If you want to have an accurate study done, you have to make sure of a few things. 1) The researcher should be unbiased (or, if this is difficult, get two researchers, each with opposite biases to do it). 2) Keep the funding neutral -- the word "pattern" is derived from the word "patron," meaning that if someone receives money from someone else, we should not be surprised when the pattern of the work resembles that of the patron.
So we should not be surprised to learn that a study done of the number of deaths in Iraq since the advent of the war there with almost 50% of its funding from George Soros turns out to be more than 4 times higher than a report from a group that did not receive his funding. The Soros-funded group, led by an anti-war researcher, came up with 650,000 people killed, while the new research came up with 151,000 people killed. The Soros-funded group did its research by surveying "1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households." Without knowing the exact wording of the survey, it's hard to say how accurate it could possibly be. If they simply asked. "How many people have died in your family since 2003?" then we should not be surprised at such figures, as people are dying all the time -- of natural causes. This is how you lie with statistics. YOu ask that question, then put out a report saying, "Since 2003, 650,000 people have died in Iraq." This gets picked up as "Since 2003, 650,000 people have died in Iraq as a result of the war," and before long you have, "Since 2003, 650,000 people have been killed in Iraq as a result of the war." This is how the game of "Gossip" is played -- and Soros and his ilk know that.
No one should be celebrating the deaths of 151,000 or 650,000 people in a war -- but it doesn't make anyone's case to lie about the numbers -- or even to lie with statistics.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Test Positive For Drugs -- No Welfare For You!
California is oftentimes at the forefront of legislatively-driven social change. Often, it's not for the best. However, a new bill being proposed that would, if passed, require a drug test for those on public assistance seems to be in the right direction. One hopes that this law also states that the outcome of a positive result of a drug test would result in that person being denied any public assistance. I'm not too keen on alcoholics being given my tax money to be used on alcohol either, btw. But one step at a time.
My wife used to be a social worker, and she tells horror stories about what the vast majority of people who are on welfare actually do. Maybe I can get her to guest post on the subject. In the meantime, let me just say that if they worked as hard at getting and keeping a job, they would all have one, they would be quite successful, and the economy would be much better off (not to mention that I would have to pay less taxes to support people's choice to be lazy).
My wife used to be a social worker, and she tells horror stories about what the vast majority of people who are on welfare actually do. Maybe I can get her to guest post on the subject. In the meantime, let me just say that if they worked as hard at getting and keeping a job, they would all have one, they would be quite successful, and the economy would be much better off (not to mention that I would have to pay less taxes to support people's choice to be lazy).
Obama's Stimulus Package
Barack Obama has come up with a "stimulus package" that involves tax cuts for the middle class, and outright payments of $250 for lower and lower-middle class and retired people (with a possible extra $250 later). It also includes an expansion of unemployment insurance, which will really only encourage people to remain unemployed longer, and hurt the economy. You may be sure that liberals will complain that the government can't afford to give away "its" money, thus increasing the deficit, or some such nonsense. I'm really not sure how much "stimulus" this would give -- not that I would mind getting $250 of my own money back in the mail.
There is also a brilliant political strategy going on here. Hillary Clinton too has a "stimulus package," which we will get only if she's elected President. Obama is trying to get his done now. It makes him look like he actually does care about helping the economy. Heck, maybe he does. That's good news, because that means that he should be able to be persuaded by economic arguments. Some free market people should get right on this and start trying to change his economic world view. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a Democrat whose economics is founded in the real world for a change?
There is also a brilliant political strategy going on here. Hillary Clinton too has a "stimulus package," which we will get only if she's elected President. Obama is trying to get his done now. It makes him look like he actually does care about helping the economy. Heck, maybe he does. That's good news, because that means that he should be able to be persuaded by economic arguments. Some free market people should get right on this and start trying to change his economic world view. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a Democrat whose economics is founded in the real world for a change?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Some Thoughts on Parenting
It seems to me that there are three kinds of parents. You have those who tell their children, "Don't go around thinking you're better than me." Then there are those who tell their children, "I'm working hard so that you can be better than me." And then there are those who don't seem to tell their children much of anything. I'm guessing the completely indifferent parents are rare, so I will deal instead with the first two.
We all know people who teach their children not to go around thinking that they (the children) are better than them (the parents). They may not verbalize it, but it is understood in body language, attitudes, etc. Oftentimes the local culture reinforces this attitude. You have Southerners accusing those who go off to get educated of trying to be a Yankee, you have Hispanics accusing their children of being "coconuts," etc. When groups do this to their children, we should not be surprised to find little social or educational progress within these groups.
Of course, sometimes you get someone to break out of the mold. That person may not themselves succeed, but they make it possible for their children to do so. My father is an excellent example of this. His father was one who had the attitude that you should not try to better yourself, but my father rebelled against this attitude. He only has an 8th grade education, and he has only been able to work in foundries and coal mines his entire life, but he did the best with what he had, and always encouraged my brother and me to get as much education as possible. Thus, I have a Ph.D. and my brother is working on his MFA.
