Several possibly even tangentially related points:
1) The importance of electing a Republican president so that conservative justices can be appointed does not work. Even if Roberts proves reliable from here on out, Bush's appointee ensured that Obama's signature piece of legislation stands. The Robot had better update his website:
As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
2) The reasoning strikes me as totally spurious. While the administration did argue that the mandate included a tax--as well as arguing that it did not--the bill was sold to the American people under the auspices of tax-neutrality. It should not be surprising that the government would lie to its citizens, especially when the upside is a free service that will, apparently, pay for itself.
3) If the government has an unlimited power to tax, the Republicans can
actually use this to their advantage. I recommend a tax of $5,000 on
every abortion, to ensure that poor people aren't required to murder
their progeny and to help with the deficit. Other purchases could be
taxed as well, a smug tax on Prius drivers for instance. These measures
aren't conservative, but at least they would be amusing, and much more
effective than the usual GOP policy of nominating justices to stab party
faithful in the back.
4) It is all but certain that this bill will cost far more than we were promised. It will take a few years until the costs become clear, and no doubt the poor economy will be blamed for any failure to meet expectations, but government spending always costs more than promised. For a sobering example, see here.
5) The Republic is doomed, but it has been doomed for awhile now, so there's no reason to be melancholic about this decision. We were insolvent before Obamacare, and although we're more insolvent than before, that's not especially significant. In some respects, this law is actually a good thing, insofar as it should hasten the collapse. So put on a happy face and continue to prepare for the national default.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Defending Catholic Moral Teaching
To reverse the recommendation from the Sound of Music, when it comes to moral theology, the end turns out to be a very good place to start. That end, as Romanus Cessario O.P. explains in his Introduction to Moral Theology, is God. This final beatitude, in which we see God in heaven, is the fulfillment of human happiness. As Augustine famously explained: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” Happiness, then, is the subject of moral theology.
God's creations, including human beings, possess a nature which determines the happiness of that creature. Just as a duck fulfills its vocation by virtue of being a duck, there are patterns for people which make us the happy humans God intended us to be. Contrarily, there are behaviors, i.e. sins, which cause us to fall short of human happiness. These dictates form what is known as the natural law.
Moderns recoil at the idea of the natural law, which seems arbitrary and restrictive. Yet if the ramifications still rankle, we ought to recognize the principle. A ball is by nature spherical; it rolls and bounces. One which is irregular in shape and fails to roll or bounce is not a “good” ball. That human beings may choose to behave contrary to the natural law is indicative of our ability to choose good and evil; it does not disprove the notion altogether.
Fr. Cessario helpfully delineates “the three distinct areas of human well-being” to which that law inclines us as human beings:
“Self-preservation, the good which man has in common with all creatures: to preserve the substantial being which is possessed;
Procreation and the rearing of children, the good of the nature man has in common with sentient, but irrational, creatures: to preserve through the coupling of male and female the human species;
Knowledge of truth about God and society, the good of the nature man has in common with all intelligent beings: to act in accord with reason and to realize the potential which reason affords.”
I note in passing that only the last of these commands is enjoined about humans alone; the much-maligned second injunction, from which the Church's “controversial” proscription on contraception stems, is enjoined upon all creatures by virtue of our sentient nature. For more on this topic, see John S. Grabowski's Sex and Virtue: An Introduction to Sexual Ethics, the second volume in this series on Catholic Moral Thought.
Philosophy, and especially ethics, has been struggling to free itself from the legacy of Hume and Kant, what Fr. Cessario refers to as their “anti-metaphysical presuppositions.” For “[David Hume] eschews what he considers the groundless view that moral oughts can be discovered on the basis of an analysis of what human nature “is”, or deduced from distinctively human properties.” By “freeing” man from the dictates of human nature, man is encouraged to self-actualize, but without an end to which he can aspire, this becomes an exercise in absurdity. It also renders discussions about ethics fruitless as any behavior can be defined as ethical if the criteria are subjectively set by the acting person.
The author provides assistance in freeing the modern from the trap set by the aforementioned philosophers. He observes: “[B]ecause human reason is able to discover what suits the in-built entelechies of human nature, the Christian moral theologian can confidently expound on the teleological dimension of the moral life without undue appeal to legal sanctions and punishments.” The prose can be challenging, but the instruction is sound.
I have chosen to focus on what I believe to be the most compelling section of the book, but there is more to moral theology than the natural law. For instance, Fr. Cessario discusses the role played by virtues in creating a “pattern of a graced life” He also emphasizes the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit. Still, this introduction is probably most valuable for the cogent explanation and defense of the natural law.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Time preference and the sexual marketplace
Although time preference is usually utilized to help qualify habits of saving and borrowing, it can also be used in regards to other human behavior. For instance, exercising and eating a balanced diet is indicative low time preference; binge drinking and chain smoking is more in line with high time preference. In short, if the benefits of a particular action are likely to be experienced in the long term, the action is low time preference. In economics, we don't pass judgment on such behaviors, but sociologically and ethically considered, low time preference is preferable.
This generalization holds true in the sexual marketplace as well. Those who imbibe in short-term thinking, either by coupling with undesirable partners, or, setting aside the Catholic position on the morality of birth control, practicing unsafe sex, are exhibiting high time preference. The result of which is bastard spawn who will grow up without a father figure. Such an environment is poisonous for the child. Moreover, since, as Aristotle observed, humans accrue habits in part by observation--and practice--the child will likely exhibit the same time preference as his mother. Hence the vicious cycle of human poverty.
