet replies, “Mother you have my father much offended.” Hamlet is speaking to a superior, see.
Weekend: This weekend was so nice and relaxing that I just couldn’t worry about things like the Libertarian Bookworm, so maybe I’ll write it later today.
Inanity: You will all remember Freespace’s Official Idiot, Martyn Neale. In the months since I published his amusing notes, he’s continued to write to me; some of his emails even approach coherence. But he has also blocked me from responding to his emails. So once, when he asked what seemed like a sincere question about how a libertarian society would coordinate the money supply, I tried to send him to some websites for more information, but got my emails returned. But most of the time, Neale likes to write me childish little snipes—and block me from replying, because he is not only an idiot, but a coward as well.
Yesterday, he wrote “Those damned Iraqis! Let’s torture them into submission!” That’s all. Apparently, I am somehow representative of the American soldiers who abused inmates at an Iraqi prison, even though on Friday I wrote a long post about how, while I support the war, I’m very concerned about the effects on civil liberties, and even though other bloggers whose views I usually share, have put up excellent posts on the subject.
Obviously I think American soldiers who abuse people ought to be court-martialed and punished. It’s so obvious I wouldn’t think it necessary to say so, except for people as dumb as Mr. Neale.
But let’s consider a little bit more about “torturing people into submission.” Saddam Hussein tortured countless people into submission. It was the mechanism by which his regime was run. Had we followed the doctrines laid down by Mr. Neale, and done nothing, Saddam Hussein would today still be torturing people into submission. Had we done as the French and Germans wished, Iraq’s government would still be fundamentally based on torturing people into submission. And those who did the torturing, far from being court-martialed and punished, would have received promotions and the applause of their superior officers.
Mr. Neale and his intellectual (so to speak) peers have repeatedly defended regimes based on torturing people into submission. The Soviet Union, for example, was fundamentally based on torturing people into submission. Yet those in the west who opposed to the USSR continue to be despised by Mr. Neale, et al., who claimed (and still claim) that the Soviet threat was overblown, or even nonexistent, and who ignored the unmatched abuses the USSR committed. Those on the left denounced the Contras for abuses—of which they certainly were guilty—but were silent about how the Sandanistas tortured people into submission. They denounced Pinochet—and rightly so—but said nothing about the abuses of Allende. Fidel Castro continues to hold power by torturing people into submission, yet Mr. Neale and his fellow useful idiots continue to defend that regime. The Viet Cong base their politics on torturing people into submission, but their victory was made possible only by the activities of those who think the things that Mr. Neale “thinks.” The left has defended tyrants from the days of the Spanish Civil War to the present day. They have done so in large part by pointing the finger of blame at the foreign policies of the United States—very often with legitimate reason, as in this case—and then extrapolating from such incidents that the United States’ foreign policy is fundamentally wrong, and that we ought to stand back and allow dictatorships in other countries to torture people into submission. One might discern a pattern in this, and were Mr. Neale more intelligent, I might think this pattern conscious. With people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, it certainly is a conscious pattern.
Update: Libertarian Jackass replies to my point that, had the United States done nothing “‘Saddam Hussein would today still be torturing people into submission,’” by saying “[o]n the other hand, U.S. soldiers only torture Iraqis for naughty fun!”
Is this supposed to be funny? Is it supposed to offer insight? Is it supposed to be a clever demonstration that I am wrong? It does none of these things. But what it does is place the brutal torture that Saddam Hussein regularly doled out to the people of Iraq on the same level as the abuse of some prisoners by American soldiers.
Two points about such an equation: first, while the soldiers who abused these prisoners ought to be brought before the court martial and severely punished, we also ought not to overlook the fact that none of these prisoners was killed, or had their property taken, or their families abused. To call their treatment “torture” is an overstatement. To call it wrong, and worthy of punishment is accurate. But when the Jackass compares it to treatment by Hussein, which can unambiguously be called torture, then he has lost his bearings, assuming he ever had any. This is the second point. The mistreatment of these Iraqis is deplorable, but the entire thrust of my earlier post was that equating it with the policies and foundations of Hussein’s rule is so beyond the pale that it can be animated only by unthinking hostility to American military involvement. And unthinking hostility to American military involvement is utterly irresponsible and dangerous to the security and liberty of the world’s people. For example, the American military kept the world free from the domination of the greatest evil ever known to our species—Soviet communism. In the meantime it did some awful things. But if we had lost our sense of proportion, and substituted inane little comments like the Jackass’ for serious consideration of the issues, then we would have endangering ourselves and our posterity by limiting our ability to confront that menace.
