Table of Contents: -------------------- Individual Rights vs. Special Interests Journalistic Sloppiness Anti-Smoking Fasicsm on the Rise On Not Having to be Taught Everything Why Medical Costs are High Why So Many Lawyers? Explaining Women's Anger Suicide and the Right to Life On Not Having to be Taught Everything (2?) Violence Does not Come from Television News in New York Royal Willie Business Versus Business The Welfare State and National Service Fallout from The Rich Tom Brokaw, Political Advocate School Choice and Taxes Andy Rooney and CBS's Double Standard Due Process versus Desired Results Media Double Standards Serious Education Reform Feminism Reconsidered Goals Versus Expectations Why All the Fuss About Skin Pigmentation Good Bye Free Speech Making Society Unlitigous Discomfort from Sexism Journalistic Sloppiness Scandinavian Misunderstandings When Comedy Won't Do=20 Ideology versus Pragmatism Generational Progress Sleaze Literature Pragmatic Tactics Liberal Hypocrisy Human Rights Around the Globe Values and America Antidote to Gloom and Doom Customs and Due Process Corruption at Harvard University Press Scholarship and Ideology Critical Fallacies Why All the Fuss About Skin Pigmentation Individual Rights vs. Special Interests Free Speech on Public Property Individual Rights and Public Realms=20 Clinton and the Military Paranoia About Manipulating Nature Family Leave is Bad for All What is Criminal Guilt? Bill Clinton's Marxism TV's Influence The New Immigration Like Government, Like Us Due Process versus Desired Results Bill Clinton's Marxism Democracy and Foreign Affairs Critical Fallacies Compassion in Washington and Hollywood Groups with Memories Business Versus Business Creating Jobs via Theft Liberals Regroup "In Melville, New York, twelve passengers who were injured ..." "A problem has surfaced in connection with changes in Easter ..." "The Democrats are clearly bad news for America ..." "Don't count on building your dream home or apartment complex ..." "There is a distinct possibility that in communities where ..." "Prague, August 14. The oddly constructed Czechoslovakian nation ..." "Those who are bent on taking more and more of our liberties ..." "The controversy over the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution ..." "During this time of euphoria among environmentalists ..." What's to Worry About Ross Perot? "One of America's most important gifts to the world was ..." "In recent years more and more American Indians ..." "Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes interviewed the Milwaukee legislator ..." "Although the idea that animals have rights goes back to at least ..." "Words is going around these days of the revival of the Socratic ..." Unfair to Economic Freedom Clinton's "economists" are Misguided Harmful Intellectual Excuses Why Communitarianism Must be Rejected Robert Bork on the Abortion Debate Liberals Hoisted on their Own Patard Nobel Prize to Economic Imperialist The Welfare State and National Service Problems with Western Culture The Deficit and the Tragedy of the Commons The Folly of The Plan Why Not Call it Nepotism? America's Coming Collectivism? Government at Micromanagement Improving Our Lives Debate vs. Prejudice Andy Rooney and CBS's Double Standard Science and The Planned Society Goodbye to Highway Courtesy Mourning the Fourth of July Boys Scouts Under Assault The Burden of Bad Laws Accountability Begins at Home Unfair Attack on Conservative Foundations Given them all a Proper Defense! The Free Society Assaulted The Romantic Realism of Camile Paglia Yes! PBS (and NPR) Ought to Go! The Law versus Air-Pollution=20 Our Loss of The American Vision=20 Voting and the Media Why not Sue the State? Sex Education Backlashes Why All the Fuss About Skin Pigmentation A Brief on Individual Human Rights Media Double Standards Critical Fallacies Scholarship and Ideology Tightening Whose Belt? Operation Rescue is Wrong Laura Tyson's Economic Duplicity Mr. Clinton v. The Laffer Curve Uncle Sam: Don't Go to Somalia! Media Double Standards Creating Jobs via Theft Democracy and Foreign Affairs Canada's Backsliding The Debate on Natural Law Pragmatism and American Leadership Communitarianism: the New Statism What is and isn't Censorship Revisionist Socialism Gender and Science Reconsidered Gorbachev and Democratic Socialism Liberals Create Big Corporations Soviet Tyranny Without the "Western Threat" Misdirected Venom Statism and Police Brutality Faith and Public Controversy=20 Public Broadcast "Editing" The Boogyman of America's Racism On Crime, Rape and Sex Government Safety Standards Are Too Conservative "One of ironies of the elections of 1990 is the election of ..." Scientific Fakery Why Are Conservatives Uncreative? New Jersey Firms Forbidden to Ban Smoking A Really Bad Idea Why Should We Worry About Happiness Anyway? Why The Welfare State Lasts? The Gall of a Bureaucrat Capitalism and Trivial Pursuits Why the Good Get a Bad Press It's not the Size but the Scope of Government Varieties of Harassment Journalism a la NPR A Splendid Application of Natural Law Children and Their Rights ========================================================================= ========================================================================= =========================================================================== >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 11:27:46 -0500 (CDT) >From: Tibor R Machan >Subject: Group of Columns Individual Rights vs. Special Interests When on November 2nd the school choice proposition went down in defeat, the results were rather provocative. After the opponents outspent proponents 4 to 1, they won by about 2 to 1. So be it - that is how democracy works, all or nothing, never mind that millions dis- agree. Indeed, this is just why such issues should never even have to come to a vote. It is the right of every individual to spend his or her money as he or she chooses, whatever the majority believes. This is no different from everyone one's basic right to speak out or join a church, no matter what the majority believes. It is a clear sign of America's decline as a distinctive, path breaking society that no longer are individual rights unalienable, protected for everyone. Instead, if a large enough group elects to violate these rights, that is now permitted. It is interesting, however, that this time few people are making noises about the subversion of democracy. This is probably because the majority includes all those who usually speak out on such matters. University and college professors, teachers, intellectuals, and the like comprise the membership of the special interest group that went to bat against school choice. They may deny it, but they were voting in large measure to save their special position in society, a position largely secured by the force of arms. If you do not pay your property and other taxes, from which all these folks are paid, you go to jail. They do not need to prove themselves to their client, as lawyers, psychologists, doctors, palm readers, auto mechanics and millions of other persons need to, in order to obtain a living. They go, instead, to the government and urge it to force people to pay up. =20 Some years back, in the early 1980s, Californians voted on a referendum regarding whether to impose certain costs on oil companies. The oil companies put on a powerful media campaign and the referendum went down in defeat. At the time, however, the verbalists were on the other side. They lost. Following the vote, dozens of articles appeared around the state claiming that democracy had been subverted because those who opposed the special tax on the oil companies outspent the proponents by a wide margin. Activists claimed that people were duped into voting for "big oil" and that if it had been a fair contest, the oil companies would have lost. I am wondering now how many intellectuals of this ilk will be publishing Op-Ed pieces claiming that if it weren't for the big money poured into the anti-choice campaign, the proposition would not have been defeated and that democracy was subverted by the big teachers and public service unions. Of course this is not the most relevant aspect of the vote, but it is interesting: the general public would do well to learn from it. Even though movies, magazines, and news reports usually focus on exposing the hypocrisy of money makers, there is plenty of such hypocrisy within the ranks of our intellectuals. As I tell my students, do not be mislead by the fact that intellectuals do most of the talking and focus most of their criticism on non-intellectuals - mostly corporations, business, Wall Street, and the like. In fact, your teachers, authors, writers of sitcoms are all just as susceptible to corruption - and, moreover, are more dangerous when they are corrupt since they have a near monopoly, as a group, on the bully pulpit, namely, the media. ======================================================================= Journalistic Sloppiness If there were a tradition of malpractice lawsuits against members of the press, many journalists would now be broke. But while nearly every other productive enterprise and profession is under fire from lawyers seeking to collect judgments in the face=20 errors of judgment, the press is protected from such prospects by the First Amendment - or, at least, by a certain reading of it. (It is arguable that readers who notice distortions and incompetent reporting should be able to take publications to court for just the sort of malpractice that is involved.) Consider the front page article by Peter T. Kilborn in the=20 International Herald Tribune, Monday, September 6, 1993, "When a=20 Job, Not Income, is Disposable." Here we are told that when Lyndon B. Johnson "promised Americans a 'Great Society' in which=20 'the meaning of man's life matches the marvels of man's labor," Johnson was spelling out "capitalist ideals." And, since these ideals have not be realized, capitalism is as much of a failure as communism. That is what is implied in Mr. Kilborn's remark that "today, in America, in Russia, indeed throughout the=20 industrialized world, work has drifted a long way from the Marxist=20 and capitalist ideals." But the plain fact is, completely misreported by Mr. Kilborn, that capitalism hasn't been tried. Indeed, a conscientious reporter might have noted that not even Marxist ideals have actually been implemented - Stalin, whom Kilborn calls a Marxist, was basically a fraudulent Marxist, only a bit more that Lyndon Johnson was a fraudulent capitalism (except that LBJ never claimed that he was a capitalist). Still, it is accurate that under Stalin the command economy was given a good college try. But it is totally false to identify the principles of the Great Society with those of capitalism. What did the Great Society stand for? Put simply, the welfare state. Under its neo-Keynesian policies, involving prolonged government intervention in what was never a fully free, laissez-faire economy in the first place - just read Jonathan R. T. Hughes' THE GOVERNMENTAL HABIT (Basic Books, 1972) - the Great Society engaged in massive wealth redistribution and thus undermined the central ideal of capitalism, namely, freedom of trade or voluntary economic relations among human beings. =20 By now the impact of this kind of relentless, merciless tinkering with people's efforts to find solutions to their problems by means of freedom of association, including uncoerced commercial transactions, has been felt not only throughout America but, of course, everywhere in the world. Governments are broke, productivity is falling, employment opportunities are shrinking, the standard of life is being eroded, and journalists are probably the only professionals who aren't experiencing their governments' desperate and inept efforts to remedy matters by even greater controls over people's lives. But never mind all this. Mr. Kilborn and his ilk will likely continue to misreport the situation and readers will continue to consume his product, probably the only one that is not subject to liability lawsuits, the only one free of government regulation, and thus the=20 only one that has a decent chance of being corrected by the reporting of competitors in some other front page article, on some Op-Ed page in the free world. And that, perhaps, is our last hope - that the press is free and Mr. Kilborn and his friends, who seem to wish that capitalism go the way of the Stalinist command economy, haven't become a monopoly, yet. ========================================================================= Anti-Smoking Fasicsm on the Rise =09It is ironic that at a time when not only some of the current liberal=20 democratic administration's leaders but certain conservative jurists=20 (Reagan nominated Judge Vaughn R. Walker of San Francisco's Federal Dis- trict Court) are proposing the decriminalization of banned drugs, Ellen=20 Goodman, a very prominent and Pulitzer Prize winning syndicated columnist,= =20 would join those fanatics who want to ban cigarettes. =09No one can contest the claim that cigarettes are a health hazard, so=20 there is no dispute about this, any more than there is a dispute that in ge= neral=20 drug abuse is unhealthy. When I was a child of 11 my parents back in Hun- gary knew this. Anyone who professes ignorance of the health hazards of=20 cigarettes must have lived in a cave for the last century. =09The important question is whether government has any rightful author- ity to prohibit me from smoking and the cigarette companies from providing= =20 me with tobacco products. In a free society it should not even be necessar= y=20 to raise such a question. Unfortunately we are far from a free society whe= re=20 the basic rights of individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happine= ss are=20 protected by law. Instead we are a society where the state is acting as if= we=20 were children and the government were our parents. And pundits such as Ms.= =20 Goodman, as well as news organizations such as ABC-TV's "Day One" are=20 aiding and abetting the destruction of our individual rights. =09If I choose to smoke, despite the fact that I know or could learn that= =20 my health is hurt by it, I ought not to be forbidden to do this, any more t= han I=20 should be forbidden to do other risky things such as driving, climbing moun= - tains, flying, taking a swim in the ocean, etc. It is my life and if I cho= ose to=20 take risks, I am not violating anyone else's rights. (And it is no argumen= t to=20 respond that my bad health has public costs -- there should not be any publ= ic=20 provision of health care in the first place, since that is a blatant case o= f rob- bing Peter to provide for Paul!) =09Finally, health is not everything. Many people take big risks with thei= r=20 health, indeed their lives, because they judge the rewards worthwhile. it = is=20 even possible that someone should smoke, despite health hazards, if smoking= =20 provide him or her with a benefit otherwise unobtainable. Individuals diff= er=20 in how they ought to live and except for some very general virtues, there a= re=20 many ways to live right. =09If it were left for the likes of Ellen Goodman, our lives would be regi- mented 24 hours a day. Everyone, smoker or non-smoker, ought to be con- cerned, first and foremost, with our individual rights to be sovereigns, fr= ee=20 citizens, and not subjects of the state. =09The "Day One" ABC-TV program blatantly promoted government=20 regimentation of our lives -- indeed, it was nothing less than statist prop= a- ganda. It presented tobacco companies as villains for daring to produce ci= ga- rettes that pleased their customers. It pretended to be shocked at the eff= orts=20 of these companies to gauge the amount of nicotine in cigarettes and produc= e=20 cigarettes with varying levels of nicotine. =09But what else are tobacco companies to do? They are in business to=20 satisfy the choices of free, adult citizens who are supposedly able to vote= ,=20 drive and make determinations as to how they want to live. Ms. Goodman's= =20 and ABC-TV's views are an insult to our humanity, nothing less, and a threa= t=20 to our liberties. =========================================================================== On Not Having to be Taught Everything =09In a recent essay, published in Harper's Magazine (March 1994), author M= ary=20 Gaitskill recounts an occasion in her youth when she took LSD and then was = seduced by a=20 young men who was actually quite nice to her but to whom she was afraid to = say "No" for=20 fear she might meet with violence. She considers her experience to have be= en date rape,=20 although she claims the situation is a bit more complicated than intellectu= als who write=20 about this issue have treated it. =09Gaitskill's major thesis is that the problem begins not so much with wha= t men do=20 but with how badly women are prepared to deal with men's unwelcome advances= . She=20 relates her experience on a radio talk show panel discussion where one woma= n advocated=20 a law "prohibiting men from touching or making sexual comments to women on = the=20 street." She tells of a woman who called in and said, "If a man touches me= and I don't=20 want it, I don't need a law. I'm gonna beat the hell out of him." To this= comment Gaitskill=20 recalls one panelist responding, "I guess I just never learned how to do th= at." =09Never mind for now whether being touched or spoken to this way deserves = having=20 the hell beaten out of one. Perhaps a less violent reaction will do - even= the law punishes=20 the use of unnecessary force. But what about taking refuge from the charge= of wallowing=20 in victimization by claiming that if one isn't taught to do something, one = has no=20 responsibility to do it? =09If Ms. Gaitskill's argument were sound, nothing new in the world would e= ver have=20 been accomplished by human beings. Instead, of course, people learn not on= ly from being=20 taught but also from their own creative thinking, imagination, logical infe= rence and similar=20 intellectual and mindful initiatives. =09Arguably, when Ms. Gaitskill unwisely took the acid among strangers, as = she=20 admits, she ought to have thought about what could happen. This is not unl= ike the case of=20 someone who drinks and then drives and when causes a mishap, tries to excul= pate himself=20 by pleading ignorance of what could happen. The fact is, one ought to have= thought about=20 the consequences and chosen a different course, in both cases. =09Not that taking advantage of someone who is careless and irresponsible, = indeed,=20 somewhat out of commission due to drug abuse, is not itself a culpable act.= But as in so=20 many cases, what went on in her story is both parties doing things wrong, w= ith predictable=20 bad results. In so many cases today we find that both parties mess up and = then plead for=20 victim status from society, from the courts and public opinion. Instead, a= s in the Bobbit=20 case, we see two very likely irresponsible, vile people, neither of whom de= serves much=20 sympathy and both of who ought to be held in contempt. =09And as to the issue of not having been taught excusing one's ineptness a= nd=20 recklessness, what should one say to a racists who says, in his or her defe= nse, "Well, I just=20 wasn't taught to be respectful to members of other races than my own."? Pl= ainly: "You=20 ought to use your head. Think, do not just rely on what others teach you -= they may, after=20 all, be wrong." ========================================================================= Why Medical Costs are High During the last few months there has been much consternation about the very high cost of medicine in the United States of America. Well, I have heard all sorts of explanations for this but not appealed to my common sense. Today I came up with one of my own and I am=20 sufficiently vain to think it makes very good sense. But first a bit of background. I have medical insurance through my place of work. Usually I get a check up every year. I am now at the age when it makes sense to do this, although I have no unhealthy habits. Still, my father died of a heart attack at 67, and I am 55, so why be complacent. Today I had a stress exam to see if I might have heard disease. The ratio of bad to good cholesterol came up bad in my last blood test, so my doctor prescribed this tread mill test where one walks for about 8 minutes at a rapidly increasing rate of speed, after which one is injected with some stuff that enables the machine under which one is placed to take pictures of the behavior of the=20 circulatory system. As I was lying there for about 20 minutes I was thinking about=20 high medical costs. And it dawn on me: Of course our medical costs are high. We have a very intense desire to live! I would hypothesize that this actually explains why we spend so much money on medicine: we badly want to live as long as we can, and we want to be as healthy as=20 the ingenuity of researchers and practitioners makes possible. Of course, there are those who say that we will continue to live in some sense after we die, but no one knows well enough just how that is going to go. I certainly have no clear idea and I have tried to=20 think about that problems of decades. Few who firmly believe in an after life can make clear just what is involved in it. But most=20 importantly, nearly everyone who so believes still would like to=20 continue to be in good health and live long. But that is a costly proposition. When one adds to this that many people also wish to strain their biological capacities with such indulgences as heavy drink, heavy smoke, reckless driving, and numerous others that can clearly put one at high risk of medical difficulties. For lack of a better catch phrase, let's say that the intense desire to live and to fill one's life with much enjoyment, pleasure, and=20 adventure will make it very likely that people in American will=20 spend much more money on medical care than people would elsewhere, in cultures where the human life is no so highly prized. I am not here trying to justify any of this, although I will readily admit that I find none of this objectionable. My main point is just to give something of a sensible answer to this puzzle, raised by Bill and Hillary Clinton's alarmed tone of voice, as to why we pay so much for medicine, more than people do elsewhere. I suggest it may simply be that we want to live longer and with more intensity than people do elsewhere. ====================================================================== Why So Many Lawyers? Compared to, say TV GUide or Reader's Digest, The New Republic is a low circulation magazine. Yet it is probably this country's most prestigious and maybe most astute political-cultural publication. It carries articles on a wide ranging set of topics - from daily political affairs to reviews of the most esoteric philosophical books. It has stars such as Michael Kinsley and Fred Barnes. Its editorial views are not easily predicted. And it is very enjoyable to read, whatever your politics happens to be. As a co-founder of what is hoping to be a competing publication, Reason, I must admit that The New Republic is far and away the best read for those of us who care about public and cultural affairs. Yet stupidity is not unfamiliar to its pages. Thus in a recent review of several books of fiction and non-fiction on law, the author of the review offers this unabashedly ignorant passage: "To an imagination of any scope," [Oliver Wendell] Holmes wrote,=20 "the most far-reaching form of power is not money, it is the command=20 of ideas." That now has the platitudinous ring of a commencement address to which the graduating class listens patiently, all the=20 while believing, on the evidence of nearly everything that surrounds them, that money will always be a vastly more far-reaching form of power than the command of ideas. How else is it possible to explain the enormous growth of the legal profession in the last thirty years? In this country between 1965 and 1990, writes [Lincoln] Caplan, "the number of lawyers leaped .. from 296,000 to 800,000...." Aside for the fact that this passage confirms Holmes' observation -- the belief in the power, not to mention corrosiveness, of money is itself= =20 a result of the command of an very ancient idea -- the rhetorical question does not have the self-evident answer the author believes it does. There is a very obvious alternative possibility. Is it not just possible, indeed very likely, that the enormous growth of the legal profession is due to the enormous growth of laws? We have since the 1960s increased the number of laws and regulations enormously. The federal government alone writes thousands of new laws every year. The states, counties and municipalities add their share. And the people -- all the way from the local barber to the multinational corporation's CEO -- need to hire lawyers to help them navigate the resulting legal labyrinth. The New Republic is, no doubt, a superb magazine. But it suffers from its own ideological blinders. The editors probably found this=20 rhetorical question about lawyers perfectly sensible, given the command of the idea that money is something awful but very tempting and that the relentless manufacture of laws and regulations in this country is, well, the thing to be taken for granted. Had they but considered that maybe these laws and regulations are mostly superfluous, the product of politicians posturing as savers of humanity, they might have asked the review to think again about that sentence, to consider that the entire drift of the review might need to be recast to reflect not a well entrenched prejudice about money but the reality of the enormous growth of statism in the United States of America. ===================================================================== Explaining Women's Anger In the past decade I have often criticized the more extreme or=20 militant versions of feminism. These say, among other things, that all men have conspired to keep women in a subservient role in life. They say that there is a special, probably superior, female ethical=20 perspective that men have tried to surpress. They say that such=20 areas of concern as philosophy, science and art all reflect a male bias and that history itself is a distortion because it has been mostly males who have studied it. =20 In many cases these feminists have been careless in how they have framed their claims, including all men in their indictments, making the same mistake toward men they claim men have made toward women. Such generalizations are insulting to me and all the men I know of whom none of what these militant feminists say is true. But in all fairness I should also note, now and then, that many women are quite justified in getting angry at some men, perhaps even at most of them. There is little doubt that some men simply do not get it - they just do not see that women can be and often are every bit as decent and worthwhile human beings as men can be and often are. These men treat women badly when they try to blame them for their own professional mistakes, when they try to intimidate them into accepting such blame. Many other men, or perhaps even the same ones, do actually exhibit a dehumanizing outlook on women. I recall when I was an enlistee in the United States Air Force, many of my fellow enlistees showed the most disgusting attitude toward their girl friends, wives and dates. They spoke about these women as pieces of meat, while they were gambling away their checks and leaving the women with no money to pay for the expenses both incurred. Now and then I hear women express amazement that some men treat decently, gently, kindly. I am amazed because it occurs to me that there cannot be any joy in relating to women in any other way. But=20 I am told that often men are crude and inconsiderate in how they=20 behave with their dates, girlfriends and even wives. I know of men who pay scant attention to their children, who are dead beat fathers, who leave child raising entirely to their mates.=20 Of course, these facts no more justify reckless charges agains all men than the misbehavior of some Hungarians justifies condemning=20 them all as brutes. But if one has for years been mistreated by Hungarians - maybe only because one happens to have run into a group of bad ones - it is understandable why one would be tempted to think badly of all of them. People should but do not always think carefully, logically, sensibly when they have had bad experiences. And while this isn't fully excusable, it is at least understandable. Much of what the wilder feminists shriek about is unjust but that is not the only thing we can say about it. Sadly many, too many men are hopelessly cruel to women, even while, of course, many women aren't better. But while women make their mistakes one way, not always by hurting men, many men make theirs by lashing out against women - by demeaning them, hurting them, treating them as inferior, lower beings. When women err in the way they try to address their problems, they should be set straight. But their motivation should also be appreciated. ================================================================== Suicide and the Right to Life Most of us have witnessed the sage of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the Michigan doctors whose has been aiding some people who wanted to commit suicide and whose efforts have met with considerable resistance from Michigan politicians. Now comes news that in Canada both suicide and assisting another who wants to die are forbidden. It is illegal in Canada "to advise, encourage or assist another=20 person to perform an act that intentionally brings about his or=20 her death." In light of this, Sue Rodriguez, a 43 year old Lou Gehrig=20 disease patient, had been asking the Canadian courts to change=20 the law and to allow her to end her life, in the face of certain=20 and painful death, one that the ban simply prolongs. But the Canadian courts would not budge and, in the end, Ms. Rodriguez did get an=20 unnamed doctor to help her anyway. She died in the arms of MP Svend Robinson, who is part of a movement similar to that in the United States where it has failed to get the law changed in referenda in the states of Washington and California. That the law in the United States of America would ban suicides and assisted suicides is scandalous. In this country each person's right to life is supposed to be protected by the government. True,=20 the U. S. Constitution does not directly protect each person's right to life. The Ninth Amendment, however, states clearly that even rights to enumerated in the Constitution must be protected. And since the founding document of this country, the Declaration of Independence, mentions everyone's right to life as one held to be self-evident by the founders, it follows clearly that the Ninth Amendment must include the right to life that government may not violate. But, one might wonder, how could someone defend suicide or assisted suicide by reference to the right to life! It is no mystery, actually. When one has a right, it means one has a choice. The right to=20 freedom of religion means that one who has such a right may not be prevented from choosing which religion to adopt or even whether to adopt a religion at all. The right to freedom of speech means one may not be prevented from choosing whether to speak out on something or to remain silent. Rights are precisely that sort of political principle: they afford us with choice in the midst of a communities where others could prevent us from having such a choice. A free society is one which recognizes, in its legal system, these basic rights of human beings. The right to life, in turn, means that no one may prevent us from choosing to live, or making the choice not to live if that is what we judge best for us. As to the option of commit suicide with the aid of someone else, here things get a bit complicated because assistance could easily be seen as murder. So the instrument of a "living will" or something similar to it needs to be established so as to make clear that any invited suicide assistance is not, in fact,=20 murder. Once that precaution has been taken, however, a free society stands in opposition to itself when it bans suicides or assisted suicides. Of course, as with every liberty, this one can also be exercised unwisely. But a free society rests on the conviction that the risk is worth it. We ought to treat our adult citizens not as we treat our children, dependents, namely paternalistically. We ought to treat them with respect for their adulthood, their sovereignty. Perhaps in Canada the philosophical underpinnings for respecting the rights of individual human beings to choose whether they will live or die do not exist. But the United States of America is supposed to be the leader of the free world, meaning, the leading free country in the world. This obligates it to guard individual rights more vigilantly than they are guarded anywhere else. ====================================================================== On Not Having to be Taught Everything =09In a recent essay, published in Harper's Magazine (March 1994), author M= ary=20 Gaitskill recounts an occasion in her youth when she took LSD and then was = seduced by a=20 young men who was actually quite nice to her but to whom she was afraid to = say "No" for=20 fear she might meet with violence. She considers her experience to have be= en date rape,=20 although she claims the situation is a bit more complicated than intellectu= als who write=20 about this issue have treated it. =09Gaitskill's major thesis is that the problem begins not so much with wha= t men do=20 but with how badly women are prepared to deal with men's unwelcome advances= . She=20 relates her experience on a radio talk show panel discussion where one woma= n advocated=20 a law "prohibiting men from touching or making sexual comments to women on = the=20 street." She tells of a woman who called in and said, "If a man touches me= and I don't=20 want it, I don't need a law. I'm gonna beat the hell out of him." To this= comment Gaitskill=20 recalls one panelist responding, "I guess I just never learned how to do th= at." =09Never mind for now whether being touched or spoken to this way deserves = having=20 the hell beaten out of one. Perhaps a less violent reaction will do - even= the law punishes=20 the use of unnecessary force. But what about taking refuge from the charge= of wallowing=20 in victimization by claiming that if one isn't taught to do something, one = has no=20 responsibility to do it? =09If Ms. Gaitskill's argument were sound, nothing new in the world would e= ver have=20 been accomplished by human beings. Instead, of course, people learn not on= ly from being=20 taught but also from their own creative thinking, imagination, logical infe= rence and similar=20 intellectual and mindful initiatives. =09Arguably, when Ms. Gaitskill unwisely took the acid among strangers, as = she=20 admits, she ought to have thought about what could happen. This is not unl= ike the case of=20 someone who drinks and then drives and when causes a mishap, tries to excul= pate himself=20 by pleading ignorance of what could happen. The fact is, one ought to have= thought about=20 the consequences and chosen a different course, in both cases. =09Not that taking advantage of someone who is careless and irresponsible, = indeed,=20 somewhat out of commission due to drug abuse, is not itself a culpable act.= But as in so=20 many cases, what went on in her story is both parties doing things wrong, w= ith predictable=20 bad results. In so many cases today we find that both parties mess up and = then plead for=20 victim status from society, from the courts and public opinion. Instead, a= s in the Bobbit=20 case, we see two very likely irresponsible, vile people, neither of whom de= serves much=20 sympathy and both of who ought to be held in contempt. =09And as to the issue of not having been taught excusing one's ineptness a= nd=20 recklessness, what should one say to a racists who says, in his or her defe= nse, "Well, I just=20 wasn't taught to be respectful to members of other races than my own."? Pl= ainly: "You=20 ought to use your head. Think, do not just rely on what others teach you -= they may, after=20 all, be wrong." ======================================================================== Violence Does not Come from Television As is now to be expected, our politicians are blaming sources=20 other than themselves for the evils of our world. Most recently it is=20 television violence that is blamed for the spreading of violent crime=20 across our society. Accordingly, our political leaders have bullied=20 cable television into adopting a ratings system and developing the=20 technology to enables parents to block violent programs from the sets=20 their children are watching. =20 I have no great trouble with either of these objectives, although = =20 I dispute that they will do much to discourage violence in our=20 society. The reason is that TV programs have never been and could not=20 really be responsible for actual violence. If anything, television=20 programs follow the tastes and preferences of the public, not the other=20 way around. ONly if the public prizes shows that feature violence, will=20 producers and networks find it profitable to feature them. If the=20 public felt revolted by violence in TV drama, there would hardly be any=20 on the tube, plain and simple. =20 But what then may be most responsible for violence in our society? = =20 I am sure there are several reasons and causes for this. But one=20 stands out as fairly obvious. =20 I have in mind the fact that more and more our politicians=20 regard violence as the means by which to solve the country's problems. = =20 For what else is the threat of jail than violence? What else is the=20 threat of police forcing citizens to comply with the growing number of=20 regulations and other government edicts than plain old violence? What=20 else is it but violence when the vice squad descends upon some region of=20 our lives and forces us to behave as the leaders of our society - our=20 politicians - deem appropriate?=20 Violence is the unjustified use of force. It is not violence=20 when I defend myself against muggers. The force I use is merely something = =20 I couldn't avoid, given what the attackers did to me. When,=20 however, politicians threaten to put me to jail if I do not comply with=20 their vision of how I ought to behave, that is violence or, at least,=20 its threat. What such policies clearly do is make it appear very=20 forcefully indeed that violence a legitimate means by which to solve =20 problems. =20 It isn't really surprising that some people find it perfectly=20 acceptable to deal with the discomforts of their lives in a violent way,=20 when all the people in Washington are doing the same. Bill and Hillary=20 Clinton desire a health plan, so they propose to force it upon us. What=20 if we do not accept their idea of how we ought to take care of our=20 health? They will send in the cops, in the last analysis, who will=20 chase us down and place us in jail for not going along with their=20 scheme. If employers refuse to hire or promote a certain number of=20 women or minorities, what is the politicians' response? Coerce them=20 into jail - threaten them with violence, that is. =20 The plain fact is that, by egging television producers on to=20 combat violence in fictional entertainment, politicians tend to divert=20 our attention from a very real source of violence in our society, namely, = =20 their own methods of handling human problems. It is government=20 coercion that is the most violent thing in our society - no criminal has=20 the guns with which government threatens us if we do not do politicians'=20 bidding. Thus this entire campaign against guns on the street or violence=20 in fictional broadcasts is, effectively little more than a ploy to=20 once again mislead us and make room for further botched up government=20 efforts to help out the society. When will our citizens realize that=20 they are being had once again, not helped in the least?=20 ======================================================================== News in New York An apology is due from me to all the small town television=20 news broadcasts. For years I have been complaining about how these media forums offer nothing but trivia masquerading as news. From=20stations in Santa Barbara, San Louis Obispo, Auburn, Alabama, Buffalo, New York, and so on, everyone in the country what we get by way of the evening or morning or mid-day TV news is fires, murders, Woody versus Mia, traffic accidents, sexual assaults, scandals, gossip, and the like. I had thought that his is mostly typical of small town television news. I was wrong. I apologize. Since August 17, 1993, I have been exposed to two New York City TV stations' news broadcast, the local affiliates of NBC TV and FOX TV. Since I did not order Cable TV for the ten months I was to live here, I watch the news on one of these two stations. And the news is uniformly mundane, looking and sounding more like the pages of National Inquirer than Time or Newsweek. As if in New York City nothing could be found that is newsworthy outside of Amy Fisher and Joe Buttefuco trials and tribulations, Woody and Mia's sordid custody fights, Donald and Marla's impending parenthood, etc., etc. =20 You look in vain for reports on local arts, science, education, innovation, exploration, controversy, or the like. Has anyone written a decent book in New York? You'll never know it. Has the world of science been enriched by some new discoveries made at one of the several dozen major universities in the vicinity? Forget it. But if you want interviews with David Letterman's replacement, well you will have so many of them you wonder whether the press agents bought off the news departments. Even foreign affairs are covered only to the extend that we get blood and guts, reports of rape or genocide. What is happening in Paris, London, Hamburg - oh, I forgot, Monica Seles was stabbed in that city by some crazed German who apparently didn't like Seles=20 beating Stefi Graf repeatedly - or Vienna? Nobody will tell you. ALl you get is gore and more gore and a bit of fluff and then some more gore. Why? Well, I don't rightly know. Is this what people want? Are the viewers really demanding to get this kind of garbage cast at them by the multimillion dollar anchors and reporters? Are there serious surveys done on this, are the stations sure that they have it right? =20 If the people want nothing else but such "news" - which, when you think about it, is no news at all but repetition eclipsing more repetition, with only the players changing their names - then I admit to being rather demoralized about the culture in which I live. I am too aware of the complexities of what causes this but I am sure enough that whatever the cases are, the consequences are pathetic. I cannot demure from saying: if you are one of those who craves such news reporting, please do not vote or make any decisions that have an impact on our country. Please, just keep to yourself and pig out on such offerings to your heart's content. I do not envy you. ===================================================================== Royal Willie Tibor R. Machan Heaven knows, I am no fan of unions. I haven't a clue whether the=20 striking flight attendants at American Airlines had good reason to=20 walk off their jobs. Perhaps they are a group of spoiled workers=20 who tried to rake in some coins by making it difficult for the=20 company just when heavy traffic was about to commence, during the=20 Thanksgiving rush. =20 But that's what bargaining is about, isn't it? When labor and=20 management cannot easily reach agreement, a bit of pulling and tug ging will be employed by both, so that eventually each will come to=20 see where their mutual interests lie. And the public will just have=20 to wait it out, since neither workers nor managers are supposed to=20 be subject to involuntary servitude, forced labor. Indeed, an occa- sional slowdown in the provision of goods and services can be a=20 wonderful educational device: it teaches the rest of us that we may=20 never taken the working people of the country for granted. They are=20 free agents, or until recently were supposed to be so regarded. =20 Now here comes King Willie, with his royal edict, bringing the=20 process of negotiations to a halt. Why? To rescue us from the=20 terrible hardship of American Airline's not flying during the=20 Thanksgiving season. =20 It isn't even an emergency, for God's sake. It is a matter of=20 some folks not getting where they might like to have spent time=20 devouring their turkey dinners. But no, King Willie must show who=20 is boss - the federales, that's who. =20 Well, the best we can do is to learn from the experience. Just=20 remember who took to wielding the power of the government for just=20 any purpose he felt like and you will understand the true nature of=20 the Clinton presidency. DOn't forget Hillary, either, who has no=20 compunction about unleashing her ire when she is displeased - recall=20 how she came down on the insurance folks for trying to give their=20 own input into the health care debate. She was outraged, just as a=20 queen mother would be who takes offense at having her will obstruct- ed. =20 I am no alarmist but it scares me now how readily the government=20 is taking things into its own hands when those who run it don't have=20 their wishes catered to pronto! In this atmosphere it is no wonder=20 that the great American values of freedom of thought, freedom of=20 speech, freedom of trade, freedom of choice and the rest are taking=20 a dive in prominence. Instead we have the old feudal ideal of the=20 divine rights of kings coming in through the back door once again. =20 The ideal is that, as with the ancient regimes, the folks at the=20 head of the state will take care of us, in return for which we will=20 have to do their bidding. =20 It is ironic that just when the most monstrous reactionary effort=20 to set us back to those days of near total statism has collapsed,=20 the people elected to govern the freest government of all of human=20 history have completely abandoned the principles of liberty and are=20 wielding power whenever and wherever it pleases them. ======================================================================== Business Versus Business One of Karl Marx's less notable mistakes was his belief that people in the world of business would promote their self-interest. If by self-interest we include, as I believe we ought to, the most rational social-political principles in support of a sound human institution's flourishing, then clearly people in business often act in a self-destructive manner. They promote policies that hurt business. Examples of such self-destructive business conduct are not hard to identify. Consider, as a very recent one, Ted Turner, the multi- billionaire mogul, who went to Congress a few days ago and asked the politicians in Washington to "shove down the throats of" broadcasters a TV violence rating system, unless the broadcasters adopt one pronto. Or consider a few months ago how New York City's wonder financier, Donald Trump, wanted legal action take against native Americans who were running gambling establishments, just because they are not forced to pay the taxes he has to pay. Furthermore, consider the recent=20 decision of the U. S. Supreme Court, followed by some state supreme court rulings, to refuse to place a cap on the amounts of punitive damage money that juries may award to plaintiffs who succeed in proving=20 that some service or product has injured them. =20 In each of these cases it is people in the business community who are advocating getting the government involved in the operations of the market place or, in our last example, to cut some slack for them from the processes of our system of justice. Turner's advocacy of government censorship of broadcasting is=20 perhaps the most disgusting of the three examples. Ted Turner, who is rumored to have admired the ideas of Ayn Rand earlier in his career, is actually promoting government's intrusion on freedom of expression. He wants the First Amendment to be voided when it comes to broadcasting. He should, instead, advocate the extension of First Amendment protection to the broadcast industry. He should advocate repeal of the federal law that has established the Federal Communications Commission - earlier the Federal Radio Commission - so that broadcasters and cable television operators could be enjoying the same freedom of communication as do the printed media. Instead, perhaps to appease the left wing liberals with whom is so socially chummy lately, he is asking the state to tell broadcasters how to run their business, what to do about its content, etc. =20 Trump, in turn, ought to be advocating the reduction of taxation on every front, including when it hurts his own business, but instead he is crying "unfair" and asking government to hit up the few people who have managed to escape its thievery. Trump out to use the example of native Americans to point out that taxation is unjust and it would be best to recognize this fact not only regarding native Americans but all of us who live in this country. But the wunderkind of New York and Atlantic Cities seems to lack the integrity and is proceeding in=20 a truly short sighted fashion. Those people in business who want the government to limit the=20 punitive sums juries may award to injured parties evade that such a limitation would rther arbitrary. No doubt some juries are willing=20 to indulge their collective prejudices against corporations by awarding=20 larger than reasonable punitive sums to victims of corporate malpractice. = =20 But the remedy for this is not to subvert the jury system but to embark=20 on a program of giving business a better press, demonstrating to the=20 public that the business bashing attitudes so typical of the Clinton=20 crowd are wholly unjust and injurious to our society. The source of jury's prejudices need to be addressed, but not by trying to subvert the jury system. The short cut method taken by too many prominent people in business will ultimately hurt the system under which business can flourish in a human community. Such an approach - which includes advocacy of=20 protectionist legislation, begging for subsidies and government backed loans, as well as protection of business against competition from up and coming entrepreneurs - is surely hurting the entire business community, even while it may give a few particular enterprises a=20 temporary leg-up. That business people do not realize how dear a price they are paying for the relief government gives them indicates that they are no less savvy concerning the relationship between politics and business than are academic left wingers who advocate out and out socialism. ========================================================================= The Welfare State and National Service A couple of years ago Bill Buckley wrote a book entitled Gratitude. It advocated national service for those who take advantage of free public education at the college level. Buckley argued that we owe it to our=20 elders to serve them, after they have done all the good for us we are enjoying in our lives. =20 It is ironic that what a major conservative journalist recommends should now be implemented by one of his adversaries, President Bill Clinton. Of course, the exact plan is still in the making. But the idea is close to that which Buckley spelled out. Our young people=20 should serve their country in return for the free education they have received. They will be paid, of course, but presumably their work will be much valuable than the pay they receive for it. Thus we find here the element of gratitude Buckley was emphasizing. There are several problems with this idea. For one, what people=20 do may benefit us without it having been their intention to do this at all - artists may create without any desire to help others, yet we all may benefit from the result. A scientist may seek truth without thinking of benefiting anyone else, though we could all gain by the discoveries that he or she makes. Indeed, much of what we benefit from is the result of work that is not intended for that purpose at all. Then, also, we may assume that those who did benefit us intentionally found value in doing this without expecting to be paid for this. I find it peculiar, to start with, that good deeds done for us without our asking for them should be taken to obligate us. Help, if it is genuine help,=20 deserves a thank you, not service in return. Otherwise it is not help but a commercial exchange process. Thirdly, it is interesting that what at first was touted as something our citizens are entitled to - remember the term "entitlements," which in political philosophy is referred to as "positive rights" - now we are told we must pay for. I recall back in the 1960s, when I began to pay attention to politics, the wide array of government programs advocated by champions of the New Frontier and the Great Society were said to be due us simply because we are citizens of this country. We were supposed to have a right to health care, social security, affordable housing, etc. Among these basic rights of ours was our education. We were supposed to be due an education simply because we lived in a civilized society. Some of us at that time warned that we will eventually see ourselves embroiled in all kinds of obligations we did not voluntarily incur, in the wake of all these so called free governmental services. We were told by the champions of the big welfare state that we are employing scare tactics, we are distorting the real nature of what welfare comes to, namely, generosity and compassion from our society. Of course that was nonsense - there really is no such thing as a free lunch, or a free college education. Somehow these things must be paid for - the last time I heard of a professor who was willing to teach free of charge was a lone air to a big fortune, and even he eventually resigned to live in some Western paradise instead of continue to work free of charge. Public service employees are forever threatening to strike unless they are paid roughly equivalent to private industry salaries. =20 So the only rational thing is that what is given would eventually have to be paid back. But what does this do to the concept of welfare? What about compassion and charity and generosity? =20 Instead was is emerging is a society in which government, with some=20 input from the people, hands out what some people deem to be valued services and goods and then, whether you like it or not, you will have=20 to come up with some service or payment. Is it not ironic that the very reason the welfare state was conceived= =20 in the first place, namely, that the commercial exchange system is not sufficiently generous, is now being forgotten and a rather distorted version of that commercial system is being reinstituted - only this time there is a wholly unnecessary middle agent, the government. And believe me that agent is hungrier for payment than any market agent has ever been. ========================================================================= Fallout from The Rich Although I came to America as a rather poor immigrant and after leaving home at 18 became dirt poor with no family support, I have also been fortunate as well as industrious enough not to end up on welfare or requiring handouts. From the start it seemed to me that=20 a chance such as I faced - namely, to make my way in the country of nearly every poor European's, indeed, foreigner's, dreams - demanded the best effort on my part, lest I blow it. Not that everything went smoothly but all in all I got nearly everything I set out to gain, including a superb education, a career that could be many people's envy, wonderful children, a great deal of travel, some of the best friends one could ask for, and at least a tolerable economic life that sustains me well enough albeit by no means in luxury. What all this leads me to suggest is that there clearly are many people who are far more prosperous than I, even if I doubt that too many have enjoyed the degree of happiness I have been fortunate to experience thus far. Still, I could easily benefit from having a good deal more money. Yet, I have never known envy in my life. Somehow the sight of greater wealth on the part of others has never lead me to desire to exchange their lives for mine. Nor, especially, have I ever felt ill will toward those who are rich. On the contrary, I have been very=20 pleased at the existence of the rich. And there are some good reasons=20 for my pleasure with them, even if I can hardly even think myself in=20 their shoes. =20 For one, the rich remind me that if I wanted to aspire to be one of them, I would have a decent chance at it. I know some rich people and some of these started nearly as low on the economic ladder as I did. But they wanted to be well off and found a way to do this while also gaining satisfaction from their work. I know some person who are millionaires, a few who probably have a billion or so, and in each case I know that the way movies or sitcoms or best sit coms pulp novels depict them is hopelessly inaccurate. None of these folks is mean or greedy or amoral, quite the opposite. I know that if I had wanted to concentrate my energies on securing wealth and great prosperity - e.g., by means of expertise in finance or corporate management - I could have given that a decent shot, with not too bad a chance at success. Another reason I welcome the existence of the rich in our society - near enough to the lives of my family and friends to witness what their lives are like - is that without them we and millions of others would scarcely have a chance to occasional luxury, a taste of the finer aspects of nourishment, entertainment, decoration, art and culture in general. =20 Who but the rich sustain good restaurants? Who but the rich make fine porcelain or jazz clubs or beautiful rugs or fancy furniture, not to mention stunning architecture and enthralling theater possible? I cannot afford to support artists, musicians, actors, great chefs, and the other people who create and produce some of the marvelous=20 features of our culture, nor can my equally middle level and poor income earning friends. But once in a blue moon we all manage to go to a great French restaurant, an art gallery, a neighborhood=20 where fashionable estates are located, or a shopping center that features exquisite merchandise. =20 It is wonderful to go to an elegant mall such as those strewn about in the New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, Boston, and other areas of the country where these businesses can count on enough wealthy folks to sustain them. I and those like me would not be able to support elegant ocean cruisers, delightful automobiles, great sports events such as Wimbledon or the America Cup. But there are those who can and I, for one, am extremely glad for that.