Two things seem clear to me. First, what is needed to be done is simple, if not especially easy. Those who wish to avoid the vicious cycle of poverty must adapt low time preference behavior. In the middle and upper class, this is easy enough to do, both because one's friends, family and neighbors are more likely to practice low time preference behaviors, but also because, for the women, there are more desirable men available, with whom to marry. For the underclass, such men are far less available; this formed one of the themes of Charles Murray's recent book, Coming Apart. Women's time preferences may change if the pool of desirable men becomes larger. Just how one achieves this is an entirely different, and possibly even larger, problem.
Second, the Government can do very little about this sort of thing, and actually adds slightly to the problem by offering short-term incentives to the poor. Welfare benefits single mothers, which is another way of saying that it incentivizes them. This is not to say that assisting single mothers is ethically unsound, or that the Government is trying to create as many single mothers as possible as part of some diabolical plot to further undermine the underclass. Neither is it my intention to argue that destroying the Welfare State will fix the problem; it won't. It is nonetheless clear that if single motherhood is to be discouraged, the State would be wise to offer incentives to men and women alike to marry and remain together until the child reaches adulthood.
It might seem odd that a libertarian would be agitating for a Government program. In truth, I'm not particularly keen on the idea of subsidizing marriage, myself. However, if the State is to do something along this front, it would resemble this idea. So even if it's not worth implementing, it's worth examining. Even if it's a difficult goal to achieve, altering the time preference of Americans is a valuable goal if we wish to reverse the decivilizing trends of recent decades.
This generalization holds true in the sexual marketplace as well. Those who imbibe in short-term thinking, either by coupling with undesirable partners, or, setting aside the Catholic position on the morality of birth control, practicing unsafe sex, are exhibiting high time preference. The result of which is bastard spawn who will grow up without a father figure. Such an environment is poisonous for the child. Moreover, since, as Aristotle observed, humans accrue habits in part by observation--and practice--the child will likely exhibit the same time preference as his mother. Hence the vicious cycle of human poverty.
Two things seem clear to me. First, what is needed to be done is simple, if not especially easy. Those who wish to avoid the vicious cycle of poverty must adapt low time preference behavior. In the middle and upper class, this is easy enough to do, both because one's friends, family and neighbors are more likely to practice low time preference behaviors, but also because, for the women, there are more desirable men available, with whom to marry. For the underclass, such men are far less available; this formed one of the themes of Charles Murray's recent book, Coming Apart. Women's time preferences may change if the pool of desirable men becomes larger. Just how one achieves this is an entirely different, and possibly even larger, problem.
Second, the Government can do very little about this sort of thing, and actually adds slightly to the problem by offering short-term incentives to the poor. Welfare benefits single mothers, which is another way of saying that it incentivizes them. This is not to say that assisting single mothers is ethically unsound, or that the Government is trying to create as many single mothers as possible as part of some diabolical plot to further undermine the underclass. Neither is it my intention to argue that destroying the Welfare State will fix the problem; it won't. It is nonetheless clear that if single motherhood is to be discouraged, the State would be wise to offer incentives to men and women alike to marry and remain together until the child reaches adulthood.
It might seem odd that a libertarian would be agitating for a Government program. In truth, I'm not particularly keen on the idea of subsidizing marriage, myself. However, if the State is to do something along this front, it would resemble this idea. So even if it's not worth implementing, it's worth examining. Even if it's a difficult goal to achieve, altering the time preference of Americans is a valuable goal if we wish to reverse the decivilizing trends of recent decades.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Time preference and civilization
One of the more fruitful observations made by the Austrian school of economics is the role played by time preference in the market. As Wikipedia puts it: " Someone with a high time preference is focused substantially on
his well-being in the present and the immediate future relative to the
average person, while someone with low time preference places more emphasis than average on their well-being in the further future."
Time preference intersects in economics in this fashion: a high time preference economy will have few savers, hence, interest rates will be higher than in a low time preference economy. This is because borrowers compete to obtain loans at the lowest possible rate of interest, while lenders try to obtain the highest rate of interest for their money. True, in our economy, the Federal Reserve tries to set the interest rate, but in a free economy, the rate of interest would be coordinated like any other good and service, through competition. And even in the mismanaged economy in which we live, the market rate of interest emerges eventually.
Ludwig von Mises covers the topic in much more detail for those interested. But I'd like to borrow the Austrian terminology to examine the role played by time preference in civilization, a point I first considered while reading Democracy: The God That Failed by the Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
In general civilization tends to be characterized by low time preference. Indeed, the ability to even consider future well-being may mark the transition to civilization; whereas the prehistoric hunter-gatherer tribes were entirely preoccupied with seeking food and shelter--and trying to avoid death at the paws of wild creatures-- the advent of farming ensured that at least some members of the tribe could concern themselves with other matters. Only then was low time preference a possibility.
Here's Carroll Quigley in Tragedy in Hope:
"It has been said that in 1700 the agricultural labor of twenty persons was required in order to produce enough food for twenty-one persons, while in some areas, by 1900, three persons could produce enough food for twenty-one persons, thus releasing seventeen persons for nonagricultural activities." (p. 16)
What was true of what Quigley calls the Agricultural Revolution was true, albeit to a much lesser extent, of earlier Agrarian societies. The meager advances of primitive peoples, and the technological innovations of later times, to say nothing of its art and science, were made possible by a surplus of food; but it was only when societies began to value future time periods that such developments took place.
