Hayek and de Toqueville on Socialism

I have been reading Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny and though he and I don’t agree on everything we certainly agree on an outright rejection of socialism.  In the chapter titled On The Free Market, Levin included a great quote from Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom.  Hayek’s oft-quoted book is on the shelf behind me as well but I am not sure where the original quote is in his book so I will quote Mark Levin quoting Friedrich Hayek quoting (and commenting on) Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America:

Nobody saw this more clearly than the great political thinker de Toqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism:  “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom,” he said.  “Democracy attaches all possible value to each man,” he said in 1848, “while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number.  Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.  But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives – the craving for freedom – socialists began to increasingly make use of the promise of a “new freedom.”  Socialism was to bring “economic freedom,” without which political freedom was “not worth having.”

To make this argument sound plausible, the word “freedom” was subjected to a subtle change in meaning.  The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men.  Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us.  Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth.  The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.

Excellent.

I once had a long argument with my one liberal brother and his (pretty much marxist) significant other where I tried to make this very point.  I tried to explain that if we gathered up all of the things that people like to call “rights” there would be a clear line down the center that divides these so-called rights very unambiguously.  On one side of that line are legitimate rights; exercising these rights only requires that people stay out of your way (avoiding the “arbitrary power of men”, as Hayek put it).  On the other side of that dividing line are rights that require that someone do something for you.  I argued strenuously that any right that requires that someone take action or fund your “right” is not a right at all.  For example, you have a right to free speech but no one is required to provide you with a soapbox on which to stand.  You have a right to keep and bear arms but we do not have to buy your gun for you.  On the other side of that line, you do not have any “right” to expect anyone to subsidize your lifestyle by, for example, paying for your health care.  Calling something like that a “right” is simply dressing up the act of using government to take another person’s property.

Is there a place for atheists in America?

I ran across a short editorial in the Greensboro (N.C.) News & Record titled Is there place for atheists in America?  Not only did it renew my curiosity about just how many atheists remain in the closet (I think that we would all be surprised), it also reminded me of what an often despised minority we are:

In 2006, a University of Minnesota study found that atheists are the least trusted among several categories. In that study, some 40 percent of Americans said of atheists, “This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society.”

Compare this number to other groups that often experience discrimination, such as Muslims who were next at 26 percent, and gays just after that at 23 percent.

So not only do a large group of Americans think that I would not agree with their “vision of American society” but these people would hold me more suspect than their much-maligned gays or even Muslims.  It really surprises me because on many issues like reverence for the Constitution or unabashed support for the military or a no-compromise position on the 2^nd amendment they would find that we have a lot of common ground.  But since I do not believe in their imaginary friend I am not to be trusted.

The author points out that there are some public figures that are openly atheist but asks the question “where are the voices of the ‘everyday’ atheist?”  I think that too many of us remain in the closet with all but our closest friends for the very reason that we fear being subjected to the ignorance of certain believers.

Yet, a recent survey by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 15 percent of Americans claim they adhere to no religion, making them the fastest growing group of believers — or, rather, nonbelievers — in the United States.

They admitted their lack of faith to a survey but do their neighbors and co-workers know?  I would submit that many people who have very negative opinions of atheists in general would have to change their minds if they knew that people that they like and respect are non-believers.  I have tried many times to convince religious people that morality is independent of religion but often their belief that morality flows from religion allows them to place themselves on the moral high ground compared to those that they want to judge.  I strongly argue that the person who does the right thing because it is the right thing has a far better grasp of morality than a person who does the right thing because of a Fear of a Vengeful Deity.

Being a long time political rabble-rouser, I used to think about running for elective office one day but the fact is that an atheist simply has no chance in all but the most liberal areas.

I like the way that the author closed his opinion piece:

Just as three decades ago people may have said, “I don’t know any gay people,” because most were in the closet, many Americans now believe that they don’t know any atheists when indeed the person sitting next to them on the bus — or, maybe, in the pew — does not believe in God.

Have any of you ever considered getting into local politics but refrained because of your atheism?

Tribalism & Marriage

Tribal thinking makes a group strong and improves its survivability. Our genes have that strategy firmly programmed as one of our many modules of operation. But as humans, I feel we have a potentially unique opportunity to transcend our genes. We don’t have to be a slave to our tribalism. We can use it and not let it use us.

Sure we can form sport teams, scholastic teams and corporate teams and compete with peaceful guidelines — this is cultural progress for our species.   But we don’t have to seriously teach our children to hate the other side. We don’t have to teach our children that we are actually superior people to those on the other team.

One of my favorite tests for “Enslaving Tribalism” or “Blind Tribalism” or “Oppressive Tribalism” is marriage. So let me take a stab at a rule which combines my libertarian and skeptic ideology:

If you would discourage you child from marrying into another group which is non-hating, non-violent and prosperous, then your tribalism is certainly oppressive.