=20 This is one of the reasons - although not the main one - for my distress about the kind of rich bashing that is so common in our culture. I find it disgusting how the envious among us would rather destroy the rich than witness the gap between their modest wealth and the great wealth of the rich. I find it especially loathsome=20 how so many American politicians, who ought to know better, gladly capitalize on this envy and persist on using the rich as a scapegoat of their own unwillingness to do the right thing, namely, concentrate on defending us from foreign and domestic aggressors and leave us be and fend for ourselves in peace, however much economic disparity=20 this may generate - far less, incidentally, than is generated in societies where politicians try to even things out and run the entire country's economy to the ground. Of course, the first thing to be said about the rich is that they have every right to seek their kind of life, so long as they do this in peace. But there is also this point, namely, that their existence is of enormous benefit to the rest of us, not just in jobs and national wealth but in keeping culture at a level that is there for all of us to enjoy, to save up for once in a while, even if we do not wish to live the kind of intense life they are willing to live. ====================================================================== Tom Brokaw, Political Advocate NBC TV's Nightly News engaged in outright political advocacy on Friday, March 12, when Tom Brokaw and his colleagues advocated the government regulation of private security guards. Not only did they repeatedly call for such regulation. Brokaw himself triumphantly announced at the end of the segment that "Congress may have a solution for this problem by drafting laws regulating private security police." What has brought on this unabashed politicization of NBC's Nightly News program? The occasional trouble some customers have had with unfit security officers. Never mind that these customers could simply file suit for malpractice, service fraud or something similar. But this would merely improve the security services by providing very strong disincentives for failure to deliver on their promises. No, Mr. Brokaw is interested in more, namely, giving our governments more to do, so we can consume more of the wealth of the nation. But=20 that tact is useless. The very same day this broadcast was aired, Brokaw was covering a story of a shooting at a Brooklyn family court where a crazed father shot his ex-wife to death in a custody fight - right in the court room. How did the father make it through the security system of the family court? Well, folks, he was a parole officer in the law enforcement system of the local government, that's how. Here we have a case of government control par excellance - one could not be more directly under such control. The parole officer is part of the government itself. That same day NBC TV New York news broadcast also reported that 3 members of the elite drug enforcement bureau of New York State have been arrested for trading in pure heroin. And all across the country government officials are being charged with crimes after crimes. So, what I want to know, where did Mr. Brokaw and his team of news reporters get the idea that the regulation of private securities by government is going to, on balance, improve matters in law enforcement? Government Corruption, Stupid! Have you not heard? Whenever something goes wrong in a regulated industry, such as in the wholesale or retail meat business (so that some children have died from tainted meat), we never, ever hear about how the regulators have gone wrong, how they are responsible for what happened (because they=20 and the likes of Tom Brokaw have lulled us into complacency with their=20 promise of solving our problems. When airlines or cars or trains crash, the production and safety of all of them extensively regulated by various levels of government, we just do not get reports on 60 Minutes about the ineptness and personal guilt of government regulators. Mr. Brokaw, wake up and smell the coffee - it's the government that does the most damage, stupid. ========================================================================= School Choice and Taxes Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes interviewed the Milwaukee legislator who managed to get Wisconsin to embark on an educational experiment in educational choice. All the experiment involves is the establishment of a private school funded with tax moneys that would otherwise have gone to public education. The methods of teaching in this project have been extremely successful thus far. While the public schools have a 60 percent drop out rate, with a large percent of those who graduate unable to read and write, the private experiment has a rate of 98 percent graduation from the same pool of students. But my point here is not to debate the issue of school choice. In my view compulsory public schooling is grossly immoral and, not surprisingly, produces rather inferior education for the students who experience it. As a college professor for the last 21 years,=20 I have noticed that the bulk of the students I teach, all graduates=20 of such compulsory schools, tend to hate to use their minds. They=20 think of education as a chore - exactly as one would expect from=20 anything shoved down their throats for 12 years by bureaucratic edict. What interested me in Mike Wallace's segment is the way each time Wallace mentioned the private school alternative, he said very firmly that these schools take away money that would otherwise go to public education. He kept stressing this point as if these schools got some kind of free ride that the public schools do not receive. In fact, of course, when those who choose the private alternative get this paid for by a tax rebate, nothing is taken away from the public schools. The teaching loads of public schools are reduced and thus they lose nothing. Furthermore, in the case of Milwaukee, while as a matter of the record public schools spend $6000.00 per student each year, the private school that serves as the successful alternative spends only $2500.00 or so on each student. Teaches in the private schools receive have the $30,000.00 salary of the public school teachers. Wallace, of course, also interviewed the head of the public school teachers' union, who, incidentally, earns $80,000 a year, who, wonder of wonders, opposes the experiment. And he also brought in the head of the regional NAACP, who is also against the experiment. In each=20 case Wallace accepted the claim - and repeated in throughout the program=20 - that the private experiment is depriving the public schools of a=20 large sum of tax funds. With a bit of fairness about the finances of the matter - something journalistic ethics would demand even of Mr. Mike Wallace - 60 Minutes could have figured out that the school choice ideas circulating these days involve no deprivation of funds but a change of where the tax payers' money will be spend. It is as simple as when someone decides to eat in one restaurant instead of another - he is not depriving the latter of anything, simply not spending his money there. That also=20 means that no meals have to be prepared for him. But, I suppose, if Mike Wallace and the chiefs at 60 Minutes=20 understood such elementary matters of finance, there would be more sense about the school choice issue in the first place. It would be one thing if public schools had such a brilliant record, so that taking children out of the system would be lamentable. But by all counts public schools, as most other politicized social projects, are=20 a big mess, supporting not the students who attend but the accumulated=20 bureaucracies surrounding them. ========================================================================= Andy Rooney and CBS's Double Standard I am not so much a fan of 60 Minutes as someone who believes he=20 needs to check out the most watched public affairs program on American television. I am a cultural anthropologists, not a fan! =20 For example, I am interested in Mike Wallace's way of treating=20 people - he once declared, after all, that "With the businessman [the=20 interviewer] may play prosecutor, or if the individual responds better=20 to lulling, then the interviewer goes that way. With Horowitz and=20 Baryshnikov [i.e., artists], I had to reassure them I was wearing my=20 white hat: I wanted to establish a rapport between us." =20 Indeed, Wallace always tries to nail people in business or other=20 profit making institutions, but with artists he wears kids' gloves,=20 despite the fact that artists are as prone to vice as anyone else. =20 (Consider the recent discovery that John Cage "borrowed" his idea of=20 silence as music from Harold Acton, a composer whose 1928 "Cornelian"=20 contained the idea that Cage gained fame for.) Notice, also, that Wallace & Company rarely if every take on academicians or others who are good with spoken words. They seem chicken when it comes to people=20 who are their own size, as it were! And most recently 60 Minutes did not disappoint me again. This time it was Rooney who spoke ill of some people and, unlike when he disparaged some minorities, he got no flack for it from CBS. In a commentary on the 1992 elections, Rooney lamented the way the candidates spoke out on the issues. In the course of airing some obvious complaints - who wouldn't wish for a more elegant election process? - Rooney said that he does not want his political candidates to sound like "vacuum cleaner salesmen." Well, I wonder why CBS isn't suspending Rooney this time, for his unjust denigration of the total membership of a perfectly honorable profession! Is it, perhaps, that it is not politically incorrect to lambaste people in the business world? Why? What is so acceptable about putting down people in business (Wallace) and making derisive comments about those selling vacuum cleaners? No doubt, most of us have some such prejudices and we don't=20 feel terribly about them. They matter little in our lives, although if they begin to matter somewhat, we really ought to look out and make sure we don't act on them. For the people on 60 Minutes, however, such prejudices are un- forgivable on two counts: First, they peddle themselves as the conscience of our society, what with their sanctimonious tone of voice, their constant accusations and their holier than though searches for further targets of their gleeful revelation of vice, great or small. (I recall how cheerfully 60 Minutes exposed the fact that at Auburn University=20 some football players got help from coaches to the tune of having $300 loans co-signed! Really worth national exposure!) Second, they are perhaps just a tad more influential with their audience than would be those outside the media. =20 If CBS reprimands Andy Rooney for slighting blacks or others, why=20 should Rooney escape censure for badmouthing those who sell vacuum=20 cleaners? =20 Maybe because CBS and 60 Minutes are not so much interested in =20 locating injustices in our society as they are in pleasing their=20 colleagues in the industry, fellow folks who are mostly interested in=20 being politically correct, never mean morally right and just. ========================================================================= Due Process versus Desired Results Human justice is directly concerned with process, indirectly=20 with results. =20 Life is itself a process. Human life in society manifests=20 itself in infinite processes, aiming at infinite results. There is only one common result all human life ought to seek and sometimes does indeed result in and it is the happiness, the morally good life of the individual human being. For this reason a good society has a system of legal justice that protects the processes whereby men and women will not have anyone around them obstruct their pursuit of happiness. It is that pursuit that is crucial to the law, not the result itself. A parallel situation obtains concerning attempts to adjudicate dispute among members of the citizenry. A criminal trial is such an adjudicative process. And here again the result is only indirectly the concern of the legal system, the process is the crucial factor. And this is clear from the fact that the system often leaves the=20 result in the hands of a jury, private citizens with no political=20 and legal office. The system is supposed to ensure that every trial follows sound procedures - due processes of law! But the tenor as well as the aims of our legal system have been=20 changing. Politicians, including their legal appointees such as the new Attorney General of the United States of America, are focused not on process but on result. The country is in danger of becoming a=20 semi-civilized lynch mob. This could be appreciated from watching the news reports of all the fuss associated with the Rodney King federal civil rights trial. Too many black leaders treated the event as a contest where they are awaiting a desired result, never mind what the process. After one trial resulted in what most people felt was a bad verdict, this was not written off as the cost of trusting due process of law. Instead a new trial was demanded, even though by the tradition of our legal system this came very close to being double jeopardy - trying persons for the same crime twice. The response that this isn't so because two different sovereign authorities are involved is pretty much indicative=20 of how due process has given way to desired result. How could a civilized community depend on a system of justice that has two, possibly divided, legal authorities governing it? Only because people are overly=20 concerned with results do they switch from the sovereign authority of the federal government to that of the state governments. Both the Left and the Right does this. In the abortion controversy the Right tends to count on state law. In civil rights matters the Left counts on the federal government. In other matters they line up the opposite way - for example, in some environmental matters the Left likes state law while the Right wants federal jurisdiction. And all this should not surprise us too much. Although the United States of America was conceived in terms of a legal system focused on due process, in more recent times the government began establishing=20 firm goals for us all to pursue. If the processes of the law do not produce an educated public, a relief for the poor, environmental purity, total racial harmony, decent speech, etc. When such a role is conceived for our government, is it surprising that the people are willing to throw out due process and insist in the desired results? What they wanted from the Rodney King trial was a conviction and punishment of the police officers involved and if the processes of law would not give them this result, they threatened to do damage to society. The Rodney King jury may have managed to retain its integrity during its deliberations but it is difficult to tell, given that they were undoubtedly aware of what would follow if they did not produce the desired result. And it looks like the delivered a safe verdict, one that would do little office to all concerned parties on the outside of the court room. ========================================================================= Media Double Standards It pays to be getting old. Not only are most of the painful=20 learning experiences behind one, so one lives a less anxious life,=20 but one can remember what others are still awaiting to learn. =20 All this came into sharp focus for me when I was watching President Bill Clinton take the very risky step of explaining to us what happened during the last few weeks in Waco, Texas. He seems clearly to know, despite the lack of any evidence, that the cult=20 members committed suicide, that the fire was set by them, and that it was really all the fault of their leader, David Koresh, no one=20 else. And wasn't it gracious of Mr. Clinton, as of his Attorney General, to "take full responsibility" for what happened when=20 everything came to a fiery end in Waco? As if Mr. Clinton will=20 have to stand trial and answer to a jury for what transpired there under his presidential watch! But most interesting to this semi-old-timer is now the bulk of the nation's media treated Mr. Clinton upon his all knowing declarations about who is guilty and what actually happened in Waco. Contrast this whith what happened when the killer Charles Manson=20 was first caught and accused of murdering Sharon Tate, among others,=20 and President Richard Nixon took it upon himself to announce the man's culpability before a trial had a chance to get under way.=20 The majority of the media produced a collective wagging finger, chiding their despised president for undermining the processes of justice and not allowing the legal system to do its job discovering who in fact was guilty of the crimes with which Manson had been charged. =20 Never mind that the case against crazy Charlie was nearly open and=20 shut, while eactly what Koresh's did is still fully hidden behind a=20 wall of confusion, the remains of an inferno, and numerous bureaucratic ambiguities and suspicions. =20 Just remember that Bill Clinton, in contrast to Dick Nixon, is the media's darling. So when he second guesses the investigative process of this country's legal system, it is not even worth a whisper of complaint. Where are the ACLU people being interviewed on Today? Why are Donahue and Oprah silent on Clinton's violation of the principle=20 of the presumption of lack of guilt? Why are they treating the=20 government with such kid gloves now? Let me hypothesize. It is, after all, their government now. Their agenda is being pursued in the White House, their socialist public policies are soon to be in the offing. And why would they worry about such niceties as due process of law, presumption of guiltlessness, etc., when branding Clinton guilty of subverting justice could possibly undermine his marvelously collectivist policy efforts? Sometimes journalists excuse their blindness by claiming that objectivity and fairness are impossible. Not, however, in those cases where these virtues would help their cause - if a jury is biased in favor of police officers, well then that jury just did wrong, period, no complexities, no troublesome skepticism is to be=20 found there at all. But when they ignore their darling politicians'=20 bad judgment, well it is all due to the impossibility of removing=20 one's prejudices from one's job. What a convenient doulbe standard! Yet, folks, this is all subterfuge. The Sam Donaldson's of celebrity journalism, the Katie Curric's and John Chancellors, all stand guilty of gross bias in support of politicians they adore, who are on their ideological side. We see it in how they handled Anita Hill, even though no proof favoring her case has ever been produced, quite the contrary. =20 We see it now with turning a blind eye toward Mr. Clinton's perversion of justice. =20 Because Mr. Clinton hasn't the faintest clue who was at fault in=20 Waco. He doesn't know whether Koresh ordered anyone to commit suicide. He does not even know whether the initial attack on the compound made any legal, never mind moral, sense. Yet he has already settle the matter to his full satisfaction and, moreover, told the American people=20 what to think, too. =20 But then Bill Clinton isn't Richard Nixon, the nasty man who ran=20 rings around the press, who was cleverer than they, and who simply=20 didn't play the kind of ball the press wanted him to. Isn't it reasonable to ask our sanctimonious media stars to be at least fair and hold every president to the same standards of good conduct and leadership? I think it is. ========================================================================= Serious Education Reform When the late Allan Bloom wrote his best selling The Closing of the American Mind a few years ago, a debate picked up about just what might be wrong about American higher education. Bloom took what he considered to be a very serious approach to his subject matter and concluded, essentially, that American colleges and universities have become hot beds of philosophical relativism, the position that in the end everything is equally important, there are no objective standards by which to judge educational performance or even what is important to learn about and what may be less important. Bloom said, in effect, that we have a philosophical problem with our educational system, one that has serious harmful practical consequences by leaving us without a compass, by disorienting us about values. Bloom's views were dismissed as elitist by many who run and teach in our educational institutions. This means that Bloom didn't accept that everything is equal, that all views and ideas have equal merit. This elitism does, of course, fly in the face of a certain feature of American education, one that many associated with it fully embrace.=20 This is the belief that everyone, regardless of interest, motivation and aptitude ought to receive the benefits of education. Such an egalitarian doctrine, which is a supporting assumption of the welfare state, does indeed conflict with the view Bloom championed, namely, that education should aim to teaching those who have a chance to make the most of it. But even Bloom didn't realize just how deep is the problem of=20 American higher education. A recent report, "An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education," spells out just how sorry a picture we have as we look at America's colleges and universities. The emphasis in this report, however, is on the lack of skills of=20 students who emerge from American higher education. It points out that the bulk of students graduate without any useful skills. It states that institutions of higher education "certify for graduation too many students who cannot read and write very well, too many whose intellectual dept and breadth are unimpressive, and too many whose skills are inadequate in the face of the demands of contemporary life." Yet, the report's authors, 16 prominent educators, leaders of=20 industry, heads of institutes and foundations and others, do not make any valuable proposals other than to urge that higher education be subjected to "a self-assessment." Since the obvious seems to escape these important observers, let me make some suggestions that are the result of having taught throughout the country's higher education system since 1967. The first and most radical but also elementary remedy for our educational woes is the abolition of compulsory schooling. This is necessary because children are simply not suitable to being subjected to the sort of massive uniformity that elementary and high school education imposes upon them. Children, as young human beings, share the essential trait of adults, namely, their individuality. Individuality means, among other things, that one is in need of special treatment, based on who one is, something that can come to light only if one is offered diverse developmental opportunities in one's education. Young people are ready to learn at different speeds, different subjects, with different aptitudes, by different methods. The type of uniformity that is part and parcel of the bulk of public education simply is not=20 suited to them. A system of higher education that follows in the steps of the schooling provided in public education is destined to serve most=20 students very badly. While some percentage of those students will have received just the sort of education they need, the bulk will=20 have been miseducated. As a result, they arrive at universities and colleges without motivation, skill, interest, or even elementary curiosity. =20 Day after day, over nearly three decades, I have taught entering college and university students who show an attitude of disdain and disinterest and the main test before me has been to inspire them to learning, never mind what it is they might come to learn. Having been coerced to attend school for 12 years, most of these students treat colleges and universities as prisoners would treat the outside world - they are mostly indulging their desires, satisfying their pleasures, resenting anyone who reminds them of what they were forced to do in the elementary and high schools they were forced to attend. In the face of their plight, many professors have no will to apply the strict standards that preparation for the adult world would actually require. Only a few students have the discipline to apply themselves after years of having their own needs and aspirations totally ignored. That for the first couple of years of their higher education they choose not to apply but to enjoy themselves is no wonder - they have, after all, been in confinement. During these=20 first few years all one hears from them as complaints about having to do anything at all. Tests, papers, quizzes and the like are resented. Day after day students ask whether class might be canceled - just for the fun of it. Indeed, fun is their primary objective,=20 having been robbed of much of their childhood pleasures by a system=20 of imprisonment, of involuntary servitude. There may have been a time in the past when societies required the forcible training of their young to carry out the drudgery that amounted to surviving, but we no longer live like that. We ought to adjust to the fact that our society is supposed to bring up sovereign citizens, not serfs or slaves. And such sovereign citizens are not going to be educated by means that fail to take into account the budding sovereignty of their children. Yet, that is perhaps the one lesson nearly all the witch dogs of American education deny. The recent nearly total opposition of the educational establishment to the very idea of educational choice, never mind that it wasn't nearly the sort of choice that is actually needed, testifies to this. Educators seem to be far more attached to the orthodoxy of public school than to the commitment to actually educator children. Not until we realize that a free citizenry is going to be left uneducated or at least undereducated without strict attention to the need for adjustment to individual differences, to the freedom to choose from different approaches to education. And higher educational institutions will continue to miseducated those who get such a very awful start in their human development. ========================================================================= Feminism Reconsidered There are few ideological movements that have the gall to=20 explicitly champion the idea that some group is superior to all others. Mostly that is done surreptitiously. The Black Power=20 movement and feminism are exceptions. The former of these can be appreciated because there is=20 little doubt about the mistreatment of most blacks throughout American history. I live in the south and I am amazed how little even prominent scholars acknowledge that the people of the South=20 had perpetrated a vicious injustice toward millions of blacks. In response to such evasion and out and out hostility, members of the targeted group have good reason to organize and mount a defensive campaign. Sometimes it can go overboard, but what human endeavors manage to avoid this? I am not sure that having a black television network counts as rectifying injustices perpetrated against blacks or a way to perpetuate racial division. Affirmative action and similar government mandated policies seem to me also to fuel racial strive rather than serve to right past wrongs. Feminism is another matter. Other than some bizarre cases, the lot of women in the past hasn't been that much worse than that of men. Sure, certain ancient divisions of labor no longer apply and not all have adjusted to this fact, some even resisting it with tooth and nail. Still, what kept women out of the seats of political power was not a conspiracy but, at worst, oversight and more likely obsolete habits of mind and policy. Once the rationale for the old divisions of labor no longer applied, adjustment began to be made and we are now well on the way to a society, unlike any other in=20 the world, where nothing stands between women and the sort of life they choose to live but some stubbornness and complacency. Thus feminism is largely superfluous. And indeed it awakens in many people suspicions of subterfuge. Is there really a cause for this ideology? Are women that much worse off - consider that although they have not had the opportunities of men in the world of politics, science, business and the military, they have also avoided much of the hardship that goes with these. Women haven't had to go to war much, and that, one would think, is a big plus. On the emotional front, they have not been brought up to think that they may not express their feelings, lest they undermine their effectiveness at work and other undertakings. They have had the great benefit of being near their children, something men have=20 only just begun to experience. Feminism, then, isn't really mostly about past injustices. Rather it looks like it does serve to enhance a rather peculiar=20 agenda. What is this? Well, contrary to denials by Gloria Steinem and others, the central unique theme of feminism, one that isn't already present in the quite different women's rights movement, is female exclusivity=20 and superiority. =20 The idea is that, for whatever reason, it is women who are more=20 moral, more intelligent, more politically and diplomatically astute,=20 more tenacious, etc., etc., than men. Furthermore, because of their inferiority, men have tried to squelch women's superiority with the sole weapon at their disposal, namely, physical prowess. It is, of course, difficult to get any direct statement of this kind from women. The exception is Andrea Dworkin, the author of the book Intercourse which sees all heterosexual=20 intercourse to be rape. And this book was by no means published=20 by some weird, fringe press. No, it was The Free Press of the=20 MacMillan Company that let us have the chance to read it, back=20 in 1987. And a not too different theme is advanced by the famous law school professor Catherine MacKinnon, in her A Feminist Theory of the State, published in 1989 by Harvard University Press. And through the community of academic feminists hundreds of essays are published month after months declaring such views as that lesbian love is superior to the heterosexual variety, that all of history=20 and science and philosophy to date produced by males has a distinct and destructive male bias, that women know differently from men and not having their point of view at our disposal is a major catastrophe in our understanding of the world, etc. I am by no means the first male to admit that women differ from men and that where that difference is essential, it is desirable. But it seems to me foolish to propose that men see the world differently from women - that only shuts off communication between men and women, something we certainly do not need. And it seems also nothing but useless agitation, a kind of provocation, to bait men with the idea that what they have contributed to the world is something low and shameful, whereas if it had been women who had made the bulk of the literary, scientific, philosophical and related contributions, we would all be in better shape today. Such a line does little more than put many men on the defensive and alienates them from any effort to=20 negotiate real difficulties with intelligence, tact and finesse. Feminism is mostly an ideology - a system of thought that tends,=20 in the main, to support preexisting frustrations, angers, disappointments, or indeed resentments. It is also a form of scapegoating - picking=20 some group identified by attributes one cannot choose as responsible for certain admittedly waxing problems in the world. In that sense, feminism is like other collectivist doctrines, such as Aryanism - it=20 serves mostly to separate us into groups who will go to war, not in=20 uniting us into communities in which we can all contribute our varying=20 talents and skills toward the solution of problems. ========================================================================= Goals Versus Expectations In politics that are essentially two very broad concerns. The=20 first has to do with what kind of country we ought to aim for. =20 Elections and all the other political machinations should focus=20 on this concern, first and foremost. =20 In this area our questions must center on what sort of=20 community should human beings live in. All the traditional=20 problems of political philosophy arise when we focus on the=20 goals of political life. There is another sphere of politics that is also vital. =20 Here we must determine our expectations. After all, even if we=20 are extremely wise and brilliant about the first area of concern,=20 we do not have full control about what actually will happen in=20 our communities. Attempting to gain such control is itself one=20 of the most troublesome political problems. If we recognize that=20 our sphere of authority is limited by other people's sovereignty=20 -- even when others fail to see this -- we will realize, also,=20 that in politics there is only so much that can be achieved by=20 individuals, by ourselves! So we need, also, to ask what can we=20 reasonably expect to happen. In our country everyone ought to strive for reorienting=20 politics on the course toward human liberty. That is because=20 the free society is, indeed, the most suitable to human=20 community life. Acknowledging everyone's basic rights to life,=20 liberty and property must be our goal. But can we expect that=20 this will actually be achieved in our society? Clearly not. As a father of three children, it concerns me what they can expect from America's political leaders. My own parents had a very similar concern back in Budapest, Hungary, when I was young. And since they realized that Hungary's communist regime will not be the most healthy place for their child, they arranged to have me smuggled out to the West. That is how I came to be an American citizen. My parents expected Hungary's political regime to be=20 very bad for my well being. I am not expecting things to turn out as badly here in America as they did for citizens of communist Hungary. But neither am I=20 expecting American politics to improve much for a while. When an administration such as that of President Bill Clinton is well received in a largely democratic country, it bodes badly for human liberty. Their nearly total willingness to turn every problem into one that government ought to try to solve, with the accompanying limitations on human liberty to follow, there is little reason for hope. The country can be expected to get worse before it gets better, at least as far as its political institutions are concerned. America is a radical experiment in human history and for the time being those in charge of this experiment are choking and have decided to return to the discredited approach to governing the Founders had tried to abandon. =20 The major feat of the Founders had been to invent a largely free=20 society, one that stopped depending upon paternalism, upon the reign of some few people who would run everyone's life for various goals of their own. Instead a country governed by principles of individual rights had been established. Today this political ideal is in retreat. More and more the=20 officials of the country prefer governmental solutions to those=20 produced by the people for themselves. Even in the courts the idea=20 of individual responsibility is being slowly abandoned. Everyone is doing things as a result of something having happened, not on his or her own initiative. Thus most bad things are excused. And the idea of collective guilt, which so much distinguished our culture=20 from, say, Nazi Germany, is reasserting itself in our society. Blaming all whites for the wrongs done to blacks in the past, blaming all men for wrongs done to some women in the past - such an outlook simply is taking our society back to the dark ages of politics. In this climate one has the responsibility to teach one's children - and everyone else who will but consider the advice - to expect to live dangerously, to have to be watchful of what they will say and to whom they will say it. Politically correct thinking will be demanded more and more and our children need to be prudent about how they will behave in such a political atmosphere. Of course, there is still a chance for improving our political lives. Only it is not highly probable that for a while such improvement will be forthcoming. For some time in the future the people will try, once again, to use force and power to solve problems, not to leave it to the people to find solutions. And when that happens, we can expect an era of political decline. ========================================================================= Why All the Fuss About Skin Pigmentation Now and then some of the talk about race takes on colorations of insanity. That was the case recently when one of the most prominent newspapers of this country ran an opinion article condemning Hollywood for casting Sidney Poitier to play Thurgood Marshall in the TV drama=20 "Separate but Equal" which dealt with the famous civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education. The author of this silly piece argued that "With black people, skin color counts." So, Hollywood is sup- posed to play ball and cast historical figures according to highly sensitive skin pigmentation of the potential actors. If anyone were to argue that "With white people, skin color counts," so we ought to cast white historical figures along those criteria, all hell would break loose - surely the whole point about the civil rights struggle of blacks is that skin color should not=20 matter at all unless it has direct bearing on some dramatic point. Skin color just hasn't much to do with what and who we are, period, be we black or white to red or yellow. Sure, when we are oppressed for our color pigmentation, this can put some irrational emphasis on color and even induce some people to unite into groups of political activists on that basis alone. But this itself makes sense only as a reaction. Without some having made a big deal out of color, making a big deal out of it would be entirely unjustified except for aesthetic reasons now and then. In response to this strange racist sounding missive about how=20 important color pigmentation is to blacks - one wonders whether this=20 is some kind of scientifically based remarks about the black population of the United States, world-wide or some apartment building in which=20 the author lives - some wild things were said in the letters section. For example, one writer put the matter this way: "In our relations with whites, it is racial origin and not skin color that is the final=20 assessment of us." Who has established this as fact? =20 Indeed, this is the kind of thinking that seems to lead a lot of Americans these days in to mere reverse racism rather than away from=20 the whole idea that race and color and other insignificant features of persons should make a lot of difference to how we relate to one another. This kind of groupism is what poisons the minds of so many: let's unite under the banner of color, sex, national origin, ethnic background, etc., etc. =20 But why? What does it matter toward the assessment of a person what color he or she is, what race he or she is classified as? There is nothing a person can do about these things, so surely they cannot be sources of merit or demerit. The main objection to racial prejudice is just that judging someone by race is irrational! It is merely a more particular version of the general point that judging someone as good or evil, competent or incompetent, etc. simply cannot be based on factors about him or her over which no control can be exercised (except perhaps via extra ordinary means). =20 Already back in the 60s we saw the development of the black power and black-is-beautiful movement and this was a big mistake. Sure, it made a bit of sense because when groups are unjustly linked and=20 treated, it is a matter of self-defense to seek some limited solidarity in response to that. But to make some kind of wholesale ideology of such temporary measures is very unwise. Blacks and everyone else would benefit from a good dosage of=20 the ideology that is getting most of the flack in our culture, namely, individualism. We should not assume black or white or any other kind=20 of solidarity about politics, economic philosophy, ethics, tastes in=20 entertainment, and the like. That is what denies people their basic humanity - namely, their nature as choosing, self-developing, self- governing individuals. ========================================================================= Good Bye Free Speech During recent decades there has been much debate over the=20 increase of government's intrusion in people's lives. Modern liberals defended big government, claiming that all this is needed so as to distribute the national wealth equitably. But, they added, that is=20 the only intrusion they support. =20 Their reason for favoring big government was their alleged=20 concern about the poor and the abuse of power by the wealthy. But,=20 they assured us, they do not favor government taking away our freedom of speak out, to promote diverse viewpoints, and to disagree with the government itself. They were, after all, liberals, so all they wanted is to liberate the poor and helpless, not to amass power for the state. Many of us feared that these hopes would soon be shatterer. Once government embarks on the futile task of making people equal,=20 it is only a small step to wanting to control what we say as well. =20 After all, the wealthy might be able to make their views more=20 effectively than those who are poorer. But no, we were told, this=20 would never happen - freedom of speech is too precious, vital to=20 a good society. The nineties may be the decade when the worry about government limiting our speech will prove to have been fully justified. There are some outstanding examples, small and great, of government muzzling people, or at least trying shameless to do so, with very little protest from liberals standing in their way. Most recently Hillary Clinton lead the charge against a group of insurance companies that dared to oppose her and her husband's plans to impose government managed medical services on the American citizenry. She went on the road with her attack, indignantly and with the style of a monarch who felt betrayed by her subjects. Instead of supporting a nation wide debate and withdrawing until the citizenry had had its=20 say, she jumped the gun with royal impatience and denounced those who dared to question her wisdom about what kind of medical care the American people ought to receive. And she did it with hardly any resistance from politicians or the media. Instead, the conflict was reported everywhere as if the insurance group had perpetrated treason - certainly Mrs. Clinton sounded off as if she believed=20 just that. In an unrelated but similar incidence, a Virginia citizen had his automobile tags invalidated by the Virginia motor vehicle=20 authorities because he had personalized these tags to read: GOVT SUX. The argument of these bureaucrats was that the tags are actually the property of the state, not of the driver, so they=20 have the authority to revoke their permission if they so choose. True, the government of Virginia owns the tags, just as the United States Government owns the electromagnetic spectrum over which the insurance companies' message was broadcast. And, for that matter, the governments of this country own the streets on which many of the country's newspapers and magazines are sold and onto which most of the country's book stores and publishing houses open. Thus, in a pinch, when the government gets terribly upset about some publication, it can claim that the industry is "invested with the public interest," exactly the justification used to impose smoking restrictions on restaurants and other private establishments. As the government expands its scope of involvement in the lives of its citizenry - gradually socializing the country - more and more of the limitations on it Americans have taken for granted will be eroded. Everything will be a matter of public administration, with no privacy left. This is just what the California member of the U.S. Congress who wants a national law banning smoking in all places with over ten persons present would rely on to defend his measure. Every place where people might gather is, after all, connected to some=20 public area - even private homes. The lesson is clear: there is nothing that can be protected from government intrusion once government has the power to manage our lives in the way liberals have always advocated. Those militant feminists who want publications controlled for their sexual content=20 and Janet Reno, who advocates government bans on television content, are merely taking the original liberal theory to its logical limits. The bulldozer of the bloated government cannot be limited. Maybe that is why our fellow citizen in Virginia wanted to call attention to the fact that government sucks - that it has become a corrupt, power hungry, unlimited institution in our society we ought to fear rather than honor. ========================================================================= Making Society Unlitigous We have all heard about the messenger who got it because folks didn't appreciate the message! Well, we have something akin to that today taking the country by storm. This is lawyer bashing. It used to be that only used car dealer had it so bad. They were the but of nasty jokes and derision everywhere, especially on the lips of comics. I recall Allen King, a fairly old timer, who started in on various institutions such as airlines and hospitals. It was all exaggeration and done in good fun, even thought it tended to sting a bit. If I were a doctor, I would not like coming under King's ire, not to mention an airline executive. But lawyer bashing has emerged big time recently. Books abound in the practice, movies such as "Henry" and "Class Action" go at it big time. No more respect for attorneys in the fashion received by Perry Mason, no sirree. Yet this is entirely unjust. The only reason attorneys are so visible, make so much money, is that the country has gone law crazy. Laws are made by the thousands every day, in COngress, at the White House, at the state, county and municipal levels of government. And=20 to fend off their oppressive impact, people must hire lawyers. And lawyers need to be trained at high expense, at reputable institutions, so they understandably command high fees. The citizen who hires an attorney expects the best defense at what he or she perceives as a vile prosecution based on needless, reckless laws. =20 But then the citizen turns right around and joins the media which is constantly asking for more laws - regulate this, regulate that,=20 and that only produces more laws and a greater need for lawyers. The latest of this process involves the desire to have vitamins regulated, and idea that was proposed in the early 1970s, by the late New York Senator Jacob J. Javits but didn't get far back then. Now there is another try. And with the leadership of reporters, such as those on the CBS TV program 60 Minutes, the public keeps accepting the totally silly idea that government regulation improves society. What it does=20 is make more jobs for lawyers. I have a solution to the problem. When someone sues a person -=20 including when some branch of government does this - if the suit fails, there should be major penalties. COurt costs, time spent dealing with the law suit, etc., as well as punitive damage for causing the head aches and psychological damage, need to be paid for by those who failed. I am reasonably sure that such a policy would reduce not only the number of law suits, both criminal and civil, but eliminate lots of jobs for=20 attorneys and even provide a discouragement for lawmakers. If to this one added the provision that when a mishap occurs with some firm that needs to comply with government regulation, say an airline or some rail company, it is not only the firms that may be held liable but the regulators, as well, the process of law and regulation=20 making would slow down considerably. And this would only serve justice and take away nothing from the quality of our lives. It would also restore law to its rightful place as an honorable profession, not some flaky business guided by no more than political huckstering. ========================================================================= Discomfort from Sexism Not long ago it was modern liberals who argued that while it is wrong to ban untoward opinions and expressions of ideas - e.g., flag burning, topless dancing - there is nothing wrong about regulating the conduct of people is business when such conduct=20 does not conform to moral norms. If a firm does not provide its employees with adequate insurance or wages, the government may=20 force it to do so. But, said the liberal, don't worry, be happy: None of this means that ideas and attitudes will ever be subject to government control. We are, they went on, friends of liberty, loyal to the First Amendment, and only want to make sure people=20 are treated well in the market place. Now, however, the legacy of modern liberalism has come to something not even recognizably liberal: The United States Supreme Court has ruled that expressing untoward sexual ideas or symbols in=20 the work place can be banned. Ideas have come under the jurisdiction of the government. If someone feels badly enough about such ideas, so that she considers it an impediment to comfortable work conditions, the people who wish to exhibit such untoward ideas or symbols can be shut up, period. I have spoken to some academic women about this matter and we agreed that some of the stuff displayed by men at the work place is clearly offensive and can make it tough for reasonable people to just accept it without protest. But there are some considerations about the matter on which we differed markedly. The first is that being offended simply is no grounds for calling in the vice squad, the government, with its force of arms. My colleague claimed that this option must be available to the offended party, at least if she is unable to get the institution to comply with her expression of dismay. My own view is that this should be a matter that one must handle apart from politics. Here is why: First, there is absolutely no guarantee that leaving such matters in the hands of the law will solve the problem. Politicians, judges, police officers, and the rest are not beyond being pretty unwise as to what is and is not offensive. Second, removing the matter from=20 the private sector encourages the demoralization of the society. It leads to people loosing a grip on their dos and don'ts, leaving it always to "higher authorities" to handle such matters. Third, the offended party is being treated as a child who is unable to handle her dismaying situation competently, who cannot, as it were, "kick=20 butt" when men get out of hand around her work station. Surely women are tougher than to require (mostly male) politicians to reach out and help them out of their predicament. But most importantly, the court's stance on how to handle sexual offensiveness in the work place has far reaching and insidious=20 implications for other types of offensiveness. There is here a clear case of the slippery slope danger - will we next ban the practice of placing provocative messages on the office doors of college teachers? Surely those can be extremely offensive - if my next door colleague, who may be a communist or fascist or advocate of some other ideas I despise, displays slogans on his or her door, and if this makes me feel bad and irritated, will I be able not only to complain in house, as it were, but also to call in the thought police? The court said one need not show psychological damage, only discomfort at the work place. Well, one can find oneself feeling such discomfort not just from disagreeable ideas but bad or ridiculous fashions, gross taste in art or design, etc., etc. In short, if the sensitivity of a=20 colleague to some expression by a fellow worker is the gauge of what may be banned or regulated by the state, look out. There cannot be any rational limits to this since sensitivity is inherently subjective. It depends on beliefs, convictions, upbringing, religious faith, etc., all of which, at least in a diverse and relatively free society, are to be expected to influence people with whom one works. Modern liberals had vein hopes for confining their interest in government regulation to economic matters. They wanted to remain civil libertarians - just look at the poor ACLU struggling to hold the line and grow anachronistic in the process. They have failed. They should have known, as libertarians always knew, that the free mind cannot be protected without also protecting a free market. ========================================================================= Journalistic Sloppiness If there were a tradition of malpractice lawsuits against members of the press, many journalists would now be broke. But while nearly every other productive enterprise and profession is under fire from lawyers seeking to collect judgments in the face=20 errors of judgment, the press is protected from such prospects by the First Amendment - or, at least, by a certain reading of it. (It is arguable that readers who notice distortions and incompetent reporting should be able to take publications to court for just the sort of malpractice that is involved.) Consider the front page article by Peter T. Kilborn in the=20 International Herald Tribune, Monday, September 6, 1993, "When a=20 Job, Not Income, is Disposable." Here we are told that when Lyndon B. Johnson "promised Americans a 'Great Society' in which=20 'the meaning of man's life matches the marvels of man's labor," Johnson was spelling out "capitalist ideals." And, since these ideals have not be realized, capitalism is as much of a failure as communism. That is what is implied in Mr. Kilborn's remark that "today, in America, in Russia, indeed throughout the=20 industrialized world, work has drifted a long way from the Marxist=20 and capitalist ideals." But the plain fact is, completely misreported by Mr. Kilborn, that capitalism hasn't been tried. Indeed, a conscientious reporter might have noted that not even Marxist ideals have actually been implemented - Stalin, whom Kilborn calls a Marxist, was basically a fraudulent Marxist, only a bit more that Lyndon Johnson was a fraudulent capitalism (except that LBJ never claimed that he was a capitalist). Still, it is accurate that under Stalin the command economy was given a good college try. But it is totally false to identify the principles of the Great Society with those of capitalism. What did the Great Society stand for? Put simply, the welfare state. Under its neo-Keynesian policies, involving prolonged government intervention in what was never a fully free, laissez-faire economy in the first place - just read Jonathan R. T. Hughes' THE GOVERNMENTAL HABIT (Basic Books, 1972) - the Great Society engaged in massive wealth redistribution and thus undermined the central ideal of capitalism, namely, freedom of trade or voluntary economic relations among human beings. =20 By now the impact of this kind of relentless, merciless tinkering with people's efforts to find solutions to their problems by means of freedom of association, including uncoerced commercial transactions, has been felt not only throughout America but, of course, everywhere in the world. Governments are broke, productivity is falling, employment opportunities are shrinking, the standard of life is being eroded, and journalists are probably the only professionals who aren't experiencing their governments' desperate and inept efforts to remedy matters by even greater controls over people's lives. But never mind all this. Mr. Kilborn and his ilk will likely continue to misreport the situation and readers will continue to consume his product, probably the only one that is not subject to liability lawsuits, the only one free of government regulation, and thus the=20 only one that has a decent chance of being corrected by the reporting of competitors in some other front page article, on some Op-Ed page in the free world. And that, perhaps, is our last hope - that the press is free and Mr. Kilborn and his friends, who seem to wish that capitalism go the way of the Stalinist command economy, haven't become a monopoly, yet. ========================================================================= Scandinavian Misunderstandings PARIS, France. On my last leg of a lecture tour in Europe this summer I stayed at the apartment of one of the organizers' grandmother here in Paris. It is a modern flat with a classic view: both the Eifel Tower and Momarte are clearly in sight from its balcony, with Gare St. Lyon to the left and much of Parisian industry stretched out below from one end to the other of the panorama. This was a very brief stay, following a somewhat grueling=20 series of train rides that took me from Stockholm to Copenhagen, Hamburg, Salzburg, Aix-en-Provence, Lugano, Switzerland, and finally, Paris, just before boarding my flight for Atlanta. In the small flat where I stayed for two nights I had the company for half a day of a=20 young Swedish man, a student of political economy, who attended some of my lectures.=20 On the morning he was to fly back to Stockholm we sat a talked for a while, waiting for his ride, and quite off the wall he remarked how different the apartment is from those in his homeland. The=20 remarked perked my attention because, after all, Scandinavian=20 furnishings are renown the world over. Who has not heard of the famous Danish or Swedish furniture styles? Who does not know of all those streamlined, aerodynamic, clean cut Scandinavian household appliances? Even this apartment in the middle of Paris had such a piece, namely, the small refrigerator in the tiny kitchen. I mentioned to my temporary room mate that he must have in mind the fact that this flat is cluttered with all kinds of belongings - indeed, it was a very busy place, with no particular style or decor, just vivid with all the trappings of modern as well as=20 much earlier apartment living. "But," came the answer, "that is just it - things are so mixed up, so varied, whereas nearly all the apartments in Sweden look alike." =20 Then it hit me - indeed, on all my visits to Denmark, Norway and Sweden I had noticed a uniformity, but one that didn't bother me a bit since, after all, I encountered it for only a few days, at the most, and it is all so nifty, is it not? "Yes, indeed, the style is neat and swift but the uniformity is utterly boring." "All right, but then why do people furnish their flats this way?" "Well, this is something that requires a bit of political history." And at this point I was given a skeleton of that history, the gist of which is that in Sweden, several decades ago, the social democratic government built thousands of apartment houses, all in the identical style, making it the least expensive way to furnish one's home for the ensuing years. With all this building and furniture subsidized by the state, it became economically irresistible to go the same route, at least for the bulk of the people. Ergo, the Scandinavian style, which so many of us elsewhere in the world take to be such a unique and refreshing experience, is little more than a big bore to many who live in its native regions. No one can deny that there is something esthetically and economically satisfying in the furniture that we see at,=20 for example, Danika House, a famous outlet for Scandinavian=20 style household items. But how many of us know that this is=20 something nearly imposed by government edict upon the people of those lands - a product of the welfare state? Moreover, how many of us would enjoy this style if, as it is with millions of Scandinavians, we were to see it in every neighbor's home, from Jacksonville, Florida, to Seattle, Washington? But that, it seems, is just what the Scandinavians have to put up with, courtesy their welfare state's policies of supplying everyone with politically conceived housing. ========================================================================= When Comedy Won't Do=20 P. J. O'Rourke is, no doubt, one of the best humorists in our land. He appropriately carries the title of "Mencken Research Fellow" at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., a think tank dedicated to the advancement of human liberty, pure and simple. Nonetheless, Mr. O'Rourke might not be the best philosopher speaking out on matters of politics, even if he does such a fine job on making us laugh at the expense of governments (e.g., in his book Parliament of Whores). At the opening banquet of Cato's brand new facility in Washington, held last May, this very funny man made some philosophical observations that just do not belong in his repertoire. Here is the remark he, no doubt, felt was extremely profound: "I don't know what's good for you. You don't know what's good for me. We don't know what's good for mankind. And it sometimes seems we're the only people who don't. It may well be that gathered here in this room tonight are all the people in the world who don't want to tell all the people in the world what to do." I have taught logic for over 20 years and rarely have I seen=20 a non sequitur was blatant as this one. There is simply no logical connection between not knowing what is good for people and not telling people what to do. And it should be simple to see why. If one does not know what is good for anyone, well then one=20 has no grounds for claiming that people shouldn't tell one another what to do. Whether they do or do not, we may then assume, is not something anyone knows is good or bad to do. =20 Indeed, this is one of the saddest aspects of many defenses of human liberty, the effort to make the defense in terms of ignorance. The reason is simple: From ignorance nothing follows, not even the wisdom of not forcing others to do things. If one is ignorant, one must, logically, keep silent, including about whether people ought to respect others' rights. Mr. O'Rourke, however, valiantly advances the view that "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please." But to believe that people have this right is to believe that "something is good for you," namely, that it is good for you for others not to infringe upon your liberty, not to kill you, not to assault you, not to rob from you, not to rape you, and generally not to do those things that are a violation of this right. Yet Mr. O'Rourke, along, sadly,=20 with many prominent defenders of liberty are careless enough not to notice that when they defend the right to liberty, they are, in fact,=20 claiming to know something that is indeed good for everyone, indeed, for humanity. This is the respect for and protection of individual rights. Perhaps Mr. O'Rourke was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. Still, it is dangerous to do this when one is trying to contribute some ideas to the defense of free institutions and against tyranny. For if one rests such a cause on ignorance, one will simply become trapped. Others will be able to say, well, hell, you don't know anything, so you don't know that tyrannizing some people, say the rich, is wrong. So you should just remain silent and let us handle matters of politics. No, more than such ignorance is required in order to give liberty an adequate defense. One needs to know a few things and among these is the fact that it is good for people to be free and not to be enslaved. Perhaps Mr. O'Rourke could change his tune at least on this score and continue to entertain us with his good humor without getting some of the important philosophical points wrong. ========================================================================= Ideology versus Pragmatism Steven Brull of the International Herald Tribune has penned a curious piece of journalistic nonsense recently, claiming that in=20 Japan's recent policy of deregulation and supply side economics=20 "ideological underpinnings are nowhere to be found." This, Mr. Brull, contrasts with Margaret Thatcher's and Ronald Reagan's policies of the 1980s which he claims "were motivated by a clear ideology." What is it to be motivated by a clear ideology as distinct from pragmatism? It is difficult to tell because when it comes to public policy matters, pragmatism is simply the implementation of practical measures based on certain beliefs one has. The beliefs are the alleged ideology, the practices the alleged pragmatism. It is true that when Thatcher and Reagan embarked upon their policies of deregulation and supply side economics, they gave them a forceful rhetorical send-up. They talked it up with a good deal of theory about individual responsibility and small government. As Brull accurately notes, these political leaders held to the belief "Get government out of the way and let markets do their thing." What is entirely uncertain is that Prime Minister Morihiro=20 Hosokawa lacks such belief, simply because he does not run around pontificating about it. Indeed, why would he have to? After all, hasn't history, economic theory, political philosophy, even the morality of prudence taught us all that letting market forces do the work of the economy is far more practical and likely to succeed than leaving government in charge? Just because someone isn't mounting soap boxes about this is no reason to believe that what he is doing lacks all ideological - read theoretical - underpinnings. What is more likely is that Mr. Brull wants to discredit the validity of Japan's newfound respect for free markets and supply side policies. He is doing this, I would guess, by means of the claim that it isn't based on any general theories at all and has been introduced ad hoc, merely something for Japan to toy with for now. With that idea one can then suppose that while it may make sense for Japan to embrace the market system, it need not be so in America. This is exactly what the Clinton Administration wishes the American people to believe: Let Russia, Eastern Europe, Japan and the rest of the world toy with more and more freedom of trade, but that has no bearing on=20 what his administration ought to do. He can keep strangling American business, imposing on it massive costs in the way of a forced national=20 health care system, various new regulations, the entire array of his politically correct agenda, even while he gives lip service to freedom abroad. And he has journalists like Mr. Brull doing the spin work for him. But it will not wash. Whether accompanied by laud rhetoric or merely implemented without fanfare, there is theoretical good sense and historical validity in pursuing a policy of greater and greater economic laissez-faire. To put the matter very plainly but with full accuracy, it is a sounder economy that relies on free choice rather than government mandates and plans. And you can call this ideology or pragmatism - what counts is that it makes good sense, even for the United States of America, which, after all, taught it to the rest of the world. ========================================================================= Generational Progress You must have heard it before: Our standard of living is not advancing as it used to; our children aren't living better than we did; America no longer supports the American dream. What I say to this is, So why is this such a terrible thing? One piece of evidence in support of these laments is that when Americans travel abroad these days, especially as tourists, they no longer see mostly Americans traveling with them on trains and planes. In Europe, for example, the trains now carry not only=20 American but also many Japanese, German, Italian students with their backpacks and hard currencies. Of course, this is partly because more Americans rent cars and fly but, still, fewer student types get to go abroad now than used to. This is because it costs them more to travel now than it used to when the dollar was very strong. In 1969, when I was a grad student and made about $3000.00 a year from 3 different jobs, I flew to Germany to meet my mother whom I haven't seen for 16 years and who had finally managed to get a visa to visit outside the Eastern bloc. I needed to spend 21 days on the continent in order to get an affordable charter flight, so I spent the time remaining from my brief visit with my mother on the trains, having purchased a Eurailpass. =20 Back then the trains were filled with American students spending summers bumming around. Every town was filled with Americans. Apart from the natives, only Americans sauntered every where on Europe's boulevards, bought up Europe's souvenirs, and stayed in Europe's hotels. I have been lecturing abroad in recent summers and when I now ride the trains, I no longer see all these students and middle class Americans but see, instead, a bunch of young people from across the globe. What has happened? Well, it is a matter of comparative advantage. Back then, with a relatively free country all to itself, the American economy was=20 comparatively more productive than others. The dollar bought a great many more marks, French or Swiss franks, liras, etc., than it does now. In part this is due to the great cost of production that faces American firms these days and the relatively lower rise in the income of Americans. But that is not all. Europeans as well as people elsewhere on the globe have freed up more of their economies and made it easier to produce goods and services with relatively fewer burdens from governments, compared to what they used to carry. In short, while America has gone more and more=20 interventionist in how government relates to the economy, in Europe the opposite has been happening. =20 Also, the rate of revitalization through technology and innovation has been greater in Europe and elsewhere in the world than in America, although there has been improvement on this score everywhere. Only what I call the "dream team" syndrome is now in force. Once America's firms were like the 1992 American Olympic basketball team, far and away superior to all others in the field. But watch out! From=20now on this will slowly change and it may turn out that the boys will actually have to struggle a bit to stay atop. The world is catching up and our society is loading up our producers with greater and greater burdens. =20 So, yes, we aren't making progress as we used to. But it is only partly due to failings on the part of the American economy. And those failings are themselves not so much economic ones but ones imposed by politicians who simply ignore the insight that one shouldn't kill the=20 goose the lays the golden egg. But there is also the fact that the people across the globe have learned the lesson of the earlier American economy, namely, that free markets make people better off. So they now enjoy better pay and higher living standards, thus making it a bit pricier for Americans to live well, travel, buy goods, etc. OK, so why lament this? Why feel so bad that others in the world have finally managed to learn to prosper? Only those who are awfully narrow in their vision of human progress would find fault with this. ========================================================================= Sleaze Literature Politics is easy to corrupt, especially in the welfare state where various groups interests are masquerading as the public interest and politicians and bureaucrats cannot avoid selling out their scared oath to some special interest group. =20 But art can also be corrupt, make no mistake about this. The=20 point was driven home for me when I read one of John Grisham's=20 admittedly entertaining suspense novels, THE PELICAN BRIEF. Grisham is the hot shot ex-lawyer whose THE FIRM made it big not only between covers but on the silver screen, starring Tom Cruise as a lawyer with a trait that's very rare in Grisham's world of fiction, namely, something of a conscience. THE FIRM was an exemplary=20 story compared to THE PELICAN BRIEF, which is, quite simply, a=20 political manifesto cleverly infused within a thriller. Or what should one call a work in which every corrupt politician belongs to just one party, where nearly all the lawyers are vicious - as one line puts it, "But then, you can hire lawyers to do anything" - and in which dogmatic political correctness of the environmentalist variety is at the heart of the story? In this book two politically correct supreme court justices are=20 murdered and the bad guy is, you guessed it, some unnaturally=20 monopolistic oil magnate from Louisiana who simply will not share Mr.