It is when a child has parents who insist that they have a better life than their parents have had do you get advancement. Parents shouldn't envy their children and, thus, deprive them of a better life. Good parents want their children to do better, to have better, to be better. Thus it is a parent's obligation to find out what will actually result in this outcome, and do it. Parents need to find out how to get their children into the best schools -- or figure out how to help create good schools if there aren't any available (as there in fact are not in the U.S.). Parents need to make sure that their children are going to enter into a good and healthy society, a good and healthy economy, a good and healthy world. And that means, too, that they need to learn what will in fact help create all these things, no matter what they wish would do so.
Envy -- covetousness -- is the root of all evil. This is as true in society, economy, and the world as it is in the family.
We all know people who teach their children not to go around thinking that they (the children) are better than them (the parents). They may not verbalize it, but it is understood in body language, attitudes, etc. Oftentimes the local culture reinforces this attitude. You have Southerners accusing those who go off to get educated of trying to be a Yankee, you have Hispanics accusing their children of being "coconuts," etc. When groups do this to their children, we should not be surprised to find little social or educational progress within these groups.
Of course, sometimes you get someone to break out of the mold. That person may not themselves succeed, but they make it possible for their children to do so. My father is an excellent example of this. His father was one who had the attitude that you should not try to better yourself, but my father rebelled against this attitude. He only has an 8th grade education, and he has only been able to work in foundries and coal mines his entire life, but he did the best with what he had, and always encouraged my brother and me to get as much education as possible. Thus, I have a Ph.D. and my brother is working on his MFA.
It is when a child has parents who insist that they have a better life than their parents have had do you get advancement. Parents shouldn't envy their children and, thus, deprive them of a better life. Good parents want their children to do better, to have better, to be better. Thus it is a parent's obligation to find out what will actually result in this outcome, and do it. Parents need to find out how to get their children into the best schools -- or figure out how to help create good schools if there aren't any available (as there in fact are not in the U.S.). Parents need to make sure that their children are going to enter into a good and healthy society, a good and healthy economy, a good and healthy world. And that means, too, that they need to learn what will in fact help create all these things, no matter what they wish would do so.
Envy -- covetousness -- is the root of all evil. This is as true in society, economy, and the world as it is in the family.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton
Never mind the fawning over Barack Obama, who is ideologically identical to Hillary Clinton, though a better person by far. And never mind the threat at the end to vote for HIllary if she becomes the DNC nominee. Camille Paglia gives a brilliant, devastating synopsis of who and what Hillary Clinton is. This is why I love Camille Paglia most of the time. I wish everyone knew this about Hillary. She'd be polling below Kucinich.
Woman Murders Toddler Because of Lies of Luddites
There have been completely baseless claims of a connection between autism and vaccination that were finally disproven recently in California, where the substance in question was eliminated from the vaccines, and autism rates continued to climb. There was never any evidence for the connection, but the claims were made anyway by medical Luddites who try to stand in the way of any sort of progress, and will even make up lies to do so. The result? A woman, feeling guilty for her child having autism, which she thought was caused by her getting a vaccine, murdered her child. Will the people who put this idea in her head be held responsible? Of course not.
Incidentally, the autism rate has gone up at the same rate mental retardation rates have gone down in this country. Sounds to me that we are getting better at diagnosing autism, so it appears autism rates are going up.
Finally, we know that autism is caused by at least two different kinds of mutations -- and these mutations, which are system-wide, occur well before anyone is given any vaccines.
Incidentally, the autism rate has gone up at the same rate mental retardation rates have gone down in this country. Sounds to me that we are getting better at diagnosing autism, so it appears autism rates are going up.
Finally, we know that autism is caused by at least two different kinds of mutations -- and these mutations, which are system-wide, occur well before anyone is given any vaccines.
Friday, January 11, 2008
SYNOPSIS OF “THE EXISTENTIALISTS”
Informal poll.
Would anyone here want to watch a play like the one I will describe below? Why or why not?
“The Existentialists” is a tragedy in three acts with a fourth act satyr play. Structurally, it has a Greek tragic macrostructure, with a Shakespearean microstructure. The first three acts focus on the French intellectual Jean-Paul Sartre, and his political evolution during and immediately after World War II. The fourth act satirizes Sartre’s philosophy and politics. All four are designed to work together, and cannot be separated if the full effect is to be achieved.
In Act I, Sartre, Camus, and Beauvoir are at work on the Resistance newspaper during the German Occupaiton of Paris. We see a Sartre who does not know how to act, but who is full of great ideals. His decision to give a speech when Nazi soldiers are on the way to raid the Resistance printing office costs them equipment, and almost costs them their lives. Sartre is primarily allowed to do this through the indulgence of the much more worldly Camus and Beauvoir.