On my other site, I have coined the word “goyology” to describe how we treat others outside our group. Marriage preferences are a good way to gauge another person’s goyology.

Any thoughts?

Ron Paul’s Biggest Mistake

A recent discussion about the pluses or perils of voting for third party candidates makes it appropriate that we talk about Ron Paul. Every once in a while, a candidate runs on a major party’s ticket who does not represent that party’s views. In the 2008 election, there were two such candidates: Dennis Kucinich was a progressive on the democratic ticket, and Ron Paul held libertarian views but ran as a republican.

And to be honest, I am not at all sure why!

Ron Paul’s (and Dennis Kucinish’s) mistake, it seems to me, was in not taking seriously the idea of running as an independent (or third party) candidates. The problem that both these men faced by holding views not wholly represented by their party is that, in doing so, they now had to get past the primary elections and receive the nomination of their party. In primary elections, only candidates of that particular party can vote (democrats for the democrat they want as representative, and so on). This means that Ron Paul had to win in an election of republicans against party-line republican contenders.

Let’s use an analogy to illustrate this difficulty: Ron Paul was (in the republican primary) like a bike being sold at a car dealership. Consumers go to a car shop because they want a car. Paul had the task of trying to convince car shoppers to go with a bike; not inconceivable, but an upstream swim for sure. Republicans are republicans because they like the republican platform and republican candidates (generally represented by people like Bush). To think that one can win a republican primary against republicans that stick to the party platform (and presumably reflect republican voters) is to throw oneself at the mercy of republicans to decide one’s fate.

How to Vote

There is much controversy among liberty-minded individuals on how to vote.   Presently, the US national voting method is the “first past the post” method (AKA:  “relative majority”, “winner-take-all”).   So, unfortunately, the debate takes place within our present system.  Two of our contributors started this debate but their debate would be resolved if the US used my favorite voting method:  Instant-Runoff-Voting (IRV) (AKA: “alternative voting” or “preferential voting”).  But for now, below are the options I see.  I will give them names for easy reference.

This debate assumes that the issue of how to choose your favorite candidate is fixed.  But that would be another debate.  For some are issue voters, some do their own calculus of compromised issues and some vote party.  We will save that for another time.  But for now, let’s keep it simple.  Heck, this could even morph into how people choose their religion — for this is all about how each of us makes choices !  But the debate may be interesting because we all share the liberty perspective.

I will edit this post as the argument proceeds.   What are your opinions?

• Ideal Vote (IV): Vote for the candidate closest to your views, no matter what their probability of winning.
• Pragmatic Vote (PV): Vote for the candidate closest to your views, but only if the candidate is viable.
• No Vote (NV): Don’t Vote, it is selling out to a flawed system

The Churchgoing Atheist

Much has been made over the past year of Herman Mehta, the atheist who “sold his soul” on ebay and attended the church of the highest bidder. Big deal! I am an atheist and I have been going to church for years.

I met my would-be-wife in October of 2006. She is a Lutheran who is quite active in her church choir. Thus, it was only natural that I wanted to support her, so I began going to church with her. I do not take communion, stand but do not speak during prayers, and most of the parishioners know that I am a nonbeliever. Gradually, I became acquainted with the members of the church band, and have been drumming for the band regularly (on the condition that no one ask me to sing any christian lyrics).  As my wife and I will be moving to a different state in less than 1  week, today was our last Sunday at this church. While I have no religious ties, and attending church has done nothing to lessen my nonbelief, I will miss the people.

Some atheists might scoff at all this. And in my younger years, I might have as well. But I have found going to church beneficial for a few reasons.

The Most Important Whodunnit You’ll Ever Read: a review of Sowell’s Housing Boom and Bust

I just got finished reading Thomas Sowell’s Housing Boom and Bust. Very impressive! I used to be something of an econophobe many years ago, until I read several of Thomas Sowell’s books (Knowledge and Decisions, Vision of the Annointed, Basic Economics). Currently, Housing Boom and Bust is #11 on the NYT Best seller list. Hopefully, we can keep it going up so that more people read this timely work.

Here is a review I wrote of the book for amazon.com____________________________________________________________

Thomas Sowell has built a good part of his career on explaining economics to non-economists (in addition to producing solid works of economic theory like Knowledge and Decisions). This is certainly one of his best – and most timely – books to date. In Housing Boom and Bust, Sowell tries to explain to the rest of us the myths and realities that make up the housing boom and bust of 2008/2009.

Notice I said MYTHS before “realities.” As Sowell shows us, there were several myths that led to our current recession. First, politicians widely perpetuated the myth that there existed a shortage of affordable housing in in the US. Wrong! Using much data, Sowell demonstrates that housing IN MOST PLACES was as affordable as ever. Housing costs only skyrocketed in certain high-demand areas (California, Las Vegas, Pheonix, Seattle, etc). And why did these prices go up? The areas where housing is most expensive almiost uniformly coincides with areas which have the strictest building regulations (“open space” laws, nevironmental prohibitions, etc.)