Now then, how stands are time preference today, in American society? We have become a high time preference society, characterized by massive indebtedness and other present-oriented behavior. Taking on any debt is probably evidence of high time preference, but much of our behavior is indicative of something beyond this, for which the Austrian school has provided no such terminology.
There is a chasm between a young person who buys a house on credit and an older person who retires without having paid off his mortgage. The former may be acting with his future in mind; he desires to build equity quickly so that he may devote future income to saving for his retirement. The latter is simply foolish, and far too common among the soon to be retired boomers. In fact, high teen unemployment has much to do with the fact that boomers are not retiring, because they are still in debt. Hence the time preference of the boomers has led to the prospect of a generational breakdown.
That our government rewards such foolishness is another indication of the time preference of our society. Since savings provide the liquidity for capital advancement, and, therefore, increased productivity and technological advancement, savers should be rewarded, i.e. through higher rates of interest. Instead, because our own government is in such massive debt, it seeks to keep interest rates low so as to allow it to borrow money less expensively. This debt is evidence that, sometime in the last century, we shifted from a society that saved money so as to care for its elderly, to one which went into debt to care for all and sundry. Although the motives are similar, the end result is very much different. The former is the mark of a stable and functioning society, the latter marks one which is only delaying defaulting on its profligate promises.
In a future post, I'd like to examine the role played by time preference when it comes to dating, (not?) marrying, and (not?) having children, but for now, I'll just leave you with this and this.
Time preference intersects in economics in this fashion: a high time preference economy will have few savers, hence, interest rates will be higher than in a low time preference economy. This is because borrowers compete to obtain loans at the lowest possible rate of interest, while lenders try to obtain the highest rate of interest for their money. True, in our economy, the Federal Reserve tries to set the interest rate, but in a free economy, the rate of interest would be coordinated like any other good and service, through competition. And even in the mismanaged economy in which we live, the market rate of interest emerges eventually.
Ludwig von Mises covers the topic in much more detail for those interested. But I'd like to borrow the Austrian terminology to examine the role played by time preference in civilization, a point I first considered while reading Democracy: The God That Failed by the Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
In general civilization tends to be characterized by low time preference. Indeed, the ability to even consider future well-being may mark the transition to civilization; whereas the prehistoric hunter-gatherer tribes were entirely preoccupied with seeking food and shelter--and trying to avoid death at the paws of wild creatures-- the advent of farming ensured that at least some members of the tribe could concern themselves with other matters. Only then was low time preference a possibility.
Here's Carroll Quigley in Tragedy in Hope:
"It has been said that in 1700 the agricultural labor of twenty persons was required in order to produce enough food for twenty-one persons, while in some areas, by 1900, three persons could produce enough food for twenty-one persons, thus releasing seventeen persons for nonagricultural activities." (p. 16)
What was true of what Quigley calls the Agricultural Revolution was true, albeit to a much lesser extent, of earlier Agrarian societies. The meager advances of primitive peoples, and the technological innovations of later times, to say nothing of its art and science, were made possible by a surplus of food; but it was only when societies began to value future time periods that such developments took place.
Now then, how stands are time preference today, in American society? We have become a high time preference society, characterized by massive indebtedness and other present-oriented behavior. Taking on any debt is probably evidence of high time preference, but much of our behavior is indicative of something beyond this, for which the Austrian school has provided no such terminology.
There is a chasm between a young person who buys a house on credit and an older person who retires without having paid off his mortgage. The former may be acting with his future in mind; he desires to build equity quickly so that he may devote future income to saving for his retirement. The latter is simply foolish, and far too common among the soon to be retired boomers. In fact, high teen unemployment has much to do with the fact that boomers are not retiring, because they are still in debt. Hence the time preference of the boomers has led to the prospect of a generational breakdown.
That our government rewards such foolishness is another indication of the time preference of our society. Since savings provide the liquidity for capital advancement, and, therefore, increased productivity and technological advancement, savers should be rewarded, i.e. through higher rates of interest. Instead, because our own government is in such massive debt, it seeks to keep interest rates low so as to allow it to borrow money less expensively. This debt is evidence that, sometime in the last century, we shifted from a society that saved money so as to care for its elderly, to one which went into debt to care for all and sundry. Although the motives are similar, the end result is very much different. The former is the mark of a stable and functioning society, the latter marks one which is only delaying defaulting on its profligate promises.
In a future post, I'd like to examine the role played by time preference when it comes to dating, (not?) marrying, and (not?) having children, but for now, I'll just leave you with this and this.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Gay marriage?
Today, President Obama came out, er, decided that gay marriage is okay by him. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll offer my take on gay marriage, before examining the political ramifications of his pronouncement.
I'm opposed to gay marriage for the same reason I'm opposed to four-sided triangles; it's a contradiction in terms. It might be socially desirable to allow gays to couple for life--although, given the state of marriage under our no fault divorce laws, this may only amount to a handful of years--but that does not make a marriage. This ruffles the feathers of fascist Americans, which is to say, almost all Americans, for whom the State decides all, but it shouldn't be a hard point to comprehend. Marriage antedates the State and will continue to exist once our present form of government has crumbled. The State cannot alter that which is outside it. It may say whatever it wishes, but allowing gays to get "married" makes no more sense than allowing triangles to have four sides.