In Act II, Sartre is visited by Karl Jaspers in his office. Jaspers tells of a confrontation he had with Heidegger over the Holocaust – and how Heidegger chose to ignore it. When Jaspers leaves, Sartre imagines conversing with Beauvoir and Heidegger over Communism. Sartre is beginning to find his own political position in opposition to Heidegger, and decides that the opposite of Nazism is Communism.
Act III begins with Michelle Vian visiting Sartre. She is one of his lovers, and she has come to tell him she is pregnant and is going to get an abortion. With great indifference, Sartre tells her to do what she wants. When she leaves, Sartre is visited by Camus in his office. Camus confronts Sartre for his support of Communism in light of Stalin’s killings. When given the choice between supporting the Communists who murder their own people and keeping Camus’ friendship, Sartre rejects Camus. Beauvoir appears as Camus leaves, and supports Sartre – but by the end, Sartre has to face the consequences of his actions and inactions, with Vian’s infertility, the Soviet murders and the loss of his friend.
The final act, Act IV, is a satyr play, which satirizes the aftereffects of Sartre’s philosophy and politics. A Harvard student, Randy, takes advantage of young idealist women to have sex with them. When two young men confront him, he calls out a chorus of Che Guevara t-shirt wearing cheerleaders, who convince the two young men they should be in it for the sex too.
CHARACTERS
Jean-Paul Sartre – a French philosopher, fiction writer, and playwright who worked for the French Resistance during World War II during the German Occupation. As he converts to Communism, he begins to defend the murders of the Communists, which results in his breaking off his friendship with Camus.
Albert Camus – a French-Algerian novelist who also wrote newspaper editorials and philosophy. He worked for the French Resistance and stood for freedom and against tyranny all his life. He broke off his friendship with Sartre over Sartre’s support for the Stalinist murders. He and Sartre remained estranged until Camus’ death in 1960 from an automobile accident.
Simone de Beauvoir – a French philosopher and novelist, who influenced and was influenced by Sartre, who was her life-long lover, though they never married. She supports Sartre in all things.
Martin Heidegger – a German philosopher who joined the Nazi party. His lover, Hannah Arendt, was a Jew. His philosophy greatly influenced Sartre’s
Karl Jaspers – a German philosopher who was a friend of Heidegger’s. He flees Germany because his wife is a Jew. He acts as a messenger to Sartre, telling him of their friend, Heidegger’s, unethical behavior and political positions.
Michelle Vian -- one of Sartre’s lovers, who comes to tell him she is pregnant with his child and plans to get an abortion.
Arnold – a French resistant whose anti-Semitism causes his ejection from the resistance and his betrayal of the movement to the Nazis.
Man of the Resistance
Nazi Soldiers
Chorus of the Murdered
Randy – a sexual opportunist who cynically uses women’s ideals to have sex with them.
Woman 1 – a young neo-hippy woman
Woman 2 – a militant African-American woman
Woman 3 – a militant Hispanic woman
Woman 4 – a KKK woman
Woman 5 – an Existentialist woman
African-Am. Man – a militant young college student
Hispanic Man – a militant young college student
Chorus of Cheerleaders
Would anyone here want to watch a play like the one I will describe below? Why or why not?
“The Existentialists” is a tragedy in three acts with a fourth act satyr play. Structurally, it has a Greek tragic macrostructure, with a Shakespearean microstructure. The first three acts focus on the French intellectual Jean-Paul Sartre, and his political evolution during and immediately after World War II. The fourth act satirizes Sartre’s philosophy and politics. All four are designed to work together, and cannot be separated if the full effect is to be achieved.
In Act I, Sartre, Camus, and Beauvoir are at work on the Resistance newspaper during the German Occupaiton of Paris. We see a Sartre who does not know how to act, but who is full of great ideals. His decision to give a speech when Nazi soldiers are on the way to raid the Resistance printing office costs them equipment, and almost costs them their lives. Sartre is primarily allowed to do this through the indulgence of the much more worldly Camus and Beauvoir.
In Act II, Sartre is visited by Karl Jaspers in his office. Jaspers tells of a confrontation he had with Heidegger over the Holocaust – and how Heidegger chose to ignore it. When Jaspers leaves, Sartre imagines conversing with Beauvoir and Heidegger over Communism. Sartre is beginning to find his own political position in opposition to Heidegger, and decides that the opposite of Nazism is Communism.
Act III begins with Michelle Vian visiting Sartre. She is one of his lovers, and she has come to tell him she is pregnant and is going to get an abortion. With great indifference, Sartre tells her to do what she wants. When she leaves, Sartre is visited by Camus in his office. Camus confronts Sartre for his support of Communism in light of Stalin’s killings. When given the choice between supporting the Communists who murder their own people and keeping Camus’ friendship, Sartre rejects Camus. Beauvoir appears as Camus leaves, and supports Sartre – but by the end, Sartre has to face the consequences of his actions and inactions, with Vian’s infertility, the Soviet murders and the loss of his friend.