=20 Grisham's fondness for wild life and wetlands but wants, you know,=20 just to rip off everyone by producing oil for a nation that has been=20 jerked about for decades on account of buying too much foreign oil. =20 Here is a book in which absolutely no fraction of an inch given=20 in support of those who are skeptics about all the scapegoating of big=20 business and cuddling of the environmentalist line on everything from=20 the ozone layer to the brown pelican. And it is all done as a matter=20 of course, with no argument, no discussion, simply sprinkled throughout=20 the book as if it were gospel truth. This is pulp literature corrupted in the service of dogma. Having=20 won the attention of the public with THE FIRM, Grisham isn't being gentle or fair or even handed. Those who favor a conservative line on the United States Constitution are all idiots; the only bad people in the country are those who are skeptical about abortion, gay rights, feminism, etc., and all these skeptics are naturally lumped with white supremacists, the KKK, pro-life murderers, gay beaters, etc. So anything not on the agenda of the politically correct crowd gets dismissed as simple low-life. When john Wayne used to star in movies with this kind of one-sidedness was aimed at Communists, the critics where all over him and Holywood, embracing John LaCarre, instead, who held firmly to his "moral equivalency" thesis about communism versus capitalism, the USSR versus the USA. But when Grisham nails the right wingers without mercy, he is applauded for being such a wonderful craftsman= ! Moreover, Grisham writes all this without finesse or depth. As if no= =20 question existed about these matters and the evidence were scientifically secure and uncontroversial, as if all those who have doubts were idiots,=20 lacked all measure of sensitivity, belonged in the loony bin. It is, moreover, thrown in ad hoc, with no attention to context. The fact that it is through political patronage that businesses become implicated in environmental abuse - something that is no different with nearly every profession that is tied in with government largess and contributes to the ever growing tragedy of the commons afflicting nations around the globe - is left for the reader to discern. The villains are the bad business people and their spineless political lackeys, never the voting public or the intellectuals who support a system in which individual responsibility has been eroded for decades. But dodging responsibility is best illustrated by John Grisham himself, seemingly an innocent author of pulp fiction. It is his kind of bland complicity in scapegoating, of stereo typing, that often leads to massive social disasters where people get frustrated and take this out on some special group that intellectuals have picked for their targets. One only hopes that readers will simply enjoy the action and ignore the cheap characterization in Grisham's book, as well as in all the similar fictional offerings they encounter in books, on television and at the theater. Bashing corporate America - meaning, of course, most of us with insurance policies, retirement programs, savings accounts,= =20 etc. - is a deceitful way to pick your villains. Good literature, even in= =20 the entertainment gerne, demands more than that. ========================================================================= Pragmatic Tactics Pragmatism in politics means adhering to no basic principles by which one's actions may be anticipated. Sometimes the opposite is called idealism; thus those who are criticized for having firm principles are often referred to as ideologues, ones who embrace an ideology, a set of clear enough principles they believe ought to govern human conduct. George Bush was generally thought to be a pragmatist, especially in contrast to Ronald Reagan whom many regarded as the most ideological president in recent history. Bush's problem with the "vision thing" had to do with his lack of any discernible moral and political ideals by which one could anticipate to some degree how he will govern this country. George Bush was defeated, in part, because he lacked a set of clear enough principles, ones citizens in all walks of life could=20 invoke in order to anticipate his policies. =20 There is no doubt that one mark of civilized society is that citizens are able to make long range plans. Such a society is guided by laws, not the whims or tastes of the individuals who happen at some point to administer its laws. That is the meaning of the Rule of Law. Even though laws require interpretation and there is always some question about just how exactly the basic laws of a society will apply in the future, political leaders who have principles tend to accommodate our need for being able to plan long range. This is because these principles - which would include, given the oath they take upon assuming office, the constitution of their country - would guide them, not haphazard tastes, arbitrary preferences, or even the shifting winds public opinion. Well, what can we now say about whether President Bill CLinton is a significant change from President George Bush? It seems clear that if the American voter believed that Mr. Clinton has no vision problem, thus far he appears to have been very disappointed. From what we have seen, thus far, it looks like Bill Clinton is as little committed to some set of principles as was George Bush was. On some matters, of course, Bush and Clinton lean in different directions - abortion, the drug war, civil liberties, affirmative action, etc. But that is more because of what they believe about their loyal constituency rather than because they are firmly committed on these matters, guided by some basic philosophy. Clinton seems to have no discernible economic philosophy,=20 no precise agenda about race relations, no clear idea about how to handle drug abuse. He is following, not leading in many of these areas. And he resembles nearly exactly George Bush in all this. But wait. Clinton may be different, only none of us knows it. For this idea one might need to go to Hillary, not Mr. Bill. And with Hilary we do get a picture of someone who has no problem with a vision. She is a determined ideologue. She knows and has always known that if she ever gained political power, she would push for a left-wing agenda. She is what in Europe would be called a socialist. She is not a Soviet socialist of communist, any more than is British Labor Party candidate Kinnock or Prime Minister of France Miterand. They are socialists and Mrs. Clinton is a socialist like they are. What a socialist believes, most fundamentally, is that government exists so as to remake human society in the image of some ideal community. The ideal community is to be regimented to follow certain policies=20 which would eventually become automatized and would no longer need enforcement. Mrs. Clinton believes in forcing upon us various ideals she embraces - in race relations, in economic policy, in attitudes regarding diversity of cultures, regarding the role of women in society, how children should be reared, and so forth. But that does not make her a socialist. Socialism requires that these believes be forced upon society by government. If we now take a look at the various false starts of the Clinton administration, it is not difficult to notice that in nearly every case the government was aiming to impose policies and appoint officials in support a severely regimented society. The friends of Mr. and Mrs.=20 Clinton who did not ascend to power were all socialists. The Clintons tried to get them into power but, once they saw that this wasn't going to be acceptable, they went back to second choices who were, nevertheless, pretty much in line with the thinking of those selected initially. The bungling was nothing more than what is common in bargaining - make a first offer, and make it as high as you can, but if you cannot get them to accept it, slowly soften it up, make it more palatable. There is a vision thing in the Clinton administration all right, but it isn't the one most Americans would consider worthy championing. It may not be implemented in every choice of appointment - Judge Ginsbberg seems to be such an exception. Essentially, however, the Clintons are probably= =20 much better off presenting themselves as Bush like pragmatists, for the=20 time being. Eventually, thought, they aim to get their vision implemented,= =20 don't make any mistake about that. Should they succeed, George Bush's=20 bona fide pragmatism will seem like a wonderful piece of Americana in=20 comparison. ========================================================================= Liberal Hypocrisy One form of hypocrisy is typical of modern liberals: they preach open mindedness, pluralism, multicultural values and the like just so long as none of this means that their own agenda does not receive top billing in Washington and other centers of political power. =20 Consider the current liberal lament about the "Christian Right," specifically the victory of Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas, backed by these supposedly Neanderthal folk. Or consider the recent nomination of George F. Allen at the Virginia Republican State Convention. What did modern liberals - read: soft socialists - complain when these=20 developments came to light? That we will have Christian values imposed upon us all. And how did the modern liberals respond to the recent supreme court ruling allowing religious organizations at public schools? Once again they cried: Authoritarianism! Well, this is all bunk. There are all kinds of viewpoints aiming=20 at winning government's endorsement, some to the point of wanting the government to make those viewpoints everyone's, not just one among many that may be practiced by citizens of this country. Yes, some Christians believe the government ought to force us all to live by their views. Yes, this is a form of authoritarianism. Yes, it is un-American to impose such sectarianism on the rest of the population. But who are modern liberals to complain? They are the ones who have forced nearly every business in American live by their dogmas of=20 affirmative action; they have forced everyone to live by environmental rules they believe in but others may not accept at all; it is modern=20 liberals who have foisted upon our public schools doctrines concerning the equal value of all cultures, something neither they nor anyone else can rationally accept; modern liberals have declared that everyone owes=20 it to homosexuals to employ them and that they may not practice their=20 own convictions within their own businesses, and the list could go on and on. But when Christians want to impose their values on the rest of us, the modern liberal becomes a two faced liar: he or she all of a sudden adheres to nothing more than total tolerance. That is what the pro- choice position means - leave people to decide for themselves whether to regard the zygote a human being or not; leave everyone free to choose whatever religious convictions should be practiced; do not impose any code of morality on people but let them be free to choose. Well, if modern liberals love choice so much, how come they do not believe in it when it comes to choosing whether to employ gays or blacks or women in the various professions? Why should universities and=20 corporations be forced to give special consideration to minorities in their hiring practices? Why force people to attend school starting=20 at the same age and have a curriculum shoved down students' throats whether parents want to have it taught to them? What about mandatory health care systems for all? Isn't that an intolerant policy? What about those who would like to buy their own insurance and not have modern liberal politicians take their income and make the decisions=20 for them? What about social security and unemployment composition -=20 all ideas that are forced upon many of us who would rather do other things with our money? Modern liberalism's posturing of tolerance is a sham. This is well illustrated by how the same so called radicals of the 1960s who screamed about free speech for Angela Davis are now hankering for government enforcement of politically correct speech and the severe punishment of those who believe that while sticks and stones can hurt our bones, words any self-respecting individual can ignore even when=20 they are tasteless and insulting. The Christian right is trying, just as has the Liberal Left, to establish its own regime for the rest of us. Frankly, I do not want anyone to do this. But there is no doubt that in my efforts to rekindle the American ideal of the individual's right to be unique, to follow his or her own drummer, the last people who will help is modern liberals, America's most vehement champions of cultural=20 dictatorship. ========================================================================= Human Rights Around the Globe It is interesting that so many people find the humanities, especially philosophy, irrelevant. From its birth in ancient Greece, there has always been resistance to philosophy. In our time it is often voiced by the so called practical professionals who regard thinking about the great questions a waste of time and would rather handle problems piecemeal, on the spur of the moment, with no attention to the big picture. Yet no sooner is someone out to defeat philosophy, philosophy tends to come back to haunt this futile undertaking. Philosophy is, after all, the activity to trying to make sense of the world, of seeking, with spirit and passion, to attain wisdom, to live the examined life. And even those who set out to deny its value get trapped by philosophy - their denial is a kind of negative attempt to reach wisdom. The wisdom they preach is that seeking wisdom=20 isn't very wise, so we ought to give it up. This was evident recently at the international human rights conference held in Vienna, Austria, where the assembled heads of governmental and non-governmental organizations debated the nature of human rights. One of the most troubling topics of the conference was the nature of human rights itself. When we speak of human rights, are these conditions that everyone ought to enjoy? Should these same basic conditions be protected by governments everywhere in the world? Or is it perhaps the case that human rights are one thing for people in one part of the globe and another for those in another part? Many leaders of Third World Countries - usually where various types of dictatorships still flourish - argue, predictably, that human rights should not be understood the same way as in, say, the Western democracies, when applied to their societies. Why? Well, because their societies require greater regimentation, more state interference, more planning by government, in order to survive their dire conditions. This means that because some of the people in that society have goals and purposes that require subjugating others, the concept of human rights - to liberty, to autonomy, to full political participation, to civil rights for men and women alike - does not apply. This is typical of some forms of skepticism - when the knowledge=20 that we may obtain about the world does not please some people, they decide that we cannot really call it knowledge at all. Truth is=20 relative to who you are, where you come from, what race you belong to, and similar sophistries. There are, of course, cultural differences that need to be honored. But they do not have to do with rights, which are basic principles of human community life. Cultural differences are valid only where they include peaceful practices, customs, styles, tastes and that sort of thing. Different cultures often exhibit certain prominent temperaments that prevail in a society. The Scandinavians are often more quiet and collected than Latins. The Finns are more melancholy than the French. Verbosity, reticence, even shyness can be matters of temperament, the kind of benign difference that is important for the individual's life. But human rights are based on universal human attributes. Indeed, universal human rights concern the basic freedoms that people ought to have protected so as to make choices for themselves in all walks of life, not just religion or the press. And it is only if such rights are given full protection that the differences based on the highly diverse temperaments and other circumstances in people's lives can be fully exploited and realized. But those who have preached skepticism about human rights are not really interested in protecting diversity, contrary to their rhetoric. They are often explicitly advocates of community values - meaning the imposition of some group's ideals on everyone else near that group. The American ideal of individuals also gave rise to the spread of the ideal of basic human rights. That is because an understanding of the universal aspects of human nature brings us the fascinating discovery that what is indeed most important about all human beings is their individuality, their uniqueness as thinking beings. Because they can think, unlike other animals, they will be able to create themselves as they decide. ========================================================================= Values and America A theme that comes up often in commentaries about contemporary American culture is that absence of firmly grounded and widely embraced basic values among the people. While Americans have a=20 coherent and stable enough legal tradition - albeit in the process of gradual erosion now and always a bit flawed - they seem to lack a basic ethics by which their lives might be guided, given some in depth meaning. It is for this reason, it is often said, that=20 people require religion in their lives, whether it be Islam, Judaism,=20 Christianity, or Hinduism. =20 And there is little doubt that human beings are just the kind of living creatures who cannot live without basic moral values. Even those who are totally skeptical about this do not manage to do without morals - they implicit embrace some ethical precepts, such as integrity or consistency or justice. For example, no skeptic accepts having his or her views distorted. No amoralists believes it makes no difference how he or she is treated by critics. Total nihilism about values is impossible unless one is some kind of sociopath, serious mentally=20 deranged. Why do we need values? Because we, humans, are just the sort of living beings that lack instincts. We are born with the instinct to suckle and that is about it - the rest is a matter of learning. And it isn't only the kind of learning that most higher animals need, namely, being trained in some skills. It is learning on one's own, to figure out ideas, to form principles about life and its innumerable facets. That is what all the fuss is about when we talk about the ethics of merchants, lawyers, doctors, politicians, parents, etc. And while some of this has become submerged in the discipline of psychology - so that for example such chintzy public forums as the Oprah or Donahue show will rarely talk about ethics and focus, instead, on psychological problems - it is still quite inescapable. Consider that however much we try to explain away ethical matters, even our psychologists are subject to moral criticism when they abuse their patients, for example. So it seems clear enough that human beings cannot live by law alone. The law itself is open to be judged as ethical or unethical - just think how we treated the laws of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or South Africa. The same is true about the United States of America - its laws are open to moral scrutiny. We need, therefore, more than law for a coherent, decent society. But America is a highly pluralistic country - millions of people live here from extremely diverse cultures, traditions, religions, ethnic groups and the like. It seems, therefore, that just relying on these as sources of the common bond of ethics will not help. Instead, as elsewhere in the world, such sources often pit people against one=20 another. Christians versus Jews or Moslems, Moslems against Hindus, agnostics against theists, atheists against agnostics, etc., etc. -=20 there is no end of the varieties of conflict that can arise from=20 depending upon these sources for moral guidance. Why? Because they lack a common base. They draw their principles of human behavior from diverse belief systems which are, themselves, not grounded in some=20 common and accessible reality. When we depend upon the teachings of our culture we can be reasonably sure that some connection to reality must have infused what we believe. But a good deal of it is myth and fiction, made up by the human imagination and showing about as much diversity as that faculty can produce. So what can Americans hope for in this matter of some set of common values? There is, first of all, no guarantee that we will come together on any possible answer. That is because human beings are quite free to ignore even the best answers to questions they pose, if they find it unpleasant, disturbing, scary, inconvenient or whatnot. But some answers probably offer a better chance at consensus than do others. In ancient Greece it was Socrates, the first major Western philosopher= , who proposed an answer to this question of how to come by an ethics that we can all agree on, even if we do not choose to. He proposed that reason must be employed to study human nature and when we learn what human nature is, we will also learn how to live right, how to live virtuously, justly. Because human nature is something we can all study. It is there before us every second of every minute of every hour of our lives. We have ample opportunity to examine what it is to be a human being. And this will give us a strong clue as to how to live a human life properly, ethically. And the most important thing about human beings is that they are living creatures who must use their minds to navigate their lives. It is human intelligence, the activity of figuring things out and living accordingly, that seems to be the best guide to living well. As Socrates put it, "The unexamined life is not worth living." But only nature and, for our purposes, human nature, as available for common study and=20 ultimate consensus. In a diverse society such as America the people cannot hope to reach peace, harmony and justice by finding principles from diverse traditions. That always runs the serious risk of conflict, since we interact among one another so frequently and pervasively. What we need to learn is to use, trust and be guided by our reason. There is a common world to be studied and our reason is the best tool with which to study it. And the results may get us what all else has failed to, namely, a set of ethical guidelines that will help us to come to agree on solutions to our problems. =20 There is no utopia in trusting reason. But as novelist Scott Turow put it in his best selling book, The Burden of Proof, "In human affairs, reason would never fully triumph; but there was no better cause to champion." ========================================================================= Antidote to Gloom and Doom Have you noticed that if you judge the state of the world from what newspapers, radio or TV news offer as item of importance, you have little doubt that we are going to hell in a hand basket rather rapidly. =20 And always - with no relief in view? Any news program - from the mundane local fare to what you get on that fancy PBS news hour with Bob and Jim -= =20 gives you virtually all bad news. Well, sports may be an exception, and the gossip from Hollywood. Although even there it is when scandal hits or a star dies that the world gets informed about the region. Well, I have no explanation. Why is it that local news always tells us about the murders, fires, accidents, and the like, and has hardly any other items of which to inform us? Beats me. I am not interested in the murders, the fires, the accidents yet someone must be - or, perhaps, there is simply a tradition in force that bad news is the only news. If apple's are threatened with Alar poisoning, well "60 Minutes" has a lot to say about them; if they please millions of apple lovers no one cares! If=20 Wall Street experiences scandals, well we know of it good and hard and=20 repeatedly. But if the market functions nicely, thank you, it's no news=20 at all. When did you ever hear about the Middle East unless some war irrupted or terrorists were being trained there? =20 For some odd reason people are being told all the time how rotten the world is around them. Why this keeps news departments in business=20 newscasters so well paid is a mystery to me. Virtually every program is=20 a line up of complainers; it is either some group fussing about not=20 getting help from the feds or another group bickering about how its members are ill treated in the courts; as Gilda Radner's old Saturday=20 Night Live character, Roseanna Dana Dana used to say, "It's always something!" Well, OK. SO we may simply conclude that NBC, CBS, ABC news, as well as AP and UPI and all the national and local papers and magazines are in the business of scaring us the death. I suppose many must want to be scared like that - or feel that if they don't fret about awful stuff they are not living a good enough life in the eyes of those who count. But just in case there are a few people left who would rather know about what is right with the world, as little or much that may be, I have a suggestion. There is a remedy for all this gloom and doom, and it is mostly found around one's own life. Take your car for a drive and be pleased as punch that it gets you back home safe. Go to Mcdonald or Burger Kings or even some more fancy restaurant and notice that, all in all, the food and service is good. Take a trip and notice now the world seems to be working reasonably well - you get where you are heading and you usually get home in one piece. Notice how you get the person on the phone you wish to talk to, most of the time. And how when you turn on your oven it works, or your washing machine or your PC. And notice how your kids manage to survive in school and how your office manages to get things done and how well your TV functions or your refrigerator, vacuum cleaner or camera. In short, just take a closer look at the world in which you actually live, not the one brought to you by Dan Rather or Sam Donaldson or the rest of the doom and gloom hucksters. And you will be surprised. Life isn't such a bummer as those people will have you believe. Nor as much as all the lobbyist in Washington believe who are asking for some more=20 money to fix yet some ailment that afflicts the nation. (One is nicely reminded of some of this by Oliver Sacks' book Awakenings, as well as by=20 the movie of the same name starring Robert De Niro and Robin Williams.) None of this is to disparage adversity's hold on our attention. It is important to heed our problems, otherwise they will not be solved. But if one lacks the clear sighted and clear headed knowledge of what good there is in the world, how well people manage things - indeed, how=20 well you yourself tend to manage most things - there will no longer=20 remain the will to solve problems. It'll all seem pointless. That is just how those doom and gloom peddlers make one feel - as if even hoping for a better world is a waste of time. I think they are full of it. As the bumper sticker from the Seventh Day Adventists says it so=20 poignantly, "Notice the good and praise it." That's the best antidote to those folks. ========================================================================= Customs and Due Process There is this fantasy I have involving the Phil Donahue Show. (Actually, it could be Oprah Winfry, Gerlado Rivera or even 60 Minutes.) I picture to myself the interviewer facing a line of customs officials sitting center stage, turning to them with his or her characteristically puzzled look and asking, "Tell me, do you really like looking through=20 the personal articles and private possessions of thousands of travelers?" This question is rapidly followed up with another: "Have you ever asked yourself whether there really should be a job like this - it seems a lot like what burglars do when they ransack the drawers of their victims' homes?" Well, of course this is a fantasy. Our daring interviewers are much more interested in running freak shows than in exploring some of the institutions of our society from a critical standpoint. (I used to fantasize Mike Wallace intruding upon some university professor's classroom where his plant, a CBS staffer posing as a young coed, has been taking notes for weeks, sticking the microphone into the Prof's face and asking, "How do you justify your use of those twenty years old lecture notes? Don't you believe in staying updated within your field"? But most Mike will stick to badgering professionals in the field of business, given his prejudices!) Still, it is worth reflecting on just what happens when travelers cross national borders. Is all that intrusiveness right? Can public policies requiring it be justified? Clearly when airlines require us to undergo security tests, this can be perfectly proper: in the face of the history of terrorism, which is, after all, the rampant commission of murder, assault, and violence upon innocent people, the terms under which one is allowed to utilize the services of the transport firm justifiably include undergoing a security check. But this is not at all what happens when one is put=20 through the aggravation of having to go through customs. There are no dangers or hazards at issue here. What is at issue is unabashed protectionism: hiring government officials to keep out of the country various goods that certain constituents do not what to be bought in other countries. Why does the government offer its services of law enforcement for such shady purposes in the first place? What business is it of the government to get on the side of some of the citizens and against the better interest of others? If I have managed to purchase some cheap goods in Greece or Turkey, why is that some kind of crime? Because some businesses in Baltimore or Los Angeles would like to have had me purchase the item in their stores? Why not just force me to go to their store directly and rob me of my income then and there. The police could, in fact, simply invade my home and take some of my earnings over to these store owners - why bother with all the complications? But even if there were some reasons for keeping some items out of the country - and I have a hard time imagining any that could not be produced inside and thus any reason other than protectionism for the entire business - what justification is there to ransack people's luggage if there is no probable cause at all that they are committing a crime? In a country where the ACLU has been valiantly defending the Miranda and similar rights of murder, rape and assault suspects, why is there no concern with due process of law when it comes to what should, after all, be every individual's basic right, namely, free movement. Instead, when you go through an airport on the way to or back from some other country, you are harassed as if reports had reached the=20 local police about some major crime you are in the process of committing. This is when you have done absolutely nothing, not even purchased some goods abroad, let alone engaged in illicit transport. I am a admirer of America's tradition of individual rights. Yet it is something of an embarrassment that these days I am able to travel to Poland, Germany, and nearly every other country in the world without the officials there assuming I am a criminal, but when I return to the USA that is just how my government makes me feel. ========================================================================= Corruption at Harvard University Press Catherine A. MacKinnon, the University of Michigan law professor who, along with Andrea Dworkin, is making feminism ridiculous, has had her book ONLY WORDS published by none other than Harvard University Press. This is some kind of feat, given the hard time we in the academic world have with getting our views out with the aid of the prestigious publishers. =20 It means a great deal to an author who publishes his or her=20 book. Reviewers at places such as The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and the rest are much more likely to select an academic book for review if published by Harvard than if, say, the University of Alabama Press made it available for public consumption. Oxford, Chicago, Princeton, Yale and Cornell University press are=20 perhaps the best, along with Harvard, and it is generally thought that the reason for this has to do with the editorial scrutiny manuscripts receive at these publishing houses. Just how powerful the influence of radical feminism has become can therefore be gauged by the fact of that rotten book, dubbed by reviewers everywhere as full of nonsense, exaggeration, polemics, hyperbole and filled with "statements ... undermining whatever=20 credibility Ms. MacKinnon might possess." =20 In short, we have here a book without merit, one that no decent publisher ought to have sponsored. Yet, Harvard published the work. One can easily imagine that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the book, with its merit, with its arguments and insight but, rather, with its political correctness. It is another example of what happens when the influence of special interest politics has become extreme: standards are abandoned in favor of not offending some group that may carry too much clout for decision makers to be able to withstand. The publication of MacKinnon's ONLY WORDS - a book that advocates abandoning the principles of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in favor of some nebulous egalitarianism (based on the 14th Amendment) that involves the constant balancing of the status of different groups in our society - is evidence of how far MacKinnon's ideas can get even in the face of the sharpest of criticisms from those in her field of specialization. MacKinnon, after all, argues for group power. She believes that women should join forces and rest political power, never mind about individual rights, never mind about human liberty, never mind about "Sticks and stones may hurt our bones, but from words we can walk away." Nor, apparently, does it matter that this particular woman has penned a bad book - the power of women is supposed to suffice to get it published. It seems to me that MacKinnon doesn't even help her own ultimate=20 cause, namely, advancing the well being of women in our society. The kind of diatribe she has Harvard University Press publish simply=20 provides more fuel to all those who have deep seated prejudices=20 against women. They can now point at MacKinnon and say, "See what happens with these women get power, when they become influential: they ruin the reputation of a good university press and advocate policies that would make slaves of us all. Keep them out of harm's way." There is no doubt that injustices have befallen women in our society and that these deserve remedy. But Professor MacKinnon is worse that the disease and Harvard University is guilty of corruption for pretending otherwise in giving her book such a prestigious send up. ========================================================================= Scholarship and Ideology Scholarship is an activity in which various opinions in a field of study are explored. The main objective of scholarship is to identify the best ideas on a topic. Scholarship is the equivalent of research in science, except in those disciplines that rely on scholarship no controlled experimentation is possible. So, instead, arguments are explored, theories are scrutinized by means of logic and analysis. Scholars are no less opinionated than are other people, indeed usually more so. And although they are all supposed to search for the best ideas, identify what is true, what likely and what false, often the intensity with which scholars hold their opinions, the value they place on what they believe, can lead them astray in=20 how they do their work. Here is where ideology enters the picture. Ideology is simple philosophy but, often, it is "philosophy" invented to serve some cherished conclusion. An ideologue does not begin with evident facts and work toward warranted conclusions but embraces certain conclusions to begin with and amasses whatever=20 facts and arguments will help to promote these. Sometimes this is unobjectionable, namely, when one is simply exploring what may support certain views. Scholars do this on occasion - they simply look at what some idea - whether they like it or not - has going for it. But other times this isn't the case. Ideological thinking is most damaging when those who engage in it do not admit it, perhaps even to themselves. They are enamored with some ideals or visions and then blind themselves to all of its faults so as to make them seem appealing, to sell them to a wider and wider audience, to hide the troubles with their views. In the recent past and to some extent even today, thousands of intellectuals at our universities and colleges, as well as at magazines and newspapers, have been ideologues in support of socialism. They have worked hard to make out the case for their vision of the good community. They have searched wide and far to find whatever support they could to make socialism look good, sometimes to the point of corrupting their scholarship through outright lying. That is what it took to blind themselves to the facts of actual socialist living, e.g., in Eastern Europe, Africa, the USSR and elsewhere. Or they keep=20 in focus only some of the minor benefits of the system, such as the absence of visible unemployment, or the availability of some levels of medical care to many citizens. By this method of lopsided observation and analysis, socialism could be seen not as a system of tyranny but as a benign arrangement for human community life. The opposite of socialism has always been individualism. Socialists=20 hold that society is supreme and individuals are mere parts of society,=20 thus lacking in the supreme value they want to ascribe to societies. So=20 while most supporters of socialism have tried to shore up the case for=20 their system, others have worked on discrediting individualism. Now that the major socialist experiment has proven itself to be far less than humane, many socialists have made an adjustment on how they keep themselves convinced about its merits. First, they deny that socialism was really tried in the Soviet Union. Second, they claim there is a way to have both, socialism and individualism in a legal system, namely, through a hybrid called communitarianism (which involves less of a subjugation of individuals to society than socialism demanded). Third, they attack individualism - relentlessly, unfairly, by means of caricatures and by keeping away from their=20 audience any version of the position that is not silly or morally odious. =20 This last approach is now on the increase, led by some educational luminaries. They engage in a form of ideological thinking that does a disservice to scholarship and demeans one of the most benign political outlooks in human history, namely, individualism. Individualism means nothing more than the fact that every human being is (a) a sovereign citizen not to be subordinated to society, country, or anyone without his or her consent, (b) that this is vital because each person has an irreducible individuality, an aspect of his or her life that is irreplaceable, something unique, and (c) each person should count for exactly one when it comes to making=20 political decisions in his or her community, political decisions that may, however, not involve subjugating individuals to one's own will. There have been many attempts to develop this idea, some of them inept, some of them partial, but most of them concerned not to lose sight of the fact of our individuality. Socialists have found this objectionable because they hold that society is more important and valuable than its "parts," namely, individuals. With the demise of=20 socialism all too evident today, the effort to still retain the faith in that system has centered on denouncing individualism. The idea is labeled anti-social, opposed to community life, destructive of citizenship and patriotism, the enemy of family loyalties, etc. None of this is true. But if one looks at the writings of=20 today's anti-individualists, one would never know this. They do not consider versions of individualism that show that the view=20 is fully compatible with decent community life. They focus only=20 on certain caricatures, usually invented by themselves, with only bits and pieces of quotations from a few special sources for whom individualism is not so much a social philosophy but a=20 methodological device - e.g., many contemporary economists. Scholars should not withdraw from citizenship just to be fair and objective. But neither should they forget the standards of scholarship as they bolster their own values. When they no longer look at=20 powerful opponents, when they pick on versions of the position they=20 wish to discredit that are weak and vulnerable, ignoring those that are strong and offer more difficulties in the effort, they are no longer scholars but merely use scholarly devices, regardless of how well established they may be in our nation's institutions of higher learning. ========================================================================= Critical Fallacies These are times when discussing someone's ideas critical can=20 result in being branded hateful. I do not know whether Pat Buchanan is or is not anti-semitic but from what I am told in the newspapers he seems to have received much scolding for saying things such as that the U.S. Congress is in the pockets of the Israeli lobby, etc. To=20 the best of my understanding that is at worst a somewhat polemical political comment critical of the U.S. Congress, not much more. Anti- Semitism is something different. To be anti-semitic one must hate Jews for having been born to=20 other Jews, i.e., for belonging to the semitic community by birth. My father was anti-semitic and he hated all Jews for having some kind of racial or cultural identity as Jews. It was confusing because in the last analysis there are many semites who are not Jews and some Jews who are not semites and the whole mess of trying to group people by race or cultural background falls apart upon close examination. It is not anti-semitic to be critical of Israel or even of the Jewish religions. One could very easily have serious disagreements with the national policies and the theological doctrines involved=20 branding anyone as inherently hateful. From what I understand - and I have not studied all his words on the topic - Buchanan is critical of Israel in the same way that Lee Iacocca is critical of Japan or many Americans are critical of South Africa. That is not anti-semitism or cultural chauvinism but a dispute about ideas and policies. Of course, Buchanan's criticism of Israel, just as Iacocca's of Japan, may be entirely misguided, even off the wall. But that, again, is not the same as its being anti-semitic. I happen to think that Buchanan is wrong in his views on immigration and protectionism but I tend to think he is right about Israel and how strong its influence is in the United States, an influence I find unjustified by scrutinizing Israel's domestic and international policies. All of this is, however, entirely beside the point to any charge of anti-semitism. Just as many people confuse criticizing Israel with anti-semitism, so others confuse criticizing someone such as Martin Luther King with racism. But King was dead wrong on some points, while quite right on others. He said we shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Bravo! But he also said that "As long as there is poverty in the world, I can never be rich, even=20 if I have a billion dollars. As long as diseases are rampant and millions of people in this world cannot expect to live more than 28 or 30 years, I can never be totally healthy - even if I just got a=20 good checkup at the Mayo Clinic. I can never be what I ought to be=20 until you are what you ought to be. This is the way the world is made." Now in all this Martin Luther King was wrong. Clearly I can be healthy while others are not; I can certainly be evil while others are good. Indeed, King's point about the content of my character would be entirely lost if this other claim were true. We are running the risk of considering everything said against a person hate speech, but it is a mistake to view things that way. Only when what you say against a person is irrelevant to his or her being a person of good or bad character - e.g., whether black, born=20 of Jewish parents, tall, short, with this or that national origin, etc. - is such a statement morally unjust. If you are against a person for his or her beliefs or actions that are indeed wrong beliefs or bad actions, that is perfectly fine. That is indeed the way the world is made. ========================================================================= Why All the Fuss About Skin Pigmentation Now and then some of the talk about race takes on colorations of insanity. That was the case recently when one of the most prominent newspapers of this country ran an opinion article condemning Hollywood for casting Sidney Poitier to play Thurgood Marshall in the TV drama=20 "Separate but Equal" which dealt with the famous civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education. The author of this silly piece argued that "With black people, skin color counts." So, Hollywood is sup- posed to play ball and cast historical figures according to highly sensitive skin pigmentation of the potential actors. If anyone were to argue that "With white people, skin color counts," so we ought to cast white historical figures along those criteria, all hell would break loose - surely the whole point about the civil rights struggle of blacks is that skin color should not=20 matter at all unless it has direct bearing on some dramatic point. Skin color just hasn't much to do with what and who we are, period, be we black or white to red or yellow. Sure, when we are oppressed for our color pigmentation, this can put some irrational emphasis on color and even induce some people to unite into groups of political activists on that basis alone. But this itself makes sense only as a reaction. Without some having made a big deal out of color, making a big deal out of it would be entirely unjustified except for aesthetic reasons now and then. In response to this strange racist sounding missive about how=20 important color pigmentation is to blacks - one wonders whether this=20 is some kind of scientifically based remarks about the black population of the United States, world-wide or some apartment building in which=20 the author lives - some wild things were said in the letters section. For example, one writer put the matter this way: "In our relations with whites, it is racial origin and not skin color that is the final=20 assessment of us." Who has established this as fact? =20 Indeed, this is the kind of thinking that seems to lead a lot of Americans these days in to mere reverse racism rather than away from=20 the whole idea that race and color and other insignificant features of persons should make a lot of difference to how we relate to one another. This kind of groupism is what poisons the minds of so many: let's unite under the banner of color, sex, national origin, ethnic background, etc., etc. =20 But why? What does it matter toward the assessment of a person what color he or she is, what race he or she is classified as? There is nothing a person can do about these things, so surely they cannot be sources of merit or demerit. The main objection to racial prejudice is just that judging someone by race is irrational! It is merely a more particular version of the general point that judging someone as good or evil, competent or incompetent, etc. simply cannot be based on factors about him or her over which no control can be exercised (except perhaps via extra ordinary means). =20 Already back in the 60s we saw the development of the black power and black-is-beautiful movement and this was a big mistake. Sure, it made a bit of sense because when groups are unjustly linked and=20 treated, it is a matter of self-defense to seek some limited solidarity in response to that. But to make some kind of wholesale ideology of such temporary measures is very unwise. Blacks and everyone else would benefit from a good dosage of=20 the ideology that is getting most of the flack in our culture, namely, individualism. We should not assume black or white or any other kind=20 of solidarity about politics, economic philosophy, ethics, tastes in=20 entertainment, and the like. That is what denies people their basic humanity - namely, their nature as choosing, self-developing, self- governing individuals. ========================================================================= Individual Rights vs. Special Interests When on November 2nd the school choice proposition went down in defeat, the results were rather provocative. After the opponents outspent proponents 4 to 1, they won by about 2 to 1. So be it - that is how democracy works, all or nothing, never mind that millions dis- agree. Indeed, this is just why such issues should never even have to come to a vote. It is the right of every individual to spend his or her money as he or she chooses, whatever the majority believes. This is no different from everyone one's basic right to speak out or join a church, no matter what the majority believes. It is a clear sign of America's decline as a distinctive, path breaking society that no longer are individual rights unalienable, protected for everyone. Instead, if a large enough group elects to violate these rights, that is now permitted. It is interesting, however, that this time few people are making noises about the subversion of democracy. This is probably because the majority includes all those who usually speak out on such matters. University and college professors, teachers, intellectuals, and the like comprise the membership of the special interest group that went to bat against school choice. They may deny it, but they were voting in large measure to save their special position in society, a position largely secured by the force of arms. If you do not pay your property and other taxes, from which all these folks are paid, you go to jail. They do not need to prove themselves to their client, as lawyers, psychologists, doctors, palm readers, auto mechanics and millions of other persons need to, in order to obtain a living. They go, instead, to the government and urge it to force people to pay up. =20 Some years back, in the early 1980s, Californians voted on a referendum regarding whether to impose certain costs on oil companies. The oil companies put on a powerful media campaign and the referendum went down in defeat. At the time, however, the verbalists were on the other side. They lost. Following the vote, dozens of articles appeared around the state claiming that democracy had been subverted because those who opposed the special tax on the oil companies outspent the proponents by a wide margin. Activists claimed that people were duped into voting for "big oil" and that if it had been a fair contest, the oil companies would have lost. I am wondering now how many intellectuals of this ilk will be publishing Op-Ed pieces claiming that if it weren't for the big money poured into the anti-choice campaign, the proposition would not have been defeated and that democracy was subverted by the big teachers and public service unions. Of course this is not the most relevant aspect of the vote, but it is interesting: the general public would do well to learn from it. Even though movies, magazines, and news reports usually focus on exposing the hypocrisy of money makers, there is plenty of such hypocrisy within the ranks of our intellectuals. As I tell my students, do not be mislead by the fact that intellectuals do most of the talking and focus most of their criticism on non-intellectuals - mostly corporations, business, Wall Street, and the like. In fact, your teachers, authors, writers of sitcoms are all just as susceptible to corruption - and, moreover, are more dangerous when they are corrupt since they have a near monopoly, as a group, on the bully pulpit, namely, the media. ========================================================================= Free Speech on Public Property The term "political correctness" has become a kind of signal that something tyrannical is going on somewhere. Yet there is a good deal of sense to what advocates of political correctness=20 aim for. They want, very often, for people to speak civilly, to avoid insulting others, to show respect for their fellow human=20 beings, to stop using words to wound people. Of course, there is a side to political correctness that is quite hazardous to a free and open society. This is that too many of the places where philosophical, cultural, political debate are under public jurisdiction. Most of our high schools, colleges and universities are public - paid for by tax payers and administered by some arm of government. When that happens, the goal of civilizing discourse runs head on into the constitutional protection of freedom of speech. Consider that in your home you can set the terms of speech - if a guest violates your standards of discourse, you are free to expel him from it. The same goes for your business - you, the proprietor, are in charge and can demand of those who work there that they speak courteously, politely, in a civil tongue. The First Amendment does not have anything to do with "protecting" freedom of speech on your property. You set the limits because you own the premises. Public property, however, is different. Two goals come into conflict. And the reason is that public ownership of schools and other forums of debate is incompatible with freedom of speech. When the majority of the public - or those who have gained power by way of the democratic process - insist that certain ways of talking are inappropriate, they will set up standards demanding this of all those who make use of the public domain. And that makes sense - he who pays the piper, calls the tune. School administrators are not just technicians who impart knowledge but also moral guides. The old phrase, 'in loco parentis" used to be denounced roundly by radicals who wanted to shout obscenities at UC Berkeley on grounds of free speech. But now those who have inherited this radicalism and wish to exercise their political and administrative authority from their radical perspective find it impossible to live with free speech. They now realize what the=20 traditionalists of the late 60s knew well and good, namely, that to run an institution one needed to insist on rules. Without such rules anarchy will break out. But where does this leave the protection of free speech? On public properties no such protection is possible if standards, too, are to be maintained. But on private properties no one may dictate to one what he or she ought or ought not to say or write. For example, a privately owned newspaper can publish whatever its owners choose -=20 they are protected in their freedom of speech and press. What we see, then, is that by means of the private ownership of forums of debate a wide variety of ideas and opinions gets aired. When, however, the government comes to own everything - and this is happening more and more in these United States - then uniformity sets in. People cannot show different forums to use so as to give vent to their opinions, ideas, feelings, etc. They must conform, in a democracy, to majority opinion. And this will eventually eliminate the growth of knowledge, the experimentation with new ideas, the=20 cultivation of different modes of speech and expression. Those people in our society who made ample use of first amendment protection in order to advocate their radical ideas are now in the process of thwarting freedom of thought and speech, not because they insist on standards of politeness and good taste but because they=20 want to bring everybody under the rules of just one institution, namely, government. There is nothing wrong with speaking correctly. But there is=20 everything wrong with making this a matter of politics. ========================================================================= Individual Rights and Public Realms=20 When Federal Judge Leonard B. Sand decided to invalidate the ban=20 on begging on subways enacted in New York City, his decision was=20 disputed by many prominent civil leaders. Why can't a community's=20 elected leadership make a determination that certain activities simply=20 will not be permitted in various public spheres? Why cannot such=20 leaders set a definite purpose for which various public domains will=20 be used? Surely that is what representative democracy is all about. But civil libertarians have defended the judge's decision on=20 grounds of constitutional rights. They believe that when the First=20 Amendment of the United States Constitution declares that "Congress=20 shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the=20 press," this means that wherever we have public realms, anyone may=20 give speeches or hand out literature to those present. =20 An appellate court overturned Judge Sand's decision and now the=20 Supreme Court of the United States has let the appellate court's=20 action stand without comment. Its reasoning, thus, is a mistery. Originally some critics of Judge Sand argued that social or=20 community rights must override individual rights. As one of them=20 stated, the "use of an extreme doctrine of individual rights ...