The common rejoinder here is that homosexuality is a part of history. Yet, while this is undoubtedly true, one searches in vain for a record of gay marriage. There was ample romance between two men, or two women, but nothing like gay marriage. I will go further and note that in my research--spotty and haphazard--I can find no indications that gays defined themselves according to their homosexuality as they now do. Almost all were bisexual. Think of the Spartan soldiers, or Eveyln Waugh at Oxford. Until recently, a predilection for buggery was something one grew out of.
That said, as a libertarian, I have no problem with gays wishing that their partners be allowed to visit them in the hospital, covered under the same healthcare plans, and so forth. These disputes are not a matter for the State. Let hospitals liberalize visitation rules, let insurance companies write policies for gay couples; in short, let the market meet consumer demand.
Now then, what are the political implications? Support for gay marriage is less a right-left issue than it is an old-young one. True, progressives are more likely to support gay marriage, and conservatives are more likely to oppose it, but gay marriage referendums have been soundly defeated each and every time the voters have had their say. Despite the fact that the country is moving left, the populace as a whole still opposes gay marriage. That said, few American younger than thirty seem to care enough to oppose it. My sample is distorted; most of my companions are college graduates, but I think my supposition is largely correct.
Years of being told of the magical powers of gays have caused our youth to refuse to man the Christian defenses. It's tempting to blame them, but it's really the fault of the idiot boomers for sending their children to public schools. What on earth did they expect to happen?
Barry is either misreading the tea leaves or hoping to secure the youth vote without frittering away oldsters who might otherwise deflect to Romney. I suspect he has misjudged, though, based on the jubilant Facebook posts of my contemporaries, gay marriage is the greatest thing since sliced bread--locally grown of course. Unless Barry is simply bored and wishes to lose, we'll know how his move polled based on whether he draws attention to his position or backs away from it like a Reverend Wright sermon.
One last point. I see that my contemporaries cannot even fathom why gays might not be allowed to marry. I encourage them to think on the matter for a little while before insisting that every earlier generation was bigoted and wrongheaded to fail to grant something so obvious.
The reason functional States seek to sanction marriage is because it's an exceedingly valuable institution. It may prove similarly valuable to allow gays to marry; we simply do not know. But it's worth remembering that the health of our society is far more bound up with the vast majority of heterosexuals and the success--or failure--of their marriages than it is with the tiny percentage of homosexuals and their couplings. Even if every gay in America gets married and remains in that state, it won't make up for the horrors divorce and cohabitation have wrought on the American family.
I'm opposed to gay marriage for the same reason I'm opposed to four-sided triangles; it's a contradiction in terms. It might be socially desirable to allow gays to couple for life--although, given the state of marriage under our no fault divorce laws, this may only amount to a handful of years--but that does not make a marriage. This ruffles the feathers of fascist Americans, which is to say, almost all Americans, for whom the State decides all, but it shouldn't be a hard point to comprehend. Marriage antedates the State and will continue to exist once our present form of government has crumbled. The State cannot alter that which is outside it. It may say whatever it wishes, but allowing gays to get "married" makes no more sense than allowing triangles to have four sides.
The common rejoinder here is that homosexuality is a part of history. Yet, while this is undoubtedly true, one searches in vain for a record of gay marriage. There was ample romance between two men, or two women, but nothing like gay marriage. I will go further and note that in my research--spotty and haphazard--I can find no indications that gays defined themselves according to their homosexuality as they now do. Almost all were bisexual. Think of the Spartan soldiers, or Eveyln Waugh at Oxford. Until recently, a predilection for buggery was something one grew out of.
That said, as a libertarian, I have no problem with gays wishing that their partners be allowed to visit them in the hospital, covered under the same healthcare plans, and so forth. These disputes are not a matter for the State. Let hospitals liberalize visitation rules, let insurance companies write policies for gay couples; in short, let the market meet consumer demand.
Now then, what are the political implications? Support for gay marriage is less a right-left issue than it is an old-young one. True, progressives are more likely to support gay marriage, and conservatives are more likely to oppose it, but gay marriage referendums have been soundly defeated each and every time the voters have had their say. Despite the fact that the country is moving left, the populace as a whole still opposes gay marriage. That said, few American younger than thirty seem to care enough to oppose it. My sample is distorted; most of my companions are college graduates, but I think my supposition is largely correct.
Years of being told of the magical powers of gays have caused our youth to refuse to man the Christian defenses. It's tempting to blame them, but it's really the fault of the idiot boomers for sending their children to public schools. What on earth did they expect to happen?
Barry is either misreading the tea leaves or hoping to secure the youth vote without frittering away oldsters who might otherwise deflect to Romney. I suspect he has misjudged, though, based on the jubilant Facebook posts of my contemporaries, gay marriage is the greatest thing since sliced bread--locally grown of course. Unless Barry is simply bored and wishes to lose, we'll know how his move polled based on whether he draws attention to his position or backs away from it like a Reverend Wright sermon.
One last point. I see that my contemporaries cannot even fathom why gays might not be allowed to marry. I encourage them to think on the matter for a little while before insisting that every earlier generation was bigoted and wrongheaded to fail to grant something so obvious.