The final act, Act IV, is a satyr play, which satirizes the aftereffects of Sartre’s philosophy and politics. A Harvard student, Randy, takes advantage of young idealist women to have sex with them. When two young men confront him, he calls out a chorus of Che Guevara t-shirt wearing cheerleaders, who convince the two young men they should be in it for the sex too.
CHARACTERS
Jean-Paul Sartre – a French philosopher, fiction writer, and playwright who worked for the French Resistance during World War II during the German Occupation. As he converts to Communism, he begins to defend the murders of the Communists, which results in his breaking off his friendship with Camus.
Albert Camus – a French-Algerian novelist who also wrote newspaper editorials and philosophy. He worked for the French Resistance and stood for freedom and against tyranny all his life. He broke off his friendship with Sartre over Sartre’s support for the Stalinist murders. He and Sartre remained estranged until Camus’ death in 1960 from an automobile accident.
Simone de Beauvoir – a French philosopher and novelist, who influenced and was influenced by Sartre, who was her life-long lover, though they never married. She supports Sartre in all things.
Martin Heidegger – a German philosopher who joined the Nazi party. His lover, Hannah Arendt, was a Jew. His philosophy greatly influenced Sartre’s
Karl Jaspers – a German philosopher who was a friend of Heidegger’s. He flees Germany because his wife is a Jew. He acts as a messenger to Sartre, telling him of their friend, Heidegger’s, unethical behavior and political positions.
Michelle Vian -- one of Sartre’s lovers, who comes to tell him she is pregnant with his child and plans to get an abortion.
Arnold – a French resistant whose anti-Semitism causes his ejection from the resistance and his betrayal of the movement to the Nazis.
Man of the Resistance
Nazi Soldiers
Chorus of the Murdered
Randy – a sexual opportunist who cynically uses women’s ideals to have sex with them.
Woman 1 – a young neo-hippy woman
Woman 2 – a militant African-American woman
Woman 3 – a militant Hispanic woman
Woman 4 – a KKK woman
Woman 5 – an Existentialist woman
African-Am. Man – a militant young college student
Hispanic Man – a militant young college student
Chorus of Cheerleaders
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Ethical Choices
We seem to think that we only have two ethical choices. Either
1) the ends justify the means, or
2) we judge people according to their intentions, not according to the results of their actions (thanks, Kant).
Do we really have to be faced with a choice of either accepting whatever means is necessary to reach the goal, or of a Kantian "intentions is what really matters," regardless of outcome? I personally find both distasteful. We should be able to reach good goals by good means. I don't see any reason why that's not possible. We need to stop excusing people with "well, he meant well," while also agreeing that the ends don't justify the means.
Bad means and bad outcomes should be equally condemned, and people should be held responsible for both. We should only judge as good when
3) good intentions result in good outcomes.
It's time we injected a little reality into the question of what constitutes ethical actions.
1) the ends justify the means, or
2) we judge people according to their intentions, not according to the results of their actions (thanks, Kant).
Do we really have to be faced with a choice of either accepting whatever means is necessary to reach the goal, or of a Kantian "intentions is what really matters," regardless of outcome? I personally find both distasteful. We should be able to reach good goals by good means. I don't see any reason why that's not possible. We need to stop excusing people with "well, he meant well," while also agreeing that the ends don't justify the means.
Bad means and bad outcomes should be equally condemned, and people should be held responsible for both. We should only judge as good when
3) good intentions result in good outcomes.
It's time we injected a little reality into the question of what constitutes ethical actions.
Where Have All the Public Intellectuals Gone?
Russell Jacoby asks in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about what happened to the public intellectuals? The answer: the intellectuals became postmodernists whose ideas were inaccessible to anyone, and whose ideas are insignificant. Both of these observations are, for the most part, dead on. But the disappearance of the public intellectual creates a problem for those of us who are not postmodernists, and who write and speak in ways that the average human being can understand, which is that the public has all but forgotten about the intellectual. Sure, the French are still big on their intellectuals -- which is why Alain Badiou is a best seller there -- but that's just the French being French. Here in the U.S., where anti-intellectualism is all too often rampant, and our intellectuals are so full of idiotic ideas that the anti-intellectualism of the U.S. hasn't really hurt us in the least, a lull can have dire consequences.
On the other hand, the blog has the potential to create new public intellectuals. People will be able to seek out such intellectuals, and perhaps intellectualism will be able to find a new space in which to live. On the other hand, we are still in a bit of a transitionary period, where publication of books and articles is vital. In academic circles, this blog means nothing and could not be provided as any sort of evidence for establishing academic credentials. I don't think that's entirely wrong, since there needs to be some sort of gate-keeping that establishes credibility. Perhaps one day in the future, blogs will be able to be rated by experts and given some sort of credibility. Alas, academics are notoriously behind when it comes to technology.