=20 destroy[s] the very idea of a naturally formed community." The idea=20 behind the critic's observation is disturbing - it means that one of=20 the main bulwarks against governmental and criminal aggression, name- ly, the principle of individual human rights, is also destructive of a=20 most vital aspect of human life, namely, community. But there is a tragic confusion in all this. Individual rights=20 never destroy but rather help to form communities naturally. If=20 individual rights are protected, communities are formed by the natural=20 human process of consent or cooperation, not subjugation. The whole=20 point of protecting individual rights is that only with such protec- tion is the consent of the governed possible. And only when a commu- nity is governed with the consent of the governed, is it a naturally=20 formed community, rather than a community simply imposed by force and=20 arbitrary fiat. That is because by nature human beings need to make=20 the choices effecting their lives instead of having various policies -=20 even good ones - imposed on them by some elite. The main innovation embodied in the American political tradition=20 - the one that has been and is still being emulated by countless=20 communities across the globe - concerns the establishment and adminis- tration of government with the full consent of the governed. Consent,=20 of course, might be implicit or explicit. But it must be evident, at=20 least by way of people's willingness to embrace the principles of the=20 community they live in. And those principles must never violate the=20 basic ideal of full consent. =20 It is for this reason that it has never been unrestricted but=20 rather constitutional democracy that had been embraced by America's=20 founders and framers. It is the main reason that anyone who values=20 democracy itself ought not to forget that democracy may not be unlim- ited. If it is, it will destroy itself (as it has done so often enough). But if full respect for individual rights is necessary for a=20 legitimate or natural human community, what about the oddity we can=20 all recognize in Judge Sand's ruling? Didn't the good judge endorse=20 the insane idea that subways can be public debating forums - ones=20 indeed where people may be forced to enter a dispute by a few people=20 who simply fail to understand what subways are for - on grounds of the=20 doctrine of individual rights? No. The confusion is not about extending individual rights to=20 beggars or the homeless. The confusion consists in failing to ac- knowledge that if we are to have public spheres, we must respect their=20 purpose. A subway, if it will be a public facility, is simply not a=20 forum for philosophical, political, or ideological disputation. Even=20 a public library cannot be considered such a place - if anyone arose=20 therein and started to make a speech, he would be made to leave, and=20 properly so. Airport lobbies, too, are not debating forums. No one=20 could argue that people have the right to build a newsroom or TV=20 studio in the middle of Time Square, Atlanta Airport or the Library of=20 Congress. The simple point Judge Sand got wrong is that the New York City=20 subway system is a place where the right to freedom of religion,=20 political assembly, speech or press may be exercised. This is just as=20 wrong as it would be think that if there is a public sports arena, one=20 has the right to begin church services there because this is endorsed=20 by the U. S. Constitution. =20 Recently I had the occasion to walk around in Acapulco, Mexico,=20 and I was accosted by hundreds of vendors everywhere I went. I found=20 this very annoying and indeed complained that it was a sign of some- thing basically wrong in the community. But, someone objected, aren't=20 you a defender of the unregulated, free market place? I said, of=20 course I am. But I based my defense of such a system on the right to=20 private property. If the roads in Acapulco were privately owned, they=20 would be restricted by their owners to specific sets of uses - mostly=20 transportation. A church, privately owned, is limited to certain=20 given purposes - as is a restaurant, a movie house or a hair salon. =20 If we are going to have public establishments - roads, parks,=20 lakes, swimming pools, subways, etc. - surely we can expect that their=20 use too will be strictly enough specified. Judge Sand's mistake, to reiterate, was to think that subways are=20 public debating forums. Other judges believe this about airports and=20 factory entrances. But they are wrong. =20 When judges confuse subways, roads, airports, etc., with public=20 debating forums, they are not protecting anyone's rights. They are=20 perpetrating silly and destructive confusions and ill will within=20 communities. ========================================================================= Clinton and the Military For the last few weeks I have been under the strongest impression that President Bill Clinton is behaving rather churlishly regarding this country's national defense. Is it possible that we have a commander in chief who actually has a personal vendetta going against the very=20 institution he is sworn to lead? The military forces of the United States of America are perhaps the only arm of government that can be said to be fully legitimate,=20 completely in line with the original idea of limited constitutional government, established in order to secure our individual rights,=20 nothing less or more. The welfare state we now have goes way beyond=20 the proper function of the government of a genuinely free society. =20 Nor did the founding of this country involve the building of such a=20 bloated statist system. Even when promoting the general welfare was=20 mentioned, all that meant is that by securing the individual rights of the citizenry, we would all be able to pursue our happiness more=20 successfully than without that security. There is no question that a just government requires a military. The system of laws that enable us to function within one another's very diverse company requires the readiness of a military to keep away potential foreign aggressors. The fact that one aggressor has been neutralized or otherwise lost its strength does not at all mean that we can afford to become less vigilant about this readiness to defend ourselves. And the world itself does not seem to be getting all that much more peaceful just because one big bear of an imperial power has been broken into a dozen or so confused, potentially reckless boars. But instead of making sure that this country continues to be well=20 defended, our new commander in chief seems to be bent upon destroying the force that would keep us secure. This does not make any sense without postulating some biases that a president should not even be tempted to yield to, let alone proudly indulge. =20 Yet, it seems that Mr. Clinton, his family, and his entourage=20 appear to go about dismantling the military of the United States with a vengeance. Little Chelsea is heard refusing her military escort to school because she dislikes uniformed guards. A White House aid is rude to a military officer, saying to him that she does not wish to talk to a member of the military. Such out and out prejudice is not becoming of the commander in chief. But perhaps this particular president does have a personal grudge against the military. For one, he was a young man in sympathy with the very people whom the military was fighting back in the 1970s. Second, he seems to have been bent on avoiding military service at all cost, not because of some objection to conscription but because of his political sympathies. Third, Mr. Clinton is so committed to building a colossal welfare state that he is perfectly willing to ignore this country's military needs - instead of cutting the budgets of the innumerable hand-out programs, which have not business existing in a just and free society (since what they involve is stealing from Peter to skim off a lot and then give a bit to Paul), he slashes the budget of the one bona fide governmental program, the defense of the country. While Mr. Clinton's personal attitude toward the military may not explain his blindness to what this country needs to be well defended, it seems clearly to be a factor. Not only is he ruining the country with his circle-squaring fiscal policies, but he is also making it a=20 place without proper defense against aggression. This, too me, is close to presidential malpractice. ========================================================================= Paranoia About Manipulating Nature Whether this is deliberate I don't know, but many movies made for children these days have strong moralistic messages that say: We human beings are the scourge of the universe! The currently popular translation of Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park onto the big screen is no exception. Steven Spielberg is, of course, the right candidate for bring off this morality tale - wasn't his ET, for example, another example of wagging his finger at ordinary people for being so heartless and cruel as to want to study the creature from outer space rather than, well, cuddle it with no questions asked? In the middle of Jurassic Park the character played by Jeff Goldblum, a mathematician, delivers the movie's moral message, just in case the action didn't manage to speak for itself: Any interference with the course of nature by human agency is mostly going to do harm to all concerned, so stop it, stupid! Thus when a wealthy Scott sets up the awesome park near Costa Rica featuring cloned prehistoric dinosaurs, all hell breaks loose. Never mind that there is really no reason given why this should have occurred, other than the idiocy and greed of one employee who seems to have been allowed to control the entire park without the slightest supervision. The lesson that we should have been given is: Don't allow loose cannons into your operations, they will muck things up. Why is the intended message a silly one, despite how so many=20 environmentalists mouth it regularly? The main reason is that human beings are themselves, of course, part of nature and what they can and will do can itself be evaluated as either healthful or harmful. Just because human beings interfere with nature via, say, antibiotics or pain killers or transplant operations, that itself does not show what they do to be wrong or bad. Each interference must itself be considered as either helpful or harmful. Just interfering is no clue - after all, animals throughout the globe interfere with nature every time they=20 devour one another, pollinate, or reproduce. =20 Consider the recent discovery near the Great Lakes that if a good number of a parasite that has been killing other sea life there is sterilized by human beings, by way of injecting it with certain chemicals, the parasite will eventually be eradicated and the rest of the life in=20 the lakes will begin to flourish again. Or consider, simply, Novocain or artificial limbs. All these and similar cases testify to the point that human interference with nature is often enough benign and should be encouraged. No doubt human behavior is different from that of other living things because we have the unique attribute of free will and can act rightly and wrongly, with no guarantee against small or large mistakes. Thus=20 for us it takes more than mere instincts to conduct ourselves successfully. But that is itself something in nature, the environmentalists' suggestion to the contrary notwithstanding. The idea that human beings are some sort of fungus or oddity in nature is wholly arbitrary and ignores the existence of enormous diversity throughout nature quite apart from us. What I find of some concern is that so many adults keep trying to tell our children to distrust the only source of hope for the future, namely, sound human judgment. By preaching the doctrine of the innate evil of human nature as against the peaceful, benign nature of everything else, what is being encouraged is a persistence lack of self-confidence, a sense of hopelessness, an attitude that either we ourselves forego a decent and exciting life or we pursue it at the expanse of nature's great harmony. This message is wrong and needs to be countered with=20 some moderation about both the bad influence of human interference and the naivete that nature is always kind and gentle. ========================================================================= Family Leave is Bad for All If environmentalists were really concerned about overpopulation, they would be the most vociferous opponents of the family leave bill that's been subject of controversy recently. This is because by enacting such a bill, our government will once again proceed to subsidize the creation of children - or, actually, force the various companies that will be required to grant such leave to part take in such a program of child birth subsidy. Consider that Americans are already managing to have their=20 children supported by the taxpayer - public school is, at most, a baby sitting service the government supplies to parents with children. With public school, parents are able to send kids to school without having to having to pay full cost. Certainly, no full cost education is in force here - parents can draw from a kind of common pool created via property taxes. This system alone creates what amounts to the height of irresponsibility, but without having this irresponsibility be felt by those who need to feel it most, namely, parents who have no business having kids since they haven't prepared for it, have not managed their economic affairs well enough to afford full cost parenting. The parental leave bill which President Bush is about the veto - or may have vetoed by the time this goes to press - just adds to this mess. Parents will be able to keep their jobs even when they decide that they want to attend to child raising. In fact, in many cases it is not possible to be a responsible parent as well as hold down a full time job. Yet, by providing a few weeks of unpaid leave with a guarantee that the job will be there when the new parents want it back, these parents will find it even less costly to have children. Now in fact there is no natural right to producing children. That right is conditional upon one's ability and willingness to take care of them. It is not taking care of a child to dump him or her on others to take care of, to educate, to watch the large part of the week, while parents are off doing other things. If there were full cost child bearing and child rearing, there would be greater thought given to becoming parents. This is no different from the way some people and companies get away with polluting without having to pay for the damage imposed on others. If you can just dump your waste products on others to take care of, you will not watch your=20 disposal activities. Indeed, this is true about anything - if you think you can do what you wish to do free of charge, you will do more of it. Most people do not deliberately set out to burden others with their children. They simply accept, without much thought, the system in which it is legal to do so. But this also means that there are no natural restraints and constraints upon producing children, if people desire to have them. They do not have to contend with what it involves to raise a child - they can count on other people to come up with the needed provisions. It may be someone's idea of decent family life to have children one is nowhere near prepared to actually provide for. But of all those who comment on this matter it should be the environmentalists who should oppose the parental leave plan most vigorously. They are, after all, the people most concerned with overpopulation, conservation, overuse of resources. ========================================================================= What is Criminal Guilt? Even while most of us have no compunction about blaming others for various supposed misdeeds, even as our legal systems across the world do not hesitate about convicting people in the belief that they are culpably guilty of crimes, there are those who argue against this most vigorously - for example, in the discipline of philosophy. Yes, Virginia, there are people who deny that we have free will - that we can cause some of our actions and are thus responsible for them as they turn out to be right or wrong. Aside from many philosophers, there are even more social scientists - for example, psychologists,=20 sociologists, economists and political scientists - who claim that our actions are all determined by factors in our lives over which we have no control. Some of these ideas have come to dominate even popular culture, albeit in somewhat confused ways. Thus on Phil, Heraldo, Oprah and the rest we find daily parades of people who are afflicted with alcoholism, sexual addiction, phobias galore, etc. Of course, even while everyone is declared a victim, everyone is also blame for racism, sexism, greed, and so forth. That's where the confusion emerges so clearly: How can we all lack control over our actions as we drink, drive, chase members of the opposite sex, while we are also responsible for our drunk driving, sexual harassment, rape, and the like? A good example of this confusion faces the members of the jury at the Los Angeles trial of two men charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault they are accused of having committed during the Los Angeles riots. The defense has not only denied that the two men were the ones whose images were caught on video tape; they also maintain that if they were the ones who did the beating of the victim, they could not be responsible because, as their expert on crowd psychology from UCLA testified, during riots people lose self-control - the dynamics of crowd psychology take over. =20 Surprisingly, the prosecution came up with an expert of its=20 own, a sociologist from Cal State Northridge, who testified that even in crowds, people are responsible for their conduct - "they have free will," he (uncharacteristically for a sociologist) declared. Accordingly, the men who did beat the victim, could have chosen not to do so - they were free to be criminals or humanitarians. In the past analysis, though, the defense, quote on the news,=20 tried to present the question the jury must face in a truly confusing=20 fashion. We heard it declared, for the press, the culprits are either=20 guilty of having planned the beating of the victim or they are innocent. = =20 But this is a completely false alternative. Many people become guilty of misconduct without having planned to do the wrong thing. They may have acted intentionally without having planned what they did. Clearly this is true of a lot of what we do. For example, when one walks into a room and switches on the light, it need not have been planned. Such an action could simply be intended at the moment, quite consciously but without deliberation. Thus, if someone does this when there are people sleeping in the room, say late at night, the person could well be guilty of acting inconsiderately. Indeed, in many malpractice and product liability cases guilty verdicts are brought in even if no one planned any mishap but simply allowed it to happen. Negligence is by definition misbehavior from lack of care and foresight. Those who beat the victim in question during the Los Angeles riots need not have planned the beating to be guilty of it. They may just=20 have failed to resist some impulse to do the beating, to act out some anger or other desire. Such failure to control oneself is often the most instrumental way to immoral and criminal behavior. Those people accuse of being passive aggressive - who usually try to be excused by saying "But I didn't mean it" - give ample evidence of moral failure, just as in medical malpractice trials we often run across cases of legal failure, without any planning having entered the circumstances. Whatever is true about the free will issue, it is important to realize that we could be free agents simply by being free to act or not to act, never mind about planning the action out in advance. The mental element in human behavior is often instantaneous and does not need to involve lengthy deliberation for the agent to be responsible=20 for the result. ========================================================================= Bill Clinton's Marxism Hold your horses. This will not be the old style red baiting some used in criticizing liberal democrats. No need to charge Bill=20 Clinton with being "soft on communism." That system of politics has=20 met its demise, to everyone's joy, so why beat a dead horse? No, what is at issue is Bill Clinton's embrace of old Karl Marx's doctrine of human liberation. What he takes to be liberation,=20 what it means to make people free is precisely to enslave some people=20 for the benefit of other people. It is to place some people into=20 involuntary servitude for the benefit of those deemed less fortunate. Marx held this view of liberation because he basically saw the masses of people as helpless, inept, incapacitated, or inert. Marx and his followers do not believe in individual human initiative. =20 The poor must remain poor, the unfortunate must remain unfortunate. =20 Everyone, indeed, must remain just what everyone is born to be, unless=20 some massive, superhuman organization changes things around by sheer=20 force of physical power. The State, alone, is equipped to liberate=20 us from our ill fortunes, from our mishaps. Individuals cannot do this. We are familiar with this view from the recent history of Nicaragua,=20 where the Sandanistas used to brag about how they were the force of=20 liberation in their country. What they meant is fairly simple: They=20 would force their fellow citizens to improve themselves, to upgrade=20 their lives by means of taking from those who have and giving it to=20 those who need it. The noteworthy feature of the Sandanistan claim - as that of many other "national liberation" movements - is that it appears to make=20 use of America's most important and revolutionary political concept, namely, individual liberty. But this is only a mistaken appearance. What Bill Clinton shares with the Sandanistas as well as with Karl Marx's political thought is that he, too, makes use of what appears to be a good old fashioned American ideal, namely, individual liberty. Yet what his message is - as given in his talk of July 28th=20 - is that we must liberate our welfare mothers, their children, and=20 all others who depend on the current welfare system. =20 Does this not sound akin to the famous cry of our revolutionary=20 forefathers, namely, "Give us liberty or give us death"? Who in America=20 could complain about any effort to liberate those who need liberating,=20 given the role this idea has played in our history? On the contrary, the Clinton message sounds exactly like the battle=20 cry of the Sandanistas and their ideological guru, Karl Marx. That is,=20 Bill Clinton is asking for continued and increased redistribution of the wealth of American citizens. His idea, as that of all the socialists in history, is to forcibly take from those he deems to have too much=20 and hand it to those he deems to be in need - though not before a good chunk is siphoned off by massive government bureaucracies. This Marxist idea capitalizes on the metaphorical use we make of=20 "free" or "liberty," namely, when we say, "I sure want to be free of my troubles," or "I am not at liberty to do what I cannot afford to do." Indeed, there is such a use of these terms but it is totally alien to the American political tradition. In that tradition, to be free or to secure one's liberty has always meant that one is not coerced by other people, especially by government. Freedom here refers to being free from others; liberty means not being oppressed by human beings who would try to oppress us. But it is just this meaning that is completely subverted by the Marxists and, indeed, by American presidential candidate Bill Clinton! The American political tradition rests on a quite different idea, namely, that human individuals have free will and can choose=20 to better themselves in nearly any situation, so long as they are not deprived of their basic humanity, namely their freedom to choose. With only very few exceptions - those irreparably paralyzed - all individuals can make choices to move from worse situations to better ones, provided other persons do not stand in their way. Bill Clinton does not see our citizenry as our Founders and Framers did, and as did the grandfather of the American political tradition, John Locke. These people saw each of us endowed with the capacity=20 to choose and move ourselves to better and better levels of human living. That is why they concerned themselves with freedom or liberty from others, especially governments. Bill Clinton thinks that only the government is free to choose, at liberty to create better conditions, but at the expense of the freedom or liberty of the citizenry. Why are millions of citizens of this country rallying behind the candidacy of a man who so blatantly rejects the most basic principles of Americanism? ========================================================================= TV's Influence While Ted Turner urges Congress to impose a ratings system on broadcasters warning parents about the violent content of TV programs, and while Congress has reached accommodation with politically correct television writers, no one has noticed that perhaps the most insidious feature of TV is the way parents are treated on all varieties of programs. =20 For example, Nickelodeon's "You Can't to that on Television" relentlessly incites teens to regard parents as buffoons. Fathers are routinely treated as ogres and idiots on such programs as=20 "Home Improvement." MTV's several teen oriented fares make the=20 older generation out to be little more than economic necessity. Of course, such entertainment fare has been around in one or another form throughout history. And members of the older generation have complained about it just as long. The world, in turn, has managed to continue with its constantly changing but reasonably steady family arrangements. =20 Still, during the last few decades the anti-adult message has become more shrill, unless my sample is terribly skewed. Since the late 60's, then everyone over 30 was supposed to be some kind of=20 villain and only the young knew it all, there has been a relentless and constant casting of aspersions against the middle-class, mainly white, and mainly male population. It is not that children themselves have perpetrated any of this, although no doubt some of the delight=20 in the phenomenon. Rather it is reckless radicalism, with its blind effort to overturn nearly everything from the past, with its insistence that those who came before us are all guilty of one or another version of political incorrectness, has foisted this as a distinctive result of its ideological bias. What with very new year discovering that those who aren't completely up to date and with it in such matters as feminism, gay rights, rich bashing, anti-industrialism, pro-multiculturalism, and so forth are sinners - sounding every bit as harsh as those=20 detested hell fire ministers of the dreaded Christian right, only with a different set of vices to rant and rave about - how can children not be influenced so that what their parents say or do is regarded by them as pretty useless. Respect toward these old fogies is hard to cultivate when much of the entertainment paints them in ridiculous if not outright nasty colors. TV violence is obviously silly. My 9 and my 13 and 14 year old=20 children show absolutely no inclination toward taking such violence as a model for their behavior. They are not stupid, they know well and good that its fantasy and if anything such violence functions as a kind of release. More often, though, it is no more that caricature and in its usual context makes some sense. But who knows what they make of all the parent bashing? I know that exercising authority with them is difficult - they joke about calling 911 if you suggest some reprimand as mild as grounding them or raise you voice; they often, though thank heaven not too often, treat the words of their father as a kind of dart board at which to throw clever barbs by which they amuse each other. =20 I am no expert on how children are influenced by this or that in our culture - I doubt even those who study these matters are free of very heavy dosages of prejudice and hidden agendas. But if anyone is going to suggest censorship of television programming, I am willing to be that the violence and sex on the tube is relatively benign, compared to the harm done to parent-child relationships by the least mentioned feature of TV entertainment, namely, the denigration of parental authority and competence. I believe this is something no politician or bureaucrat ought to touch - we parents will just have to handle it as well as we can, at least until the tide turns. But surely if I am right, all the fuss about TV violence and sex is just an excuse for programming control, having nothing to do with what really makes TV user unfriendly in our current culture. ========================================================================= The New Immigration One reason I have always supported an open border policy for potential immigrants is that I believed America is basically a free country. And this meant that in America people are free to seek their own happiness by their own lights so long as they do not rip others off in the process. We live in anything but a free society now and indeed even when I came here in 1956 the American ideal of a free country had begun to be obliterated by all the wealth redistributors who=20 occupy our centers of political power, as well as by all their ideological apologists sitting safely in tenured posts at prominent universities across the country. Now what we have in America is a faltering, bankrupt welfare state where no person is free from the rapacious envy of his or her fellows, where the biggest employer of all is the federal government with its myriad bureaucracies=20 playing corrupt versions of Robin Hood (who, after all, stole from the taxers, not the taxed). What happens in such a country when people enter from all=20 corners of the globe and are treated as equally entitled to the perks that Uncle Sam is handing out at the expense of current and future generations of tax payers? =20 Just consider one of the most insidious features of the welfare state, the minimum wage law. Immigrants can only be employed if they can be paid $4.50 or some such figure per hour. Why? Because some social engineers and politicians believe that any payment below this=20 is intolerable. Intolerable to whom? If course, to the sentiments=20 of the egalitarian visionaries, welfare statists, not to immigrants themselves. But immigrants have to live with this and thus their chances for employment are seriously thwarted and the possibility of their having to go on welfare is increased. Add to this all the costs of workers compensation, social security, safety and health=20 measures mandated at the work place, and the rest of what the welfare statists have managed to enact as laws of this supposedly free country, and you have a situation where those who are natives can only look with fear and dismay at future immigrants. Immigrants used to come to America to make a try at a life of their own. But now they come to get a chance to get in on the rip off process. Not deliberately, perhaps, for most of them probably do not even know of these "entitlements" they will be receiving just for being here. But when they arrive, they will be dipping into the pie and antagonizing others who will have less left for them to dip into or who are being taxed to the bone to provide the pie itself. The poor would come to America to get a decent chance at making a living on their own. This is no longer true. The poor now come to American and immerse themselves in a maze of Ponzi games the end result of which is that everyone is getting poorer and there will be no America left for the poor to give it a try at a decent life. ========================================================================= Like Government, Like Us When Abraham Lincoln said that ours is a government, by, of and for the people - a phrase he is said to have taken from the Hungarian freedom fighter Louis Kossuth who gave speeches where Lincoln lived - he might have noted that there is a dark side to that proposition. If the government is "of the people," what does this tell us about the people when their government is corrupt? In recent months several incidents have taken place involving parties to criminal or civil litigation simply taking out a gun and shooting their opposites to death. Most recently a mother did this to a man who is accused to molesting her little boy in a church camp. Earlier a parole officer, with the authority to carry weapons into court, shot dead his wife who was suiting to gain full custody over their children. More and more, it appears, Americans are taking the law into their own hands, settling disputes without recourse to the due processes of the law. Of course, this is just what their government is doing these days. Some years back political science professor Benjamin Barber advocated such a process in his book Strong Democracy - namely, to abandon regard for individual rights, especially the right to private property, and simply make public policy by the power of majority vote. Bill Clinton is a champion of this - whatever the people want, the government ought to give it to them, never mind that the Constitution=20 of the United States needs to be twisted out of shape so as to manage to do this. When the people want health care, never mind that doctors have the basic right to work on their own terms - never mind, in other words, the Fifth Amendment principles that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." And that does that mean? That not unless someone has been proven to have committed a crime, in accordance with rules of evidence and other requirements of justice, may his or her liberty be curtailed. Clearly our government has long forgotten that life, liberty, and property may not be taken from any person without first taking that person through the court system and demonstrating that his or her conduct has been such as to treat that person exceptionally, without regard to his or her basic rights. It seems that this government policy is now having its impact on the mentality of ordinary citizens. Many of them, too, seem to hold these days that one may just go after people with guns regardless of the law. Even our TV writers seem to believe this, so that LA LAW's fiercely promoted return episode, which was to restore the show to its original quality, featured a man who deliberately murdered a man who raped his daughter and served the legally prescribed time for it, who was completely exonerated by the jury on grounds of temporary insanity. And the show made no bones about the point - the guy was no more insane than most of us, but apparently his mission warranted subverting the law. The United States of American is beginning to take on the coloration= =20 of the many countries in the world where due process of law is unknown. And it appears, clearly, that the movement is guided by those who want government to simply ride roughshod over everyone's basic rights in order to solve various problems. =20 The irony is that problems cannot be solved by throwing overboard the due process provision of a civilized system of justice, by going back to the lynch mob approach. Government fails at nearly every attempt of solving problems when it does so by violating the basic rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens. One would think that this should be obvious enough to anyone embarking on public service, from the lowest to the highest officer in the land. But, in fact, the leadership for such unabashed impatience with the niceties of justice comes from the highest office of the country - and it seems a larger and larger portion of the citizenry is following the lead. ========================================================================= Due Process versus Desired Results Human justice is directly concerned with process, indirectly=20 with results. =20 Life is itself a process. Human life in society manifests=20 itself in infinite processes, aiming at infinite results. There is only one common result all human life ought to seek and sometimes does indeed result in and it is the happiness, the morally good life of the individual human being. For this reason a good society has a system of legal justice that protects the processes whereby men and women will not have anyone around them obstruct their pursuit of happiness. It is that pursuit that is crucial to the law, not the result itself. A parallel situation obtains concerning attempts to adjudicate dispute among members of the citizenry. A criminal trial is such an adjudicative process. And here again the result is only indirectly the concern of the legal system, the process is the crucial factor. And this is clear from the fact that the system often leaves the=20 result in the hands of a jury, private citizens with no political=20 and legal office. The system is supposed to ensure that every trial follows sound procedures - due processes of law! But the tenor as well as the aims of our legal system have been=20 changing. Politicians, including their legal appointees such as the new Attorney General of the United States of America, are focused not on process but on result. The country is in danger of becoming a=20 semi-civilized lynch mob. This could be appreciated from watching the news reports of all the fuss associated with the Rodney King federal civil rights trial. Too many black leaders treated the event as a contest where they are awaiting a desired result, never mind what the process. After one trial resulted in what most people felt was a bad verdict, this was not written off as the cost of trusting due process of law. Instead a new trial was demanded, even though by the tradition of our legal system this came very close to being double jeopardy - trying persons for the same crime twice. The response that this isn't so because two different sovereign authorities are involved is pretty much indicative=20 of how due process has given way to desired result. How could a civilized community depend on a system of justice that has two, possibly divided, legal authorities governing it? Only because people are overly=20 concerned with results do they switch from the sovereign authority of the federal government to that of the state governments. Both the Left and the Right does this. In the abortion controversy the Right tends to count on state law. In civil rights matters the Left counts on the federal government. In other matters they line up the opposite way - for example, in some environmental matters the Left likes state law while the Right wants federal jurisdiction. And all this should not surprise us too much. Although the United States of America was conceived in terms of a legal system focused on due process, in more recent times the government began establishing=20 firm goals for us all to pursue. If the processes of the law do not produce an educated public, a relief for the poor, environmental purity, total racial harmony, decent speech, etc. When such a role is conceived for our government, is it surprising that the people are willing to throw out due process and insist in the desired results? What they wanted from the Rodney King trial was a conviction and punishment of the police officers involved and if the processes of law would not give them this result, they threatened to do damage to society. The Rodney King jury may have managed to retain its integrity during its deliberations but it is difficult to tell, given that they were undoubtedly aware of what would follow if they did not produce the desired result. And it looks like the delivered a safe verdict, one that would do little office to all concerned parties on the outside of the court room. ========================================================================= Bill Clinton's Marxism Hold your horses. This will not be the old style red baiting some used in criticizing liberal democrats. No need to charge Bill=20 Clinton with being "soft on communism." That system of politics has=20 met its demise, to everyone's joy, so why beat a dead horse? No, what is at issue is Bill Clinton's embrace of old Karl Marx's doctrine of human liberation. What he takes to be liberation,=20 what it means to make people free is precisely to enslave some people=20 for the benefit of other people. It is to place some people into=20 involuntary servitude for the benefit of those deemed less fortunate. Marx held this view of liberation because he basically saw the masses of people as helpless, inept, incapacitated, or inert. Marx and his followers do not believe in individual human initiative. =20 The poor must remain poor, the unfortunate must remain unfortunate. =20 Everyone, indeed, must remain just what everyone is born to be, unless=20 some massive, superhuman organization changes things around by sheer=20 force of physical power. The State, alone, is equipped to liberate=20 us from our ill fortunes, from our mishaps. Individuals cannot do this. We are familiar with this view from the recent history of Nicaragua,=20 where the Sandanistas used to brag about how they were the force of=20 liberation in their country. What they meant is fairly simple: They=20 would force their fellow citizens to improve themselves, to upgrade=20 their lives by means of taking from those who have and giving it to=20 those who need it. The noteworthy feature of the Sandanistan claim - as that of many other "national liberation" movements - is that it appears to make=20 use of America's most important and revolutionary political concept, namely, individual liberty. But this is only a mistaken appearance. What Bill Clinton shares with the Sandanistas as well as with Karl Marx's political thought is that he, too, makes use of what appears to be a good old fashioned American ideal, namely, individual liberty. Yet what his message is - as given in his talk of July 28th=20 - is that we must liberate our welfare mothers, their children, and=20 all others who depend on the current welfare system. =20 Does this not sound akin to the famous cry of our revolutionary=20 forefathers, namely, "Give us liberty or give us death"? Who in America=20 could complain about any effort to liberate those who need liberating,=20 given the role this idea has played in our history? On the contrary, the Clinton message sounds exactly like the battle=20 cry of the Sandanistas and their ideological guru, Karl Marx. That is,=20 Bill Clinton is asking for continued and increased redistribution of the wealth of American citizens. His idea, as that of all the socialists in history, is to forcibly take from those he deems to have too much=20 and hand it to those he deems to be in need - though not before a good chunk is siphoned off by massive government bureaucracies. This Marxist idea capitalizes on the metaphorical use we make of=20 "free" or "liberty," namely, when we say, "I sure want to be free of my troubles," or "I am not at liberty to do what I cannot afford to do." Indeed, there is such a use of these terms but it is totally alien to the American political tradition. In that tradition, to be free or to secure one's liberty has always meant that one is not coerced by other people, especially by government. Freedom here refers to being free from others; liberty means not being oppressed by human beings who would try to oppress us. But it is just this meaning that is completely subverted by the Marxists and, indeed, by American presidential candidate Bill Clinton! The American political tradition rests on a quite different idea, namely, that human individuals have free will and can choose=20 to better themselves in nearly any situation, so long as they are not deprived of their basic humanity, namely their freedom to choose. With only very few exceptions - those irreparably paralyzed - all individuals can make choices to move from worse situations to better ones, provided other persons do not stand in their way. Bill Clinton does not see our citizenry as our Founders and Framers did, and as did the grandfather of the American political tradition, John Locke. These people saw each of us endowed with the capacity=20 to choose and move ourselves to better and better levels of human living. That is why they concerned themselves with freedom or liberty from others, especially governments. Bill Clinton thinks that only the government is free to choose, at liberty to create better conditions, but at the expense of the freedom or liberty of the citizenry. Why are millions of citizens of this country rallying behind the candidacy of a man who so blatantly rejects the most basic principles of Americanism? ========================================================================= Democracy and Foreign Affairs It has been a theme of many of my columns in the past that=20 democracy, political decisions making by way of majority rule, is in danger of becoming self-annihilated. Many people think that democracy is enough for a country to secure political justice. That is because American politics brought to the world the modern version of democracy. Ancient or Athenian democracy was only a shadow of the American version. In ancient Greece only free citizens, all males and none of the slaves, had a role in politics. In the United States something similar was established after the Constitutional Convention over 200 years ago, but eventually the vote was extended to every adult and slavery was abolished. Thus the ideal of full citizen participation in the political process reached its full realization. Yet democracy was just one facet of the unique contribution American made to politics. The constitutional system which=20 secured for every citizen individual rights was even more radical. Accordingly, American democracy was always restricted to apply only to political decisions, and politics was supposed to be confined to the protection of individual rights. The rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights were what are referred to as "negative," meaning, we all had the right not to be murdered, attacked, assaulted, stolen from, and so forth. To respect our rights others people had to do no more than to abstain from aggressing upon us. Reading the Bill of Rights pretty much confirms this understanding of our rights. But in time the American view of politics became corrupted. Slowly but surely, culminating in the New Deal, New Frontier and the Great Society, we began to obtain rights to be given things. So government could secure our new "rights" only by violating the old rights. To provide social security, people had to be coerced to give up their right to liberty, to do with their earnings what they chose to do. The same happened with unemployment compensation, Medicare, food stamps, subsidies for businesses, and preservation of "national" treasures (parks, forests, lakes, etc.). In each such case of our having rights, government had to take from others their work, their earnings, their property - in short, violate their individual rights. The democratic process was thus extended not only to bring=20 everyone into the political process but to expand the scope of politics to include taking care of everyone who could muster=20 sufficient numbers to influence our representatives in various seats of government. Because of this gradual evaluation of what democracy means in the American political context, it is now nearly impossible to make the case for the narrower scope of democratic politics. Yet it may be that with contemporary foreign policy, the dangers=20 of the expansion of that scope can be given some bite. America is a pluralistic society - nearly every nation and=20 group from abroad has sent some of its members to this country. And the loyalties of these citizens have not always been transferred to their new home land. Nor has our political culture urged such a change, given that this bloated version of democracy does not limit at all what people may vote for. Immigrants from Boznia, accordingly, urge our government to fight on the side of Boznia, those from Serbian regions demand that the Serbs be assisted. African Americans champion various foreign policy projects in South Africa, Somalia, or Ethiopia. Irish,=20 Armenian, Russian, and Jewish Americans have their own desires they would have our government satisfy. Many of these objectives are perfectly benign - rectifying=20 injustices, feeding starving people, establishing peace between fighting groups, etc. There is, moreover, no end to such worthy goals - matched, no doubt, by many others that are more unsavory. One reason for the great diversity of benign goals is that human beings differ from each other significantly, so what is of benefit for some may not be for others. Hardly any of these objectives are universally valid for every human being, not to mention every American citizen. In short, these aren't everyone's concern. Yet, because of our bloated democracy, every one of these group concerns is thrust upon the shoulders of the entire nation. Today's headlines confirm this rather starkly. The government of the United States is being egged on to get involved in nearly every international conflict or crisis. And this usually means that the United States armed forces are being urged not only to do what they are sworn to do, namely, protect the United States Constitution - that is, to defend our citizenry from foreign=20 aggressors - but to be not only the police but the social worker of nearly every region of the globe. As Lt. Colonel Charles Dunlop, Jr., argued in his essay for Parameters, the United States Army War College Quarterly, some months ago (entitled "The Origins of the U. S. Military Coup of 2012"), this is the way to expand the role of not just the=20 government but its force of arms. Democracy is slowly becoming the source of U.S. totalitarianism. Perhaps this prospect, made evident in our foreign affairs, will finally persuade our citizenry to restrain our government and give democracy a job it is fit to handle. ========================================================================= Critical Fallacies These are times when discussing someone's ideas critical can=20 result in being branded hateful. I do not know whether Pat Buchanan is or is not anti-semitic but from what I am told in the newspapers he seems to have received much scolding for saying things such as that the U.S. Congress is in the pockets of the Israeli lobby, etc. To=20 the best of my understanding that is at worst a somewhat polemical political comment critical of the U.S. Congress, not much more. Anti- Semitism is something different. To be anti-semitic one must hate Jews for having been born to=20 other Jews, i.e., for belonging to the semitic community by birth. My father was anti-semitic and he hated all Jews for having some kind of racial or cultural identity as Jews. It was confusing because in the last analysis there are many semites who are not Jews and some Jews who are not semites and the whole mess of trying to group people by race or cultural background falls apart upon close examination. It is not anti-semitic to be critical of Israel or even of the Jewish religions. One could very easily have serious disagreements with the national policies and the theological doctrines involved=20 branding anyone as inherently hateful. From what I understand - and I have not studied all his words on the topic - Buchanan is critical of Israel in the same way that Lee Iacocca is critical of Japan or many Americans are critical of South Africa. That is not anti-semitism or cultural chauvinism but a dispute about ideas and policies. Of course, Buchanan's criticism of Israel, just as Iacocca's of Japan, may be entirely misguided, even off the wall. But that, again, is not the same as its being anti-semitic. I happen to think that Buchanan is wrong in his views on immigration and protectionism but I tend to think he is right about Israel and how strong its influence is in the United States, an influence I find unjustified by scrutinizing Israel's domestic and international policies. All of this is, however, entirely beside the point to any charge of anti-semitism. Just as many people confuse criticizing Israel with anti-semitism, so others confuse criticizing someone such as Martin Luther King with racism. But King was dead wrong on some points, while quite right on others. He said we shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Bravo! But he also said that "As long as there is poverty in the world, I can never be rich, even=20 if I have a billion dollars. As long as diseases are rampant and millions of people in this world cannot expect to live more than 28 or 30 years, I can never be totally healthy - even if I just got a=20 good checkup at the Mayo Clinic. I can never be what I ought to be=20 until you are what you ought to be. This is the way the world is made." Now in all this Martin Luther King was wrong. Clearly I can be healthy while others are not; I can certainly be evil while others are good. Indeed, King's point about the content of my character would be entirely lost if this other claim were true. We are running the risk of considering everything said against a person hate speech, but it is a mistake to view things that way. Only when what you say against a person is irrelevant to his or her being a person of good or bad character - e.g., whether black, born=20 of Jewish parents, tall, short, with this or that national origin, etc. - is such a statement morally unjust. If you are against a person for his or her beliefs or actions that are indeed wrong beliefs or bad actions, that is perfectly fine. That is indeed the way the world is made. ========================================================================= Compassion in Washington and Hollywood As Hollywood have it, no one who is against government spending and for vetoing programs for the homeless can be compassionate. On=20 the contrary, compassion is the trait of those who hand out money to the poor - other people's money, of course. And in Hollywood movies this point is made not by careful plotting and tracing the action from beginning to end through all its complex steps. Instead what the writers in Hollywood do is make the big spenders nice and the critics of big spending out and out criminals, set upon taking over the country for personal benefit. The good, compassionate wealth distributors, in contrast, are labeled unselfish, doing what their country asks of them, not asking anything of their country - except, of course, to help them be compassionate at no cost of their own. I have always found it both irritating and understandable that Hollywood puts out movies that take half a dozen shortcuts in the effort to make their point. Back in the early 1060s there was a flick called Seven Days in May in which the military officers who were planning a coup were all, you guessed it, defenders of free enterprise. The famous Kubrick movie, Dr. Strangelove, similarly condemned defenders of property rights by making them plain crazy in the head. If writers don't like your politics, in other words, they make a character both mouth the politics and commit child molestation. If they like your politics, in turn, they make you mouth it and have you be the nicest chap in history. The rather entertaining and often very funny movie Dave, in which Kevin Kline plays both a callous, deceitful and emotionally dead=20 president and the guy who is installed to impersonate him when the pres has a stroke, perpetrates all these tricks. Bill Mitchell - did you miss it, Bill, for Clinton, and Mitchell for the Senate Majority leader - feels with all his heart for the homeless children and finds a way to save $650,000,000.00 fat in the budget in order to continue a program for them. Then, to cap it off, he boldly commits the federal government to find a job for every American. And this=20 makes the man worthy of the sick presidents emotionally estranged wife, Sigorne Weaver, not to mention the respect of the people of America. Never mind that no one in government has a clue how to make a job for anyone - they invent nothing, start no enterprise, discover no new laws of nature to put to use, zilch. Government cannot make jobs - all it can do is take money from some (which kills off jobs), pay itself a hefty sum to start with (which keeps politicians and bureaucrats well fed), and give a little back in some public works program or subsidy (which restores some of the lost jobs but not for long since no one wants the work, which I why there wasn't any of it in the first place). Never mind that government compassion is a total fraud - no one who introduces or signs a bill to make government hand out money ever dips into his or her own pocket for this money. They dip into someone else's pocket. That is no compassion, stupid! It's theft. But with this kind of fantasy politics being supported by nearly all the dizzy heads - writers, actors, producers - in tinsel town, it is no wonder that the damage cannot be controlled. If only some of these writers had taken a few courses in economics - well, even in plain physics - they might have learned that there is a principle called the conservation of energy and matter which is pretty much immutable. From nothing, nothing can be produced. ========================================================================= Groups with Memories When many of the leading lights of contemporary political debate denounce individualism, they might not notice that they are also encouraging the practice of assigning collective guilt. What individualism means is that each adult human being is a sovereign person, responsible for his or her conduct rather than simply behaving as part of a larger whole such as the nation, race, gender, ethnic group, and so forth. Individualism does not mean that people are self-sufficient apart from their fellow human beings. But it does mean that when they interact with their fellows, they are making a choice and must take responsibility for this choice. No group takes responsibility for what the individual chooses - no group exists other than as a collection of individuals who have made a choice in common, who have voluntarily agreed to pursue a common goal. Of course, as young children nearly all of us are members of a family and we depend on the adult members of the family for much of what we do and even think. But in a healthy family a young person is reared to grow up and become an independent person, one who will take responsibility for himself or herself. It is this idea that many people today are denouncing - among them some feminists, such as Professor Catherine MacKinnon, and communitarians, such as Professors Robert Bellah or Berkeley and Amitai Etzioni of George Washington University. They insist that human beings are parts of a community, that the community is what exists as a whole being, not the individual members of the community. There are even some biologists and ecologists who argue this view - e.g., author Lewis Thomas who thinks that the earth is but a living organism of which we are parts. Well, this communitarian view is now reaping some of its most tragic victims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where Serbs, Croats, Boznians and other ethnics groups actually see themselves as just parts of the group. Accordingly, when in World War II many Croats associated themselves with Nazi Germany and helped the Third Reich and Hitler commit numerous atrocities, the many Serbs who opposed this left a legacy of hatred for all future Croats. =20 What we are witnessing today, even among some American relatives of members of these groups, is this hatred. Some American Serbs are going on television and urging the world to accept as proper the actions of Serbs who are butchering their fellow human beings, on the grounds that these fellow human beings BELONG to a group whose past members did awful things. They are urging us to think of Croats and Serbs, for example, as if the groups to which they belong were living beings with a past criminal record. No doubt, throughout the globe this is the way many people think. Even in the United States of America there are those who believe that because one is a white person today, one is guilty for deeds committed by white people in the past against blacks and Indians. Never mind that today's whites may have had absolutely nothing at all to do with inflicting harm on blacks or Indians - what counts is that whites in the past have done so and, well, whites in the present are just part of that living entity, the white race. I personally experienced a bit of this when recently I spoke at Philip Exeter Prep School and a number of students, most of them black, pointed their fingers at me shouting that I brought blacks to the United States to be slaves. Never mind that I personally didn't even enter the United States of American until September 1956 - I was guilty of slave trading because I am white. Those thinkers who find the communitarian idea sound should at least acknowledge that at least by implication they are fostering the prolongation of group animosity throughout not only the rest of the world, which could use a large dosage of individualism by now, but here in the U. S. where at least a start had been made at rejecting such unjust lumping of people and guilt by association. ========================================================================= Business Versus Business One of Karl Marx's less notable mistakes was his belief that people in the world of business would promote their self-interest. If by self-interest we include, as I believe we ought to, the most rational social-political principles in support of a sound human institution's flourishing, then clearly people in business often act in a self-destructive manner. They promote policies that hurt business. Examples of such self-destructive business conduct are not hard to identify. Consider, as a very recent one, Ted Turner, the multi- billionaire mogul, who went to Congress a few days ago and asked the politicians in Washington to "shove down the throats of" broadcasters a TV violence rating system, unless the broadcasters adopt one pronto. Or consider a few months ago how New York City's wonder financier, Donald Trump, wanted legal action take against native Americans who were running gambling establishments, just because they are not forced to pay the taxes he has to pay. Furthermore, consider the recent=20 decision of the U. S. Supreme Court, followed by some state supreme court rulings, to refuse to place a cap on the amounts of punitive damage money that juries may award to plaintiffs who succeed in proving=20 that some service or product has injured them. =20 In each of these cases it is people in the business community who are advocating getting the government involved in the operations of the market place or, in our last example, to cut some slack for them from the processes of our system of justice. Turner's advocacy of government censorship of broadcasting is=20 perhaps the most disgusting of the three examples. Ted Turner, who is rumored to have admired the ideas of Ayn Rand earlier in his career, is actually promoting government's intrusion on freedom of expression. He wants the First Amendment to be voided when it comes to broadcasting. He should, instead, advocate the extension of First