The reason functional States seek to sanction marriage is because it's an exceedingly valuable institution. It may prove similarly valuable to allow gays to marry; we simply do not know. But it's worth remembering that the health of our society is far more bound up with the vast majority of heterosexuals and the success--or failure--of their marriages than it is with the tiny percentage of homosexuals and their couplings. Even if every gay in America gets married and remains in that state, it won't make up for the horrors divorce and cohabitation have wrought on the American family.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Strategic error
Talk radio is awash with blowhards who seen to believe that one wins arguments by shouting more loudly than one's opponents. Dennis Prager is a noble exception to this general rule. I don't often listen to his program anymore, but I still read his pieces from time to time. In his latest, he explains why the 2012 election is "the most important in our lifetime." Sadly, this is not the case.
He writes:
If Americans re-elect the Democrat, Barack Obama, they will have announced that America should be like Western European countries -- governed by left-wing values. Americans will have decided that America's value system -- "Liberty," "In God We Trust," "E Pluribus Unum" -- should be replaced...
The right, on the other hand, seeks to maintain America's values. Conservatives want to improve America, but, as its name implies, conservatism seeks to conserve, not transform.
There are two problems with this argument. The first is that while the left's rhetoric is not consistent with the values enshrined in our Constitution, the right governs within the same progressive tradition as their ostensible opponents. If Obamacare transformed our medical system--and I'm not certain it does, since so much of our healthcare system was Statist even before that incomprehensible bill was passed--then did not Bush's Medicare Part D Act similarly transform America? At best, Republicans accept and defend the amount of Statism we presently endure; more frequently, they increase the power of government while preaching the value of limiting its scope.
The second problem is related to the first. Defense is not an effective political strategy, and, at its best, conservatism is merely defensive. The strategy does not work because our present course is unsustainable. We cannot allow the State to continue to spend far more money than it collects in taxes--not that raising taxes would do much to solve the problem. Balancing the budget--to say nothing of paying down our debt--is politically impossible. The wonkish solution proposed by Paul Ryan, and endorsed by Mitt Romney, doesn't balance the budget for more than thirty years. Tinkering with the budget is simply not enough, yet this is all the right is advocating.
Let us suppose that Romney wins this election, and that the Republicans take back power in the Senate and retain it in the House--a best case scenario for Prager. And let us further suppose that they use this power, not to start a war with Iran, but to trim the deficit. Does any of this make it less likely that the next Democratic candidate will be able to transform America? In other words, does electing a Republican help in any way, save to buy us some additional time before we are again confronted with another Most Important Election Ever(TM)?
The answer is plainly, no. Conservatism may keep the wolves at bay, but it can not make it any less likely that they will attack at a later date. If things are as dire as Prager believes; if we are really this close to a progressive precipice, then a bolder strategy should be adopted. In order to make America secure against the forces of progressivism, all semblances of leftist governance must be extirpated. So long as a large number of Americans benefit from government largesse, Republicans will be winning battles to lose the war. The other advantage to eliminating a program in its entirety is that it is much more difficult to establish a program than to expand it. That said, the infernal Republicans had no trouble using hysteria over 9/11 to create another bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, whose main goal, it seems, is to allow the TSA to frisk children and grandmas so as to provide security theater.
Returning to Prager:
Instead of asking, "Are you better off than you were three years ago?" Every Republican needs to ask, every day, "Do you want to fundamentally transform America?" If they do, Barack Obama is their man. If they don't, Mitt Romney is.
The reality is that American has been transformed already. Hence the better question to ask is: "How quickly do you wish the transformation to continue?" If you prefer that things proceed slower, Romney is probably your man. But do not confuse delay with prevention. The transformation continues apace.
He writes:
If Americans re-elect the Democrat, Barack Obama, they will have announced that America should be like Western European countries -- governed by left-wing values. Americans will have decided that America's value system -- "Liberty," "In God We Trust," "E Pluribus Unum" -- should be replaced...
The right, on the other hand, seeks to maintain America's values. Conservatives want to improve America, but, as its name implies, conservatism seeks to conserve, not transform.
There are two problems with this argument. The first is that while the left's rhetoric is not consistent with the values enshrined in our Constitution, the right governs within the same progressive tradition as their ostensible opponents. If Obamacare transformed our medical system--and I'm not certain it does, since so much of our healthcare system was Statist even before that incomprehensible bill was passed--then did not Bush's Medicare Part D Act similarly transform America? At best, Republicans accept and defend the amount of Statism we presently endure; more frequently, they increase the power of government while preaching the value of limiting its scope.
The second problem is related to the first. Defense is not an effective political strategy, and, at its best, conservatism is merely defensive. The strategy does not work because our present course is unsustainable. We cannot allow the State to continue to spend far more money than it collects in taxes--not that raising taxes would do much to solve the problem. Balancing the budget--to say nothing of paying down our debt--is politically impossible. The wonkish solution proposed by Paul Ryan, and endorsed by Mitt Romney, doesn't balance the budget for more than thirty years. Tinkering with the budget is simply not enough, yet this is all the right is advocating.
Let us suppose that Romney wins this election, and that the Republicans take back power in the Senate and retain it in the House--a best case scenario for Prager. And let us further suppose that they use this power, not to start a war with Iran, but to trim the deficit. Does any of this make it less likely that the next Democratic candidate will be able to transform America? In other words, does electing a Republican help in any way, save to buy us some additional time before we are again confronted with another Most Important Election Ever(TM)?