On the other hand, the blog has the potential to create new public intellectuals. People will be able to seek out such intellectuals, and perhaps intellectualism will be able to find a new space in which to live. On the other hand, we are still in a bit of a transitionary period, where publication of books and articles is vital. In academic circles, this blog means nothing and could not be provided as any sort of evidence for establishing academic credentials. I don't think that's entirely wrong, since there needs to be some sort of gate-keeping that establishes credibility. Perhaps one day in the future, blogs will be able to be rated by experts and given some sort of credibility. Alas, academics are notoriously behind when it comes to technology.
95% Corrupt -- U.S. Welfare
If you knew something to be 95% corrupt, would you continue to support it? My wife and I have a friend who apparently would. We were having a discussion of welfare -- he and my wife sued to be social workers -- and he was defending welfare. My wife was going on about how corrupt it is. Since she had once told me that maybe 10% of the people she dealt with actually needed to be helped, I asked him the same question. His answer -- 5% actually needed the help. The rest, in his opinion, were exploiting the system and had no business being on welfare.
Now why would he support a system that was only 5% effective? Because he's the kind of person for which the exception negates the rule. His entire argument consisted of anecdote after anecdote -- of people who experienced things that nobody else on earth has ever had to experience. I told him I cared more about the 95%.
Naturally, we were told that we didn't care about people. We pointed out that we gave 10% of our income to charity every month. We are in fact generous -- with our own money. It is not generosity if you take someone else's money and give it away. And I asked him, "Suppose I told you that you have to donate 10% of your money to charity if you wanted to keep living here -- would that make you generous?" Of course not.
But think about this: as if the economic arguments weren't enough, how about the fact that between 90-95% of people on welfare are exploiting the system and do not need it?
Now why would he support a system that was only 5% effective? Because he's the kind of person for which the exception negates the rule. His entire argument consisted of anecdote after anecdote -- of people who experienced things that nobody else on earth has ever had to experience. I told him I cared more about the 95%.
Naturally, we were told that we didn't care about people. We pointed out that we gave 10% of our income to charity every month. We are in fact generous -- with our own money. It is not generosity if you take someone else's money and give it away. And I asked him, "Suppose I told you that you have to donate 10% of your money to charity if you wanted to keep living here -- would that make you generous?" Of course not.
But think about this: as if the economic arguments weren't enough, how about the fact that between 90-95% of people on welfare are exploiting the system and do not need it?
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Learn How to Iron Your Own Shirt
Now, I have been critical of Hillary Clinton quite a bit in the past, but I do have to give her this one:
What I find most interesting is her final comment: "If there's anybody left in the audience who wants to learn how to iron his own shirt, we can talk about that." I loved this response because it was a witty comeback. Great stuff. But when I told my wife about it, she said to me that she wished Hillary would take that idea as the basis of her politics. Brilliant! Please, Hillary, leave us alone and let us iron our OWN shirts! We don't need you to do it for us. The sad truth is, she DOES want to iron our shirts -- and do everything else for us. She doesn't really think we can do anything for ourselves. That is why she thinks she should do it for us.
Someone should take up the slogan "Learn How to Iron Your Own Shirt."
What I find most interesting is her final comment: "If there's anybody left in the audience who wants to learn how to iron his own shirt, we can talk about that." I loved this response because it was a witty comeback. Great stuff. But when I told my wife about it, she said to me that she wished Hillary would take that idea as the basis of her politics. Brilliant! Please, Hillary, leave us alone and let us iron our OWN shirts! We don't need you to do it for us. The sad truth is, she DOES want to iron our shirts -- and do everything else for us. She doesn't really think we can do anything for ourselves. That is why she thinks she should do it for us.
Someone should take up the slogan "Learn How to Iron Your Own Shirt."
$3,000,000,000,000,000
In the latest ridiculousness out of Katrina-ravaged New Orleans, one resident there is suing the government for $3 quadrillion dollars. Personally the government should sue them for all the money they had to spend to make it so they could live in and be rescued from houses located in a drained swamp below sea level! As a taxpayer, maybe I should sue them and every other idiot my tax dollars have to be spent on for wanting to live in places where they have no business living. Don't live in a swamp, below sea level, or in a flood plain! People would be less likely to do so if our government would stop subsidizing such idiotic choices.
Clinton's Crocodile Tears, Continued
The big political question now is whether or not Clinton's obviously-calculated crocodile tears won her New Hampshire. Are the voters that naive? Seems so. When I watch the scene where her voice cracks, I can actually see the moment in her eyes when she decides to play that card. It is incredibly obvious. Well, it has been said that in a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve . . . But why can't I ever seem to get the government I deserve?
Boy Scouting in the Maldives
Boy, talk about your good deed for the day. How are the other boy scouts supposed to measure up to preventing an assassination? Do you get a merit badge for that?
To the Mother Who Loves Her Son:
I too would like to publicly congratulate the mother who sold her son's car after finding alcohol in it. The ad was pure genius. SHame on all the people who disagreed with what she did. They have no business raising children.