Amendment protection to the broadcast industry. He should advocate repeal of the federal law that has established the Federal Communications Commission - earlier the Federal Radio Commission - so that broadcasters and cable television operators could be enjoying the same freedom of communication as do the printed media. Instead, perhaps to appease the left wing liberals with whom is so socially chummy lately, he is asking the state to tell broadcasters how to run their business, what to do about its content, etc. =20 Trump, in turn, ought to be advocating the reduction of taxation on every front, including when it hurts his own business, but instead he is crying "unfair" and asking government to hit up the few people who have managed to escape its thievery. Trump out to use the example of native Americans to point out that taxation is unjust and it would be best to recognize this fact not only regarding native Americans but all of us who live in this country. But the wunderkind of New York and Atlantic Cities seems to lack the integrity and is proceeding in=20 a truly short sighted fashion. Those people in business who want the government to limit the=20 punitive sums juries may award to injured parties evade that such a limitation would rther arbitrary. No doubt some juries are willing=20 to indulge their collective prejudices against corporations by awarding=20 larger than reasonable punitive sums to victims of corporate malpractice. = =20 But the remedy for this is not to subvert the jury system but to embark=20 on a program of giving business a better press, demonstrating to the=20 public that the business bashing attitudes so typical of the Clinton=20 crowd are wholly unjust and injurious to our society. The source of jury's prejudices need to be addressed, but not by trying to subvert the jury system. The short cut method taken by too many prominent people in business will ultimately hurt the system under which business can flourish in a human community. Such an approach - which includes advocacy of=20 protectionist legislation, begging for subsidies and government backed loans, as well as protection of business against competition from up and coming entrepreneurs - is surely hurting the entire business community, even while it may give a few particular enterprises a=20 temporary leg-up. That business people do not realize how dear a price they are paying for the relief government gives them indicates that they are no less savvy concerning the relationship between politics and business than are academic left wingers who advocate out and out socialism. ========================================================================= Creating Jobs via Theft It is a puzzle to me why many people find Clintonomics promising,=20 why they hope for it. I believe it may have a bit to do with the kind=20 of economic science they learn in many college classes. While these numbers are hardly decisive, it does appear that Clinton's approval rating is the lowest of many presidents at this time of their reign. And some say 56% of the country finds his economic approach wrongheaded. Still, too many people find the policies promising to make much of a dent on the democratic socialist agenda of our current administration. (There is nothing liberal - devoted to liberty - about it!) What has=20 lured folks into this blindness? For one Clintonomics is old fashioned Keynesian economics, taught in most high school social science and college intro economics courses. The most widely used introductory text book, Paul Samuelson's PRINCIPLES, is in something like its 10th edition and has for decades taught that one can produce something out of nothing. =20 The idea is captured in the theory of the multiplier effect: spend a dollar of the taxpayers and create several dollars because not only will the dollar create a dollar's worth of jobs, but those jobs then will create more jobs, etc., etc. =20 And there is a bit to this. Since banks in our country pay loan=20 out nearly 50% more than the money they have on reserve - so that when a bank has $1.00, it can now lend $1.50 - it looks like this is a nice way to generate money available to be borrowed, which they would generate= =20 jobs. =20 But the theory is a myth. First, government spending is not the same as spending per se. For government steals or borrows its money,=20 it does not earn it by producing work that others pay for. The only=20 creation of money available comes through work. Making money change=20 hands is not the same as creating it. If a pickpocket takes my ten bucks and gives it to you to spend on your business or personal=20 expenses, this will have created nothing. For now I lack the money. Moreover, since the thief usually takes a bit of it for himself, this process actually depletes the wealth of the community - it lets the=20 thief and his benefactor pretend they can live without working. When government taxes us to pump money into the economy, it is=20 vital to remember that they need to take some money from some place. Even when they borrow it, they need to deplete the money available for borrowing, thus making it impossible for others to borrow that same money. In both cases we have the spectacle of trying to make something out of nothing by slight of hand - Clintonomics keeps talking about the creation of jobs but fails to say that by its policies it is also=20 destroying jobs. The money they take from us by taxation and borrowing is not creative money but stolen money, period. The same point destroys the theory of the multiplier effect. If one can create something of a multiplier effect by handing a dollar to someone, the same can be created by taking it - now there will be no money to=20 spend, which then takes money out of the pockets of those on whom it=20 would have been spent, etc., etc. The ripple, if it goes in one direction will go in the opposite just as soon as it gets under way. A couple of decades ago Hubert Humphrey wrote an essay for The New Republic in which he explained plainly the philosophy behind Clintonomics: Hope. Humphrey explained that although Democrats cannot actually do anything for us - since they haven't learned how to make something out of nothing - they can, however, produce hope. =20 What characterizes Clintonomics is pure and simple: Pretense. And with the help of Keynesian economics some people can probably be fooled for a while. I don't believe it will last Bill Clinton's entire term in office. Still, it may last long enough to do us very great economic damage. ========================================================================= Liberals Regroup After 8 years of Ronald Reagan, a couple of years of George Bush,=20 and, most importantly, the demise of the command economies of Eastern=20 Europe, one might think that American liberals have come to learn a=20 few things. In particular they might have learned that (a) the free=20 market is more humane and productive than the planned economy, and (b)=20 the American people generally find the ideal of statism repugnant,=20 even if they aren't fully consistent about this. But no. Instead of jumping on the bandwagon of anti-statism and=20 trying to forge a clear idea of a free society, American liberal=20 leaders are regrouping to try to sell us the same old "gift" in some- what new rappings. Accordingly, we will soon have before us a new=20 publication, The American Prospect, to be edited by none other than=20 Robert Reich, the Harvard Economist who was Governor Michael Dukakis's=20 economic advisor and who has never stopped championing the modern=20 (i.e., statist) liberal dream of solving problems by making the feder- al government spend more money on pretending to manage them. For that=20 is exactly what the liberals have been after all along - greater power=20 for the federales, less wealth for the people to dispose of as they=20 themselves judge fit, and greater restrictions on the market place so=20 as to adjust it to the social visions they prefer, never mind what=20 they people want, for better or worse. But this social vision is more and more difficult to sell these=20 days. To pretend now that governments are the solution to the prob- lems faced by people simply runs against something nearly universally=20 recognized throughout the world. Thus some other trick has to be=20 invented to sell us the wisdom of the same idea. And among the many=20 being tried a little outright deception is not too high a price to pay=20 to get the job done. Consider what those who are embarking on the publication of the=20 new liberal organ tell us. They are spreading the following story, as=20 told in one East Coast newspaper that, I am sure, is enthusiastically=20 awaiting the new publication: "The conservatives have now had their=20 chance, many liberals argue, and their program of reliance on the=20 unrestricted market has failed to solve the nation's most pressing=20 problems." And it seems that none other than that clever and ambigu- ous columnist Kevin Phillips, often paraded as a conservative, agrees=20 with them. In a new book, The Politics of Rich and Poor, Phillips is=20 advancing the same idea, namely, that conservatism has had it with its=20 free market philosophy. Now as a person who has never been regarded as a conservative but=20 has always found the right to freedom to be the best social ideal to=20 bank on - whether in the pursuit of riches, virtue, truth or justice -=20 I beg to protest. =20 First of all, conservatives have by no means tried the "unre- stricted market" during their recent political reign. Ronald Reagan=20 did make use of free market, individualist rhetoric but had by no=0Dmeans m= anaged to translate this vision into public policy. George=20 Bush, in turn, has all but abandoned the vision itself and is finding=20 it even troublesome to welcome the Eastern Europeans' demand for=20 freedom for fear of a threat to that great anti-libertarian ideal,=20 social and political stability. Conservatives have simply never been=20 advocates of a principled unrestricted free market - one need but read=20 a bit of George Will's commentary to learn this fact. Conservatives =1D=20 order is threatened, freedom must be sacrificed - just consider the=20 way they wage their war on drugs, by neglecting nearly all precepts of=20 civil liberties and individual rights. Second, the liberals must be terribly desperate when they allow=20 themselves such bald faced lies as that the conservatives have actual- ly tried the unrestricted free market. As noted, nothing could be=20 farther from the truth. So why then do liberals insist on saying=20 this? Because let us face it they wish to discredit freedom. They=20 wish to have us come to believe that free men and women are not up to=20 the task of forging for themselves a decent society. They wish to=20 have us clamor for controls, for regimentation, for a command system=20 of social order. That is what their dream comes to, in the last=20 analysis. They do not trust free human beings to come to the best=20 solution of their problems. =20 Instead liberals - along with many conservatives, only with a=20 different emphasis - trust their own cadre of leaders, the John Ken- neth Galbraiths, the Robert Reichs, the Ted Kennedys, the George=20 McGoverns, to govern us to the hilt. These persons are the embodi- ments of wisdom and prudence, not the ordinary citizens of a society=20 who are so malleable, so ignorant and so morally weak that trusting=20 them - in other words, trusting the unrestricted free market - is for=20 these liberals a hellish American prospect. =20 What, then, can we expect from The American Prospect, the maga- zine and the idea, at the hand of liberal leaders? I will bet that=20 what is in store for us is what the Europeans call social democracy or=20 democratic socialism but what comes, in fact, to nothing other than=20 some new version of outright statism. These men and women will try to=20 guide us toward more and more reliance on the government. They will=20 continue with their program of amassing greater and greater power to=20 themselves and leaving an ever smaller sphere of person jurisdiction=20 to the rest of society's membership. Of course, the goals in behalf of which such power grabbing will=20 be attempted will have to change. No one believes any longer that=20 government can bring about economic prosperity, social justice, racial=20 harmony, safety and health measure, lower medical costs, better educa- tion. The liberals have had their try at this by way of centralized=20 government and have indeed failed - with the New Deals, New Frontiers=20 and Great Societies, the disastrous political and economic conse- quences of which we are still experiencing. No, something new and=20 scary will have been latched on to. And we all can see it coming: its=20 the environment. So as to have diminishing toxicity of the environ- ment - the ozone layer intact, no more acid rain, etc., etc. - we=20 need, you guessed it, some kind of environmental tsar. And since the=20 conservatives are perfectly willing to make the same move when they=20 have latched on to a pet peeve, there will be little resistance to=20 what these liberals want. The two groups will divide between them- selves what areas of our lives they will rule - the conservatives will take care of our spiritual welfare, while the liberals will master our=20 economic well-being. And where the division is unclear - education,=20 drugs, the environment - they will problems happily cooperate in their=20 despotism. That free men and women are much more likely to solve all these=20 problems than these "leaders" is something they will simply suppress=20 from the debate, as they have done for quite some time. And that is =1D=20 to relearn that lesson, now that Americans are beginning to forget it=20 but others around the globe are coming to discover it. .PA=1D=20 One of the puzzles in our legal system is why the press is given such powerful protection against political interference while other professions are more and more regulated each time politicians get together. Those who defend this view may think there is no danger from=20 exercising first amendment freedoms, as distinct from others. In any case, they are grossly unjust by singling out this field for special treatment while leaving others exposed to government control. Freedom of the press, as any aspect of freedom, is vital. There is no justice in giving those in the profession of reporting and writing greater protection against tyranny than those in commodity trading,=20 medicine or auto mechanics. Human beings ought to be free from criminal and government interference in whatever they choose to do, so long as they do not inflict their activities on those who want to be=20 left undisturbed by them. So, of course, no one should stop the press=20 from carrying on with its shenanigans, however vile or silly or great these might be. But the same holds for any other profession! =20 Most intellectuals and politicians disagree with this. Even after=20 it has been demonstrated by events in Eastern Europe, as well as by=20 numerous arguments, that government regimentation of any human conduct is morally wrong and counterproductive, they clamor for more controls. =20 They seem to think that when people move to Washington, they become wiser= =20 and certainly more virtuous, thus qualified to intrude on the lives of others with their laws and regulations. Why this is so, it very difficult to fathom, for clearly no reason can be offered for such a faith. So you figure it. But why the inconsistency with regard the press? I suppose here the answer has to be that intellectuals know that they are under=20 threat if the press is not free. At least until they take power into their own hands, this freedom is essential to their activities. Most=20 often, as history shows, even the most aggressive opponents of human liberty defend the freedom of the press until they finally attain power. In our own times this is evident from the behavior of many former liberal defenders of constitutional liberties who now have jumped on the bandwagon of the political correctness movement. With power having accrued to them in university administrations and often in various layers of government, the same folks who used to scream for the right to free speech of=20 communists and other ideological opponents of the free society are now insisting that "fighting words" that insult women, blacks, Hispanics, or others do not count as free speech and deserve no protection from the U. S. Constitution. Some have even abandoned all talk about the right to freedom and joined such legal radicals as Catherine MacKinnon in advocating the view that the battle should be fought on the grounds of who has more power, not whether anyone's rights are given less than sufficient protection. =20 There is also the hypothesis once advanced by Ayn Rand, namely, that for many on the political left freedom of speech is easy to uphold since they really do not believe in the force of ideas. They believe that=20 economic factors, not what people think, determine the shape of society. Thus what is important is to gain power over the economy, never mind what people say or think for the time being. For those who do seriously value freedom of thought and speech, it would be very important to realize that those freedoms are left quite vulnerable if the others are unprotected. Thus, as the most glaring=1D=20 has abolished the freedom to own and control property and the freedom to enter into free, uncoerced contractual relationships. It is worth observing that these two freedoms are under relentless attack not only from intellectuals but also from politicians. It is only a stone's throw from there to the view that what people say may be dangerous to the orderliness of the society the regulators desire, so freedom of speech, religion, and assembly must also be sacrificed on the altar of some utopia, be it advocated by the Left or the Right. My fear is that many Americans have nearly forgotten what their country is famous for, namely, the creation, for the first time in history, of a free society. It will be tragic if they forget it completely and their society joins all those that have succumbed to some form of tyranny. kind of justification of tyranny that has just enough plausibility to =8D it to carry a bit a weight. This is the idea that, after all, differ=1F=8D ent cultures must evidently require different political organizations. =8D The message has come from people who represent different ideologies - =8D those on the right have tended to excuse some right wing military =8D dictators by this line, while those on the left have made it easier =8D for socialist or communist regimes to gain acceptance in the world. =1D apologists for left wing dictatorships - the very people who were =8D supposed to deserve these different political-economic systems have =8D had enough and are finally protesting against being subjugated to =8D systems that violate basic human rights. Yes, what this amounts to is =8D the rejection of political relativism and the affirmation of certain =8D universal political ideals. The common term for these ideals has come =8D to be "democracy." And while probably no one who will but think about =8D it is a supporter of unrestrained democracy - indeed, unleashing =8D unrestrained democracy in some Eastern European countries has begun to =8D take its toll - the idea involved is clear enough: individuals must be =8D treated as having an equal say in their own political affairs. No one =8D may be excluded from taking part in a society's political life. =20 =1D to list here, yet the idea of "democracy," that is, "rule of the =8D people" makes it clear enough for the time being. The simple truth =8D that underlies that term is that no individual human beings may be =8D treated as if he or she is someone's or some groups natural inferior =8D or subject. This ideal has been the one that has emanated from the =8D United States of American ever since its founding. And at this time =8D we can see that many throughout the world are embracing it more or =8D less intact. =1D of global Americanism. In a recent communication in The New York =8D Times a prominent representative of the Ford Foundation, who is a =8D consultant to international organizations, named David Heaps of =8D Princeton, New Jersey, tells us that it should be a mistake to exert =8D "economic pressures by the United States and the world community to =8D bring changes similar to those in Eastern Europe, thereby remedying =8D sub-Saharan Africa's social and economic ills." Mr. Heaps argues that =8D the "sweeping changes in eastern European countries were not produced =8D by externally imposed measures; they were gained by insistent domestic =8D demands for a more just and responsible form of government." =1D been exerting its influence on Eastern Europe for as long as there has =8D been an Eastern Europe. I recall as a boy in Hungary, between 1945 =8D and 1953, the enormous influence on myself and my young friends of all =8D the Western movies and novels we were briefly exposed to and later =8D recalled vividly even when they were banned. (As to the books, we =8D shared them on our own little black gift circuit - Zane Gray, Mark =8D Twain, Max Brand, Erle Stanely Garner, et al.) And then there was =8D Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America - we had our ears to the =8D radio constantly, even against the counsel of our parents, hoping to =8D hear Western ideas and information. Indeed, as recently as 1974 I =8D recall listening to a Hungarian scholar at a conference telling of his =1D= =20 translated so as to spread Western ideas in the culture. =1D been rather more humane and sensible than what most of the rest of the =8D world has produced. And this is why the Eastern Europeans were glad =8D to get them. =1D ing, in this connection, that South Africa's apartheid is being chal=1F=8D lenged precisely on the basis of Western European/American ideals of =8D fundamental human political equality. If it were not for those =8D ideals, the ancient practices of tribal superiority would offer no =8D resistance at all to that unjust institution. =1D democratic are probably right for Africa may be gleaned from some =8D comments from a former Nigerian head of state, General Olusegun Oba=1F=8D sanjo. His observations are quoted favorably by Mr. Heap. We are =8D told by the eminent general that "It is not appropriate to advocate =8D one political system of government for all of Africa." The general =8D adds to this as follows: "African countries are now seeking, by pain=1F=8D ful processes of trail and error, new political systems and struc=1F=8D tures, rooted in the traditional culture with respect for human digni=1F=8D ty," processes, he says, that "will take time, but they must be our =8D own, designed by ourselves, for ourselves." =1D bit cautious about all this "our own," "by ourselves," and "for our=1F=8D selves." The fraudulent allusion here is to something akin to democ=1F=8D racy, after all - as is the use of the phrase "human dignity." But =8D what they mask is the opposite, namely, that in most of these coun=1F=8D tries that people are completely left out of the process of political =8D decision making. Clearly, by trying to masks this fact, the general =8D does not like the idea of bringing the people into the process of =8D political decision. And Mr. Heap is evidently an accomplice in this =8D scam. =20 =1D because at its heart it explicitly denies that any tribal chief or =8D leader is somehow naturally superior and deserving of self-appointed =8D reign. That is just how the Western political tradition managed, at =8D long last, to undermine communism. That is why it is a threat to Iran =8D and other theocratic regimes. And that is why, contrary to the rela=1F=8D tivists, it deserves - in addition to refinement and clarification - =8D universal advocacy and adoption. ========================================================================= In Melville, New York, twelve passengers who were injured in the=20 Aviv Flight 052 airline crash are suing the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration for this regulatory agency's alleged complicity in the crash. =20 One might think this is just the needed breakthrough that will per- suade people that the federal government's regulations are no solution=20 to the problems we find in the free market. Unfortunately the suit=20 does not carry the punch that needs to be delivered so as to make the=20 general point mentioned above that everyone in this country needs to=20 learn. The FAA is the employer of air traffic controllers and the=20 suit merely charges that these employees of the agency were partially=20 at fault in the Avianca crash. What would be a far more telling suit is one that charged the FAA=20 with complicity in the safety of air traffic in general. After all,=20 the FAA, as most other government regulatory bodies, exists because=20 members of Congress as well as numerous critics of the free market=20 place believe that we need the supervision of the state in private=20 business affairs. =20 Government regulation of industry is a form of paternalism. =20 Paternalism, in turn, derives its justification from the believe that=20 the state should be related to the people in the fashion parents=20 relate to their children - giving the people some measure of freedom=20 but remaining in the position of trumping such freedom, guiding its=20 use, even vetoing it, whenever the state deems it wise and necessary. Yet there is one thing about the relationship between parents and=20 children that is not mirrored in the relationship between government=20 regulatory bodies and citizens who are being regulated by them. This=20 is that parents are commonly held responsible for much of the misbe- havior of their children. When a child breaks a neighbor's window or=20 crashes the family car into some innocent people, the parents are=20 going to have to pay and may even be legally penalized. Certainly=20 parents foot the bill for damage children do to other parties. Li- ability, in short, is largely assigned to the parental authority who=20 is taken to be responsible for the child's conduct. Not so with government regulatory bodies. Even though the FAA=20 regulates airline safety, it is airline corporations or their insur- ance companies that must fork out the damage awards in the case of=20 lawsuits filed by passengers or their next of kin. Though the Federal=20 Trade Commission regulates a good deal of commerce - e.g., virtually=20 all of this country's mail order house trade - when such commerce is=20 conducted badly and some company is sued, the FTC is not a co- defendant, let alone taken to be the primarily liable party. The same=20 holds with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, the=20 Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection=20 Agency, etc., etc. These and all the other paternalistic agencies=20 keep issuing their innumerable intrusive rules and regulations on=20 members of the industry they are deemed to be so essential for keeping=20 clean and virtuous. Yet when some accident, malpractice or product=20 malfunction occurs, the law ignores the central element of justice=20 involved - both parties, and especially the supervising agency, should=20 be held responsible. =20 =1D the shield of "sovereign immunity," as the military and the diplomatic=20 corps are able to when they conduct the foreign policy of the country =1D= =20 these regulators, who are after all representing special interests -=20 the concerns of those who don't trust the wisdom of free market agents=20 - should accept the consequences of their judgments. They should be=20 held accountable. Then, perhaps, we would begin to see government gradually get out=20 of the business of paternalistic intervention and resume its proper=20 role of mere referee, prosecutor and adjudicator of the violation of=20 individual rights, nothing more. Too long have statist been allowed to barge into the lives of=20 free citizens with impunity. The FAA and its sister agencies should=20 all take the full or at least partial blame when bad things happen to=20 people because of misbehavior of regulated firms. The government=20 would then begin to learn that ideas and actions have consequences and=20 perhaps restrain itself from issuing rules anytime some complaint=20 arises within the population. It may begin to say, well if you have a=20 complaint, don't count on us - we are not more able to prevent prob- lems in the world than you. And if remedies are needed, take the=20 matter to court, don't count on some divine state intervention. was raised recently when 54 year old Alzheimer disease victim Janet =8D Adkins died at her own hands but with the aid of a machine invented by =8D Dr. Kevorkian of Royal Oak, Michigan. The other question, more impor=1F=8D tant for purposes of law and public policy, is whether one has the =8D right to commit suicide. And yet another issue raised is whether one =8D has the right to assist another person in the commission of suicide. =1D abandoning the task of life a persons faces is morally justified? I =8D don't believe the answer is easy. But I do believe that there may be =8D some cases of someone facing an entirely worthless life, in which case =8D suicide would be moral. But that really is a personal moral question. =8D The issue of whether one has the right to commit suicide is different. =8D If one does not have that right, others, notably the state, may stop =8D anyone making the effort and may punish those whose efforts had been =8D successfully thwarted. And if one has the right, such state action is =8D wrong. Similarly with aiding suicide attempts. =1D all times and all places in a short essay. But we don't need to. We =8D can count on some important traditions already well established and =8D strongly defensible, namely, the doctrine of individual rights em=1F=8D bodied in the American Declaration of Independence. =1D document, which gives the American legal system its moral and politi=1F=8D cal foundations, concerns everyone's "unalienable right to life." The =8D United States Constitution does not put it so simply but it, too, =8D gives recognition of that individual right. When the Fifth Amendment =8D affirms that life may not "be deprived if life .. without due process =8D of law," there is indirect reference to this basic right of every =8D person - due process means respect for rights! =1D to life means, we have to notice something very important and contro=1F=8D versial. A right is a liberty to do or not to do. If one has the =8D right of free speech, one may speak as well as may refuse to speak. =20 =1D live, and no one may intrude upon one in that effort. But one may =8D also choose not to live! That is what having a right to life comes =8D to, properly understood. =1D way as to commit oneself to living at least for some time - e.g., if =8D one has debts to pay, obligations to perform, etc. Most of us, quite =8D naturally, commit ourselves to living by such particular commitments, =8D because we have no interest in exercising our right to give up living. =8D However, this does not change the fact that within the American polit=1F=8D ical tradition everyone has the basic right to life, which implies =8D everyone has the basic right to give up his or her life. =1D If everyone has the right to life, no one has the authority to take =8D another's life. The only source of such authority is the person whose =8D life is at issue. But since after the deed of assisting suicide is =8D done it is not possible to confirm the act of authorization, assisting =8D suicide would have to be extremely carefully planned and prepared for. =8D One might put it this way - the onus of proof that one is authorized =1D=20 The reason is that if there is reasonable doubt that no such authority =8D existed when the help was being provided, the person giving the help =8D could be convicted of murder. After all, the unauthorized killing of =8D another person is a variety of unjustifiable homicide. =1D that of Janet Adkins, it is no use trying to get it all right - to =8D many detailed are missing. But in general we can say with confidence =8D something about what this sad case involves: Janet Adkins had the =8D right to end her life and had the right to authorize Dr. Kevorkian to =8D aid in this by way of providing her with a suicide machine. Whether =8D she successfully authorized him so that he can escape all reasonable =8D doubt about having acted against her choices is something that cannot =8D be determined without a much closer look than we can give it from =8D afar. =1D our political tradition everyone has the right to commit suicide. =8D That is one implication of having the basic, unalienable right to =8D life. That many of our states have laws against suicide only shows =8D how inconsistent our legal system can be with our country's original =8D political philosophy. ========================================================================= A problem has surfaced in connection with changes in Easter=20 Europe and the Soviet Union. It concerns the dissatisfaction of many=20 ordinary people with what political changes have produced in their=20 economic lives. In short, people keep being poor, even though their=20 political systems have undergone drastic change. And this situation is not likely to be confined to Eastern Euro- pean societies. If and when apartheid is fully eliminated in South=20 Africa, clearly not all the difficulties people now experience will=20 have been overcome. Indeed, anywhere and anytime major changes occur,=20 the results are not always satisfactory and the desire to have every- one be pleased with the changes will simply go unsatisfied. Yet there is one element of many recent political changes that=20 may partly account for the bulk of disappointment felt by most of the=20 people. This is that past wrongs will probably not go rectified. =20 Consider, for example, the situation in our own society. Even though political and legal sanction for slavery and segrega- tion has vanished, many people feel that something remains of the=20 evils of those institutions. It is not clear and the efforts to rectify th= ings have tended to be confused and often unjust - e.g.,=20 affirmative action policies, reverse discrimination, etc. Yet it is=20 understandable that many blacks find the results of the abolition of=20 their oppressed status unsatisfactory. I have the inkling that what is missing is that those who did the=20 wrongs - against slaves, against Eastern European and Soviet citizens,=20 against coloreds in SOuth Africa, etc. - seem to have gone not only=20 unpunished but not even clearly identified. Slavery is often viewed=20 as a kind of natural catastrophe, not the human evil it clearly was. =20 Apartheid is supposed to go away without anyone feeling deprived when=20 it is gone. Communism will have to be overturned quietly, peacefully. Perhaps the only time this was not deemed to be a satisfactory=20 approach is with the defeat of Nazism in Germany. The Nuremberg=20 trials and the continuing search for Nazi war criminals testifies to=20 the fact that there are deeply felt and probably well justified re- sentments among people that need to be answered. Without cogent=20 answers, that resentment will linger and it may well undermine the=20 positive progress that can and should be made in the wake of the=20 drastic political changes societies experience. Of course there are those who hold that punishing guilty parties=20 is itself a lamentable human habit. in a way resembling the behavior=20 of those who are deemed deserving of punishment. They think that we=20 should "turn the other cheek." =20 Yet this is wrong and most of us see it clearly enough. Within=20 the framework of due process of law punishment is justified because it=20 (a) puts on record our outrage with the conduct of the guilty parties=20 and (b) communicates to all that such conduct will not be tolerated,=20 thus possibly thwarting it in the future. If we do not punish oppres- sion and the violation of human rights, we tell those who have suf- fered that their suffering is just the normal course of nature, not a=20 human artifact that need not have happened. And we do not ward off=20 those who are tempted to repeat the violence.=0D It is not punishment b= ut revenge that resembles the conduct of=20 the oppressor and criminal. Revenge is yielding to a very strong=20 feeling of anger and bitterness without thought, without consideration=20 of what would be proper. Revenge disregards due process and encour- ages unnecessary force. The reason civilized societies devise courts =1D= =20 into a display of mere revenge. But if there is no vehicle for admin- istering justice where it must be administered, revenge will become=20 one irrational way to contend with the problem of managing past=20 wrongs. There is something odious about the way most commentators seem to=20 find it entirely acceptable to just look toward reform and never even=20 mention that many of those who still control governments in the Soviet=20 Union, Bulgaria, Rumania and so forth are by no means deserving of=20 respect and ought, to put it bluntly, be tried for crimes against=20 humanity. Perhaps it is the old thing about how many of our intellec- tuals seem unable to admit the evils of socialism and communism and=20 come alive only when we speak of punishing fascists and racists. This=20 left wing partiality - which even has some Eastern Europeans baffled,=20 prompting the jokes about there being more Marxists in the West than=20 in their neck of the woods these days - produces the obscenity of the=20 constant harping about the evils of right wing regimes, such as those=20 of General Pinochet of Chile, in the midst of euphoria about minor=20 reforms in the Soviet economy. =20 As the saying goes, "Wake up and smell the coffee": The people of=20 Eastern Europe were brutalized for the better part of the twentieth=20 century; they cannot simply be told, now just forget it all and wait=20 for the relief that is sure to come if you get a grip on yourself and=20 act peacefully and cooperate with the reformers, the same gang, often=20 enough, that did the brutalizing. No sane person can be expected to=20 live in the face of such monstrous injustice. Of course, the details of rectification and restitution are=20 complicated. But we must give some very serious thought to it soon. =20 The future may in part depend upon it. ========================================================================= The Democrats are clearly bad news for America - what they wish=20 for is something a large portion of the world has recently found to be nothing but a pipe dream, namely, a world free of risk. Despite what this belief did for Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, as well as numerous African, Southeast Asian and Latin American societies, the Liberal Democrats wish to rejuvenate it for the United States of America. They are confident that by promising Americans that their troubles can be managed successfully by government, they can win elections. Perhaps they cannot win the presidency but they certainly haven't lost confidence that they must press the message of bigger and more involved government in order to address the problems of the country. What do the Republicans have to answer to this? Unfortunately nothing very new. All we hear from them - most recently from Vice=20 President Dan Quayle - is that Republicans are better at holding=20 spending to a lower rate of increase than Democrats would. In=20 short, the resounding, proud Republican message to the country=20 amounts to nothing more inspiring than: Let's go slower! Yet, when you think of it the Republicans are accepting the very same political ideology that Democrats champion, only they want to spoon feed it to us rather than shove it down our throats. There is no difference between the two parties that could serve as a serious ground for guiding voters to make their choice. Clearly there is no serious choice between people who want to force employers to pay a minimum of $4.75 and those who want to force them to pay a minimum of $4.25 in wages. Both believe in commandeering the economy. The same is true about imposing various health insurance approaches on the people of this country - only minute differences divide the two parties. Even on the so called civil rights legislation that=20 Washington fretted about endlessly this last year, the two parties do not seriously differ. Both believe that in cases of alleged=20 employment discrimination not the accuser but the defendant has the=20 onus of proof. This issue, among others, gave David Duke of Louisiana=20 another legitimate complaint about Washington that enabled him to=20 disguise the racism that most probably still lies in his soul. But both Republicans and Democrats are perfectly comfortable about abolishing one of the key principles of justice in our legal system, namely, that those who haven't been proven to have done anything wrong should not be forced to have to prove anything but be able to carry on in peace. What is going on here? First, Americans have been taught by their educational system - not to mention their educators from elementary to graduate schools - that government will solve their problems. The very fact that education is left to the government gives this message, so why are we surprised that Democrats see so much hope in repeating it? Teachers across the land are nearly all closet or open socialists, believing that problems should be solved by government making laws that force people to behave the right way. People in the media are nearly uniformly behind this outlook - one need but watch a press conference to notice how often reporters ask "What is the government going to do about this?" "Why is there no government regulation concerning that?" In a sense, then, the people are getting the government they seem to want. But in matters of complex political economy they are also=20 being misguided by those who are entrusted with the responsibility to=1D=20 members of the press. Despite the downfall of socialism wherever it has been tried, the intellectual leadership in this country has not changed its faith in the centralization of economic decisions. And this largely accounts for the lame debate between Democrats and Republicans. Granting that individuals are responsible for how they think and act, it cannot be denied that not all the people even in democracies always fulfill this responsibility. So matters are often left to either conscientious or irresponsible leaders. There are some people, of course, who are trying valiantly to upset this unhappy stalemate in American politics but they are on the fringes. The Libertarian Party, for example, recently selected a team to make yet another doomed run for the White House, headed by former Alaska legislator Andre Marrou. Other parties, left and right, make their own efforts. And in the case of the Libertarians these are=20 coupled with some excellent ideas, indeed. I cannot see that anything would help our society - all segments of it, never mind whether they agree - more than weaning the population from the image of government as omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent. That, as far as I can understand the history of politics across the globe, is the only way to come close to a solution of the stalemate we face in this country: government promising to solve all our problems but entirely unable to deliver on this promise, while the population is becoming more and more inept at managing its own problems. Is it likely that some more reasonable group of people will ascend to leadership in our country this time, in 1992? No. There is very little moral, intellectual, economic and media support for that. Is that a very sad fact? Well, actually it is not so sad as one might first take it to be. The old American ideal of individual liberty making for a happy=20 community is so radical that in all of human history only a handful of political thinkers even conceived of it - starting with the Greek statesman Alcibiades, continuing with William of Ockham, John Locke the American Founding Fathers, and the small number of classical liberals in our own time. We are just beginning the era of human history in which the ideal of individual liberty is being tried here and there in a serious, principled fashion. The United States of American may simply have to rest with the glory of having brought to the world news about this ideal, while itself losing sight of it=20 even as the rest of the world has started to take it seriously. But that is how it is with revolutionary ideas and ideals. They hover on the fringes and then suddenly seem to burst forth, only to get smothered by a backlash. In the end it all depends on us - if we keep the ideals alive, we will benefit from them. If not, we=20 will suffer the consequences of reactionary movements, for which=20 designation the welfare state and socialism certainly qualify - they are nothing but mercantilism and feudalism warmed over. What we are witnessing in our own society is the (one may hope) temporary resurfacing of statism reaction. Democrats and Republicans are full participants in this reactionary process and for a time we will probably not see much relief. But as the novelist Ayn Rand once put it, "it is earlier than you think." In historical terms, we have not heard the last of the ideal of a society of fully free and=20 responsible human individuals. Indeed, we may look forward to it in the not too distant future, given that we now have a memory of it=1D=20 ========================================================================= Don't count on building your dream home or apartment complex on land you have purchased and put away for eventual development. Your neighbors are now the real owners of that to which you have=20 only legal title! =20 Such legal title has proven to be totally meaningless as far=20 as making plans for the future. In our time what governs our country is not the rule of law, including property law, but the rule of special interest groups, including the neighbors who may not like what you wish to do with your property. Property rights have never meant that you can shoot off cannons on your property, landing cannon balls in other people's homes or backyards. Nor has it ever meant building television towers that could easily topple over and injure your neighbor's children. But property rights used to mean that you may build a house or apartment on your land whether others want you to, provided you aren't violating anyone's equal rights. =20 Instead, today we are governed not by a system of property rights but by a process of permissions from anyone who wishes to express an opinion on your plans for your land or pond or hillside. Should you like to build a home but your property now is home to some flowers some of your politically influential neighbors like to look at, you may never get to build your dream home. And should your land be home to a pretty fox or some geese, it may have through that fact alone become unavailable to you but the property of fox and geese lovers. We are in a period of our history that has seen the collapse of an system of government ruling an large portion of the globe that has lived by the principle of "law by political will." The will of at least the dominant political powers, not the rule of law, governed these societies and that resulted in nothing less than total economic and cultural destruction. Now, in the United States and many other Western societies, the will of various powerful special interest groups has assumed power. And this is nearly enough to implement the doctrine of Karl Marx in our own portion of the globe. Marx argued that the first step on the way to communism is to abolish private property. He argued that in societies with political democracy in place this objective could be obtained without violence, through the ballot box. Marx, unlike Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, did not advocate the rule of a single party leadership but that of a workers' democracy. He believed that once capitalism has run its course - once the workers became sufficiently annoyed with=20 the vicissitudes of the free market place - the people will abolish its foundation, the right to private property, and elect leaders who will run the economy so as to serve the true needs of the working class. Well, this prediction isn't quite on the money, but something close enough is. Today various special interest groups are undermining the rights of individuals in our society and exerting their group powers to get their special objectives enacted into law. They want historical buildings preserved, so the land will not be sold but kept up at public expense; they want parks for picnics, so these will be acquired through eminent domain and left unproductive; they want the environment served instead of those who might like to live in new homes, so they prohibit development. In this way the very opposite of what Karl Marx had wanted would=1D=20 would diminish, and the established elites would get their way, while=20 those who wish to come into the economy and begin to part take in the good life are shut out. Many people want to know why the United States of America is not "competitive," no longer offering greater prosperity for its future citizens as it has in earlier times, experiencing general economic downturn. And many commentators, especially those seeking to be elected next time around, blame greediness, the Bush Administration, the Reagan deficit, and other scapegoats. Perhaps it is time to=20 consider that the reason American is lagging and there is more and more unemployment is that the well to do are managing, by means of special interest interference with the rule of law, to stop growth and productivity for all those who are not yet established and would like a chance at pursuing their happiness. These members of special interest groups stand firmly against such intentions, insisting that forcing upon their neighborhood their preferences, tastes and likes is their natural right. Here is democratic socialism doing everything but helping the working people, just the opposite of what Karl Marx had hoped it would do. ========================================================================= There is a distinct possibility that in communities where =8D there is a great deal of public property, it will be mostly those =8D who are productive - who are trying to get ahead in life, who are =8D trying to make things happen - who will find themselves constant=1F=8D ly criticized and condemned. In other words, where the public =8D sector is fairly large in its scope, so that many enterprises and =8D activities on the part of people take place within the public =8D sector, those who work and run firms are more likely to run into =8D problems than those who lie back. Here is why. =8D In a large community, with a public sector that is quite =8D comprehensive, the people who are engaging in works or projects =8D will tend to intrude upon one another. A person who wants to go =8D someplace will usually find himself on a public road trying to =8D pass everybody. A person who wants to play hard will usually =8D find himself in a public park throwing the ball around and get =8D ting into the ways of all of those people who are just lying =8D around in the sun. A person who is involved in a public school =8D and is very ambitious will tend to find that he or she will =8D demand greater attention from the teachers and in some ways =8D thereby apparently intrude on the other people's educational =8D possibilities, those who are not ambitious, who are not acting in =8D an assertive way and thereby obtaining the public good in lesser =8D amounts. =8D Let's recall that famous essay by Garret Hardin, the biolo =8D gist from University of California at Santa Barbara, entitled =8D "The Tragedy of the Commons." In this essay, Hardin spells out =8D why if there is a common sphere there will be almost inevitably =8D an overuse of this sphere, that is, on the whole there will be a =8D great deal of demands placed on this sphere by all of the members =8D who have entitlements in the commons. Put it in another way: =8D recalling Aristotle's criticism of Plato's partial communism in =8D The Republic, those who are involved in the public sector and =8D attend to their private ambitions will appear to be neglectful of =8D certain public responsibilities, the commons. Now, if we recall =8D Hardin's point, it was that when you have common property, say, a =8D grazing area for cattle and a bunch of individual cattle owners =8D make use of this common property, these cattle owners, if they =8D want their cattle to do well, will make as much use of the com =8D mons as possible; without any particular borders which will =8D constrain their behavior, the cattle owners will do as much as =8D they can get away with. =8D Now, Hardin's observation actually applies in a much broader =8D context than what he applied it to, namely, environmental mat =8D ters. The environment, after all, includes everything. Not just =8D air mass, beaches, lakes, rivers, the land mass, but it also =8D includes whatever is available for human usage. =8D In the case of a community where private property rights =8D cover virtually everything what people can use in order to get =8D ahead in life, in order to make their way toward their varied =8D goals - many of them most benevolent and generous such as provid =8D ing for their children's education, taking their family on a =8D vacation, supporting the arts, the humanities, whatnot - they =8D will know what is available to them in order to accomplish them, =1D=20 er, when there is a commons, and there is no particular private =8D property right assigned in the community, those who are ambi =8D tious, those who want to bring about these consequences will find =8D themselves intruding upon those who are less ambitious or willing =8D to lay back and relax. =8D I suspect what really accounts for the widespread hostility =8D that people have in our society toward business - which is, after =8D all, in the entrepreneurial profession - is that people in busi =8D ness simply try to get things done. That's what their job is - =8D to produce cars, microwave ovens, better and better sound equip =8D ment for people and innumerable other projects. =8D But, of course, there is a large public sector in our socie =8D ty such as the air mass, the lakes, the rivers, and let's not =8D forget the public treasury from which politicians hand out little =8D extra benefits to their constituents, many of whom are members of =8D the business community. Insofar as this occurs, it will appear =8D to many that those who have this ambition, those go-getters, are =8D indeed trampling on the welfare of other people. =8D Yet, this is false, just an appearance. At most it's inde =8D terminable. Who knows whether those other persons in a system of =8D property rights would have worked hard enough to have obtained =8D those things which they lament that the more ambitious people are =8D making use of? With the commons, it appears that everybody has =8D an equal entitlement to these things, and so those who are more =8D ambitious will appear to be rude and heartless and greedy. In a =8D private property system this is not the case, because at least =8D those who are more ambitious will simply be looked upon as having =8D more just that, not, however, as thieves and robbers. They will =8D not, nor even appear to, be depriving others of anything because =8D they are making use of private property that they can voluntarily =8D obtain. =8D In a large commons nobody knows exactly what belongs to whom =8D and so when people make use of things these things are owned by =8D everybody. So if I pollute the air I am taking it away from you. =8D If I am pouring gasoline or oil over the ocean I am invading your =8D ocean. =8D But am I? After all, if it is a commons and I am doing my =8D best at getting ahead within it, so how can I be blamed if other =8D people are falling behind? I don't know exactly what they want, =8D I don't know where they wish to go, I don't want to intrude on =8D them, I don't want to meddle with them, I don't want to be their =8D paternal political helper. I'll leave them alone and leave them =8D to their own resources to obtain the things from the commons that =8D they can, but in the meanwhile I'm not going to lay back and wait =8D until this happens. I too have goals and objectives to pursue in =8D my life and I will pursue them. Of course, since there is always =8D going to be someone who thinks that he hasn't gotten his fair =8D share since he might have been able to benefit from something =8D that someone else used. Thus there is always going to be com =8D plaint against me except perhaps from my most intimate friends. =8D This is another reason why there should be a greater degree =8D of privatization in our society, so that people become more =8D benevolent toward each other, feel better toward each other and =8D not regard each other as "ripping one another off," a consequence =1D=20 those who are trying to preserve it - of course, with more of a =8D human face - after its demise in Eastern Europe. =8D And dear reader please do not be fooled: Marxists and other =8D collectivists have not laid down their arms; they keep telling us =8D now that what we saw for the last 70 or so years has been a major =8D distortion and we should now try the real thing. What is this =8D "true socialism" like? One that places everything of importance =8D in society at the mercy of the democratic process and thereby =8D eliminates once again any semblance of individual right to liber=1F=8D ty, the most important aspect of civilized public life. Indeed, =8D the democratization of everything is a major threat to reasona=1F=8D ble, limited democracy itself. Those who lose in such a univer=1F=8D sal democratic system become wholly vulnerable to the majority's =8D will, having no individual rights to provide them with principled =8D protection against reprisals for not voting with the mob. =8D In any case, one ought to admire (and sometimes pity) those =8D in our society who dare to be productive. They are the men and =8D women on the front line, facing the slings and arrows of rebuke =8D and blame for not joining the passive masses who choose to remain =8D outside of harms way by refusing to take risks, dodging the =8D responsibility to advance life in favor of a policy of mere coat =8D tailing. In the midst of a society with a bulky public sector, =8D such producers and entrepreneurs are, unfortunately, unloved, =8D envied and derided for not being part of the whining masses. =8D ========================================================================= Prague, August 14. The oddly constructed Czechoslovakian nation is just now undergoing a convolution, tearing it the hearts and minds of its most intelligent citizens. The country, which has recently escaped its colonial status through the fall of the Soviet Union, is now on the brink of dissolution. The Czechs have been closer to Western Europe - the Czech monarchy has on and off been under Habsburg, Hungarian, Roman and independent rule. The Slovaks and Czechs were united by the Soviets, after several upheavals at the hands of Hitler, who tried to seduce the Slovaks with offers of favoritism and support for a certain weakness Slovaks have shown for nationalism. When Czechoslovakia finally broke with the Soviet Union, it was Slovakia where the influence of the Communists became more difficult to shake. Much of the country's industry was aimed at serving Soviet needs. The Slovaks formed the large part of the Czechoslovakian military which was, of course, mostly a branch of the Soviet colonial army. Czechoslovakia has never experienced liberal democracy. But now, at a time when its economy is in an unavoidable transformation from=20 state socialism to some version of capitalism, there is also the chance, for the first time, for a kind of national self-determination. Only the two segments of the country, Czech and Slovak, are in very different positions, both economically and politically. The Czechs, in general, cannot wait to implement a free market economy and any referendum on this issue would get overwhelming Czech approval. The only obstacle is that the Slovaks haven't much of a chance, at least in the near=20 future, to raise their standard of living by means of the market system. Their Soviet dependent and largely obsolete industry has rendered them something close to a third world country, compared to the Czechs and, especially, Western European countries. =20 For some time now the Slovaks have actually been moving in the direction of establishing themselves as a separate and independent=20 nation. But, although the Czechs had generally been reluctant for a while, lately they have accepted this idea and indeed have consigned themselves to it. From a practical point of view, the Czechs can afford the split, whereas the Slovaks cannot. They are the welfare state that to date has been feeding off the reasonable success of the Czechs to=20 adjust themselves to the relatively free market place of Europe and the rest of the world. =20 So while the Slovaks, whose leaders are stubbornly wedded to the socialist planned economic system, originally wanted to break off,=20 suddenly it seems that they are becoming less enthusiastic about national independence, self-determination, and other goals that were associated with them for the recent past. The leadership is aware that without the Czechs, the Slovaks are going to be in for a very rough time, economically. The Czechs, however, know that without Slovakia to keep them down, they are going to be able to join the world economy sooner. All of this will have to be decided by September 1992. And, of course, economics is not the only issue at hand. There is the fact that Czechs and Slovaks have gotten along quite well, formed many communities among themselves, and do not all cherish the idea of a break-up their country. No one is making firm predictions. What with the European Economic Community finding itself somewhat wobbly,=1D=20 of giving their support to the union, Europe is in for a long period of volatility. Come to think of it, isn't this were we were with Europe when the Soviets so brutally ran it over? Aren't we just finding that the unfinished business of coming to grips with modern life has had to be started up again throughout the region? Perhaps we in North America ought to just keep our minds focused on our own affairs for a while and let the folks here do their own level best to straighten their lives out. In time - after recovering from the burdens imposed by Soviet colonialism - the region's people will probably find their solutions without much need for Americans butting in. ========================================================================= Those who are bent on taking more and more of our liberties from us never tire of finding wonderful sounding reasons for their goal. If it is not because the poor are too inept to make their way in a truly free society, so that the betterment of their lot requires=20 appointing all kinds of bureaucratic czars to look out for them, then it must be because culture will obviously suffer major setbacks unless the state secure for artists innumerable subsidies. We have, by now heard, how supposedly the patronage of the=20 feudal lords of olden days made truly great art possible - ergo, we must not let the arts flourish on the initiative of artists and the friends of the arts. We know that supporters of Public Broadcasting, state operas and theaters, public museums, community botanical gardens, and other esthetic aspects of our lives keep haranguing us about the desperate and unremitting need for the taxpayers' subsidies. These=20 people are only outdone in their fervor by the saviors of nature, who want us all to give up perhaps even our human lives so as to secure for beasts and birds a tranquil, dehumanized existence. Yet, just as environmental concerns appear, in fact, to have a better prospect under a free society - because private property rights clearly stand in the way of costless massive environmental abuse that is only possible within public realms (as, e.g., in the former Soviet Union and its satellites), so the arts flourish best in full freedom. Clearly the first amendment protection afforded the arts - prohibiting government regimentation of artists - is a necessary condition for the proliferation of a rich artistic culture. But no less should be acknowledged when it comes to leaving the arts to themselves instead of making that field the subject of massive wealth redistribution. One small piece of evidence of how capitalism is indeed wonderful for esthetics is the way a bustling, unlimited commercial society encourages exporting art from high to low culture. We know, well enough, about how the constant improvement of sound technology - via recordings, cassettes, compact disks and who knows what else to come. We know that the free experimentation with printing technology has made the greatest artist accessible to everyone with just a few dollars to enhance the esthetics of the home and office. Posters with the most intricate of artistic works can be purchased at nearly every shopping mall for but a fraction of what they cost to the elite in the past. But now we find that even articles of clothing have become the media for some of the world's greatest works of art. All one needs to acknowledge this is to walk by some better shops and see how=20 T-shirts are decorated with M. C. Escher's imaginative works - those black and white, geometrically puzzling drawings such as "Day and=20 Night" (which adorns the cover of one of my own books).