Muslims Protest

Religion may matter to people,

but freedom matters more !

Michael Novak Rhetoricizes Immorality Into Morality in the Old Testament

In a recent post to his website, Catholic intellectual Michael Novak is concerned with proffering an answer to a vexing question: “Why Did god Command Evil Deeds?” Everyone who has read the bible is doubtless familiar with at least a handful of examples in the old testament of bad deeds done in god’s name – indeed commanded by god. For the unfamiliar, Novak runs through a few examples himself:

 Among many examples, God ordered Moses and his army to execute the Midianites, not only the men, but the women and male children. The virgin girls they are to keep for themselves. Initially, the Israelites resisted this command, and Moses had to give the harsh order again.

For a more comprehensive and deviously delightful list, the interested reader can go to www.evilbible.com

While Novak is quite an intellectual force (writing one of the more intellectually honest defenses of christianity in No One Sees God), his answer to this question – why did god command evil? – is quite rhetorically shifty and unsatisfactory. (In Novak’s defense, I have never heard a good explanaiton for this quandary.)

Thomas Sowell Explains the Housing Bubble

Here is a link to economist Thomas Sowell speaking to FoxNews’s Glenn Beck about his timely new book The Housing Boom and Bust, which along with Thomas Woods, Jr’s Meltdown is one of the most penetrating and insightful analyses of the financial crisis of ‘08/’09, how  we got here, and what it will take to get out.

Sowell is one of the biggest champions of the market that we have. Here, he explains that the fault for our current crisis lies not with the banks, but with the regulators that FORCED banks (yes, forced) to issue loans to those ill-equipped to handle such loans in order to create an “ownership society” (Bush’s phrase).

What is so interesting about this explanation is that it answers a nagging question I had while watchign the MSNBC special House of Cards, which put the majority of blame with the banks and their issuance of “creative” lonas designed to entice lower income creditors. My question: “Why would banks knowingly issue loans to people they knew could not pay them off? If banks make money by people paying principal plus interest, then why would they make such bad investments by giving loans with 5% (rather than 20%) money down so that low income folks could get loans?”

I Guess 787 Billion Doesn’t Go as Far As We Thought! Our Bad!

It was only a matter of time before they realized it. But frankly, I am suprised that they admitteed to it.

By now, you may have heard that Joe Biden has admited on Meet the Press(albeit in a round about, politician way) that the $787 billion bailout package may not have done as much good as originally hoped by naive politicians. He admitted that “everyone guessed wrong” on the effect that the stimulus package would have on the economy and overguessed on the effect.

But here is the laughable part. Even  though the $787 billion dollar government pay-out package has has embarassingly little effect on a struggling economy, Biden resorts at every turn to strange rationalizations for why that was. Here is my favorite; instead of suggesting sthat the reason for the bailout’s lack of effect can be due to a problem with the plan, he suggests that it must be a problem with the economy!

“No one realized how bad the economy was. The projections, in fact, turned out to be worse. But we took the mainstream model as to what we thought — and everyone else thought — the unemployment rate would be,” Biden said.

To Biden, the fact that x didn’t work MUST be a sign that the  problem, not the proposed solution, is to blame. The bailout’s lack of efficacy could not be due to the simple common sense fact that giving money to failing companies means diverting money into unprofitable channels. (If Chevrolet is sinking their own money, is there any realistic chance that they will not do the same with government money?) Biden rationalizes that the failure of the bailout to make a dent must be because the economy was simply worse off than ANYONE thought. Poor stupid man.

Give the Mt. Soledad Cross a Good Christian Burial!

If you lose your life fighting on behalf of the United States military and you are NOT  a Christian, you might roll over in your grave. Why? Because your war memorial - paid for by tax dollars – bears a very large “latin cross.” You will, whether Muslim, wiccan, or non-theistic, be honored by a huge christian symbol.

Fortunately, this issue has been taken all the way to the Supreme Court who will soon rule on whether this federally-owned piece of land (it used to be owned by the city of San Diego until they ran into legal problems) is an impermissible violation of the 1st amendment’s establishment clause.

Whether the court rules for or against the government’s ability to use a sectarian religious symbol to represent all war veterans, the very fact that it would try is reprehensible to me. In all honesty, I am not at all sold on the idea that the first amendment’s establishment clause prohibits anything other than establishing a religion. But that is, to me, beside the point. The point is: where does the government get off honoring a diverse group of war veterans by a religious symbol that only one religion uses. How can a muslim, a mormon, or an atheist be honored in any sincerity by a memorial that uses a religious symbol the fallen veteran may not have wanted to honor them? The government is speaking for the dead here and it sickens me.