The answer is plainly, no. Conservatism may keep the wolves at bay, but it can not make it any less likely that they will attack at a later date. If things are as dire as Prager believes; if we are really this close to a progressive precipice, then a bolder strategy should be adopted. In order to make America secure against the forces of progressivism, all semblances of leftist governance must be extirpated. So long as a large number of Americans benefit from government largesse, Republicans will be winning battles to lose the war. The other advantage to eliminating a program in its entirety is that it is much more difficult to establish a program than to expand it. That said, the infernal Republicans had no trouble using hysteria over 9/11 to create another bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, whose main goal, it seems, is to allow the TSA to frisk children and grandmas so as to provide security theater.
Returning to Prager:
Instead of asking, "Are you better off than you were three years ago?" Every Republican needs to ask, every day, "Do you want to fundamentally transform America?" If they do, Barack Obama is their man. If they don't, Mitt Romney is.
The reality is that American has been transformed already. Hence the better question to ask is: "How quickly do you wish the transformation to continue?" If you prefer that things proceed slower, Romney is probably your man. But do not confuse delay with prevention. The transformation continues apace.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Meaingless metric
Here's a pretty amusing piece from the permanently bullish Keynesians over at CNBC:
Friday's gross domestic product report confirmed what a drag government can be: While consumer spending grew at a 2.9 percent clip, state and local governments cut back spending by 1.2 percent on an annualized basis and the federal government pulled back by 5.6 percent.
Friday's gross domestic product report confirmed what a drag government can be: While consumer spending grew at a 2.9 percent clip, state and local governments cut back spending by 1.2 percent on an annualized basis and the federal government pulled back by 5.6 percent.
As a result, the GDP number showed just a 2.2 percent improvement. The
report disappointed economists, some of whom had the number as high as 3
percent and beyond, and cast an uncertain future on a stock market
dependent on Federal Reserve stimulus for growth.
Thus is revealed the inherent meaninglessness of GDP. Our economy would have grown more had the government only spent more on, well, anything. Bombs, bridges to nowhere, pyramids: all increase GDP and therefore help the economy, at least according to the metric.
The problem with GDP is twofold: it gauges production without regard to usefulness. In the private sector, utility is factored in to some degree, because a company that manufactures goods which it cannot sell will quickly go out of business. Sometimes, as with the housing bubble, this takes a long time to play out, and the consequences are troubling, but a GDP that reflects bubble activity will, sooner or later, come down to earth.
Roughly the same is true of government spending, but over a much larger time frame. The Department of Energy, to take but one example, was started by President Jimmy Carter to insure Americans would no longer be dependent on foreign energy. Clearly, the department has failed in its mission, yet money spent on bureaucratic parasites still appears, in GDP, as growth. That it is not so should be obvious; the only reason the department exists is because there is still a private sector that produces useful goods and services. Hence, to describe the government as a parasite is not a cheap slight, but an accurate description.
The second problem with GDP, or rather, with the attempt by Keynesians to ensure the government spends more money so as to boost the meaningless metric, is that money spent by government displaces spending--or saving--that would have taken place in the private sector. Now, Keynesians argue that during a recession, there is a gap in aggregate demand that, as it is not being met by the private sector, must be filled by the Government. Yet this conclusion only holds if we believe that the people cannot be trusted to do what they will with their money, and that only an interventionist State prevents the people from falling into penury. The central paradox here is that while the State does not trust its citizenry from making the right purchases, it believes that it does not ultimately matter on what the money is spent, so long as it contributes to GDP.
It's becoming apparent that the American economy is at risk of falling back into recession. Since this is an election year, Obama, with the help of Bernnake, will do everything he can to goose the metrics so as to prove to people that the recovery is going along swimmingly. Yet the more the government spends, the less remains for the private sector to do the necessary job of clearing goods and services to restore health to this economy. This truth remains, however much the GDP is sent upward through dubious stimulus programs.
The problem with GDP is twofold: it gauges production without regard to usefulness. In the private sector, utility is factored in to some degree, because a company that manufactures goods which it cannot sell will quickly go out of business. Sometimes, as with the housing bubble, this takes a long time to play out, and the consequences are troubling, but a GDP that reflects bubble activity will, sooner or later, come down to earth.
Roughly the same is true of government spending, but over a much larger time frame. The Department of Energy, to take but one example, was started by President Jimmy Carter to insure Americans would no longer be dependent on foreign energy. Clearly, the department has failed in its mission, yet money spent on bureaucratic parasites still appears, in GDP, as growth. That it is not so should be obvious; the only reason the department exists is because there is still a private sector that produces useful goods and services. Hence, to describe the government as a parasite is not a cheap slight, but an accurate description.
The second problem with GDP, or rather, with the attempt by Keynesians to ensure the government spends more money so as to boost the meaningless metric, is that money spent by government displaces spending--or saving--that would have taken place in the private sector. Now, Keynesians argue that during a recession, there is a gap in aggregate demand that, as it is not being met by the private sector, must be filled by the Government. Yet this conclusion only holds if we believe that the people cannot be trusted to do what they will with their money, and that only an interventionist State prevents the people from falling into penury. The central paradox here is that while the State does not trust its citizenry from making the right purchases, it believes that it does not ultimately matter on what the money is spent, so long as it contributes to GDP.