=09 Is this not a painless way in which young people may be familiarized with the world of art? Is this not something that we should prize about the world of commerce, even if we are not always thrilled with some of its less elevated offerings? The free society is right not because it makes all this good things possible to so many of us - it is good because affirms, without=20 equivocation, respects the basic nature of human beings as creative and in need of freedom to choose in all areas of their lives. This=1D=20 responsible and potentially good. But there is also the fact that the free society usually delivers on our highest aspirations for a human community, namely, excellence in a great variety of grand endeavors. Those who keep bashing individual liberty today fail or do not choose to see that what they find wrong with our society is the result of compromising on liberty, not implementing it far and wide enough. This applies not just to unemployment, environmental degradation,=20 drug abuse, and educational disappointment but also to the full flourishing of the arts. Here, as elsewhere, individual liberty is our best hope, not something to fear and demean. ========================================================================= The controversy over the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution is very old and will probably continue for a long time. The right to bear arms is clearly implied by the general rights to life and liberty - how else is someone granted the right to his or her life, which means the justified resistance to others' efforts to take one's life or liberty - if one is deprived of the means to offer that resistance? I am as much of a libertarian as one can be short of being a=20 dogmatist. Neverthless, I find it difficult not to sympathize with=20 those, such as Ira Glasser of the ACLU and others, who seek certain=20 "restrictions" on our Second Amendment rights. To put it more precisely,= =20 there seems to be something wrong with laws that fail to differentiate=20 between standards of private property ownership - property law - based=20 on what exactly is being owned. Putting it a bit differently, the exact nature of one's right to=20 private property - what it implies as to what one may not be prohib- ited from doing - depends in part on just what it is that one claims=20 to own. This seems right as a basis for analysing our legal treatment of property rights. We can examine the issue by using the principle of=20 the right to private property of real estate as an analogy to test the issue. =20 Suppose I own land in an earthquake zone that slopes rather=20 steeply. I then decide to put a huge spherical rock on my land,=20 say as an ornament or sign, with only minimal support, so that there=20 are reasonable grounds to suppose that the slightest tremor would cause=20 the rock to crash on to my neighbor's property and destroy everything in= =20 its path. =20 Is there no justification in such a case for issuing an injunction=20 against this use of one's property? Would the grounds of "clear and=20 present danger" not suffice for issuing the injunction, at least until=20 it is established that the rock is well enough secured? And would that not suffice to establish reasons enough to see the action not simply as an exercise of property rights but as something hazardous to others,=20 a violation of their right to life or property? Now change the rock to a bazooka or nuclear detonator. Would it=20 not be justified to demand similar precautions? I believe a case can=20 be made for just that kind of legal action on similar moral grounds. Those who insist on the wrongness of Mr. Glasser's and others' efforts related to gun possession might consider that the exact applica- tion of basic rights is not easily predicted. A function of the=20 case law approach to arriving at public policy is that it enables us=20 to discover the best application of a basic principle.=20 This is where the lessons of F. A. Hayek regarding the spontaneous legal order need to be heeded. The recently deceased Nobel Laureate in=20 economic science, a brilliant and inventive social philosopher,=20 argued that aside from some very general constitutional principles,=20 the rest of the law must be a matter of discovery. Thus, for=20 example, how the right to private property is to be applied to, say,=20 ownership of weapons, cannot be decided prior to certain legal=20 deliberations where we can discover what it should mean to own weapons in the context of contemporary living and the nature of the weapons involved. It is quite sensible to argue that standards of private ownership=20 are not all the same. Some items are so clearly hazardous that those =1D= =20 indeed no clear and present danger to anyone. This can apply equally=20 to an towering antenna built next to my house, which local winds may easily topple, as to a weapon in the hands of certain people who have no understanding of its proper use. Indeed, our system of legal injunction that takes care of some of these problems already. I do not know how this would apply to semi-automatic weapons but=20 it may surprise those not involved in the careful study of legal=20 reasoning in a free society what the outcome of legal deliberations would be if such a matter came to court. Any resulting limits on weapons ownership and use may be fully consistent with the principle of the right to private ownership and bearing of arms. ========================================================================= During this time of euphoria among environmentalists - who have high hopes of scoring major victories in at the Rio conference=20 - it is important to sound a call for humanistic environmentalism. The idea is that in all of nature human beings are more important than everything else. It is this idea that is being destroyed in=20 the name of the environment. Yet what is really eclipsing it is the personal and extremely confused wishes of environmentalists or, as=20 they are known in Europe, Greens. Never mind that even Greens took planes or trains to South America for this conference; never mind=20 that most of them were born with the aid of modern medicine; never mind that thousands of species of animals and plants were extinguished as well as generated during the recent past; and never mind that the environmental movement is nearly always economically naive. What is most important to those part of this movement is to have their way=20 with the rest of us - to impose their personal wishes and desires on the rest of us who might have a different set of priorities from=20 those the Greens are advocating. One of the most glaring failures of environmentalists is that=20 none of them has ever managed to prove that what they advocate is in fact true. Projections of doom have been refuted time and=20 time again - most notably Paul Erlich's dire prophesies about trees and resources. The importance of the spotted owl has been merely asserted - there is no reason we would miss the bird any more than we miss its distant cousin, the Dodo! That human beings and their kind of life is somehow less natural than what we find elsewhere=20 is also believed without proof of any kind. Yet, reading much of the literature of environmentalism one can=20 easily get the impression that it has been established beyond a shadow=20 of doubt that human beings are far less important or valuable than=20 other aspects of nature such as forests and wild life. Many=20 environmentalists dogmatically hold that when we make use of some=20 part of nature for our purposes, we are doing something morally wrong. =20 We are, to most such folks, the parasites, the fungi, of the universe. =20 We are a cancer - all would be well without us. =20 This is the bottom line of much of environmentalism today, from=20 whence the rest flows. And it explains well why so many of the facts=20 presented to environmentalists are treated as irrelevant. Many leaders=20 of environmental groups simply don't want to hear that human beings count for something - they find it crass and insensitive to worry about human welfare and happiness in the face of the destruction of some part of the non-human world. But how do we know we are more important than the rest of nature? First we need to be able to tell the more from the less important.=20 But this is done all the time. Botanists, zoologists, biologists, etc.=20 all rank various things in nature. Whereas one rock is no better than=20 another, one liquid than another, one planet than another - except as=20 they relate to other things of importance - we know that some bears are=20 better than others, some fish than others, etc. With plants and=20 animals evaluation or ranking commences very naturally, indeed. We=20 speak of better or worse oaks, tomatoes, elephants or zebras. =20 So ranking is evident and, indeed, many environmentalists engage=20 in it when they ignore, say, the welfare of the tuna but fret about=20 the dolphin, cry about the spotted owl but not about the cockroach.=1D=20 beings, things that can flourish or perish. Among those things, in=20 turn, the more complex or developed type are more important than those=20 that are simpler. If life gives rise to values, a life of greater=20 degree of complexity, creativity, involvement with the world would=20 be more important than one that is highly limited. The more complex=20 quality of the life involved establishes its importance. But does this differentiation testify to some given or stable=20 hierarchy of values in nature? Indeed, it does. Some things, as we saw, bear no evaluation, such as planets, rocks or drops of pure=20 water. Some other things may be evaluated but without any moral=20 significance. A gazelle might be a good specimen and perhaps more=20 important than, say, a field mouse, yet no blame or praise is im- plied by that observation. =20 But some beings, namely, persons, call forth moral evaluation. They can make a choice as to whether to do well or badly at being=20 what and who they are. So they can be morally responsible. Human beings have a kind of life that engages nature more fully=20 than any other kind. It is most involved, in creative, responsive,=20 as well as often destructive, ways with the world than any other=20 kind of life. That is one reason one can make demands on human=20 beings, not on tuna fish or leopards. =20 Human beings are also highly individualized. They extend=20 themselves in myriad ways into nature. Examples of the kinds=20 of values that this brings forth in nature are, among many things,=20 art, culture, and, yes, environmental science. =20 Unfortunately, environmentalists, as many others in our culture,=20 are following in the footsteps of those who handle matters of value=20 and importance purely subjectively or intuitively. Why is the=20 spotted owl more important than a professional lumberer? Well, it=20 is intuitively evident to me, is it not? Why should we prevent the=20 loss of the snail darter in favor of better irrigation? Well, we=20 just know it in our hearts that the purpose of profiteering - read=20 for this human prosperity - is incomparably less noble than that of=20 preserving an endangered species. Actually, the best environmentalism is individualism and the most important policy to be derived from it is a very strict privatization, meaning property rights, full cost pricing, and strict litigation=20 against those who engage in dumping and hurting other people without gaining permission for this. This approach is far superior to the=20 more commonly touted but in fact wholly derivative environmentalism=20 that simply reintroduces socialism or mercantilism - that is centralized state power - in our community lives. Too many environmentalist have learnd nothing from Eastern Europe's experience and simply crave the powers of government to use for their own arbitrary ends. They would help nature much more if they remembered that nature's most precious product is humanity. ========================================================================= What's to Worry About Ross Perot? Back in the thirties Sinclair Lewis wrote his famous novel, It Can't Happen Here. The story related to the possibility of fascism in the United States of America. I am afraid that Lewis's worries were not unfounded. Not that I think Ross Perot himself has fascistic inclinations. I don't know. What is very bothersome, indeed, is the blind faith people seem to have in him. What distinguishes fascism from other oppressive states is its reliance on inspired leadership. There is nothing much you need to know about the fascist leader's program - what counts is that he or she is the right one to lead. And this is known not by reference to some resume but by intuition, feeling, a sixth sense or whatnot. Several years ago the very sensible economists Hans Sennholz, who now heads the Foundation for Economic Education and who taught economics for decades at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, argued that with all of its growing statism the United States is headed for a fascist dictatorship. A immigrant from Germany and a student of the great free market economist Ludwig von Mises, Sennholz seems to have been on to something important and scary. As I can make it out, the idea is that with government becoming more and more complex and faced with nearly everything as its task=20 to repair in the society, people will simply not be able to rely on their judgments concerning who should govern. People do not have the energy and time to make sure that the candidates know how to do what they - rather carelessly - have come to expect of them. Indeed, it is doubtful, as I have been arguing over the years, that anyone can know enough to govern in a massive welfare state such as this country. It is clear that the kind of totalitarian rule we have seen tried in the former Soviet Union called for skills simply unattainable by anything but gods (who seem to know better than to bother with politics, except perhaps in Iran). But at least no one asked the Soviet citizenry to make an informed judgment - democracy didn't exist and voting was a total sham. But what if government grows out of bounds - which it has grown several times over by now in this country - for democratic government? In short, what if the people who have the freedom to choose from among different candidates are faced with the unsurmountable task of having to decide who will do the best job? They may very well resort to blind faith, to reliance on their feelings and hopes, rather than on anything that could amount to evidence. For the evidence will always show that the candidates are not up to the job. Whatever Bill Clinton or George Bush propose, there will be dozens of commentators and=20 millions of citizens to find fault with it. And why not? In fact, government is not adept at fixing everything, so it is a guarantee=20 that candidates for governments with the task of fixing everything=20 will always be flawed. But what if you say nothing substantial? What if you simply offer yourself as a kind of inspired leader who need not - indeed, cannot - be checked out? What if all you need is a desire to find someone, anyone, who gives you hope that he or she will handle it all, never mind how, at what cost, with what consequences? Well, then choice will have become trouble free. Just go with=1D=20 ideas and the numbers - in short, never mind reality. Go for a dream! I have no idea whether this is a strategy Ross Perot has devised so as to gain the role of such a supposedly inspired leader. But it seems sensible to me that Dr. Sennholz's prediction and Sinclair Lewis's fear have both materialized in the election prospects of Ross Perot. The American people have finally given up with the business of self-government, seeing that the task this has come to mean is simply beyond them or anyone who makes concrete proposals. =20 Now they are looking for a miracle. ========================================================================= One of America's most important gifts to the world was its introduction of the political philosophy of individualism. The central tenet of this idea is that every human being is important as a sovereign individual, not living by the permission of the government or some master or lord. That is the basic idea underpinning not only the democratic process, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the various prohibitions addressed to the government concerning how to treat the citizenry. This idea of the central importance of the individual also underlies the free market economic system. =20 Capitalism is founded on the doctrine that each person has a basic right to private property in his or her labor and what he or she creates and earns freely and honestly. The economic idea of freedom of trade - in labor, skill, goods, services, etc. - rests squarely on individualism. No one is anyone else's master or=20 servant. No involuntary servitude is permitted. =20 In an individualist society the law upholds the idea that everyone=20 is free to choose to associate with others on his or her own terms -=20 whether for economic, artistic, religious or romantic purposes. Not that all the choices people make will be good. Not that individuals are infallible. Not that they cannot abuse their freedoms. All of that is granted. But none of that justifies making others their masters, however smart these others may be. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "No man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent." But today what is the political philosophy under the most severe attack in many intellectual circles? It is individualism. From left over Marxists to newly emergent communitarians, all the way to democratic pragmatists - in the fields of political economy, sociology and philosophy= =20 - everyone is badmouthing individualism. It began several years ago with UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Bellah and his colleagues writing=20 Habits of the Heart, Individualism and Commitment in American Life and continued to Amitai Etzioni's establishing his journal The Responsive Community as a boost to anti-individualism and communitarianism, and has recently been reinforced by Bellah and Co. writing The Good Society. These and many other influential people are on a warpath against the individual and his unalienable rights. Mostly they do this by grossly distorting what individualism is. They claim that it fosters disloyalty to family, friends and country. They hold that it is hedonistic and instills anti-social sentiments in people. They accuse individualism of being purely materialistic, lacking any spiritual and cultural values. But this distortion is done by focusing on a very limited are of individualist philosophy, one employed mostly in economic analysis and serving merely as a model by which to understand events in a free market economy. The economic conception of the human individual is admittedly barren - it treats everyone as nothing other than a bundle of desires. But this is not very different from the way every science employs models, taking a very simple idea to make sense of a limited area of the world. The anti-individualists never look at individualism as it is developed by, for example, social thinkers such as Frank Chodorov or Ayn Rand, let alone some of their contemporary heirs who are developing these ideas and showing how vibrant a political system and culture can be when human beings are understood as essentially individuals. The sheer creative =1D= =20 undeniable, crucial to every facet of human living, good or bad. Instead, however, of appreciating the robust nature of individualism, these advocates are trying in any way they can to discredit it. Why? Well, some of their motives may be decent enough - some may indeed fear the impact of the narrow economic individualism and thus carp against individualism in all of its renditions. But some are clearly power hungry. Otherwise they would not ignore perfectly sensible versions of individualism and insist on the caricatures. Over and over again they invoke the caricature even when other, well developed versions are available. This is best explained by their fear of a sensible individualis= m. They must need to hide it from their audience, so as to give their weak kneed collectivism - one that has suffered a major blow on the internationa= l front - a run for its money. =20 What else would explain wishing to destroy the most significant American discovery, namely, the vital nature of individuality in culture? Why=20 else but to reintroduce measures of subjugation, involuntary servitude, and the demeaning of individuals as individuals in favor of some of them as worthy of being anointed social engineers? No doubt those clamoring for such powers over the rest of us can rationalize this with thought of certain worthy goals - they want a cooperative, harmonious, mutually enhancing community. That is why why should be in power - they know what is good and so, perhaps, they ought to be in charge more than others who do not evidently share these ideals. The bottom line, however, is still power over others. So individualism is a most serious obstacle, one that needs to be defeated, never mind what distortions are required to achieve that task. Let us deprive them of the pleasure of success! ========================================================================= In recent years more and more American Indians - in politically=20 correct terms: native or indigenous Americans - have been making claims to have the burial sites and other artifacts of their ancestors treated=20 with special regard. Indeed, numerous clashes between anthropologists, construction and development projects and tribes of American Indians have made it into the news. In each case the idea is that members of these tribes have a valid legal claim against those who embark on some activity, regardless of how important or valuable to living people, that "disturb the spirits of their ancestors." What are we to make of these claims? It is not entirely a simple matter. After all, the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution protects each person's right to freedom of religious worship. If the American Indians' religion demands that they protect the remains or artifacts=20 of their ancestors, isn't it a matter of a basic individual right to=20 honor that demand? Not necessarily. We may compare the situation to a somewhat similarly troublesome on. In recent years we have also witnessed the spectacle of members of certain religious groups refusing to seek medical care for children on grounds that their religion does not permit treatment by a physician. The Jehovah's Witnesses have at times refused to seek blood transfusion=20 for their children, something that was medically necessary. Without it the child died. Quite properly, our courts have not accepted the claim that these deaths were justified because parents have the right to freedom of religious worship. The courts held that ordinary care due to children must be provided - as conceived within the framework of modern secular science and medical technology, not as conceived within some religion. Once a child grows up and decides to accept a religion that requires that one not subject oneself to treatments of medical science, that is fine. That involves the consent of the agent and his or her right to liberty of worship. But parents may not impose their view on a child. They must=20 provide normal care. Otherwise they are guilty of child-abuse, at times = =20 even negligent homicide. But how does this relate to the American Indian issue? Well, making claims about the spirits of long dead persons, claims that impose serious burdens upon presently alive human beings, is only a little different from imposing one's normally harmful religious views upon one's children. = =20 In each case we have some people coercing others to follow their religious practices or rituals. Suppose someone turned up and demanded that a stranger provide him with= =20 living space in his home because he knows that his long dead grandfather's ghost is living there. How does he know it? It's a religous conviction. Is there any public evidence we can examine to prove the claim? No, none in the ordinary sense of "evidence," although various texts may be presente= d containing propositions indicating that these texts back up the claim. That= =20 is exactly analogous to bringing the customs of Indians to bear out the=20 claims about the spirits of their long dead ancestors. =20 In short, no evidence capable of being scrutinized or examined=20 exists to prove that these spirits actually exist and inhabit any given=20 location. It is an unproven assertion which, if taken seriously, can have= =20 dire consequences for actual living persons. There is no sound reason to= =20 honor these claims unless the people can prove that actual invasion of=20 property rights has occurred or that something belonging to them has been = =1D=20 without foundation, as far as public discourse is concerned. Yielding to= =20 them would amount to very special, discriminatory treatment for American=20 Indians. They alone can make unproven claims against others and reap=20 their desired results with impunity. No one else gets away with such behavior - no one else can walk into court and simply make a charge against a person and have it honored as proven true. We all have customs and dreams and wishes we cherish. It is not,=20 however, the business of the courts of a just society to honor claims in support of these customs, dreams or wishes without hard evidence proving that those charged have done something wrongful to actual persons. To pick= =20 one group in our society who can get away with making such unfounded -=20 indeed, unsupportable - claims is to anoint them with a special status - to= =20 violate the principle of the Fourteenth Amendment's injunction against=20 discrimination in the enforcement of the law. To rob people of their land= =20 and the artifacts that may be found their because some other people make=20 unfounded claims is to treat some people as inherently superior to others. Many intelligent Americans are understandably sad about what happened to many American Indians at the hands of some European settlers. (Of cours= e, sometimes the same thing some settlers did to these people was also done to them by members of other American Indian tribes - all American Indians or European settlers are not equally virtuous or vicious!) But this sadness should not guide them into such erroneous policies as treating American Indians as if they did not have to answer to the demands of logic and modern science. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are not excused - and surely they should not be - neither must the American Indians when they impose=20 their religious tenets of unwilling third parties. ========================================================================= Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes interviewed the Milwaukee legislator who managed to get Wisconsin to embark on an educational experiment in educational choice. All the experiment involves is the establishment of a private school funded with tax moneys that would otherwise have gone to public education. The methods of teaching in this project have been extremely successful thus far. While the public schools have a 60 percent drop out rate, with a large percent of those who graduate unable to read and write, the private experiment has a rate of 98 percent graduation from the same pool of students. But my point here is not to debate the issue of school choice. In my view compulsory public schooling is grossly immoral and, not surprisingly, produces rather inferior education for the students who experience it. As a college professor for the last 21 years,=20 I have noticed that the bulk of the students I teach, all graduates=20 of such compulsory schools, tend to hate to use their minds. They=20 think of education as a chore - exactly as one would expect from=20 anything shoved down their throats for 12 years by bureaucratic edict. What interested me in Mike Wallace's segment is the way each time Wallace mentioned the private school alternative, he said very firmly that these schools take away money that would otherwise go to public education. He kept stressing this point as if these schools got some kind of free ride that the public schools do not receive. In fact, of course, when those who choose the private alternative get this paid for by a tax rebate, nothing is taken away from the public schools. The teaching loads of public schools are reduced and thus they lose nothing. Furthermore, in the case of Milwaukee, while as a matter of the record public schools spend $6000.00 per student each year, the private school that serves as the successful alternative spends only $2500.00 or so on each student. Teaches in the private schools receive have the $30,000.00 salary of the public school teachers. Wallace, of course, also interviewed the head of the public school teachers' union, who, incidentally, earns $80,000 a year, who, wonder of wonders, opposes the experiment. And he also brought in the head of the regional NAACP, who is also against the experiment. In each=20 case Wallace accepted the claim - and repeated in throughout the program=20 - that the private experiment is depriving the public schools of a=20 large sum of tax funds. With a bit of fairness about the finances of the matter - something journalistic ethics would demand even of Mr. Mike Wallace - 60 Minutes could have figured out that the school choice ideas circulating these days involve no deprivation of funds but a change of where the tax payers' money will be spend. It is as simple as when someone decides to eat in one restaurant instead of another - he is not depriving the latter of anything, simply not spending his money there. That also=20 means that no meals have to be prepared for him. But, I suppose, if Mike Wallace and the chiefs at 60 Minutes=20 understood such elementary matters of finance, there would be more sense about the school choice issue in the first place. It would be one thing if public schools had such a brilliant record, so that taking children out of the system would be lamentable. But by all counts public schools, as most other politicized social projects, are=20 a big mess, supporting not the students who attend but the accumulated=20 bureaucracies surrounding them.=1D=20 ========================================================================= Although the idea that animals have rights goes back to at least=20 to the 18th century, it has only recently become something of a cause=20 celebre among numerous serious and well placed intellectuals, includ- ing some moral and political philosophers. Professor Tom Regan, in=20 his important book The Case For Animal Rights (UC Press, 1983), finds=20 the idea of natural rights intellectually congenial but then extends=20 it to cover animals that are near humans on the evoluationary scale. =20 Following a different ethical tradition, namely, utilitarianism,=20 the idea of animal liberation has also emerged. It holds that so long=20 as the bulk of the relevant creatures enjoy a reasonably high living=20 standard, the moral and political objectives for us will have been=20 met. But if this goal is neglected, moral and political steps are=20 required to improve on the situation. Animal liberation is such a=20 step.=20 Yet, animals have no rights and need no liberation. To think=20 they do is a mistake - it is, to be blunt, to unjustifiably anthropo- morphize animals, to treat them as if they were what they are not,=20 namely, human beings. =20 Rights and liberty are political concepts applicable to human=20 beings because human beings are moral agents, in need of what Harvard=20 philosopher Robert Nozick calls "moral space," that is, a definite=20 sphere of moral jurisdiction where their authority to act is respected=20 and protected so it is they, not intruders, who govern themselves and=20 either succeed or fail in their moral tasks. Oddly, most animal rights or liberation theorists admit that only=20 human beings are moral agents, required to consider right and wqrong=20 as they carry on in the world. They never urge animals to behave=20 morally (by, e.g., standing up for their rights, by leading a politi- cal revolution). No animal rights theorist proposes that animals be=20 tried for crimes and blamed for moral wrongs. If it is true that the=20 moral nature of human beings gives rise to the conception of basic=20 rights and liberties, then by this alone animal rights and liberation=20 theorists have made a fatal admission to their case. Of course, rights and liberty are certainly not the whole of=20 moral concern to us. Innumerable other moral issues may be raised,=20 including about how human beings should relate to animals. =20 To have a right, however, amounts to having those around one who=20 have the choice abstain from intruding on one within a given sphere of=20 jurisdiction. If I have the right to the use of our community swim- ming pool, no one may prevent me from making the decision as to wheth- er I do or do not use the pool. Someone's having a right is a kind of=20 freedom from the unavoidable interference of moral agents, beings who=20 are capable of choosing whether they will interfere or not interfere=20 with the rights holder.=20 The crux of the matter is, why is it more reasonable to think of=20 animals as available for our sensible use rather than owed the kind of=20 respect and consideration we ought to extend to other human beings? =20 One reason for the propriety of our use of animals is that we are=20 more important or valuable than other animals and some of our pro=20 jects may require animals for them to be successful. There is a scale=20 of importance in nature and among all the various kinds of being,=20 human beings are the most important - even while it is true that some=20 members of the human species may indeed prove themselves to be the =1D=20 How do we establish that we are more important or valuable? By=20 considering whether the idea of lesser or greater importance or value=20 in the nature of things makes clear sense and applying it to an under- standing of whether human beings or other animals are more important. =20 If it turns out that ranking things in nature as more or less impor- tant makes sense, and if we qualify as more important than other=20 animals, there is at least the beginning of a reason why we may make=20 use of other animals for our purposes.=20 That there are things of different degree of value in nature is=20 admitted by animal rights advocates, so there is no great need here to=20 argue about that. When they insist that we treat animals diffe rently=20 from the way we treat, say, rocks or iron ore - so that while we may=20 not use the former as we choose, we may use the latter - they testify,=20 at least by implication, that animals are more important than, say,=20 iron ore. Certainly they invoke some measure of impor tance or value=20 and place animals higher in line with this measure than they place=20 other aspects of nature. They happen, also, to deny that human beings=20 rank higher than animals, or least they do not admit that human be- ings' higher ranking warrants their using animals for their purposes. =20 But that is a distinct issue which we can consider later.=20 Quite independently of the implicit acknowledgment by animal=20 rights advocates of the hierarchy of nature, there simply is evidence=20 through the natural world of the existence of beings of greater com- plexity and of higher value. For example, while it makes no sense to=20 evaluate as good or bad such things as planets or rocks or pebbles -=20 except as they may relate to human purposes - when it comes to plants=20 and animals the process of evaluation commences very naturally indeed. =20 We can speak of better or worse trees, oaks, redwoods, or zebras,=20 foxes or chimps. While at this point we confine our evalua tion to=20 the condition or behavior of such beings without any intima tion of=20 their responsibility for being better or worse, when we start discuss- ing human beings our evaluation takes on a moral component. Indeed,=20 none are more ready to testify to this than animal rights advocates=20 who, after all, do not demand any change of behavior on the part of=20 non-human animals and yet insist that human beings conform to certain=20 moral edicts as a matter of their own choice. This means that even=20 animal rights advocates admit outright that to the best of our knowl- edge it is with human beings that the idea of moral goodness and moral=20 responsibility enters the universe.=20 Clearly this shows a hierarchical structure in nature: some=20 things do not invite evaluations at all - it is a matter of no signif- icance or of indifference whether they are or are not or what they are=20 or how they behave. Some things invite evaluation but without imply- ing any moral standing with reference to whether they do well or=20 badly. And some things - namely, human beings - invite moral evalua- tion. The level of importance or value may be noted to move from the=20 inanimate to the animate world, culminating, as far as we now know,=20 with human life. ========================================================================= way of attacking the problem has been to try to punish everyone who =8D has the equipment with which to commit some of the more gruesome =8D crimes we have witnessed in recent times - that is, to ban certain =8D weapons. Other attempts have aimed to altering the social and econom=1F=8D ic conditions of the poor within our society. =20 =1D crime by way of social theories that are incapable of even making =8D sense of crime. There is, for example, no room in prominent social =8D theories for the concept of a victim, clearly a central idea needed to =8D make sense of what crime really is. =1D metaphorically (as in "the victim of an earthquake") implies that =8D someone has been culpable. A social theory that recognizes the exist=1F=8D ence of victimization needs recognition of personal responsibility. =8D It must accept the likelihood of culpable moral and legal responsibil=1F=8D ity as a fact of human social life. individually responsible, and thus able to be culpable, for their =8D actions. For example, B. F. Skinner, the father of modern behaviorism =8D and an very influential Harvard psychologist tells us explicitly that =8D free will does not exist: "It appears ... that society is responsible =8D for the larger part of the behavior of self-control, ... and we ac=1F=8D count for it in terms of other variables in the environment and histo=1F=8D ry of the individual." And he adds, "It is these variables which =8D provide the ultimate control." Skinnerian behaviorism excludes per=1F=8D sonal responsibility and thus rejects the existence of victims of =8D either moral or legal wrongs.=20 =1D Marxian economics everywhere, many Western sociologists are actually =8D still loyal to Marx who held that prior to the arrival of communism =8D individual responsibility is just a myth. As he put it, "the evolu=1F=8D tion of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of =8D natural history." So, Marx admits right up front, he "can less than =8D any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature =8D he socially remains...."=20 =1D biologist Edward Wilson, once again leaves no logical room for person=1F=8D al responsibility and thus for the possibility of genuine victimiza=1F=8D tion. Within one prominent sociobiological perspective, the earth =8D itself "is most like a single cell." Lewis Thomas, the author of this =8D widely respected idea, "We should credit [the earth] for what it is: =8D for sheer size and perfection of function, it is far and away the =8D grandest product of collaboration in all of nature." So, again, indi=1F=8D vidual responsibility of what happens on earth, from environmental =8D abuse to violent crime, must be banished. =20 =1D which aggressive individuals are often enough regarded as morally and =8D legally culpable and at the same time their victims are not deemed =8D expendable even for the sake of attaining very noble goals, has some =8D theoretical support from existing philosophical perspectives, even if =8D these have not reached the kind of prominence required for them to =8D become the foundation of social theorizing. =1D=20 basic idea that individuals possess fundamental rights, namely, to the =8D trilogy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If these =8D rights are well founded, they testify to a philosophical base for =8D individualism. It is not the kind critics focus on, namely, whereby =8D individuality amounts to no more than being separate from others. =8D Rather, in the Lockean theory it is human individuals who have basic =8D rights. That is to say, everyone is an individual of a certain kind.=20 =1D That is necessary so as to discuss individual or personal moral and =8D legal responsibility. Free will must not, of course, conflict with =8D the findings of science. And there is good reason to think that this =8D is just how things turn out.=20 =1D chophysicist Roger W. Sperry argues that science itself does not =8D demand that behavior be always linked to some prior sufficient cause. =8D Rather, we may construe the highly developed human organism enabling =8D us to engage in self-initiated conduct. This involves a different =8D type of causality in the universe but not an escape from causality, as =8D critics of free will have suggested. The position suggests that there =8D are different kinds of causal relationships, some involving the famil=1F=8D iar efficient causation that most champions of science wish to univer=1F=8D salize, others a kind of "downward causation" which depends in the =8D case of free will on the complex constitution of the human organism. =20 =1D beings as individuals who have moral and legal responsibilities. From =8D that we can also conclude that human beings can be perpetrators of =8D rightful as well as wrongful acts. Some of their wrongful acts may =8D intrude on others, who would thus become victims of the former, i.e., =8D culpable violators of the rights of other people. =1D deny victimization. Social theory may then, of course, have to admit =8D that it cannot confine itself to a value-free stance, if there is to =8D be room in it for personal moral and legal responsibility. Social =8D theorists themselves may have to alter their way of thinking.=20 =1D some acknowledgment of basic values, norms. In other words, such a =8D theory is incapable of fulfilling its mission of making sense of human =8D social existence without clear and irreducible reference to the moral =8D values or principles of human life.=20 ========================================================================= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Th=E5 accepted doctrin=E5 today seems to be tha=F4 wha=F4 wi= l=EC pu=F4 =E1 sto=F0 =8D t=EF th=E5 crimina=EC spre=E5 related to drug traffic throughou=F4 ou=F2 ma= jo=F2 =8D citie=F3 i=F3 =E1 ne=F7 prohibition=AE But is this really a sound idea? =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Hard dru=E7 abuse an=E4 the distributio=EE that feeds this a= r=E5 socia=EC =8D evils, yet that does not even begin to address this issue. One ma=F9 =8D appreciate this from recalling th=E5 central idea expresse=E4 i=EE th=E5 U= =AE S=AE =8D Declaratio=EE o=E6 Independence=AC namely=AC th=E5 poin=F4 abou=F4 ever=F9 = man's =8D "unalienable right ... to the pursuit of happiness." A righ=F4 spell=F3 = =8D ou=F4 =E1 real=ED o=E6 individual freedo=ED. Wha=F4 someon=E5 ha=F3 =E1 ri= gh=F4 t=EF i=F3 for =8D him or her to govern wit=E8 sovereig=EE author=E9ty=AE One'=F3 life=AC lib= ert=F9 =8D an=E4 pursui=F4 o=E6 happines=F3 ar=E5 suppose=E4 t=EF b=E5 suc=E8 realm=F3= o=E6 sovereig=EE =8D authorit=F9. =20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0So th=E5 evi=EC o=E6 hard drug abuse i=F3 distinc=F4 fro=ED = th=E5 issu=E5 o=E6 ho=F7 =8D it shoul=E4 b=E5 combated. Simpl=F9 becaus=E5 =E1 social proble=ED exist= =F3 i=F4 doe=F3 =8D no=F4 yet follow what its solution should be. And in a free country the = =8D solution must not invade the rights of persons to their liberty, =8D however badly they may misuse this right. =1D evad=E5 thi=F3 fact=AE They are, after all, beholden to two paramount =8D ideas, namely, individual moral responsibility (whic=E8 i=F3 =E1 doctrin=E5= o=E6 =8D the mora=EC nature of a human being)=AC an=E4 individua=EC right=F3 (whic= =E8 i=F3 =E1 =8D doctrin=E5 abou=F4 individua=EC sovereignt=F9 an=E4 th=E5 limit=F3 o=E6 sta= t=E5 power)=AE =8D Whil=E5 thei=F2 mora=EC views=AC o=E6 course=AC shap=E5 thei=F2 conviction= =F3 abou=F4 dru=E7 =8D abuse=AC thei=F2 individualis=ED mus=F4 als=EF pu=F4 the=ED o=EE guar=E4 a= =F3 t=EF wha=F4 th=E5 =8D stat=E5 ca=EE an=E4 shoul=E4 d=EF i=EE orde=F2 t=EF promot=E5 moralit=F9 an= =E4 decenc=F9 i=EE =8D society=AE =20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Perhap=F3 i=F4 wil=EC b=E5 objecte=E4 her=E5 tha=F4 wit=E8 d= ru=E7 abus=E5 th=E5 situa=1F=8D tio=EE i=F3 different=AC sinc=E5 wha=F4 w=E5 ar=E5 talkin=E7 abou=F4 i=F3 c= hose=EE conduc=F4 =8D onl=F9 t=EF =E1 ver=F9 limited extent=AE Onc=E5 hooked=AC dru=E7 consumer= =F3 n=EF longe=F2 =8D choos=E5 thei=F2 behavio=F2 =AD the=F9 ar=E5 compelle=E4 t=EF behav=E5 i=EE= th=E5 wa=F9 o=E6 =8D addicts=AE =20 =1D livin=E7 a morall=F9 decent life i=F3 no=F4 always easy=AE One may have to= cope =8D with extremel=F9 stron=E7 temptations now and then. It is th=E5 dut=F9 o= =E6 =E1n =8D adult huma=EE being=AC =E1 mora=EC agent=AC t=EF hav=E5 th=E5 foresigh=F4 a= n=E4 wil=EC t=EF =8D counterac=F4 th=E5 prospec=F4 o=E6 bein=E7 addicted. A huma=EE being'=F3 m= ora=EC =8D responsibilit=F9 does not en=E4 whe=EE resistanc=E5 become=F3 difficult.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0But there is another matter to consider in reflecting on the= =8D problem of drug abuse. I=EE ou=F2 tim=E5 w=E5 spea=EB ver=F9 freel=F9 o=E6= dru=E7 =8D addiction=AE A=F3 Dr=AE Stanto=EE Peel=E5 o=E6 Mathematica=EC Polic=F9 Res= earch=AC =8D Inc.=AC Princeton=AC Ne=F7 Jersey=AC observes=BA=20 .LM .30" .LM .00 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Ther=E5 i=F3 ampl=E5 reason to doubt th=E5 widel=F9 abuse=E4= doctrin=E5 o=E6 =8D addiction=AC eve=EE pertaining som=E5 o=E6 th=E5 s=EF calle=E4 "mos=F4 addi= ctive=A2 =8D drugs=AE Accordin=E7 t=EF Peele=AC "ther=E5 i=F3 n=EF evidenc=E5 fo=F2 =E1= purel=F9 physio=1F=8D logica=EC explanatio=EE o=E6 addiction.=A2 A=F3 h=E5 notes=AC "th=E5 whol= =E5 proces=F3 o=E6 =1D=20 =1D attention by anyone who is a defender of individual rights. This is =8D that drug abuse is not victimless but violates the rights of innocent =8D third parties. If this were the case, drug abuse would have to be =8D curbed, even prohibited, the way in which murder, assault, kidnaping =8D and the like must be prohibited. =1D under the influence of drugs many people commit crimes. Of course, =8D they commit crimes under different influences, as well, many of which =8D are not criminal. It is the actions that ought to be treated as =8D criminal, not the decisions made or the self-induced causes that may =8D precipitate those actions. =1D ing. But the comparison does not work. The reason prohibiting drunk =8D driving is palatable to most of us is that we acknowledge the right of =8D traffic managers to regulate the use of their domain for safety's sake =8D - just as we acknowledge the authority of any proprietors to regulate =8D the use of their property for the sake of safety. And in this case =8D traffic managers have the right to set conditions for the use of the =8D realm they are authorized to manage. =20 =1D spillover at all. Its prohibition in the bulk of cases is, therefore, =8D entirely a matter of the regulation of private or personal conduct.=20 =1D approac=E8 is ye=F4 anothe=F2 attemp=F4 b=F9 forc=E5 o=E6 arm=F3 t=EF ferre= =F4 out what is =8D indeed some evil that tempts some - and by all counts a reasonably =8D small number - o=E6 us=AC =E1 temptatio=EE t=EF whic=E8 ultimat=E5l=F9 w=E5= shoul=E4 =8D respon=E4 wit=E8 goo=E4 judgmen=F4 an=E4 appropriat=E5 conduc=F4 withou=F4 = th=E5 stat=E5 =8D robbin=E7 u=F3 o=E6 thi=F3 possib=E9lity=AE =20 =1D th=E5 public=AC =E1 failur=E5 t=EF accep=F4 the=ED a=F3 adul=F4 huma=EE bei= ng=F3 an=E4 =E1 =8D willin=E7nes=F3 t=EF trea=F4 the=ED paternalistically=BF Isn'=F4 it=AC als= o=AC likel=F9 =8D that wha=F4 th=E5 America=EE publi=E3 i=F3 upse=F4 abou=F4 i=F3 th=E5 crimi= nalit=F9 asso=1F=8D ciate=E4 wit=E8 drugs=AC no=F4 wit=E8 dru=E7 us=E5 =13pe=F2 se=13=BF =20 =1D such governance might turn out to be, should be reserved to emergen=1F=8D cies. There is no doubt that in some cases drug abuse is drastic - =8D but such drastic cases should not serve as the model for how public =8D policy should be forged. Hard cases make bad law and bad public =8D policy. And treating all human beings with the presumption that they =8D are going to hurt others is fatal for any society and especially a =8D free one. The abuse of civil liberties already associated with the =8D "war on drugs" testifies to this amply. These days police may stop =8D citizens who have done absolutely nothing to engender suspicion, =8D simply because they fit a "drug profile." (One can imagine that those =8D who are really dealing in drugs are not going to fit the profile for =8D long, unless they are extremely stupid! So it will be mostly innocent =8D people who will be detained and implicated.) ========================================================================= Words is going around these days of the revival of the Socratic=20 method of philosophizing. This method, it will be recalled, involved=20 Socrates roaming the streets of Athens and getting involved in numer- ous dialogues with smart young Athenians. Plato, it will also be=20 recalled, along with some other chronicles, managed to give us a=20 fairly good sampling of these encounters, although there is dispute as=20 to just how authentic are his rendition of these dialogues. Still,=20 Socrates was a street philosopher, unlike today's crop of academicians=20 whose philosophizing tends to be directed not to the ordinary inter- ested lay person but to colleagues, thus virtually making the most=20 universal human study the province of jargon ridden experts. But Socrates is coming back - at least in Europe, although=20 there's word that Los Angeles, California, has seen him about as well. =20 In a recent issue of Newsweek magazine we are told of one Eite Veening=20 of Groningen, Holland, who has gone into the profession made famous by=20 the legendary Greek philosopher-gadfly. Veening hung out his shingle=20 in 1987 and his clients come to him to discuss with him some disori- enting experiences - retirement, midlife career change, divorce,=20 whatnot. According to Newsweek, these street philosophers draw on the=20 ideas of diverse classical philosophers - ranging from Plato to=20 Nietzsche. As one of them, Gerd Achenbach, founder of the Institute=20 for the Philosophical Practice of Counseling, based near Cologne,=20 West Germany, explains: "we offer a framework in which people can=20 discover new ways to look at problems, to think them through differ- ently, to reflect on them." Yet troubles already face these innocents, not unexpectedly from=20 the ranks of the highly professionalized field of psychology. Critics=20 of the street philosophers do not appear to appreciate the fact that=20 philosopher types tend to appeal to reason instead of looking for=20 unconscious or subconscious motives, dwell on unresolved emotional=20 conflicts, or promote some fad like rolfing (where you take a plastic=20 bat and beat something with it until your inner rage has subsided). =20 Psychologists, moreover, are strictly regulated by government bodies,=20 with standards of acceptability established by the old guard, making=20 it difficult for any young turks to enter the market in light of the=20 near oligopoly status the former enjoy. And in the United States of American the problems of licensing=20 would start something potentially momentous. Consider that, next to=20 religion, philosophy is perhaps the institution that needs the great- est protection afforded by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitu- tion. Philosophers, more than others, engage in speaking and writing=20 - indeed, Socrates met with his demise because in ancient Athens no=20 Bill of Rights protected him against public authorities that found his=20 public philosophical ruminations too dangerous. Without the protec- tion of the First Amendment how would a street philosopher who disa- greed with Drug Czar William Bennett - himself an ex-academic philoso- pher - fare before a licensing board? What if the philosopher sug- gested to a client that perhaps a little turning on and tuning out=20 might be useful at this time of his or her life? Moreover, if it became widely acknowledged that licensing street=20 philosophers is not permissible under our Constitution - it would be=20 government setting standards for proper or suitable speech, precisely=20 what the First Amendment was aimed to prohibit - other counseling =1D=20 Psychologists, financial advisers, marriage therapists, and the rest=20 might all discover that professional licensing is a violation of a=20 vital individual right, namely, the right to speak one's mind freely=20 to another human beings who is also free to take it or leave it. Oh, but you might think that selling one's advice exempts the=20 speaker from gaining First Amendment protection. Not really - after=20 all, newspapers, magazines, books and the lot are all sold to people,=20 yet there is no question that no one may impose any standards of=20 propriety on the press - the industry must remain self-regulating and=20 there are many cases where questionable self-regulation is protected=20 against any kind of cleansing censorship - just consider all the tab- loids or pornographic books sold on the market. None may be subjected=20 to government licensing. So it seems that we might start a new movement with the revival=20 of the Socratic tradition of philosophizing on the street: genuine=20 freedom of speech for all those who give advice for a living. All=20 those trying to regulate or license psychological, financial or relat- ed counseling services would have to desist and admit that they had=20 been wrong all along. It might even come to light that such efforts=20 at through and speech control were nothing short of outright efforts=20 to restrict trade, to limit entry, to reserve special favors from the=20 government for those who have made it into the field. What about the fear of charlatanism? Well, it would not be very=20 difficult to point out that the greatest of charlatans in the world=20 sit in government buildings, including, very likely, where licensing=20 decisions are made as to who gets to practice a profession and who is=20 kept out of it. So, in the spirit of freedom, welcome to the street philosopher. =20 He or she may bring us more wisdom then he or she had intended -=20 simply by coming back into the arena to peddle an honorable trade that=20 clearly cannot be permitted to suffer government intervention. ========================================================================= Unfair to Economic Freedom "The beauty of free market capitalism is that it does not require=20 anything more than ruthless self-interest from its most ruthless self- interested citizens. When the system work properly they enrich us all=20 by enriching themselves without giving the matter a great deal of thought. = =20 If that is no longer true it is a sign not that they are less moral, but=20 that the invisible link between private gain and the public good has been= =20 severed." This observation, made by Michael Lewis in his "Lend the Money and Run," The New Republic, December 7, 1992 (a review essay of books by Nicholas von Hoffman, Capitalist Fools: Tales of American Business, from Carnegie to Forbes to the Milken Gang [Doubleday, 1992], and James=20 Grant, Money of the Mind: Borrowing and Lending in America from the Civil War to Michael Milken [Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1992]), has=20 several questionable assumptions embedded in it. First, it assumes we all understand what "self-interest" means. But from the time of Plato to ours there has been a serious debate as to whether self-interest means "doing what one wants" or "doing what one actually benefits from (by some objective standard of what benefits a person)." There is nothing remotely "ruthless" about doing the latter, while the former is entirely tautological, so invoking it makes little sense without smuggling in some kind of objective standard. Second, the claim assumes we know what it means for some system of apolitical economy to work properly. But there is a great deal of dispute about that. Does a system work properly if it enhances justice? Or economic prosperity? Or equality of well-being? Or stability? Or peace? Or all of these? Or Gad's purposes for us by reference to Scripture, the Torrah, or some other good book? Third the claim, in the context of the entire review, assumes that being moral consists of doing things for the public interest. Even in the quoted remark we find a juxtaposition between private gain and the public good. Just why are we to assume that this is what it is to be moral? After all, if the public is worth benefiting, why would not=20 private citizens also be worth benefiting? Just because the public is large? But that assumes that mere numbers make something worthy. Yet a lot of scoundrels are worse than one good individual. =20 There are probably other assumptions involved here but these are of direct interest to us. The unabashed invocation of the Smithian doctrine, expressed in the 18th century by Bernard de Mandeville, namely,= =20 "private vice, public benefit," is instructive. Mandeville's idea,=20 followed by many today, shows what many embrace, namely, a dualism=20 that gave rise to many of our troubles. By this idea it follows that people can only excuse their economic=20 ambitiousness, that is, for doing something to their own material benefit, if this is done so that others benefit. This does not actually gain moral credit for them. It only helps them escape moral blame. =20 If one does not benefit others while benefiting oneself, what one=20 does lacks redeeming moral worth. Not only does this view condemn many=20 people in business to lacking in all moral worth - all those, namely, who= =20 are not guilty of moral wrongs but possess no positive moral achievement=20 either by virtue of their business successes - but nearly all artists,=20 scientists, educators, athletes, etc., who do what they do because they=20 deem it to be to their own benefit, something they themselves value or=20 find fulfilling. =20 Most artists do not create for other persons but because they have a vision they wish to realize. Scientists do not usually engage=20 in their work because they want to benefit humanity but because they are smitten with some problem. =20 The same view of what is moral that condemns people in business to moral irrelevance does in nearly everyone outside martyrs and saints. Which is already enough to call it into question. We need to change our attitudes and recognize that people not only may but ought to strive for prosperity. And for this they require a free market economy, not the kind of meddling government so many intellectuals have always favored but which has brought misery to the masses. ========================================================================= Clinton's "economists" are Misguided There has been much complaint about various Clinton appointees=20 lacking proper training in the science of economics. In particular, it=20 has been noted that the new labor secretary Robert Reich, formerly=20 Michael Dukakis's economic advisor and professor at Harvard's John=20 F. Kennedy School of Government, is trained not in economics but=20 in law and disdainful toward modern economic science. Defenders of President Clinton's appointment of Reich claim that=20 there is something basically wrong with mainstream economic science. =20 According to them, prominent academic economics rests upon unrealistic=20 assumptions. These include mathematical modeling and analyses, as well as the ideal of perfect competition and full equilibrium in the free=20 market, based on which policy determinations should rest. Because of=20 this, critics argue, mainstream economists miseducate people to embrace=20 free markets and supply side public policies. Since, however, the basic tenets of neoclassical economics=20 are misguided, the argument goes on, free markets and supply side public=20 policy would not be healthy for the American economy. Instead we need to= =20 adopt the approach championed by socioeconomists and communitarians, of=20 whom Robert Reich is a prominent member, namely, a good deal of government= =20 intervention in the economy. =20 Sure enough, Reich's first major policy proposal is to limit free=20 trade in the labor market by prohibiting companies from replacing striking= =20 workers, thus hampering their productive abilities in the face of=20 uncompetitive demands by organized labor. But the alleged errors of neoclassical economics are actually minor. The modeling and mathematical analyses which neoclassical =20 scholars conduct are useful in the understanding of a free market=20 and the results of government intrusions upon market activity. =20 As Nobel laureate economic scientist Milton Friedman has explained, these assumptions relate to the actual world of human economic life as=20 theoretical physics does to the actual world of physical events. =20 If people only keep this in mind when they infer public policy from=20 the results of mainstream economic analysis, things would not go astray. Furthermore, should the neoclassical approach be found incomplete and perhaps even flawed, it does not follow at all that free markets=20 and supply side policies must be. They may well be justified on other= =20 grounds. Most likely free markets are the best way to arrange our economic affairs because freedom is generally better for human beings than= =20 widespread involuntary servitude. It just such widespread servitude that communitarians, the major critics of the market approach in our day, champion. Mainstream economists often claim more power for their approach than=20 it actually possesses. For example, Professor Gary Becker, the 1992=20 Nobel Prize winner in economics, claims to be able to understand and=20 explain nearly all aspects of human community life - family, marriage,=20 crime, suicide - by applying the methods of economics science. Yet what=20 social science avoids some measure of "imperialism," the generalization of its approach to studying human behavior past its own proper scope? None. In any case, the alternative of communitarian "socioeconomics" is =20 confused and dangerous. It is, in fact, a way of redressing mercantilist= =20 and command (fascist or Soviet Socialist) economic ideas. Robert Reich=20 really favors the old fashioned social democratic public policy, whereby=20 "we" - namely, those in power in Washington and other headquarters of=20 government - dictate to the rest of us what is important for "the=20 community." By this Reich and his comrades mean, of course, their own=20 vision of what the community ought to do and look like. They are hostile= =20 to the idea that the best community arrangements are those made=20 voluntarily, by the members of the community, rather than imposed on=20 them from above, by leaders - Congress, regulatory bodies, the president,= =20 cabinet members, etc. They think that "community" means some organic=20 body, as if people could not handle personal sovereignty. They favor=20 what I have dubbed democratic fascism - indirect control of everyone's=20 economic life by the government of the people! =20 Despite some of the excesses of mainstream economics, in a free=20 society we are safer heeding their counsel than that of the =20 communitarians. The former mostly wish to understand the=20 economy and set the limits to government involvement in it - so=20 government would be roughly analogous to an honest rather than a corrupt=20 empire in baseball. It would keep government addressing the problems=20 it was established to solve - namely, crime and foreign aggression. Instead, the Reichs of our world want to regiment the economy. =20 This last approach has by now been proven to be a destroyer of the=20 economic performance of human communities across the globe. Clinton=20 might have learned something from this vital lesson of recent history. Unfortunately he betrays his ignorance of recent history by relying on=20 the economic wisdom of Robert Reich and his communitarian fellows. ========================================================================= Harmful Intellectual Excuses On my flight returning from a speaking engagement in Paris, I had =20 a chance to read the article "The Life of a Black Scientist," in =20 Scientific American (January 1993). The author's tone in this piece=20 encouraged me to write to reflect on what he wrote, although in the=20 end I disagree with much of what he said about what his story implies=20 for us all. =20 First of all, I found it interesting that the author called the=20 universities at which he had worked "white." I have been at his=20 institution, the University of Florida, Gainesville, and I would not=20 have called the place a white university. =20 There are innumerable blacks on that campus, to begin with. =20 But even if there weren't too many, what would make a university=20 white? =20 In South Africa such a designation makes sense since the state=20 can segregate (some) public universities. And in the U.S.A. some=20 universities that had practiced racial restriction and still show=20 signs of the impact of that policy might be called white. =20 Was that the author's point? Or does he believe there must be =20 some ratio of white to black to make a university other than white? This stress on white v. black is mostly obsolete, but perhaps the author had some rationale for it. Yet it was not explained - he seems to have=20 wanted us to just accept the designation.