Ron Paul Says It Best or, Why I'm a Libertarian
In an interview with John Stossel, Ron Paul says it all. This is why I'm a libertarian:
Paul: "I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice. You can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. I don't believe government can legislate virtue. I can reject (vice) personally and preach against it, whether it's drugs or prostitution, but my solution comes from my personal behavior and how I raise my children. Whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice."
Stossel: "You seem to be saying that adults own their own bodies. If a woman wants to rent hers out or someone wants to smoke crack, that's their business."
Paul: "Yeah. People make bad choices in religion and philosophy, but we don't regulate their thinking or their religious beliefs if they're not harming other people. That's why I defend this position that government can't protect individuals from themselves. It's just impossible. (And when it tries) it becomes a tyrannical state."
Paul: "I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice. You can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. I don't believe government can legislate virtue. I can reject (vice) personally and preach against it, whether it's drugs or prostitution, but my solution comes from my personal behavior and how I raise my children. Whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice."
Stossel: "You seem to be saying that adults own their own bodies. If a woman wants to rent hers out or someone wants to smoke crack, that's their business."
Paul: "Yeah. People make bad choices in religion and philosophy, but we don't regulate their thinking or their religious beliefs if they're not harming other people. That's why I defend this position that government can't protect individuals from themselves. It's just impossible. (And when it tries) it becomes a tyrannical state."
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Clinton Cares Deeply . . . About Herself
Hillary Clinton defending her "emotional outburst", says “People who followed me during the course of my life know that I’m a passionate person and I care deeply about what happens to people." No she doesn't. She cares about power. She thought that showing fake emotions would get her votes, and that's why she made her voice crack. You can see the moment of calculation right before she cracks her voice. If Hillary Clinton actually cared about people, she wouldn't be running for office. She would be donating her own time and money to actually helping people. She would be asking people for donations to help people. She wouldn't be campaigning for office and voting to steal money so she can give it to who she wants and pretend that she's generous. I've said it before and I'll say it again: YOU CANNOT BE GENEROUS WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY!!! If she cared about people she wouldn't be trying to take money from people who work to give it to people who won't. If she cared about people she wouldn't be trying to get as much power for herself as possible. Someone needs to educate Comrade Clinton on the true meaning of caring and generosity, because she doesn't have a clue.
Massive Surge! (In Two Tiny Places)
And now for the fun, but practically meaningless fact, of the morning: with two towns in New Hampshire voting (Hart's Location and Dixville Notch), Ron Paul has 17% of the vote. Hope he keeps it up.
McCain and Obama are in first place in their respective races.
McCain and Obama are in first place in their respective races.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Clinton's Crocodile Tears
HIllary Clinton is such a fraud. I could not believe what a fake she was, pretending to choke up when a question asked her "How do you do it? How do you keep up ?" Hillary responded with a false-cracking in her voice: "You know, I have so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us fall backwards." I agree with her on that. I don't want to see us fall backwards either. Which is why I would never vote for her, Obama, Edwards, or Huckabee. She followed up with more phoniness: "This is very personal for me, it's not just political, it's [that] I see what's happening, we have to reverse it." Again, I agree that we do have to reverse what is happening in this country -- but it is people like her, the postmodern Left, who have done almost everything bad in this country for the last 20 years. We need to reverse the influence of people like her. And as for it being personal -- it no doubt is personal . . . she is hungry for personal power, and will do almost anything to get it. We've already seen her support for dictators on this blog. She goes on to say, "But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us ready and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us really haven't thought that through enough." Again, true enough. She is wrong and she is not ready. She has no connection to reality, as evidenced by most of the economic and social programs she supports. She is wrong and, with this fake emotion she expressed today, she's shown that she's also quite pathetic as well. Someone needs to tell her she's not the actor her husband is -- her inauthenticity is overabundantly clear.
Maternity Leave for High School Students?
Really? Maternity leave for high school? I don't think so. IN Colorado there is actually a student pushing for 4 weeks of maternity leave. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of. A student cannot miss 4 weeks of school -- the point of school is to become educated. This student is just trying to legitimize skipping school. And one of her school counselors is supporting her. Personally, if I were a principal, I wouldn't have a counselor who supported such nonsense on my staff.
Basically, this counselor wants to reward irresponsible behavior with time off from school. Why don't we just take a step back into the 19th century and openly say that women are for making babies, not for educating? I hope that the same feminists who pushed for educating girls and raising the age of consent precisely for that reason will not support maternity leave from school. A girl who has a baby in high school (or earlier) is already at a huge disadvantage in life. Missing a month of school isn't going to help her. Quite the contrary. I hope the school board has enough sense not to support this.
Basically, this counselor wants to reward irresponsible behavior with time off from school. Why don't we just take a step back into the 19th century and openly say that women are for making babies, not for educating? I hope that the same feminists who pushed for educating girls and raising the age of consent precisely for that reason will not support maternity leave from school. A girl who has a baby in high school (or earlier) is already at a huge disadvantage in life. Missing a month of school isn't going to help her. Quite the contrary. I hope the school board has enough sense not to support this.