It's becoming apparent that the American economy is at risk of falling back into recession. Since this is an election year, Obama, with the help of Bernnake, will do everything he can to goose the metrics so as to prove to people that the recovery is going along swimmingly. Yet the more the government spends, the less remains for the private sector to do the necessary job of clearing goods and services to restore health to this economy. This truth remains, however much the GDP is sent upward through dubious stimulus programs.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The national leveling
Ilana Mercer offers her take on the dismissal of John Derbyshire with her customary aplomb:
The volume of bad writers safely ensconced in high places, and their voluminous, vapid output strengthened this conviction:
The volume of bad writers safely ensconced in high places, and their voluminous, vapid output strengthened this conviction:
More so than enforcing conformity – ousting John was about safeguarding the future of mediocrity.
There was more to it than that, but this angle has been insufficiently explored. Derb is a good writer in an age that conspicuously lacks his equal. We prefer our pundits, not to prod us into reexamining something in a different light, but to reinforce our own biases. So smug hipsters tune into to the Daily Show to be reminded that the Republicans are stupid. And conservatives watch hours of Fox News to be assured that the Democrats are still evil. Derb is a creature of the right, but he was more than a GOP booster, which is more than can be said for many of his former colleagues at NR.
As Mercer also observes:
I want to see a lot of well-written, wickedly witty, controversial writing in print – in pixels or paper and always at the pleasure of the print’s owner. Why must the consensus-craving mob conflate this last wish with absolute endorsement?
We'll pause for a bit to let the pundits in the audience parse this prose.
The reason Derb's ouster is so discouraging is that he's going to be so difficult to replace. Mindless cheerleaders are a dime a dozen; subtle thinkers and good writers are rare. We cannot simply find another, less racist version, of John Derbyshire. We're more likely to be forced to endure another Meghan McCain.
Punditry's slide from well-read British gentleman to barely attractive bimbos, is a fitting metaphor for the republic, in this, its waning days.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The lynch mob gets Derb
I can't recall when I first read John Derbyshire. It was almost certainly a link to one of his pieces over at National Review's the Corner--no link, for reasons that should become clear--probably courtesy of Vox Day's blog. I was immediately impressed by such a delightful and original writer. Punditry itself isn't hard, but good punditry is very difficult. Derb's columns were always insightful and frequently funny. He's certainly one of the best in the business.
He's also, admittedly, a racist. This is a very bad thing, not quite as bad as raping children--but close. If one were compelled to be rational, one might conclude that our deep concern over racism as the singular crime, a sort of secular sin against the Holy Spirit, is out of all proportion to the problem itself. This is not to say that racism has been banished from American society, but that surely we can admit that this isn't the long hot summer of 1967. If the fact that we've elected a black president doesn't count for anything, then we should simply admit that racism is an intractable problem.
But that would leave us agreeing with Derb, and we can't have that. In his latest piece, concerning the "talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids," he advised:
There is much more to be said on this topic, but I have probably ventured too far already by refusing to disavow John Derbyshire. I'm sure he will find alternative employment, although as he is undergoing chemo treatment for cancer, this is coming at a very bad time. I wish him the very best. Punditry will be so much the worse without him.
He's also, admittedly, a racist. This is a very bad thing, not quite as bad as raping children--but close. If one were compelled to be rational, one might conclude that our deep concern over racism as the singular crime, a sort of secular sin against the Holy Spirit, is out of all proportion to the problem itself. This is not to say that racism has been banished from American society, but that surely we can admit that this isn't the long hot summer of 1967. If the fact that we've elected a black president doesn't count for anything, then we should simply admit that racism is an intractable problem.
But that would leave us agreeing with Derb, and we can't have that. In his latest piece, concerning the "talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids," he advised:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
Derb has written similar things before, but for some reason, perhaps the Trayvon Martin affair, this article gained traction. The perpetually offended caused a stir, and, after stewing things over for awhile, National Review, a neo-con outfit that pays barely literate imbeciles like Kathryn Jean Lopez to lead cheers for Republican warmongers, duly severed ties with its best writer.
There is much more to be said on this topic, but I have probably ventured too far already by refusing to disavow John Derbyshire. I'm sure he will find alternative employment, although as he is undergoing chemo treatment for cancer, this is coming at a very bad time. I wish him the very best. Punditry will be so much the worse without him.
Saturday, April 07, 2012
Apologetics and scorn
"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn." - Martin Luther
This quote, which appears at the very beginning of C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, came to mind recently, in the context of an argument I had involved myself in on other corners of the Internet. What started as my amused observation of cowardice by the New York Times quickly turned into an erring of grievances towards the Catholic Church, with your humble narrator playing the role of the apologist for that venerable institution.
The subject of apologetics interests me greatly, partially for very personal reasons. I had drifted away from the Faith during college, before being brought back after reading Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton. It is shameful that in all my years of Catholic education, from kindergarten through high school, I had never encountered a solid intellectual defense of Christian truth before the age of 20. But once I had been exposed to this aspect of the Church, I threw myself into the topic headlong. I still have much to learn, but in our benighted times, possessing even a modest amount of information on a topic is enough to separate oneself from the dreck masses.
Hence I find that this comparatively insignificant education I have given myself proves sufficient when dealing with most critics of the Church. Heaven knows what they are reading. Probably just Dawkins. I have found that the most elementary criticisms are leveled as if they are substantial: that faith is somehow against science, or that all the wars were religious in nature, and so on. Being able to answer these is essential in reminding our smug objectors that having read a few books does not grant them intellectual superiority. On the other hand, heaven knows how our fellow defenders are handling themselves if this sort of nonsense has not been successfully rebutted before.