=20 Next, isn't true that there really are many shades of color within=20 the human race and that they all trail off into others. Thus sharp=20 divisions on that basis are fictitious. And just because such distinction had been recklessly and cruelly made in the past, is that any reason to=20 continue to make them now? Furthermore, a great many people have stories to tell of lives=20 that leave a lot to be desired. I personally, for example, had to=20 escape from Hungary as a 14 year old boy, leave my mother behind and=20 join a fascist father who beat me relentlessly as he was hailing Hitler's regime. I came to American, then left home at 18 because my father was=20 physically and otherwise abusive, and after going through military service= =20 went to undergraduate and graduate schools to earn degrees in=20 philosophy. But I probably could have done much better, by going to more prestigious schools and then getting better teaching positions so I could teach better students and get more publications out than I did. =20 So, am I supposed to hunt down every Russian communist who=20 contributed to my lot? Am I to blame everyone with shared my father's ethnic background? =20 Then, also, are those of Hungarian background supposed to hold it=20 against the Turks that they were occupied by that country for 160 years=20 a couple of centuries ago? Whom will I blame for my misfortunes? Who wil= l=20 be held responsible for the misfortunes of others - should we embark on some kind of collective retribution, as the Serbians are doing against the Croatians and other somewhat homogeneous groups are doing against those who they can identify as members of groups they suffered injustice from sometim= e in the past.=20 Or is it perhaps pointless to embark on a historical witch hunt when=20 in fact the actual perpetrators of injustices have all died? Most of us=20 have had our either widely shared or unique bad breaks, as well as good=20 ones. Many have had the misfortune of having grown up in broken homes,=20 learning two new languages just to get one's education, being thought of=20 as a klutz in one's adolescence, finding that one is rootless and thus=20 lacking most of the social support in the pursuit of a successful life= =20 and career. =20 Still, is it really sensible to fret over this? If we=20 all counted up all the possible untoward consequences of past history =20 on our lives, added to this those that come from the current=20 prejudices or other faults of our fellows, many of us would probably=20 manage to come off as victims. But, also, if we perpetrate collective=20 guilt, it is possible that our own groups have dumped on plety of others - even many blacks had ancestors who were complicit in fostering slavery or, going farther back, injustices against other blacks, belonging to=20 different tribes back in Africa. =20 The harmful thing is to encourage orienting people's thinking mainly toward lamenting the bad breaks they have gotten. Examples about my=20 own life are a fraction of what nearly anyone could dig up to stress=20 those historical facts that had an adverse impact. Yet, what about=20 all the helpful facts that we cannot identify but surely must have occurred? Should we pay compensation to those groups that have somehow helped members of other groups? What is more important is that most American citizens can still =20 strive to make something of their lives and no group as such can be shut off from that chance. Equalizing policies are the reason why more do not have that chance - they fix people's status in life.=20 All this stress on being white, black or whatnot leads to the=20 thinking we find playing itself out to major catastrophe in Boznia, the=20 West Bank, Northern Ireland, India, and the tribal regions of Africa. =20 Identifying ourselves by reference to groups that share characteristics=20 that are, ultimately, of little relevance to what quality of human being=20 one is makes life rather pathetic. =20 My own Hungarian - just as others' ethnic - origins are of marginal =20 significance - I take from it what is valuable (art, architecture, history,= =20 cusine, etc.) but leave the ethnic pride stuff out entirely. It serves=20 the pursposes of those people who seem not to know how to achieve=20 much on their own initiative and seek a phony self-esteem from such=20 associations. Indeed, one of our century's worst disasters, Hitler's=20 Third Reich, was built in large part on such ethnic pride notions. We'd=20 best avoid that, don't we? ========================================================================= Why Communitarianism Must be Rejected It is a famous topic for political theorists, namely, just what=20 sacrifices must be made by individuals to uphold their community. =20 It is often put in terms of the public versus the private interest,=20 or the common versus the individual's good. Hardly anyone except some rather peculiar individualists - e.g.,=20 Max Stirner - even sound like defending the view that communities=20 are worthless. To associate that idea with individualism, as some=20 of the recent champions of communitarianism have done, is fraudu- lent. Individualists have never denied that the individual human=20 beings has a great interest in community life and should, therefore,=20 enhance it whenever possible. The difference between individualist=20 and collectivists is that the former do not believe it is possible=20 to enhance communities by sacrificing individuals, by denying their=20 rights. The collectivist theme has always been that for the sake of=20 some community value - or, even, for the sake of the larger self of=20 every person - the liberty of individuals must be sacrificed. For=20 them liberty is one among many other values and thus subject to=20 trade off. A bit of individual liberty may be given up so as to=20 obtain, say, some security or order or peace or beauty. Individual- ists, in turn, however much they disagree about details among them- selves, have believed that the sovereignty of the individual is a=20 political primary, an uncompromisable value, and unalienable right! =20 So while much that is a matter of community welfare is admittedly of=20 great importance, individualists have claimed that it is vital that=20 individuals have the liberty to choose these values. If they fail=20 to choose them it may be a flaw of character but it must not be=20 remedied by means of denying the freedom. Persuasion, social pres- sure, etc., must be used instead of coercive methods. While collectivists - and the currently publicly acceptable=20 species, communitarians - have some plausible enough arguments to=20 offer (for example, that humanity is all of one piece and individu- als are actually a fiction), they have tried, instead, to distort=20 their arguments, especially here in the United States where they=20 know that individualism has taken deep roots. So they have left=20 unmentioned in most of their theories that what they really seek=20 most from us is a commitment to involuntary servitude. In a democracy or republic public policy measures require at=20 least majority support - from those taking part in politics. But=20 majorities can act so as to limit their own power. The Founders of=20 the American republic held, in part, that majority rule ought to be=20 limited by individual rights. But current collectivists seem to=20 want a different limitation on majority rule. They seem to want to=20 have the majority establish laws and policies that transfer massive=20 powers to certain classes of people, namely, government bureaucrats. =20 They seem clearly to believe that environmental policy, the regula- tions of the food and drug administration, the directives of the=20 boards of education, etc., ought to guide people's conduct, regard- less of their consent. Indeed, such consent will be entirely moot=20 once these bureaucrats have acquired the power and even majorities=20 may no longer be able to change things. Once the majority has=20 abdicated its rule, even majority influence will be impossible since=20 any effort by the majority to change the rules could well meet with=20 drastic repercussions to the members. When individual sovereignty=20 is abandoned in favor of majority or elite sovereignty, the most=20 feverishly hidden consequence is that all people are beholden to=20 those who rule them. That is why there cannot be independent elect- ions in collectivist societies - those with a stake in a certain=20 outcome have too much power so that after the election is over,=20 those who didn't vote right can be punished. Why does collectivism carry such appeal? Because individuals=20 have for centuries been taught by both sincere thinkers and charla- tans that they have no value, that what really counts is humanity. =20 Marx was a perfect teacher of this line, when he declared that only=20 when you have devoted yourself to humanity can you be a truly happy=20 person. We all praise Mother Teresa, even as we choose to sneak in=20 our own personal interests in practice. We should all stand up for our individual liberty and admit that=20 whether the community will be served by us has to be a matter of=20 whether the community qualifies for such support. It will not be=20 carte blanche - some communities are too corrupt to deserve support. =20 But in order to remain in a position to set the terms of coopera- tion, we must insist on our individual rights to liberty of judg- ment. But that also means we must insist that we be in charge of=20 our lives and properties, without which we lack the power to back up=20 our judgment. ========================================================================= Robert Bork on the Abortion Debate Not long ago former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork wrote that "The inescapable fact is that the Constitution contains=20 not one word that can be tortured into the slightest relevance to=20 abortion, one way or another." Despite this ringing declaration by Bork, the U. S. Supreme Court seems to be honoring Roe v. Wade. It has struck down the Louisiana law that imposed very stringent restrictions on obtaining an abortion, and it did so by invoking the decision it made that Bork and his followers so demean, namely, Roe v. Wade. How could one square Bork's judgment with the court's loyalty to Roe v. Wade? =20 To give just two examples, the Constitution contains the words=20 "the right of the people to be secure in their persons ... shall not=20 be violated..." (Forth Amendment) and "The enumeration of the=20 Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or=20 disparage others retained by the people" (Ninth Amendment). Any=20 reasonable person, with knowledge of the English language, will have =20 to concede that at least these two sets of words can be read to be=20 relevant to the issue of abortion. If a woman is a person, and if=20 banning abortion is not itself a protection of someone's - e.g., an=20 "unborn baby's" - rights, then such banning would be a violation of=20 one's right to be secure in one's person. This is something a woman=20 has "the right to" according to the United States Constitution. =20 It is confounding, at least to me, how a diligent reader of the=20 Unite States Constitution could make Bork's claim in light of these passages. Certainly the above argument is plausible and deserves=20 some comment from Mr. Bork. But it gets none. =20 Does it not seem that if the people, retain certain rights - e.g.,=20 the right to the liberty to go to a doctor and to have the doctor=20 administer certain procedures on their bodies - then, by the words=20 contained in the Ninth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, banning=20 abortion would be a denial or disparagement of such rights=20 retained by the people? Alternatively, if the just conceived fetus=20 is a member of the citizenry, should not the failure to ban abortion be seen as a clear violation or denial of the unborn human being's=20 rights? The answer is so unambiguously clear that it deserves at least=20 some argument why we ought to pay no attention to it and accept Bork's=20 view that the Constitution has no relevance whatever to the abortion=20 debate. The issue, in fact, clearly amounts to what the woman is carrying=20 in her body when she chooses to have an abortion. If not a human being,=20 then banning abortion can clearly be seen as a violation of her rights;=20 if a human being, then again not banning abortion can be seen as such=20 denial or tolerance of the violation of right. Now the only thing Mr. Bork has argued in defense of his=20 utterly narrow reading of the U. S. Constitution is that only that=20 which that document explicitly sets out to protect may be said to be=20 protected. But such a position is totally unbelievable. =20 That kind of thinking recognizes no abstractions, no broad=20 categories under which human beings subsume numerous and varied=20 particular cases. Indeed, law itself is generalization to be applied by courts to specific cases. And the U. S. Constitution is precisely=20 the kind of abstract legal document that is meant to refer to innumerable= =20 diverse cases, united by some central, essential common feature(s). =20 All law must, by its nature, be abstract and cannot refer directly,=20 for example, to particular given lives, liberties and properties. Thus, for example, that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution=20 states that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or=20 property, without due process of law...." Yet, of course, there is=20 no mention of what kind of liberty or property is at issue. Liberty=20 is mentioned only generally. Nor is mention made of such categories=20 as real estate or intellectual property, only of property in general.=20 May we not take it that the framers referred to liberty of any peaceful=20 human action? May we not, quite reasonably, take it that the framers=20 had in mind any sort of property - anything that belongs to someone=20 free and clear? But to return to the matter of abortion, if no person may be=20 deprived of liberty without due process of law, would that prohibition=20 against everyone, including government, not have a bearing on=20 abortion? If the zygote is not a rights bearing person, such as a=20 child, would this instruction to government not be, at least implicitly,=20 about the exercise of one's liberty to choose to go to a physician and=20 engage in consultation about abortion and proceed to reach an agreement=20 whereby the procedure would be performed and then have it be performed? =20 What is liberty if it does not include this and numerous other sets of=20 actions on the part of persons? What Bork claims, then, is demonstrably false. Of course,=20 there can be debate about just what the Constitution states that=20 is of relevance to the abortion controversy. Its concern with rights, however, certainly must have such relevance. So how can someone with=20 the discretion and judgment of a Supreme Court nominee utter the kind=20 of extreme statement Robert Bork uttered in a published essay, unless=20 it is to be understood as an attempt to simply bamboozle us by its=20 brazenness? ========================================================================= Liberals Hoisted on their Own Patard Increasingly we find that groups not liked by other groups are laying claim to the right to be supported by these other groups. The most recent instance of this is gays laying claim to the right to be provided with various government benefits that others also receive. For example, gays want to be able to have schools teach that "gays can be good persons," so now there is a nation wide battle between gays and straights concerning the content of public school education. In Alabama, for instance, a law is being considered that would require all public school sex education classes teach that gays are "not acceptable" to=20 society. In New York City gays and straights are clashing about whether students should be told that gays are morally innocent or guilty for being gay. Many Roman Catholics, following the Vatican's recent reiteration of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, object to their children being taught that what their religion states is wrong is right. Gays and their supporters are turning up at school board hearings protesting these moves by those who find homosexuality morally objectionable. Interestingly, two decades or so ago many people on the liberal left were insisting that their taxes should not go to support a war they disapproved of. They argued that they should not have to pay various telephone taxes which were imposed to finance war related expenses. Indeed, they engaged in open tax-resistance because they found having to pay for something they regarded morally objectionable something politically odious. But now that pro-lifers do not want the taxes they pay to the government to fund federal abortion counseling, those of liberal persuasion are changing their tune. Someone when it was their cause then it was noble and morally required to protest, but now that it is other people's moral convictions that are being asserted, their free thinking spirit is rapidly subsiding. Well, this is the result of making everything the province of government. When states subsidize the poultry industry, those who want animals to be allowed to roam free will protest what their taxes go for. But will they defend the cause of those who might=20 not want their tax moneys to go for helping wild animals or the spotted owl? If you do not approve of modern art, will you protest funding modern artists or will you insist that other people be made to fund works of art you prefer? What about foreign aid to countries you disapprove or approve of - do you think others who do not share=20 your views should be required to pay? It could all be very different. We could live in a system of law that leaves it to us whether we will or won't fund various=20 practices and causes. We could rely more on voluntary allocation=20 of what we earn and have, rather than on government taking our=20 wealth and proceeding to redistribute it to all kinds of people and missions we may or may not approve of. Unfortunately, we now have a reigning idea of what governments should be doing in society. Its main theme is that it's government that must decide who gets what of the wealth we create but the state seizes from us by means of all types of taxes. The next time some statists protest teaching the wrong thing to their children, giving to the wrong foreign government, or subsidizing the wrong industry, you could tell them that they asked for it when they brought government into every nook and crany of=20 our lives so recklessly and thoughtlessly. Being hoisted on one's=20 own petard can be an educational experience. ========================================================================= Nobel Prize to Economic Imperialist Professor Gary Becker won the 1992 Nobel Prize in economics, for "having extended the domain of economic theory to aspects of human behavior which had previously been dealt with - if at all - by other=20 social science disciplines such as sociology, demography and crimi- nology." Becker is among those economist who believe that what=20 motivates human beings in the market place, namely, to make a good=20 deal, is exactly what motivates them everywhere else. The Nobel committee has been rewarding this same outlook in economics for the last several decades. In 1986 they gave the Prize to Professor James Buchanan, credited for his work in applying economic=20 theory to the political process. Earlier it was the late Professor=20 George Stigler, also of the University of Chicago, for his studies of=20 government regulation. Even earlier Professor Milton Friedman, the=20 head of "the Chicago School," got rewarded for laying the foundation=20 for subsequent economic imperialism. As Friedman put it, "every=20 individual serves his own private interest.... The great Saints of=20 history have served their 'private interest' just as the most money=20 grubbing miser has served his interest. The private interest is=20 whatever it is that drives an individual."=20 Becker has echoed this sentiment in his The Economic Approach to=20 Human Behavior: "The combined assumptions of maximizing behavior,=20 market equilibrium, and stable preferences, used relentlessly and=20 unflinchingly, form the heart of the economic approach as I see it." =20 Stigler put it most succinctly: "Man is eternally a utility-maximizer - in his home, in his office (be it public or private), in his church,=20 in his scientific work - in short, everywhere."=20 These economists believe they are telling us a simple truth, namely,=20 to quote Buchanan, all persons in society "are seen as ordinary persons." = =20 And ordinary persons are driven to advance their own lot on every front, as they understand it. Everyone is - no, must be - selfish. Greed is=20 no sin but a fact of life, a natural drive. There is no room for morality= =20 in human life, any more than there is room for morality in the lives of dogs or giraffes. Everything is set - Stigler argued that the world=20 is, of course, just as it has to be - nothing is wrong or right with it,=20 it merely is. Outside economics intellectuals tend to be hostile to capitalism. =20 They treat economic motives with disdain - one need but recall the=20 villain of Oliver Stone's movie, WALL STREET, who declared: "greed is=20 good". =20 And extending the approach economist to all human behavior is indeed wrong - people do not calculate costs and benefits all the=20 time, though actually they probably ought to more than they do. We=20 would all be better of if they did. But it is by no means automatic=20 that they do and to pretend it is misleads us into complacency. One reason the market approach makes sense in the market and in the study of people in the market is that when we go shopping, we do indeed focus on making a good deal. That is only prudent of us to do - we would be (and sometimes are) foolish if we pay heed to other matters as we secure our economic well being. But outside of the market place other motivation would be more=20 suitable - courage, honesty, justice, generosity, love, and so forth are also important virtues to practice. By denying our freedom to make a choice from among possible motives, the economic imperialist demeans us. He or she robs us of our humanity and creates the illusion that nothing can be done, we all carry on as we must. Despite the welcome support of freedom such thinking has, somewhat paradoxically, generated among these prominent economists, freedom needs more than what they have given. They should admit that while economics can shed some light on all aspects of human living, other disciplines must also address those areas, lest we be left with a rather incomplete and thus misleading understanding of ourselves. ========================================================================= You Cannot Base Human Community Life on Charity ========================================================================= The Welfare State and National Service A couple of years ago Bill Buckley wrote a book entitled Gratitude. It advocated national service for those who take advantage of free public education at the college level. Buckley argued that we owe it to our=20 elders to serve them, after they have done all the good for us we are enjoying in our lives. =20 It is ironic that what a major conservative journalist recommends should now be implemented by one of his adversaries, President Bill Clinton. Of course, the exact plan is still in the making. But the idea is close to that which Buckley spelled out. Our young people=20 should serve their country in return for the free education they have received. They will be paid, of course, but presumably their work will be much valuable than the pay they receive for it. Thus we find here the element of gratitude Buckley was emphasizing. There are several problems with this idea. For one, what people=20 do may benefit us without it having been their intention to do this at all - artists may create without any desire to help others, yet we all may benefit from the result. A scientist may seek truth without thinking of benefiting anyone else, though we could all gain by the discoveries that he or she makes. Indeed, much of what we benefit from is the result of work that is not intended for that purpose at all. Then, also, we may assume that those who did benefit us intentionally found value in doing this without expecting to be paid for this. I find it peculiar, to start with, that good deeds done for us without our asking for them should be taken to obligate us. Help, if it is genuine help,=20 deserves a thank you, not service in return. Otherwise it is not help but a commercial exchange process. Thirdly, it is interesting that what at first was touted as something our citizens are entitled to - remember the term "entitlements," which in political philosophy is referred to as "positive rights" - now we are told we must pay for. I recall back in the 1960s, when I began to pay attention to politics, the wide array of government programs advocated by champions of the New Frontier and the Great Society were said to be due us simply because we are citizens of this country. We were supposed to have a right to health care, social security, affordable housing, etc. Among these basic rights of ours was our education. We were supposed to be due an education simply because we lived in a civilized society. Some of us at that time warned that we will eventually see ourselves embroiled in all kinds of obligations we did not voluntarily incur, in the wake of all these so called free governmental services. We were told by the champions of the big welfare state that we are employing scare tactics, we are distorting the real nature of what welfare comes to, namely, generosity and compassion from our society. Of course that was nonsense - there really is no such thing as a free lunch, or a free college education. Somehow these things must be paid for - the last time I heard of a professor who was willing to teach free of charge was a lone air to a big fortune, and even he eventually resigned to live in some Western paradise instead of continue to work free of charge= . Public service employees are forever threatening to strike unless they are paid roughly equivalent to private industry salaries. =20 So the only rational thing is that what is given would eventually have to be paid back. But what does this do to the concept of welfare? What about compassion and charity and generosity? =20 Instead was is emerging is a society in which government, with some=20 input from the people, hands out what some people deem to be valued services and goods and then, whether you like it or not, you will have=20 to come up with some service or payment. Is it not ironic that the very reason the welfare state was conceived= =20 in the first place, namely, that the commercial exchange system is not sufficiently generous, is now being forgotten and a rather distorted version of that commercial system is being reinstituted - only this time there is a wholly unnecessary middle agent, the government. And believe me that agent is hungrier for payment than any market agent has ever been. ========================================================================= Problems with Western Culture Western culture is generally superior to others but not everything=20 about it is superior to what other cultures have to offer. Just by considering some facts and such issues as consistency or ambiguity, there are problems with the Western cultural tradition. One of the most important flaws in Western thought is the attitude we have inherited about wealth. Consider the following exchange from Plato, certain one of the most influential thinkers in Western thinking: Socrates, in Book IV of the =13Republic=13, in conversation with Adeimantus= , observes that wealth and poverty are corruptors: '"Take the other craftsmen again and consider whether these=20 things corrupt them so as to make them bad." "What are they?" "Wealth and poverty," [Socrates] said. "How?" "Like this: in your opinion, will a potter who's gotten rich=20 still be willing to attend to his art?" "Not at all," [Adeimantus] said. "And will he become idler and more careless than he was?" "By far." "Doesn't he become a worse potter then?" "That, too, by far," [Adeimantus} said. Furthermore, in Book VIII Plato has Socrates discuss the vulnerable=20 city, explaining it in part by reference to the soul of the impoverished=20 as well as the money-loving man. As Socrates puts it,=20 '"...humbled by poverty, he turns greedily to money-making; and bit=20 by bit saving and working, he collects money. Don't you suppose that=20 such a man now puts the desiring and money-loving part on the throne,= =20 and makes it the great king within himself, girding it with tiaras,=20 collars, and Persian swords?"' =20 What this appears to stress is that once the soul of a person is infected= =20 by these desires, he no longer keeps in view the higher, noble things. =20 For example, Socrates notes that "unless a man has a transcendent=20 nature he would never become good if from earliest childhood his play=20 isn't noble and all this practices aren't such..." Socrates also keeps=20 referring to "the stingy element in [a man's] soul," to "bad desires,"=20 and to "unnecessary and useless pleasures." All of this is discussed in=20 the course of trying to capture the character of an exemplary human=20 being by way of exploring the nature of a good human community. Socrates=20 argues that by having as its goal to establish a comfortable life, the=20 city makes itself vulnerable to tyranny. =20 It can be said, I believe, that for Plato the attempts of human=20 beings to satisfy their desires for a pleasant, comfortable, amusing, fun l= ife is lowly. Human beings ought to transcend these desires and instill=20 in themselves more noble ones. What are those supposed to be? The=20 philosophical objective of true understanding or knowledge of the forms=20 of things. And since this objective is hardly an option to most people,=20 Socrates can only conclude that few persons can live a noble life. This view is scary, to say the least. But is there anything wrong=20 with it? Not if there really is a life outside of the natural roder things. If there is some higher reality - as so many people in both Eastern and Western thought claim - it is difficult to see how Socrates's view is wrong. If, however, our lives are confined to the natural world where we can do well or badly but there is nowhere elso to turn so as to make things better. Wealth will be held in disrepute so long as we believe that the truely good life msut be lived apart from this world. Once we see that this is a dream, a fantasy, we will find that wealth and its pursuits are perfectly sensible and moral. ========================================================================= The Deficit and the Tragedy of the Commons In the 4th century B. C. Aristotle identified a very important=20 principle of community life. He demonstrated the social value of the=20 right to private property. He said, "That all persons call the same=20 thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing,=20 but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other=20 sense, such a unity in no way conduces to harmony. And there is=20 another objection to the proposal. For that which is common to the=20 greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one=20 thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and=20 only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides=20 other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty=20 which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants=20 are often less useful than a few." (Politics, 1262a30-37) =20 This same idea was more recently clarified by Professor Garrett=20 Hardin, in his 1968 article, "The Tragedy of the Commons," published=20 in the prestigious magazine Science. Hardin gave the example of a=20 common grazing area used by several owners of cattle to feed their=20 lifestock. Because there are no borders identifying what area be- longs to which cattle owner, the commons tend to be overused, not=20 because of any greed but because each cattle owners wants to achieve=20 the best possible results, namely, feed the cattle adequately. The principle at issue has been very fruitfully applied to evni- ronmental problems and the conclusion has been drawn by many scholars=20 that without extensive privatization of what are now treated as=20 public properties - lakes, rivers, beaches, forests, and even the air=20 mass - environmental problems will remain unsolved. Everyone knows=20 that a problem exists with common ownership but no one can do any- thing about it without changing what is commonly owned to private=20 property. The political will and savvy to achieve the solution is,=20 of course, lagging far behind the analysis that identified the solu- tion. Still, in this area, at least, such an identification has=20 occurred. What has not been widely noticed is that a tragedy of the commons=20 exists, as well, in our national treasury. We have here what by law=20 amounts to a common pool of resources from which members of the=20 political community will try to extract as much as will best serve=20 their purposes. Be it for purposes of artistic, educational, scien- tific, argricultural, athletic, medical, or general moral and social=20 progress, the treasury stands to be dipped into by all citizens in a=20 democratic society. And everyone has very sound reasons to try to=20 dip into it - their goals are usually well enough thought out so they=20 have confidence in their plans. They know that if they receive=20 support from the treasury, they can further their goals. So they=20 will do whatever they can to do just that, namely, extract from the=20 commons as much for their purposes as is feasable. But, as both Aristotle and Professor Hardin knew, the commons are=20 going to be exploited without regard to standards or limits - "that=20 which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed=20 upon it." Which explains, at least in part, why the treasuries of=20 most Western democracies are being slowly depleted and deficits are=20 growing without any sign of restraint. Japan, Germany, Great Britain=20 and, of course, the United States of America are all experiencing=20 this, as are numerous other societies that make their treasuries=20 available to the public to use for sheer private purposes. For how=20 else can we construe education, scientific research, the bulding of=20 athletic parks, the upkeep of beaches and forests and so forth than=20 the pursuit of special private goals by way of a common treasury? =20 Some might try to obscure this by claiming that all these goals=20 involve a public dimension. Of course. So does nearly every private=20 purpose - including the widely decried phenomenon of industrial=20 activity that produces the negative public side-effect of pollution=20 and contributes to the depletion of a quality environment. Private=20 goals can have public benefits. But their goal is to serve the=20 specific objectives of some individuals. When AIDs research is=20 supported from the public treasury, the first beneficiaries of suc- cess would be those with AIDs, not those who haven't contracted the=20 disease. When theater groups gain support from the National Endow- ment for the Arts, there may be beneficiaries beyond those obtaining funding but they are still the ones who benefit directly, immediate- ly. When milk producers gain a federal subsidy by having the price=20 of milk fixed or their witholding of production compensated, they are=20 the first to gain from this, not some wider public. =20 And so on with thousands of other "public" projects - they are,=20 actually, supporting private goals, first and foremost. One need=20 only observe who lobbies for them. But because the treasure is=20 public property, there is no way to allocate what is in there ration- ally, with proper budgetary constraints. Instead politicians embark=20 on deficit spending - taking non-existing funds, ones not yet col- lected but only rather uncertainly anticipated, and funding the=20 requests without restraint. =20 And there is no end in sight. Only when the country no longer=20 has the credit worthiness in the world community, so that its bonds=20 will no longer be backed by hopeful lenders, will the ponzy scheme be=20 called to a screaching halt. We will have to delcare bankrupcy and=20 those of our citizens who had nothing at all to do with the enter- prise will be left to hold the empty bag, namely, our grandchildren. Not unless the treasury stops allowing private projects to be=20 funded from its coffers, confinding itself to the support of bona=20 fide public projects - the courts, the military, and police - will=20 there be an end that avoids the perhaps greatest tragedy of the=20 commons. To reach such a position of financial responsibility, the=20 governments of our society will have to sell off all the unwisely=20 held common assets - lands, parks, beaches, buildings, forests, lakes=20 and such - to private parties. They will thus liberate members of=20 our future generations from the schackles that have been so irrespon- sibily placed upon them by means of the tragedy of the commons. ========================================================================= The Folly of The Plan Now that the Democrats have chosen their team to run for the White House, we can take a look at what seems to be their most=20 important message to the American people. This is that The Plan is everything. Whenever Republicans, ever so feebly, level some criticisms of the Clinton-Gore tax-spend policies - for there is absolutely nothing new in this Democratic duo as far as their New Covenant is concerned - the candidates respond by repeating, over and over again, that Mr. Bush lacks The Plan. Now, in fact, Mr. Bush has a plan, which, as with most Republicans, amounts to little more than doing just a few things less than the Democrats would like to by means of government interventions. This includes money manipulation, redistribution of wealth, regulation,=20 and the general method of regimenting the population in various ways=20 to achieve, well, nothing much but to keep looking busy as a bee up=20 there in Washington, D.C. That is just what makes it impossible for Republicans to answer the Democratic charge, namely, that they lack The Plan. They don't. The most effective answer to the Democrats and the echo-making Republicans comes from the biggest third party candidate, Andre Marrou, the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party. What does Marrou say in response to the belly-aching about the lack of The Plan? Just what the Republicans cannot say, but clearly ought to. This is that The Plan kills, it does not cure at all. Let us, please, recall what killed the economy of the Soviet Union. It was The Plan. Hatched in Moscow, we saw innumerable versions of The Plan. Usually they were supposed to be blueprints for five years, every one of them guaranteed by one or another Soviet leader to lead the USSR to greater and greater economic progress, to peace and prosperity. Only every one of these blueprints amounted to a big dud, and what else could any rational person expect? Just consider for a moment what is mean by The Plan, whenever it is produced by politicians. It means forcing people to live by certain=20 rules, creating certain things or stopping the creation of other things, reducing their spending here, increasing it there, living with regulations of innumerable types in every walk of life, etc., etc. That is what The Plan, in any of its versions, in a tyranny or in a democracy, makes not difference, calls for. It calls for coercing people to follow the orders of the politicians - in this case of Bill Clinton and Albert Gore. Of course there is nothing wrong with plans as such. People, firms, clubs, families, fraternities, and all other agents of human endeavors make plans constantly, and in most cases these plans work very well. =20 Just think of the last plan you made - either at home, the office or on the athletic field. Most of the time these panned out. But the reason most plans work is that they can pretty much expect cooperation from all those concerned. If you travel, you know about the airline's and car rental company's desire to earn a profit, so you can count on their cooperation. You can count on the cooperation of your colleagues or employees and the firms you need to carry out your plan at work. So the plan works. But Clinton and Gore - as well as all the rest of the politicians - do not hatch plans like that. They impose plans on us, whether we like it or not. Their tax, spending, regulating and all other plans are not our plans!!! The Plan is an alien thing, so what most people will do is try to dodge it as cleverly as possible. =20 This is why we have such a boom in the legal profession - lawyers study The Plan and teach their clients how to avoid it with impunity. That is what tax loopholes are about, that is how people manage to=20 cope with The Plan. What these people need to learn is that government is not in the business, properly, to make plans for us - we should be trusted to make our own plans for ourselves, with the help of those who want to join, letting the rest make their different plans. A pluralistic society is not just composed of people of different national backgrounds, color, religions, life styles, and so forth but with very different plans=20 concerning their economic endeavors. Maybe if the Republicans understood this, they could have an=20 effective, articulate response to Clinton and Gore, namely, go and bury The Plan, it will only meet with resistance. What we need is not a plan but the effective protection of our individual rights to forge our own plans. That is what politicians are supposed to be for, not to take over the plan making business form us. ========================================================================= Why Not Call it Nepotism? At first it was sending the daughter to private school even=20 father is opposed to school choice for the rest of the country,=20 especially those who cannot afford both property taxes and the high tuition. Then it was reneging on the middle class tax break promised during the election. In your face, America, is what the new president is saying - even though his opponent was defeater=20 mainly because he lied about raising taxes. Clinton has gall. This is now reaffirmed by the fact that he could appoint his wife to a job, despite his party's having foisted affirmative action and national searches on most other institutions over which they have some control. =20 When you try to hire a professor at a public school, you are forced to conduct a national search, regardless of how much this depletes your budget. You have to be fair, first and foremost, never mind if this undermines your business, professional goals, educational mission. According to welfare statist liberalism the main this is to be fair. Except, it appears, when it comes to those who make the rules. It is, after all, well know that the Congress does not abide by the hiring rules it imposes on the rest of the country. Now the occupant of the White House seems to be doing the same. What on earth qualifies Hilary Clinton as a health administration specialist? OK. Let us grant that she is bright, industrious and well connected. But was their a search for the most qualified person? Surely the White House could have conducted such a search must more readily than can other employers whom liberals have forced to comply with their ridiculous regulations. But then I suppose we should be getting used to this. Over the next several years we will find hypocrisy piled atop hypocrisy, all from those folks in Washington who have the most moralistic, sanctimonious tone in the entire country.=20 I sort of envy George Bush - he can say to himself, "I told you so." But it seems he is more gracious than to go public with this remark - he leaves it to the likes of me to do that. ========================================================================= America's Coming Collectivism? The novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand once wrote that when she once watched a television interview with former West German Chancellor=20 Helmut Schmidt, she heard him identify his favorite philosopher as Marcus Aurelius. Schmidt reportedly said, "He taught that we must do our duty above all." Rand was disturbed by this because by her lights duty is an enslaving motivation, not a liberating one. Duty is what one has as a subject, not as a citizen. As a citizen one is supposed to be free to choose one's life's goals, not bound by predetermined duties that may not be suitable to one's talents, aspirations, dreams. It is interesting, then, to recall that a recent report in The Wall Street Journal told that "When this newspaper recently asked=20 Bill CLinton to name the one book, other than the Bible, that has=20 been most important to him, he chose the 'Meditations' of the Roman=20 Emperor, general, and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius"(WSJ,1/20/93). The teaching of Aurelius well reflects the mind set of someone who is nearly obsessed with binding people to the collective, to the nation, rather than making room for them to grow into the best person they should be as individuals. And, not surprisingly, that teaching is shared by many collectivist philosophers and leaders. Karl Marx believed that "The human essence is the true collectivity of man," meaning, of course, that we are all duty bound to society rather than to their own agendas or projects in life. Consider, also, this remark from August Comte, the 18th century French socialist: [The] social point of view ... cannot tolerate the notion rights, for such a notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service....This ['to live for others'], the definitive formula of human morality, gives direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely. But perhaps the most scare parallel to the kind of thinking that Aurelius encourages comes from one of the 20th century's most bloody dictator, Adolf Hitler. The German tyrant put to us this bit of wisdom: "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture..." There are many who think too lightly of the recurrent attack in our culture upon the idea of individualism. It is being denigrated=20 Right and Left, with allegations made in such widely read works as=20 Robert Bellah & Co.'s book, The Good Society, as fostering lack of generosity, basic anxiety and anti-social attitudes. That kind of thinking lies behind the burgeoning communitarian movement some of=20 whose members - e.g., Labor Secretary Robert Reich - occupy prominent=20 positions in the Clinton Administration. What made this nation great is the place it gave in its fundamental legal document to the individual in society. Americans were supposed to be sovereign citizens, not subjects duty-bound to king and country. The stress is on the unique value of every individual, not on the supremecy of the State. =20 Are we going to let this sublime idea be overrun by calls for yet=20 another version of the collectivist's dream? ========================================================================= Government at Micromanagement The Senate Armed Services Committee, headed by Sam Nunn, is hard at work figuring out how the military ought to be run. No, it is not just concerned with how much money the Army, Navy and Air Force ought to have for its operations. That committee is involved in something far more important. =20 What Senator Nunn and his colleagues are concerned about these days is, for example, whether the United States Military Academy at West Point should have its own band! And whether it civilians should make up 10, 25 or 50% of the Academy's instructors. Indeed, I am sure that Senator Nunn and his colleagues are now=20 worried sick about, well, the breakfast, lunch and dinner menus of the various military posts around the country. Perhaps next on the agenda will be when soldiers should changed from their=20 winter into their summer uniforms, how many hours of the day they ought to send on physical exercise and similar vital issues of national defense. Here is how bad things have gotten in Washington. The Congress of the United States of America is embarking on detailed micro- management of the country. We have degenerated into a situation where no one in Washington trusts anyone to manage anything - instead everyone must be in on the micromanagement of the country's affairs. The good senators up there are too distrustful of the commandants of the various military posts, including the academies, to allow them to do the job for which they were hired. No, they need to stick their noses into the nitty gritty of anything for which they spend taxpayers' money. Why have we turned into such an unmanageable society? For that is what such an attitude testifies to, without a doubt. If our senators cannot trust the people they appoint to run the various elements of the military, why should we think we can trust them to do anything right? Why is Senator Nunn to be regarded as a=20 qualified manager of, say, the U.S. Military Academy? Has he any special expertise? Was he elected to do this? Has he actually time for such details? Or is this some charade to satisfy certain groups pushing for changes? Is this a way to pacify vociferous people around town who want action by Monday morning 9 AM? Perhaps such micromanagerial policy is symptomatic of where this country is headed politically - namely, toward strong=20 democracy, to quote one currently prominent political theorists, Professor Benjamin Barber of Rutgers University. This is the sort of system in which everyone in society is involved in making=20 decisions about everything in society. It is collectivism with yet another mask of humanity. But the result is universal mutual distrust and fear - people butting into one another's business, play and, indeed, whole life. We are all aware of how Congress is attempting to micromanage the way business hire, fire, promote and subcontract; the price of goods and labor are regulated; social goals are promoted by forcing various institutions to serve them; the arts, sciences, education, and soon even athletics will be ruled from Washington. Health care, of course, is now openly micromanaged, so that a number of physicians I know are seriously contemplating leaving their profession. Since no one can be trusted to govern himself or herself, or his or her business or vocation, neither are the rulers trusted. The 1992 election campaign reeks of this kind of cynical sentiment, with people across the country grabbing at straws in the effort to sooth their fears - this is the Ross Perot phenomenon and we can look forward to a lot more of the same thing. We have for decades been taught by intellectuals that individu- alism is a fraud, that we are all just parts of larger groups, that no one is responsible - e.g., for smoking himself to death, for making herself obese - and that everyone is basically a victim. No wonder that we don't trust anyone to do anything right. But what we will come to realize is that when no one is trusted, then those who pretend to be our governors are going to be the least trustworthy, given all the power they have to abuse. If this is the kind of fundamental change we have to look forward to, I will take old fashioned, stodgy, "obsolete" Americanism any day. At least some folks could be trusted and given credit for knowing what to do when they took the oath of office to do it. ========================================================================= Improving Our Lives It has always puzzled me why so many people complain about mass marketing. I mean the sort of thing that we encounter on television - namely, advertising that aims to appeal to us all. Usually such ads tend to be bland and targeted as some lowest common denominator in the population. Indeed, much of traditional network broadcasting itself has these faults, trying to be everything to everyone who might be watching. =20 One reason for the complaint would appear to be something rather noteworthy. It is that most suggestions as to what is good for you, what you ought to buy, miss their mark. The bulk of us tolerate television and radio advertising. Producers of the ads, however, design their ads as if everyone in the audience could be pleased with the product or service being offered for sale. The same seems to be the case with all the diets, health regimes, exercising equipment, therapy programs and the rest - these are=20 advocated for us all, as if we are all alike and needed the same goods and services. =20 Yet, in fact most products and services can usually only help=20 some people, by no means all to whom the ads are pitched. And this makes the pitching itself seem more of an annoyance than something useful. Advertising, after all, amounts to no more than calling attention to products and services. Advertising is not a means to provide=20 information about products, only about the fact that they are there to be checked out. But only some of us care about this - if I am not in the market for a car, ads pitching cars will annoy me,=20 especially when I am glued to the TV following some plot or report. What seems to be clear from this is that eventually advertising will do better by targeting specific audiences, of whom the assumption that they may care makes good sense, leaving the rest undisturbed. This will require certain changes, however, in the broadcasting industry. First, the unnatural monopoly of the networks needs to be broken up even more than has already been accomplished via cable TV. Second, the advertisers will have to change their appeal to include some signal about whom they are talking to in the first place. That would probably reduce the annoyance felt by those who do not just now care about the message. With both of these developments we would achieve something important, both personally and society wide. We would reduce the bad press that advertising receives, a bad press that has played into the hands of those who find the market place objectionable because it affords us a wide range of choices and does not force upon us goods and services the critics deem to be important. These critics like it that some features of the market annoy most of us. Reduce that annoyance and=20 the critics go away empty handed. We would also improve the effectiveness of advertising - the groups to whom the ads speak would be smaller, the ads would cost less, but the response would be more likely. It is interesting that a feature of the market place many people don't find so appealing is not really a market phenomenon at all: mass marketing by way of broadcast advertising is a function of the artificial monopolization of the electromagnetic spectrum, something achieved by government in 1927 and not understood by most of those who experience it. it is time that the record is set straight - it isn't ads but the way they are disseminated that makes commercials such a pain. ========================================================================= Debate vs. Prejudice =20 One of the major obstacles to current public debate is that many people no longer listen at all to what is being said, only to who is being disagreed with. Take, for example, the debate about welfare. Because many who are on welfare are blacks, anything said against welfare is dismissed as so much racism, never mind that perhaps the argument is sound and welfare is a grossly misguided public policy. Similarly, when criticism of U.S. government policy toward Israel is at issue, many of the people who should listen most carefully are, in fact, ready to accuse the critic of being either anti-Semitic or anti-Arab. This same problem plagues the debate about admitting gays to military service. If one raises any doubts about the matter, one is immediately labeled homophobic. That is what induces many people to resort to that shop worn phrase, "Some of my best friends are gays." If true, that is supposed to show that one isn't prejudiced against gays but has certain disagreements with many of them. Consider the following: The Armed Forces of the United States of America recruit only those who meet certain standards of physical constitution. Bad eyes, being too tall or too short, or a number of other health problems can disqualify a person from admission. And these are not conditions that someone chooses - more often one inherits them or acquires them in some accident. Of course, the standards themselves can change. What in the past might have been a disqualifying condition need not be one today, simply because what the military demands of a soldier is now different from what it used to be. The same point can apply to being from a foreign country. When I served in the United States Air Force I was not permitted to stand guard over missiles at Andrews Air Force Base because my mother lived in Communist Hungary and I was deemed a security risk. But today that kind of reasoning wouldn't hold much water. And with gays there have also been changes - whereas in the past they could be subject to blackmail, that is no longer a cause for denying them clearance, since being homosexual no longer carries the kind of stigma worthy of being hidden at all costs. Nevertheless, the issue of whether it is sound policy for the United States Armed Forces to recruit gay enlistees is still debated on the basis of whether one is for or against treating gays as equal under the laws of our system of government. But there is no question that those who are physically unqualified to enlist are, therefore, second class citizens. Any more than there is any doubt that those who don't