Diversity -- Real and Superficial
Which political party is fielding the most diverse set of candidates?
Now isn't that a ridiculous question, considering the Democrats are fielding a woman, an African-American, a Hispanic, and a metrosexual and the Republicans are fielding a white guy, a white guy, a white guy, a white guy, a white guy, and a white guy?
However, lets take another look at the candidates.
Among the Democrats, on what issues do they differ? Economics? Nope. Social issues? Nope. The war? Again, nope (not if votes bely rhetoric, at least).
Among the Republicans, on what issues do they differ?
Economics: Romney is an interventionist, if his record is any clue. As is Guiliani, most likely. McCain certainly is. Thompson is a capitalist. Paul is even more so. And Huckabee is a populist. Romney and Huckabee both raised taxes -- Huckabee more than Romney, though Huckabee is now in favor of the Fair Tax. McCain has also raised taxes. Giuliani and Thompson are tax-lowerers, though nobody is anti-tax like Paul.
Social: Huckabee is a hard-core social conservative. His social conservatism is probably why he's a Republican and not a Democrat. Romney was a social libertarian, but he's turned into a social conservative (for the Presidential run?). McCain is a mixed back, though he tries to be more or less conservative. Thompson is socially conservative, but his belief in federalism could just send social issues to the states, where they belong. Giuliani is a social libertarian, and Paul is both a social libertarian and a federalist.
War: All are for the Iraqi war except Paul, though Huckabee's comments about Bush suggest a different approach to foreign policy on his part than Romney, who defended Bush recently, and the other candidates other than Paul.
From this analysis, we can see that the Republicans are in fact a more diverse group of people than are the Democrats on what matters: political positions and character. I recall that there was once a great man who called -- in fact, dreamed -- for a time when people would be judged not by the color of their skin (and let's extend that dream to genitalia) but by the content of their character. By that criteria, it is the Democrats who have fielded the most homogenous field of candidates, while the Republicans have given us several real options.
Now isn't that a ridiculous question, considering the Democrats are fielding a woman, an African-American, a Hispanic, and a metrosexual and the Republicans are fielding a white guy, a white guy, a white guy, a white guy, a white guy, and a white guy?
However, lets take another look at the candidates.
Among the Democrats, on what issues do they differ? Economics? Nope. Social issues? Nope. The war? Again, nope (not if votes bely rhetoric, at least).
Among the Republicans, on what issues do they differ?
Economics: Romney is an interventionist, if his record is any clue. As is Guiliani, most likely. McCain certainly is. Thompson is a capitalist. Paul is even more so. And Huckabee is a populist. Romney and Huckabee both raised taxes -- Huckabee more than Romney, though Huckabee is now in favor of the Fair Tax. McCain has also raised taxes. Giuliani and Thompson are tax-lowerers, though nobody is anti-tax like Paul.
Social: Huckabee is a hard-core social conservative. His social conservatism is probably why he's a Republican and not a Democrat. Romney was a social libertarian, but he's turned into a social conservative (for the Presidential run?). McCain is a mixed back, though he tries to be more or less conservative. Thompson is socially conservative, but his belief in federalism could just send social issues to the states, where they belong. Giuliani is a social libertarian, and Paul is both a social libertarian and a federalist.
War: All are for the Iraqi war except Paul, though Huckabee's comments about Bush suggest a different approach to foreign policy on his part than Romney, who defended Bush recently, and the other candidates other than Paul.
From this analysis, we can see that the Republicans are in fact a more diverse group of people than are the Democrats on what matters: political positions and character. I recall that there was once a great man who called -- in fact, dreamed -- for a time when people would be judged not by the color of their skin (and let's extend that dream to genitalia) but by the content of their character. By that criteria, it is the Democrats who have fielded the most homogenous field of candidates, while the Republicans have given us several real options.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Candidate of Hope?
Barack Obama's campaign, he says, is about hope. I beg to differ. If Obama is pushing any idea in the pessimism, optimism, hope realm, it is optimism, not hope. I'm not the only one who thinks so: check out this post titled Obama is the Gift of the Message on Becky C.'s blog.
To understand why I say Obama is not talking about hope, let me define the above mentioned terms.
Pessimism -- this is the belief that everything is bad, and will perhaps get worse. but definitely won't get better. People suck, and you can only count on them to do what is worst.
Optimism -- this is the belief that everything is good, and will surely get better. People are wonderful and good.
Hope - let me give you a few quotes from Frederick Turner's book The Culture of Hope:
"if faith is the affirmation of what was, and love the affirmation of what is, then hope is the affirmation of what is to come" (28).
"Desire drives us, hope uplifts us. Hope involves an imaginative estimate of possibility, an intellectual leap into the future. We might say, crudely, that hope is the combination of expectation and desire" (28-9).