Now, just because I believe I have handled myself well doesn't mean I have, in fact, done so. It is difficult to say what influence these excursions may have on others; perhaps they believe they have emerged victorious. One hopes that at the very least, some of the more pedestrian objections should be shelved, replaced by more meaningful ones.
Still, I think we err in thinking that the opposition to the Church is merely rational. This is not to say there are not honest critics of the Church, but the argument usually reveals something deeper, what Chesterton called, "the halo of hatred around the Church of God".
These charges, then, come from deep within the human breast. It isn't merely that the Church is unhelpful, but that she prevents progress by clinging to her antiquarian ways. It is not enough that Catholics apostatize, the Church must die a well deserved death. These critics really do feel harmed by the Church, and while some, notably those who have been abused by priests, deserve all the mercy we can muster, most have, thankfully, not been so harmed.
This finally brings us back to Luther, ironically enough given his own views of the Church. The heretic, too, may know wisdom, and on this point he was onto something. Apologists should seek to be charitable towards those who wish to better understand the Church, but towards those who are scornful, scorn must be returned. We must treat petty criticism with all the respect it merits: none.
This is important because the alternative is to perpetuate the fiction that humanity would be just fine without the Church, that one may take it or leave it. This is preposterous. It is a historical fact that the Church was instrumental in defending civilization from the barbarians, in carrying the torch during the dark ages until the flame would spread to light up Christendom. It is likewise a historical fact that we have two centuries during which Christendom has dropped the Faith in favor of secular dreams that have ended in nightmares. The age of apostasy is the age of the guillotine, the gas chamber and the gulag. That the world would be better off without the Church was misguided when proffered by the philosophes of the Enlightenment. Now, it is worse: it is willfully ignorant.
I do not profess to know how this strategy will work in the arena, but I think it worthwhile to pursue irrespective of success. It is up to the critic to explain why his vision is any less false than those which came before him, and which his so closely resembles. Blind optimism is not enough when the stakes are so high. It is up to us to remind him of these past failures.
This quote, which appears at the very beginning of C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, came to mind recently, in the context of an argument I had involved myself in on other corners of the Internet. What started as my amused observation of cowardice by the New York Times quickly turned into an erring of grievances towards the Catholic Church, with your humble narrator playing the role of the apologist for that venerable institution.
The subject of apologetics interests me greatly, partially for very personal reasons. I had drifted away from the Faith during college, before being brought back after reading Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton. It is shameful that in all my years of Catholic education, from kindergarten through high school, I had never encountered a solid intellectual defense of Christian truth before the age of 20. But once I had been exposed to this aspect of the Church, I threw myself into the topic headlong. I still have much to learn, but in our benighted times, possessing even a modest amount of information on a topic is enough to separate oneself from the dreck masses.
Hence I find that this comparatively insignificant education I have given myself proves sufficient when dealing with most critics of the Church. Heaven knows what they are reading. Probably just Dawkins. I have found that the most elementary criticisms are leveled as if they are substantial: that faith is somehow against science, or that all the wars were religious in nature, and so on. Being able to answer these is essential in reminding our smug objectors that having read a few books does not grant them intellectual superiority. On the other hand, heaven knows how our fellow defenders are handling themselves if this sort of nonsense has not been successfully rebutted before.
Now, just because I believe I have handled myself well doesn't mean I have, in fact, done so. It is difficult to say what influence these excursions may have on others; perhaps they believe they have emerged victorious. One hopes that at the very least, some of the more pedestrian objections should be shelved, replaced by more meaningful ones.
Still, I think we err in thinking that the opposition to the Church is merely rational. This is not to say there are not honest critics of the Church, but the argument usually reveals something deeper, what Chesterton called, "the halo of hatred around the Church of God".
These charges, then, come from deep within the human breast. It isn't merely that the Church is unhelpful, but that she prevents progress by clinging to her antiquarian ways. It is not enough that Catholics apostatize, the Church must die a well deserved death. These critics really do feel harmed by the Church, and while some, notably those who have been abused by priests, deserve all the mercy we can muster, most have, thankfully, not been so harmed.
This finally brings us back to Luther, ironically enough given his own views of the Church. The heretic, too, may know wisdom, and on this point he was onto something. Apologists should seek to be charitable towards those who wish to better understand the Church, but towards those who are scornful, scorn must be returned. We must treat petty criticism with all the respect it merits: none.
This is important because the alternative is to perpetuate the fiction that humanity would be just fine without the Church, that one may take it or leave it. This is preposterous. It is a historical fact that the Church was instrumental in defending civilization from the barbarians, in carrying the torch during the dark ages until the flame would spread to light up Christendom. It is likewise a historical fact that we have two centuries during which Christendom has dropped the Faith in favor of secular dreams that have ended in nightmares. The age of apostasy is the age of the guillotine, the gas chamber and the gulag. That the world would be better off without the Church was misguided when proffered by the philosophes of the Enlightenment. Now, it is worse: it is willfully ignorant.
I do not profess to know how this strategy will work in the arena, but I think it worthwhile to pursue irrespective of success. It is up to the critic to explain why his vision is any less false than those which came before him, and which his so closely resembles. Blind optimism is not enough when the stakes are so high. It is up to us to remind him of these past failures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)