qualify for being jockeys or basketball pros would so qualify. There are some facts about such roles in the world that disqualify certain people but it does not mean they aren't fully human and have every right that any human has either by nature or by law. It is actually not at all unreasonable to consider whether gays are fit to be enlisted members of the military today. One can reasonably discuss the matter without having to be either pro or anti-gay per se. Indeed, some gay friends of mine support, others oppose the ban, and they do this obviously not on grounds of homophobia or homophilia, but on grounds having to do with facts about service life. If, for example, it is genuinely important for people to preserve some measure of privacy even while they are exposed to the collective life style of those who comprise the enlisted ranks of the military, then it is objectionable that members of one's own sex, women or men, who take sexual interest in their own sex would have easy access to others not so inclined. Indeed, since one should not assume that all gays want themselves to be exposed to other gays, it might be objectionable even to some of them to be herded together in the fashion common within the enlisted ranks of the military, especially the Navy, especially in war time. Is this a big obstacle to the accomplishment of the mission of the military? Well, how big an obstacle did it use to be having to wear glasses? What about all the other reasons people were judged 4-F? Unfortunately, in the current atmosphere of public debate, where few people listen to the arguments and most consider only "whose side you are on," such matters cannot be discussed rationally. We will live in a civilized world, indeed, when they can be and no one will take offense at having been found, objectively, to be unfit. Those are the breaks. When political views of gays, as of blacks or Catholics are at issue, disagreement should not be treated as prejudice. ========================================================================= Andy Rooney and CBS's Double Standard I am not so much a fan of 60 Minutes as someone who believes he=20 needs to check out the most watched public affairs program on American television. I am a cultural anthropologists, not a fan! =20 For example, I am interested in Mike Wallace's way of treating=20 people - he once declared, after all, that "With the businessman [the=20 interviewer] may play prosecutor, or if the individual responds better=20 to lulling, then the interviewer goes that way. With Horowitz and=20 Baryshnikov [i.e., artists], I had to reassure them I was wearing my=20 white hat: I wanted to establish a rapport between us." =20 Indeed, Wallace always tries to nail people in business or other=20 profit making institutions, but with artists he wears kids' gloves,=20 despite the fact that artists are as prone to vice as anyone else. =20 (Consider the recent discovery that John Cage "borrowed" his idea of=20 silence as music from Harold Acton, a composer whose 1928 "Cornelian"=20 contained the idea that Cage gained fame for.) Notice, also, that Wallace & Company rarely if every take on academicians or others who are good with spoken words. They seem chicken when it comes to people=20 who are their own size, as it were! And most recently 60 Minutes did not disappoint me again. This time it was Rooney who spoke ill of some people and, unlike when he disparaged some minorities, he got no flack for it from CBS. In a commentary on the 1992 elections, Rooney lamented the way the candidates spoke out on the issues. In the course of airing some obvious complaints - who wouldn't wish for a more elegant election process? - Rooney said that he does not want his political candidates to sound like "vacuum cleaner salesmen." Well, I wonder why CBS isn't suspending Rooney this time, for his unjust denigration of the total membership of a perfectly honorable profession! Is it, perhaps, that it is not politically incorrect to lambaste people in the business world? Why? What is so acceptable about putting down people in business (Wallace) and making derisive comments about those selling vacuum cleaners? No doubt, most of us have some such prejudices and we don't=20 feel terribly about them. They matter little in our lives, although if they begin to matter somewhat, we really ought to look out and make sure we don't act on them. For the people on 60 Minutes, however, such prejudices are un- forgivable on two counts: First, they peddle themselves as the conscience of our society, what with their sanctimonious tone of voice, their constant accusations and their holier than though searches for further targets of their gleeful revelation of vice, great or small. (I recall how cheerfully 60 Minutes exposed the fact that at Auburn University=20 some football players got help from coaches to the tune of having $300 loans co-signed! Really worth national exposure!) Second, they are perhaps just a tad more influential with their audience than would be those outside the media. =20 If CBS reprimands Andy Rooney for slighting blacks or others, why=20 should Rooney escape censure for badmouthing those who sell vacuum=20 cleaners? =20 Maybe because CBS and 60 Minutes are not so much interested in =20 locating injustices in our society as they are in pleasing their=20 colleagues in the industry, fellow folks who are mostly interested in=20 being politically correct, never mean morally right and just. ========================================================================= Science and The Planned Society The scary thing about Bill Clinton's presidency is that we will=20 have a president with all kinds of costly plans embarking on his=20 crusades with what promises to be a rather chummy Congress. Not that Democrats always cooperate with their presidents. But after the wonderful grid lock Ross Perot lamented endlessly - and I had hoped might persist, so as to keep the government's dictatorial tendencies at bay - it looks like the Democrats want to unleash all the forces of the federal government. Consider that Bill Clinton is already planning on spending $76=20 billion on science and industry. Some of this is supposed to come out of the defense budget but much of it will be new. And this from a treasury that is broke - in so much debt that its credit rating is slipping by the day. What is worse is that the failure of Bill Clinton's grand plan=20 is predictable. We have seen it all before. Indeed, we have just witness the collapse of an entire world power, a modern empire, that was renown for what else but its repeated grand plans. What was it always called? The famous 5 year plan of nearly every Soviet leader. And what happened? They all went bust. Why? Well, the reason is that such plans cannot work. It is like=20 squaring circles - they are impossible missions. Not just unsuccessful to date; not just failed because badly conceived or badly executed; not because the people who were behind them were morally corrupt, evil. No, such plans cannot work because they are the plans of some people without being the plans of all those who are needed to bring them into existence. Bill Clinton wants to have all kinds of projects carried out with federal direction and funding. Likely areas of investment - which is really a nice way of putting the Robin Hood game of stealing from the tax paying public, including yet unborn citizens, and turning the loot over to some people deemed to be worth the risk - are "robotics, batteries, computer chips, 'smart' roads, biotechnology, machine tools, magnetic-levitation trains, fiber-optic communications, computer networks, digital imaging, data storage, software, sensors, computer aided=20 manufacturing, advanced composition materials and artificial=20 intelligence"(from The New York Times, 11/11/92). But no one asked us about this. Granted, some trends can be anticipated, so such investments may not be uniformly off. But people are notorious about changing their plans, tastes, preferences, goals, purposes, likes and dislikes - just what it is that establishes whether investments are sound or unsound. Unless what we want is to follow the Third Reich model of government planning. In the 1930 John Maynard Keynes, who advanced the idea of government tinkering with the economy in order to make jobs, wrote an introduction to his General Theory, the book that hatched the theory. He noted that the German situation would be best suited for applying his theory of economic stimulation. Why? Because in the Third Reich you could force people to give up their life plans and follow the leader's! In a dictatorship you can make some headway with plans - for, say, 40 to 70 years - because you also have guns you can turn on the people and order them to live with your plans. Is BIll Clinton willing to go all the way? Well, even that will not do the trick. His plans will come a cropper no matter what because there is no way to dictate everything to the public - they eventually=20 get fed up with it. I would guess in America is would be sooner, just because there is a strong Maverick tradition. =20 Why not give it up, Bill? Let the plan be hatched by us, in our various, decentralized ways. It will all be for the best. ========================================================================= Goodbye to Highway Courtesy As someone who drives about a great deal, I have noticed that courtesy on the highways has been diminishing during the last couple of decades. An case in point is that truck drivers now no longer=20 give one signals concerning the safety of passing them. In the 1960s this was common experience. But no more. I did a bit of research on this at truck stops and discovered the reason: some drivers were sued when upon their lending a hand, someone met up with a mishap following their making the move that the driver of the 18 wheeler indicated could be made. In other words, insurance companies now tell drivers not to get involved with helping anyone lest they be subject to a law suit. This is an interesting development. One may suppose that what the drivers did could at times contribute to an accident on the road. For example, just after a "clear" signal is given, some vehicle enters the road and there is no way to take the signal back. Those who rely solely upon the trucker's help and omit checking things out for themselves or simply being cautious could then skip out on their responsibility by blaming the trucker. Apparently with the proliferation of law suits against people=20 who are near accidents and have a deep pocket so that they are seen by plaintiffs as a suitable target, the practice of helping is being slowly killed off on our highways - as well as elsewhere. One hears of doctors who help at a scene of an accident, only to be sued by those who were helped for not being helped to perfect satisfaction. Good samaritarianism is being killed off by (a) eager plaintiffs and their lawyers and (b) juries and judges who fail to appreciate the difference between helping someone and becoming their parents or guardians. This is indeed how our society is evolving in our time: at first we were taught that when people are in dire straights, they are to be helped out. Emergencies warranted outside support. But that=20 never meant that the people themselves no longer had to take=20 responsibility for their lives. Help, after all, may be accepted or rejected. The drivers who were signaled by the truckers never had to accept the help - it was entirely up to them. But because the idea of personal responsibility is slowly vanishing from our philosophical frame of reference, juries and judges could overlook this and proceed to penalize the helping hand. Does it need to be pointed out that such an outlook is ultimately self-defeating? If the driver the trucker helped need not take=20 responsibility for accepting the help, why should truckers be held responsible for giving help? They were taught to do this n their youth by their elders, who, in turn, were taught by theirs. No one is ultimately responsible, so there will, in the end, be no law suits at all. If the distinction between disingenuous and genuine charges of responsibility are not heeded, the whole notion of responsibility=20 will suffer. Contrary to what Charles Sykes claims in his book,=20 A Nation of Victims, it isn't that everyone will become a victim. No, we will all simply be casualties of life, with no one responsible for anything at all. That, in turn, will spell the unset of times when our very humanity is being denied. ========================================================================= Mourning the Fourth of July On the Fourth of July Americans used to celebrate not merely the=20 conception of a new nation but the most radical event of human=20 political history. Although there had been intimations of the idea=20 of individualism throughout human intellectual history, it is with=20 the Declaration of Independence that this idea reached its fullest=20 political maturation. It is by way of the Declaration that concrete=20 reality was given to the discovery that human beings are in fact=20 sovereign agents, not to be made use of by others, especially by=20 governments that had, until that time, comfortably taken their=20 superiority over their "subjects" for granted. Human history is replete with the phenomenon of massive oppres- sion of some human beings by others who had anointed themselves=20 their naturally or divinely decreed rulers. The idea is still=20 powerful in our own age. Worse than that, it is gaining support in=20 our own day, in our society. Our government has been permitted to=20 grow so powerful and so stupendous in its scope from the time of its=20 inception as a servant of the citizenry that it has become what our=20 Founders and many of our framers feared it might become and what=20 they new other governments in the past had in fact been, namely,=20 tyrannies. The excuse, as often before, is that government's power=20 of the threat of all out physical violence is necessary so as to=20 achieve innumerable worthwhile goals the citizenry is too inept or=20 weak willed to achieve on its own. Even the First Amendment is=20 being assaulted in the name of such reasons. The Supreme Court's=20 refusal to go that far is but a small measure of resistance many=20 would wish to remedy with so called "hate crime" legislation. Other=20 protections the Bill of Rights attempted to create against state=20 power have nearly been fully eroded, so that the drug war has de- stroyed due process of law, taxation has practically abolished=20 private poverty, and individual citizens throughout the land find=20 their sovereignty nothing more than a relict of the past and the=20 stuff of mere holiday rhetoric. In the arenas of higher education, professors of law, political=20 science, philosophy, sociology, and other disciplines scoff at the=20 idea of individualism and personal sovereignty. Even though social- ism has suffered a setback elsewhere in the world, on our campuses=20 its new incarnation, communitarianism, is being promoted as the new=20 purpose before which the sovereignty of individual citizens must be=20 sacrificed. Right and Left, both, want the power of the state used=20 to make people behave as one or another of their special interest=20 constituency believe is right and proper. But it is not a glorious celebration any longer, this Fourth of=20 July, only the occasion for nostalgia and mourning. Our only chance=20 to reverse the trend is to reclaim what we have nearly lost. We=20 must relearn the idea that what we are, namely, human beings, re- quires that we assert and protect our right to life, liberty and the=20 pursuit of happiness - before any other social goal, however impor- tant it may appear. Only if we do this will we earn the right to=20 celebrate the Fourth of July instead of merely vaguely recalling it=20 and paying platitudinous lip service to its radical achievements. ========================================================================= Boys Scouts Under Assault If anyone still believes that affirmative action type laws are benign and only aim to rectify certain injustices of the past, here is a clear case to disabuse them of such misconceptions. In the last few weeks the Boys Scouts of America have come under legal=20 assault from two directions. =20 In one instance a young girl from Florida wanted to join the Boys Scouts because, well, they seem to her to be more fun than the Girls Scouts. In another instance, I believe in Chicago, a young boy who's parents designate him an atheist - yet what do such young- sters know of what they believe on such matters? - wants to join=20 the Boys Scouts despite the fact that this group chooses to admit only those with a proclaimed faith in God. Let me say from the start that I have no objection to girls joining with boys in expeditions, outings, etc. I grew up in a culture in which boys and girls were kept apart until their very=20 late teens and I doubt anyone benefited a hole lot from that sacred tradition. Quite the opposite - the boys were mystified by girls, and vica versa, much too long in their adolescence to develop a healthy, decent attitude toward each other. Such deliberate mysti- fication is not a great idea in my book. Yet, if an organization makes a policy encouraging the separation of boys and girls regarding some of what they embark upon, there is no good reason on earth to prevent them from doing this. I suppose next it will be that you will have to invite to dinner anyone who wishes to hang around your home, whether you like it or not, simply because some folks believe you ought to do so! Why is that the same thing? Because the Boys Scouts of America is a private organization which no legal authority should have the power to break up or re- arrange for some allegedly noble social purpose. And what about this forcible entry by atheists? Well, here again I have some sympathy - I am no believer myself and it does keep me out of some nice opportunities where I live, in the Bible belt. Yet I find it far worse for this country to embark on forcibly mixing=20 sexes, races, or religions than some minor bigotries run amok. One sign of courage is for those who are outside some mainstream to tough it out, not to holler "Unfair" every time they do not gain entry to some establishment type institution. Gays, atheists, minorities and the like ought to have think enough skin to withstand some of the ostracism found in mainstream circles. It makes for good character. This issue also reminds me of all those in this country who are demanding bilingualism in schools, government, etc. One of the best tests of perseverance in a new culture is whether one will learn the language. We are all reasonably equipped with the skill to pick up a new tongue. When we decide to join the country of some other linguistic group, we should not beg them to change for us but have the courtesy to make a few adjustment, including learning their language. The pampered society is what ours has become. Every outside is demanding not permission but the right of entry to every desired place in the book. It is really a show of weakness and lack of conviction. I can just see what the little girl who is being foisted on the=20 Boy Scouts will think if not admitted into some club focused on some particular interests or sharing certain features among the members -=20 she will protest to the authorities. I can see how the atheist kid will act when some society won't admit him - he will crawl to the cops for support. And that is one way to encourage the growth of a police state, namely, have the government do all the fighting for you. I wonder when the University Women of America will be challenged by some husbands of women professors to be able to join - or have they already made that revolutionary leap? It is said when people in a free society may not assemble freely and keep out those whom=20 they want for a while to avoid - for better or for worse. ========================================================================= The Burden of Bad Laws C-Span is one of my special benefits in my kind of life. That we may witness Congress at work, discussion programs, interviews of authors and the like is for me a windfall. =20 Just the other day C-Span 1 started to cover the Federal=20 District Court of Philadelphia trial, "Becker v. Unisys," a case in which a 60 old long time employee of Unisys Corporation - created out of the old firms of Sperry and Burroughs - is charging the firm with age discrimination. C-Span will be covering such trial for the next 3 years, on an experimental basis (or so said the announcement printed at the bottom of the broadcast picture the night I was watching). Now I have no idea what people will think of a broadcast like the one I saw. In this case we were provided with the opening=20 statements by the respective attorneys. Both seemed to know the law=20 very well and both gave a substantially similar account of the issues at stake. But C-Span makes no comments, offers no analysis, and leaves it to us to figure out how these events being broadcast fit within the larger picture of our lives. In this case what struck me was the indignity of having the=20 employer of someone being brought to trial for not wanting to continue the employment relationship. Unisys Corporation is, after all, simply a bunch of human beings who have decided to try to earn some return on their investments in certain lines of production. (If anyone has trouble with understanding what corporate commerce is all about, I recommend Robert Hessen's Defending the Corporation [Hoover Institution Press, 1976].) Aside from a lot of technical mumbo jumbo, a corporation is a special arrangement for doing things in the company of one another, including earning money, producing goods and services, raising funds for non-commercial projects, etc. A corporation is not really dif- ferent from a club or an orchestra - groups of people uniting for=20 a purposes they have in common. In many cases, of course, this purpose is economic or commercial, but certainly not always. And even when that is the goal of incorporation, it may by no means be the exclusive goal - once achieved, economic success will make the pursuits of other goals possible. When we see this and consider that employing people is really just one way that corporations further their economic or other objectives,=20 the idea of firing and hiring people would seem to become clear. If the employer wants to hire help and the employee is interested in the work and they come to terms, the employment relationship will commence and continue until one or the other party is no longer interested. Provided terms are not violated, that's how it should be. Now, of course, people can discontinue relationships for all kinds of reasons and sometimes one party's reasons will not sit very well with the other's. I have lost jobs before and I know I wasn't over- joyed. I felt badly and was inclined to think it should not have happened. No doubt there can be more to it - some employers can be out and out bigots or racists, others might just not prefer to have you around any longer because of some whim. Sometimes when cuts have to be made in the work force, the basis for the decision concerning whom to let go first, whom next, and so forth may well be flawed. This is one reasons for organizing employees - they can gain a better handle on their interests and bargain for the best terms. No doubt when employees quit jobs they too may make bad decisions, even ones that treat their employer less than kindly. It may not be good to leave just then - it may impose unexpected hardship on the employer=20 and on customers, as well. And while the ins and outs of the employment market in a society of free trade in skills and talents may be complex, what is crucial is that barring violation of basic rights, nothing outside the employment agreement dictate the proceedings. But, as was so well illustrated in the attorneys' opening remarks,=20 that is not how the employment relationship goes in our time. The=20 employer, at any rate, is legally forbidden to terminate the employment relationship "at will." Instead, the employer must abide by numerous standards imposed by various political bodies. =20 Thus, among other restrictions, we find this federal regulation prohibiting age discrimination. Never mind, for the moment, that it may often enough be perfectly sensible to terminate an employment relationship with some employees because of their age. Never mind whether Unisys had been wise to fire Mrs. Becker. Maybe not. Perhaps no age discrimination was involved, just as the defendant alleges, perhaps there was, as the plaintiff claims. The sad things is that in our time politicians have in effect extinguished the legal rights of employers to do what they choose, wisely or not, with their firms, their wealth, their company policies. Furthermore, there is no comparable law forbidding employees from leaving work for bad reasons. This is not so different from how con- sumers are never punished for discrimination - say, for staying away from ethnic restaurants because of bigotry, or refusing to buy foreign cars because they have an irrational attachment to Detroit's products. Employees (and consumers) are simply more free, the 14th Amendment is=20 simply being violated. All those under the law are not treated in the same fashion. Employers are coerced into behaving well, following the ideals - sometimes entirely misguided ones - of members of Congress and some of the people, while employees are not. Yet that is not what is wrong - differential treatment of people in a free society is the rule rather than the exception. As consumers we constantly discriminate, based on just our tastes, on what religion or race we are, on our esthetic standards, and so forth. Some of this is lamentable and wrong, the rest is perfectly consistent with the glaring fact that we are individuals with different values that will be most fitting for us. What is wrong is that government is telling people how to run their business, whom to hire or fire, whom to promote and why, whatever their freely reached agreement. Of course, those who like all this meddling claim that employees have less bargaining power to get their way in the employment contract. Yet by now it should be clear that employers are no more powerful when it comes to bargaining than are employees. That's what was achieved in the mid 1800s, when the courts finally freed all employees to organize so as to be able to make better deals in the market. (Prior to that the threat to walk off a job was treated as a crime, as if the community's hardship could be a reason for keeping workers in involuntary servitude!) Watching the Unisys attorney trying to be so pleasant and civilized about why Mrs. Becker was fired without anyone making any mistake, without anyone doing anything morally objectionable, brought to the fore just how far this country has moved from a bona fide free market economy. It is no wonder that when other countries are trying to figure out how to go about developing such a system, official U.S. government teaching cannot help them much. Ours is now moving in the direction of the very command economy those countries have found such a big flop. ========================================================================= Accountability Begins at Home After all the panic during the presidential campaign concerning=20 the rise in the cost of health services throughout the United States, one might expect some plain words about who deserves to be provided with such services. But that would be too much to ask, would it not, with the reemergence to political power of the American Left. What the Clinton election means is certainly anything but a clear understanding of responsibility and accountability. This is evident from the hue and cry heard during the last few days about the conviction of two men who defrauded the government's health insurance program. =20 The two men switched identities when the one not insured suffered=20 massive injuries from a fall he had taken in Tennessee on July 8, 1990. =20 After being rescued by his best friend and fearing that no adequate=20 medical service may be available to him without insurance, the best=20 friend gave the injured man his insurance card and had his wife attest to his false identity. The parties involved were convicted of fraud, just as they should have been. They must repay $41,000.00 and serve various light sentences for their crime. Instead of hailing this as a sound approach to containing the cost of medical care - by discouraging fraudulent use of the insurance system - Families USA, a Washington advocacy group, lamented the incident and called it an good example of what ails our system of health care. One=20 may assume, without even knowing the details, that the concern was with why someone with severe injuries would have to fear not receiving needed care so he would resort to fraud. Why not provide the care anyway? Being insured is just one way that people demonstrate that they are responsible human beings, willing to be accountable for their conduct. If I go mountain climbing, hiking, deep sea diving or hand gliding, I have=20 no business not being insured. These are risky undertakings. Indeed, just going through the normal motions of contemporary living involves one in risks. From an early age, therefore, any person not locked in a deep cave ought to know that he or she will require health insurance. One's efforts to obtain a reasonably well paying job must be directed, in part, toward securing various types of insurance - home, life, health, automobile= , etc. =20 When someone neglects to live the kind of life whereby such insurance can be secured, one has no business demanding that the services a policy secures for one be provided anyway. That is nothing else but wanting to eat one's cake and have it as well - wishing to spend the money or time=20 one would have to invest in obtaining insurance but also wishing to have the services available. If there is something that is bankrupting America's health-care system it is the by now entrenched habit of people wanting to get health care but free of charge. WHo then is going to pay for the work the doctors, nurses and thousands of other professionals put in to deliver that service? Who will pay the construction workers who built the hospitals, the employees and investors of the firms that develop the research needed to combat all sorts of diseases? It is this attachment to the idea of having a basic right to what others have to work for that is killing not only the health care system but the economy as a whole. =20 Over a hundred years ago slavery and involuntary servitude were=20 abolished in our country. But by the proliferation of entitlement programs, which pay people who haven't earned what they want for their well being, the system is being reintroduced through the back door. It is now not the masters of southern plantations but the bureaucrats in various capital cities who demand that some citizens perform work free of charge, uncompensated, while others enjoy the benefits of this work. It is time that we once again abolish forced labor. But first we need to teach special interest groups such as Family USA some lessons of personal responsibility and freedom of choice. ========================================================================= Unfair Attack on Conservative Foundations In a recent issue of what amounts to a trade publication for the=20 higher education profession, Chronicles of Higher Education, a=20 Professor Donald Lazere argues that scholars funded by conservative=20 foundations "who deny that their work is tainted by such sponsorship=20 may be sincere, but if they want to convince anyone not already on=20 their side, they are ethically obligated to disassociated themselves=20 from this kind of patronage and compete in the market of independent=20 scholars..." =20 This kind of sanctimonious advice needs to be shown up for what=20 it is, namely, a kind of self-imposed blindness to the politics of=20 mainstream foundations. And there is no excuse for anyone in aca- deme for maintaining this blindness. Let me start by saying that I have received generous support from=20 the John M. Olin and other foundations that may be characterized as=20 conservative, although I am not a conservative. Most of my work,=20 including what I have received support for, develops arguments that=20 do not support conservatism or most of its central contentions=20 (especially about the authority of tradition and religion). Where=20 we overlap in our views is in some economic matters, although even=20 there conservatives differ from the position I see as most sensible. What is crucial, however, is that despite my contrary views, no=20 conservative foundation has ever even suggested that I change my=20 position on anything in order to have a better chance at funding. =20 Only one has indicated to me that some board member is dismayed with=20 my views, so I am not receiving their support, but then this is=20 their right, certainly, however unwise I might believe they are in=20 following that approach toward me. =20 My experience bears directly on Professor Lazere's point because=20 I could not say the same for government granting agents. The few I=20 have appealed to have explicitly chided me for taking a certain=20 line. Moreover, I formulated my views before I even knew that there=20 might be some foundations that would support my work and turned to=20 these after having found mainstream outfits biased. For example, I applied once to one government agency that funded=20 work in the values and technology area. I no longer recall which=20 agency it was - I believe it was affiliated with the National=20 Science Foundation. In response to my proposal and supporting=20 materials I was told, among other things, that as someone with a=20 libertarian outlook in politics I have no business trying to write=20 on public policy matters. On another occasion, I was being consid- ered for a post as a Congressional fellow. I made it as one of five=20 finalists. But during the interview I was asked by the chair what=20 purpose I, a libertarian political theorist, could have working with=20 Congress. =20 On those rare other occasions when I decided to give it a try=20 with mainstream funding bodies, I have noticed that they rejected my=20 appeal for support on grounds that my limited government position=20 simply gives me no standing as a contributor to political and ethi- cal debate. Once the NEH was asked by a producer to fund a televi- sion series on political philosophy that I was to host - with a co- host on each program whose views were significantly different from=20 mine. The application was rejected twice, partly on grounds that I=20 was "a mere popularizer of libertarian ideas." In my experience, as well as the experience of several others who=20 seem to find non-statist ideas promising and would like to do re- search and scholarship on various aspects of their position, main- stream - especially government - foundations respond in anything but=20 an unbiased fashion. Quite the contrary. Moreover, it is my own desire not to rely on government founding=20 unless there is no other alternative, since (a) I do not enjoy=20 taking confiscated (tax) moneys and (b) there is a very high proba- bility of bias in their evaluations against those who challenge=20 their own legitimacy within the proposed work. And that is no=20 wonder - the bulk of academe, especially in the area of political=20 philosophy, favors the ever growing state presence in our lives and=20 many of these explicitly admit that they see it as their role to=20 cripple any efforts to slow down their revolutionary efforts. Why=20 would they not act accordingly when they have the chance given to=20 them as panelists, etc.? Moreover, Professor Lazere seems to find the openness of conserva- tive foundations, concerning their views, objectionable. Yet that=20 is in fact one of the praiseworthy aspects of those organizations. =20 What is far worse is that most of the mainstream foundations -=20 Carnegie, Ford, MacArthur, etc., proclaim their neutrality but by=20 means of their selection of prominent - implying, thus, mostly=20 accommodating - panelists and evaluators (not to mention staff and=20 directors) they import their own biases in ways against which it is=20 nearly impossible to guard. =20 Finally, the effort to create the myth of lack of bias is clearly=20 evident in what Professor Lazere himself proclaims. Has he never=20 heard of institutional bias or at least of the phenomenon of main- stream scientists and scholars ignoring challengers without thinking=20 themselves guilty of anything? Those who are in the majority and=20 enjoy nearly absolute power in mainstream institutions are so in- fested with that kind of bias that they can baldly announce to the=20 world that their hands are clean. Pontius Pilate anyone?=20 ========================================================================= Given them all a Proper Defense! I have come to a conclusion on a subject that may strike some as an abandonment of my libertarian political principles. But=20 the libertarian political tradition - earlier called "classical liberal" (until "liberal" became corrupted) - is not one in which all the business of government is finally identified. =20 Rather this tradition promotes certain general standards for thinking about and conducting politics. In any case, it seems to me now that in a fully free society=20 it may require for government to provide and finance the defense=20 for those accused of a crime. Now this would be clearly a task=20 of government not usually associated with the classical liberal,=20 libertarian political tradition in which it is believed that the=20 smaller the scope of government the better that government is. =20 Most people believe that in this tradition when individuals=20 are charged with a crime except for perhaps the thoroughly indi- gent those in utterly dire straits people ought to obtain for=20 themselves at their own expense legal defense. =20 Yet, there is something flawed with this idea simply because=20 if, indeed, the protection of individual rights is to be equally=20 provided to all members of a human community, if that is what the=20 function of a government is, and if part of that protection is to=20 provide for an adequate defense, then how could those who are=20 poorer than others gain this provision? It would not be possi- ble. =20 Now, inasmuch as a legal system has as its goal to estab- lish justice, this is not the same kind of goal as establishing,=20 say, a membership in a racquet club or a participation in other=20 valuable aspects of social life. Those aspects are perfectly=20 legitimately unequally distributed throughout the human community=20 because they are not a function of that community's system of=20 justice; they are a function of the individual aspirations and=20 opportunities and luck and mishaps and good fortunes and generos- ity and kindness of the people that make up that community. =20 Justice, on the other hand is a function of the legal system of=20 a human community and since everyone is an equal member of that=20 legal system - as this is clearly noted in the 14th amendment to=20 the United States Constitution - each citizen is entitled to equal=20 defense against charges of being a criminal. I do not believe that a genuine limited government would=20 suffer too heavy a financial burden with this additional expense. ========================================================================= The Free Society Assaulted One might have thought that when something obviously good has something wrong with it, people would wish to repair it. That is what would be the approach to handling the kind of political system that the Western countries have been working with over the last century or so. With the failures of such grand collectivist systems as fascism=20 and socialism, the principles of liberalism would need to be cleaned=20 up, improved upon, not attacked and demeaned. Yet ever since the fall of the greatest collectivist experiment - and it is actually an insult to millions of human beings to call that criminal political undertaking by such a mild term - intellectuals have been trying to rename collectivism and revive its reputation. It began even before the fall of the Soviet Union, with the book Habits of the Heart by Robert Bellah and his colleagues at UC Berkeley. It was followed by the establishment of the communitarian movement, by Amitai Etzioni and his friends, who publish The Responsive Community. Then came Bellah & Co.'s The Good Society, as well as, most recently, the frontal attack on the free society by Harvard psychologist Andrew Bard Schoomkler, in his The Illusion of Choice (where nearly all of Karl Marx's misconception about capitalism and human nature are repeated). And the list could continue - one need but read the journals and=20 of the cultural elite. Their journals are multiplying, their think tanks are proliferating, and they have jumped on the White House band wagon (what with one of their big heroes, Robert Reich, becoming secretary of labor). What all these folks are preaching is that the American ideal of individualism, involving such notions as personal responsibility and initiative, private property rights, and the self-made person, is wrong. What they wish to place in its place is the ideal of the gentle and kind coercive community. The bottom line of that system is that people's lives do not belong to them but to all of us. Arguments are put forth about how when you are a white person you belong to the entire white race and are, therefore responsible for what while people have done to, say, blacks. (This idea is advanced in the book by Larry May, Sharing Responsibility, published by the prestigious University of Chicago Press!) In short, not more than 48 years after the Holocaust, which involved the idea of blaming Jews for everything under the sun that was bad about the European continent because of the sins of some of the ancestors - the idea of collective guilt - we find American intellectuals laying the groundwork for a similar=20 way of handling human problems. All this is testimony to the fact that American higher education is and has for decades been infested with people who literally hate America, the very ideals which enable them to work against those ideals. They see that the fall of the USSR may have given some the notion that freedom is good, that individual initiative and responsibility are what societies need to be just, healthy and prosperous. So they need, now, to nip this in the bud. But it isn't only left wing intellectuals who have jumped on this bandwagon of America bashing. John Lukacs, the well known historian=20 who writes frequently for Bill Buckley's National Review, has written a book in which he flatly asserts that the kind of free society we have taught the world to emulate and even envy is obsolete. What people really like, Lukacs argues approvingly, is nationalism. =20 Well, nationalism is just another form of collectivism, the fascist rather than the communist variety. It places the nation one happens to be born in into a position of ultimate superiority. It demands of people to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the Fatherland. It is what is killing thousands in the former Yugoslavia, in the Middle East and=20 elsewhere (in various incarnations, such as ethnic purification). But what all of the ordinary folk across the world are still looking for is the establishment of societies with America's original principles. They may join some band for some temporary advantages or out of fear, but they are essentially Americaphiles. (During the last four years I have lectured in Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Argentina, France, Athens, and elsewhere around the globe and all the students testify to this fact!)= =20 Intellectuals have often been suspected to have their heads in the, although I know of some prominent exceptions. But the common impression seems to be true. When a good idea, that actually helps human beings to live better and more honorably is clearly born out in practice, they seem to cling to their dreams, never mind the harm this does to the rest of us. ========================================================================= The Romantic Realism of Camile Paglia Professor Camile Paglia has been infuriating many radical feminists by her ruthless realism about human romantic-sexual interplay. For the last year she has been arguing, among other things, that the claim that=20 "`No' always means `Do not have sex with me'" is not true as a general statement, even if in certain "No" does mean "No." =20 Paglia is not being silly, despite the fact that many of her critics=20 dismiss her as nothing more than an egomaniac who says what she does just= =20 to call attention to herself. How should we understand Paglia's message? = =20 Does it not fly in the face of, well, the English language itself? Indeed,= =20 does it not fly in he face of any language? Actually, Paglia is right. For one, we make use of words for many purposes. Often enough we use words literally, in line with how the dictionary defines them. I am no deconstructionist, so I will not dwell on the claims of many academicians who say that words mean whatever we want them to mean. Such a statement defeats itself from the start, since if it is true, it may also be taken to be false. So the point here is not that "No" has no clear meaning in the language.=20 Rather when to say that "No" sometimes does not mean "No" is to point to the fact that words don't always function so as to utter claims that may be either true or false. Thus when you hear someone say "My hands are freezing," or "You are crazy," these utterances aren't used to say but to show, indicate, express something aside from their strict meaning. = =20 "My hands are freezing" is not to be taken literally. It is used to=20 express displeasure, to show discomfort. "You are crazy" is often used=20 in a similar sense, not to say something popurtedly true but to indicate=20 an attitude. In the romantic-sexual context language is often used in a=20 similar fashion, without its literal meaning.=20 In human relationships there are many occasions when people are=20 asked to become party to certain activities and they refuse, initially,=20 not because they would not want to but because they have reservations that makes them unsure. Their religious upbringing may influence them=20 to be reluctant about taking part in sexual relations. How their peers feel about having sex can do the same. They may not yet trust their partner and wish to put off a decision but not cut it off completely. Thus some people will initially say "No" when asked to have sex even though they may mean by this "I am hesitant because I've been told=20 much of my life that it is wrong for me to do so." If, however, it turns out that this belief is weakly held or becomes supplanted with=20 the belief that, when confronted by a request from a certain kind of=20 person - say, one who is respected, loved and trusted - it is not wrong=20 to consent, then the "No," which actually means "Let us talk about it some more, let me think about it more carefully, give me some more=20 reasons for why it is right to do it," can turn into a "Yes." It is utterly misleading to flatly deny the above. Anyone who has=20 experienced romantic-sexual relationships, yet has not in the slightest=20 been inclined toward forcibly imposing sex upon another, can testify to=20 this. It is a realistic understanding of what function "No" can have=20 in discussing the development of the relationship, especially at an=20 early stage and for young people. Nor is this a male illusion - most=20 intelligent, self-respecting women can attest to its truth.=20 Paglia has noted that denying all this is to be simple minded about how romance manifests itself in human relationships. It fails to take into consideration the romantic sexual drama, the give and take of it, how partners express themselves by the use of innumerable signals, not just the literal meaning of words. We all know about body language and it is clear that the song is right that you may be saying "no, no, no" with your lips, while your eyes may be signaling "yes, yes, yes." Both men and women are perfectly capable of such apparent duplicity and to deny this is, in fact, to be complicit in the miseducation of young people concerning the hazards of romance. None of this is to say that there are no cases where "No" must be=20 taken to mean exactly as the dictionary construes its meaning, as a=20 rebuff or refusal. And it is insulting to women, in general, to believe that they are unable to make clear when they mean "No" precisely as "no." Yet to pretend that this is always the case is to deny the obvious and=20 to distort the reality most people are well enough aware of. It gives=20 young people a misguided outlook on what to look forward to as they=20 embark on romance in their lives. It lulls them into the belief that romance and sex is a simple, cut and dry matter, without complixity and nounace. =20 Professor Paglia should be thanked for not allowing the extremism=20 of certain feminists to have the last word on this topic. ========================================================================= Yes! PBS (and NPR) Ought to Go! We finally have the right idea about public broadcasting in the air. The New York Times reports that there is now a serious call in Washington for the total abolition or privatization of=20 this wholly inappropriate government supported, partially tax funded medium of Left wing propaganda. Actually, I don't care how Let wing any national medium happens to be, so long as I am not forced to pay even a penny for=20 its upkeep. There are dozens of very prominent magazines with a Left wing editorial policy - The Nation, Progressive, Mother Jones, Utne Report, The New York Review of Books, to name only the more prominent ones. In the fields of both popular and scholarly=20 publications, the Left still holds prominent sway, despite all the talk about the "collapse of Socialism." But no one is forcing me to subscribe - I do so, when I do so, because I am interested in just how wrong intelligent people can be. PBS and NPR - National Public Radio - in contrast, are massive=20 broadcast ventures, supported and partly funded by the federal=20 government, from taxes going to, e.g., the Corporation for Public=20 Broadcasting.=20 Contrary to what many conservatives complain about, it is not so=20 much the lack of balance in the programming that is so insidious. It=20 is that there exists a first amendment medium that people in this=20 country are forced to pay for. Of course, it is undeniably true that both PBS and NPR are run for the sake of spreading socialist ideology. These people, contrary to what The New York Times keeps doggedly repeating, are not liberals. A Liberal believes in, for example, civil liberties and equality of opportunity, a free press and fairness, among other things. Liberals lean toward socialism mostly in economic matters. The editorial tone of nearly all PBS and NPR programming is radically socialist and, more recently, fascist - especially when it comes to environmental and feminist matters. PBS runs innumerable opinion programs, beginning and ending, of course, with all the opportunities Bill Moyers gets for airing his pious laments about the universe. Moyers is no liberal but an agitator for the position that everything that is wrong with the world is due to the United States of America. His repeated intoning about what "we, in this country, are doing to ..." is so tiresome that I simply cannot watch him, even when he interviews people I regard interesting. PBS's several interesting round table programs on various facets of our legal system is also very biased toward the left liberal agenda. The leaders of these discussions, whose panels do manage to be balanced - if you believe that there are only two viewpoints in America worth telling the viewers about - are nearly all Harvard law professors and their orientation tends always toward leftist moralizing. There are no communists, libertarians, Muslims, Moonies or any other theorists who don't fit the mainstream balance, outside of some militant=20 feminists and multiculturalists on these programs. And, more importantly, no one outside the Eastern educational establishment ever appears on them - which, frankly, annoys me, who teaches at a southern university no one at PBS ever thinks of inviting to appear on their programs. There are fine things, too, on PBS. And who knows, maybe it does full justice to the intellectual market place, so balance need by no=20 means be the standard by which to judge it. It is only because PBS is a government created and (partially) funded monopoly that I fully support those who are calling for its abolition. I would be even more enthusiastic if NPR got the axe - it has the most whiny, openly Left wing editorial tone among all mainstream media efforts. Its staff have just one voice, that of the smooth, velvety Eastern intellectual. (Just listen and try to find someone=20 with a southern, Bronx or foreign accent, outside a few guest essayists. But then the same phenomenon would not bother me much if found on ABC, CNN or A&E, since I am not made to spend a dime of my life on those.) Let us get the government out of at least one major and very=20 sensitive industry. There should, in short, be the same policy in government toward media as there is toward religion - it should neither ban nor establish any denomination, regardless of its content. Let all geniuses in the industry like Bill Moyers and Nina Totenberg find a job on the open market - surely there are plenty of media outlets now. I look forward to not seeing Bill Moyers, say, on the Discovery Channel, or, per chance, on Nick at Nite! ========================================================================= The Law versus Air-Pollution=20 Throughout most of the world the most common way of stemming=20 environmental pollution is by means of government regulation. This method usually involves some commission or regulatory bureaucracy that arrives at certain standards, based usually, on social cost- benefit analysis, and these are then laid out for all prospective polluters to become aware of. Should some detection process record the violation of these standards, the violator is punished, often by means of a hefty fee. What is clear about this approach to meeting the challenge of environmental problems is that it leaves a lot to be desired in its effectiveness, it is susceptible to corruption, and it involves prior restraint, a legal method that is incompatible with the principles of due process and individual rights. But it is not my concern here to spell out these criticisms or to substantiate them. I am assuming for now that they have some basis in fact. What I wish to do is suggest an approach to dealing with=20 environmental problems that avoids at least one of the pitfalls listed above, namely, the practice of prior restraint. The approach that eschews, on principle, prior restraint might be designated the natural rights doctrine. According to this doctrine, wherever activities issuing in pollution cannot be carried out=20 without injury to third (non-consenting) parties, such activities=20 have to be prohibited as inherently in violation of the rights of=20 individual members of the community. Before we can fully appreciate this approach to environmental pollution problems we need to concern ourselves with thresholds. =20 The earth - as well as any part of the universe where life support=20 is reasonably imaginable - can often absorb some measure of potentially=20 injurious waste. (This can be expected, since life itself produces=20 waste!) Most toxic substances can dissipate up to a point. =20 Arguably this is no different from the simple observation that=20 within a given territory only so much life can be supported, after=20 which the quantity and quality of life must be lowered. Barring the=20 privatization of such spheres, where they can be kept apart and=20 separated from others, a judicially efficient management of toxic=20 substance disposal must take into consideration how far disposal can=20 continue before the vital point - whereby the waste is harmlessly=20 absorbed and dissipated - is reached. Technical measurements would need=20 to be employed and correlated with information about the levels of human=20 tolerance for the toxic substance in question. Risk analysis would need=20 to be performed so as to learn whether the risk of falling victim to=20 toxic substance disposal corresponds with or exceeds expected risks not=20 produced by human pollution.=20 When pollution occurs along lines of thresholds, such that only=20 once so much emission has occurred could emission or waste be actually=20 polluting (i.e., harmful to persons) rights violation occurs. (One might think of this along lines of public health law, whereby only when a disease is serious, is it justified to quarantine those who spread it because they would be violating others' rights by inflicting it upon=20 them without their consent.) Before a threshold has been reached, disposal of wastes would=20 follow a system of "first come, first served." Accordingly, by law those who start the production first would have the right to continue,=20 while others, who would raise the threshold to a harmful level,=20 would not. This may appear arbitrary, but in fact numerous areas of=20 human life, including especially commerce, make good use of this=20 system, and human ingenuity could well be expended toward making=20 sure that one's firm is not a latecomer.=20 It is important to state that the natural rights (individualist) standard of tolerance might very well be far lower than even those=20 who support it would imagine. =20 Assuming the soundness of the natural rights stance, it may be=20 necessary to prepare for some life style changes, so that some past=20 abuses can be rectified. For example, automobile wastes have thus=20 far been poured into the atmosphere with an understanding=20 that from a utilitarian perspective it is worth doing so (based on=20 social cost-benefit analysis). But from the individual natural rights=20 framework of law, the full cost of driving, including harmful waste disposal, would have to be borne by automobile drivers/owners. This=20 would, at least temporarily, prompt a considerable rise in the prices=20 of gasoline using vehicles. (The overall cost may be born wider,=20 since more expensive manufacturing and transportation processes will=20 prompt more expensive goods and services, until cheaper substitutes are found within the framework of individual rights. The central=20 issue is what persons can chose to do or avoid doing in light of their=20 understanding of what may harm them.) Certainly a natural rights oriented government would not=20 have the authority to rely on the utilitarian notion, used by many=20 courts today in their refusal to enforce "public nuisance laws,"=20 that those harmed by pollution have to "pay" because the overall=20 benefits of industrial growth outweigh such costs in health and=20 property damage as are caused by pollution. Instead the principle=20 of strict liability would apply: Polluters or others bound by contract=20 with them, would be held liable for any injury suffered from pollution. =20 Within a system that respects individual rights, benefits not solicited=20 cannot be charged for! To judge a system of law, we need to compare its overall workability and coherence, including how it meets the needs of human beings in society, with other systems. There seems little doubt, especially in the light of recent political developments across the world, that a system that respects individual rights serves justice better than those that ignore that purpose. And the same may actually be applicable to the effort to apply the law to the problem of environmental pollution. Here, too, let us not accept the view, advocated by many, that in this particular case (again) we need to sacrifice the rights of individuals so as to achieve some public good. Indeed, it seems, that the public good people claim to strive for in connection with pollution problems, is really the combined goods of all individuals. And to preserve the good of all individuals at once, it is best to protect individual rights. ========================================================================= Our Loss of The American Vision=20 Hardly anyone would dispute that the United States of America is=20 in a serious mess, although there is clearly no consensus about the=20 explanation for it. My own hypothesis is that we have given up as a=20 society - by way of the prominent ideas circulating among not only=20 intellectuals but the popular media - on the doctrine that is most=20 essential to this country's identity. This idea is, simply, that=20 individual citizens are responsible for the conduct of their own=20 lives, regardless of how difficult it is for them to carry out this=20 responsibility. =20 What made this country unique is it's ascription to the individu- al's capacity for making major decisions in life. Because we are=20 able and responsible to do this, the right to individual liberty has=20 been thought so vital to the goodness and justice of any society. =20 If individuals are regimented by others, including their govern- ments, they will not be free to make the judgments they can and=20 should make to guide themselves through life. Even this nation's=20 major fault, namely, slavery, could be corrected only because at=20 heart the country was committed - through ideas expressed in the=20 Declaration of Independence - to protecting each individual's rights=20 to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abraham Lincoln was=20 guided by the Declaration's doctrine of basic rights to liberty for=20 all human beings in his choice to go to war over slavery. =20 But look at the ideas that dominate our culture today: if you=20 smoke, it is the tobacco advertisers whose fault it is; if you are=20 overweight it is your addiction to food that is responsible; if you=20 are a child molester it is your parent's bad behavior toward you=20 that did this to you; if you drink too much, it is your parents'=20 alcoholism that did you in; if you are violent, your violent parents=20 should be blamed; if you take bad drugs your lack of self-esteem=20 that explains it; if you feel inferior, it is the way your teachers=20 treated you in school that accounts for it. And we could just go on=20 forever - is there anything that we do for which we ourselves are=20 responsible? Not if we listen not only to those who appear on Oprah,=20 Geraldo, or Donahue but also to the countless professors of sociolo- gy, psychology and other social sciences. We are hapless creatures,=20 they all tell us, at the mercy of forces we cannot control. =20 What will save us? You guessed it, more money from the feds -=20 created by the magic of deficit spending and higher taxes on the=20 rich. Yes, that's it - more Robin Hoodism and public finance hocus=20 pocus. The only "solution" that people seem to hope for relies on=20 the most inept aspect of our culture, namely, government regimenta- tion. This i