Yesterday, he wrote “Those damned Iraqis! Let’s torture them into submission!” That’s all. Apparently, I am somehow representative of the American soldiers who abused inmates at an Iraqi prison, even though on Friday I wrote a long post about how, while I support the war, I’m very concerned about the effects on civil liberties, and even though other bloggers whose views I usually share, have put up excellent posts on the subject.
Obviously I think American soldiers who abuse people ought to be court-martialed and punished. It’s so obvious I wouldn’t think it necessary to say so, except for people as dumb as Mr. Neale.
But let’s consider a little bit more about “torturing people into submission.” Saddam Hussein tortured countless people into submission. It was the mechanism by which his regime was run. Had we followed the doctrines laid down by Mr. Neale, and done nothing, Saddam Hussein would today still be torturing people into submission. Had we done as the French and Germans wished, Iraq’s government would still be fundamentally based on torturing people into submission. And those who did the torturing, far from being court-martialed and punished, would have received promotions and the applause of their superior officers.
Mr. Neale and his intellectual (so to speak) peers have repeatedly defended regimes based on torturing people into submission. The Soviet Union, for example, was fundamentally based on torturing people into submission. Yet those in the west who opposed to the USSR continue to be despised by Mr. Neale, et al., who claimed (and still claim) that the Soviet threat was overblown, or even nonexistent, and who ignored the unmatched abuses the USSR committed. Those on the left denounced the Contras for abuses—of which they certainly were guilty—but were silent about how the Sandanistas tortured people into submission. They denounced Pinochet—and rightly so—but said nothing about the abuses of Allende. Fidel Castro continues to hold power by torturing people into submission, yet Mr. Neale and his fellow useful idiots continue to defend that regime. The Viet Cong base their politics on torturing people into submission, but their victory was made possible only by the activities of those who think the things that Mr. Neale “thinks.” The left has defended tyrants from the days of the Spanish Civil War to the present day. They have done so in large part by pointing the finger of blame at the foreign policies of the United States—very often with legitimate reason, as in this case—and then extrapolating from such incidents that the United States’ foreign policy is fundamentally wrong, and that we ought to stand back and allow dictatorships in other countries to torture people into submission. One might discern a pattern in this, and were Mr. Neale more intelligent, I might think this pattern conscious. With people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, it certainly is a conscious pattern.
Update: Libertarian Jackass replies to my point that, had the United States done nothing “‘Saddam Hussein would today still be torturing people into submission,’” by saying “[o]n the other hand, U.S. soldiers only torture Iraqis for naughty fun!”
Is this supposed to be funny? Is it supposed to offer insight? Is it supposed to be a clever demonstration that I am wrong? It does none of these things. But what it does is place the brutal torture that Saddam Hussein regularly doled out to the people of Iraq on the same level as the abuse of some prisoners by American soldiers.
Two points about such an equation: first, while the soldiers who abused these prisoners ought to be brought before the court martial and severely punished, we also ought not to overlook the fact that none of these prisoners was killed, or had their property taken, or their families abused. To call their treatment “torture” is an overstatement. To call it wrong, and worthy of punishment is accurate. But when the Jackass compares it to treatment by Hussein, which can unambiguously be called torture, then he has lost his bearings, assuming he ever had any. This is the second point. The mistreatment of these Iraqis is deplorable, but the entire thrust of my earlier post was that equating it with the policies and foundations of Hussein’s rule is so beyond the pale that it can be animated only by unthinking hostility to American military involvement. And unthinking hostility to American military involvement is utterly irresponsible and dangerous to the security and liberty of the world’s people. For example, the American military kept the world free from the domination of the greatest evil ever known to our species—Soviet communism. In the meantime it did some awful things. But if we had lost our sense of proportion, and substituted inane little comments like the Jackass’ for serious consideration of the issues, then we would have endangering ourselves and our posterity by limiting our ability to confront that menace.