Think about the movie Casablanca. That is a movie about hope. This movie is not optimistic. There is no certainty of a good outcome. When the French start singing the French national anthem, they are doing so out of hope. The French colony is controlled by the Germans, and the French have had to declare their loyalty to Germany -- and yet, despite the fact that it could turn out quite badly for them all, they sing. They sing, knowing they could be killed for it. But they sing. They sing out of hope. This scene mirrors the overall theme of the movie. Rick gives her up only because he has regained hope. Rick starts off a pessimist, but ends up hopeful. Not optimistic. Hopeful. There is a big difference. The optimist is certain everything will turn out alright in the end. Rick doesn't believe that. He knows it could all turn out very badly -- but only if he lets her go is there any hope for the world to turn out well.
Hope, then, is a paradoxical combination of pessimism and optimism. The hopeful person looks at the world, sees the combination of good and bad and, while bracing for the worst, believes that all can turn out well, if only . . .
Barack Obama does not believe in hope. He is an optimist. He believes that everything will turn out just fine -- if only we put him in charge. Optimism is a dangerous belief, as with it we can believe in any number of utopias unrooted in reality. An optimist will tell you everything will turn out just fine, even if reality shows everyone that it will not. The pessimist looks at a flower and thinks not of the flower, but of the dung used to fertilize it -- thus concluding that he is in fact looking at dung. The optimist looks at the flower and is certain that pure air and pure water are enough. Thus, he kills the flower. The man of hope understands that dung can become a flower, but only under the right conditions.
Is there a true candidate of hope out there? How would you classify each of the candidates?
To understand why I say Obama is not talking about hope, let me define the above mentioned terms.
Pessimism -- this is the belief that everything is bad, and will perhaps get worse. but definitely won't get better. People suck, and you can only count on them to do what is worst.
Optimism -- this is the belief that everything is good, and will surely get better. People are wonderful and good.
Hope - let me give you a few quotes from Frederick Turner's book The Culture of Hope:
"if faith is the affirmation of what was, and love the affirmation of what is, then hope is the affirmation of what is to come" (28).
"Desire drives us, hope uplifts us. Hope involves an imaginative estimate of possibility, an intellectual leap into the future. We might say, crudely, that hope is the combination of expectation and desire" (28-9).
Think about the movie Casablanca. That is a movie about hope. This movie is not optimistic. There is no certainty of a good outcome. When the French start singing the French national anthem, they are doing so out of hope. The French colony is controlled by the Germans, and the French have had to declare their loyalty to Germany -- and yet, despite the fact that it could turn out quite badly for them all, they sing. They sing, knowing they could be killed for it. But they sing. They sing out of hope. This scene mirrors the overall theme of the movie. Rick gives her up only because he has regained hope. Rick starts off a pessimist, but ends up hopeful. Not optimistic. Hopeful. There is a big difference. The optimist is certain everything will turn out alright in the end. Rick doesn't believe that. He knows it could all turn out very badly -- but only if he lets her go is there any hope for the world to turn out well.
Hope, then, is a paradoxical combination of pessimism and optimism. The hopeful person looks at the world, sees the combination of good and bad and, while bracing for the worst, believes that all can turn out well, if only . . .
Barack Obama does not believe in hope. He is an optimist. He believes that everything will turn out just fine -- if only we put him in charge. Optimism is a dangerous belief, as with it we can believe in any number of utopias unrooted in reality. An optimist will tell you everything will turn out just fine, even if reality shows everyone that it will not. The pessimist looks at a flower and thinks not of the flower, but of the dung used to fertilize it -- thus concluding that he is in fact looking at dung. The optimist looks at the flower and is certain that pure air and pure water are enough. Thus, he kills the flower. The man of hope understands that dung can become a flower, but only under the right conditions.
Is there a true candidate of hope out there? How would you classify each of the candidates?
Mankiw on Carbon and the Democrats
Everyone should check out Greg Mankiw's blog, where he's talking about an exchanging on carbon taxes and cap-and-trade among the Democratic candidates. His conclusion: Richardson is ignorant, Obama is realistic and honest, and Clinton believes in magic.
Charlie Wilson's War
My wife and I last night went to see "Charlie Wilson's War." It's a very good, funny movie, and I highly recommend it. Knowing what we now know, the end is quite ominous. The actions of Charlie Wilson resulted in the fall of the USSR, but the inaction of Congress gave us 9-11. As Charlie Wilson noted, "we fucked up the end game."
We don't seem to be doing much better now, on many fronts. I overheard a teenaged girl talking to her father immediately after the movie asking about Afghanistan. Her father noted that we were now in Afghanistan because of the Congressional inaction depicted at the end of the movie, to which the daughter said, "We're not in Afghanistan; we're in Iraq."
Can it be that there's an entire generation who don't even know that we're fighting in Afghanistan? If so, do they know what we're fighting for? Or why we're in Iraq? This is very troubling. The reason is because the media no longer really covers Afghanistan, while the far Left would like everyone to forget about it so they can focus on Iraq. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of the 9-11 victims for their own political gain. The result is going to be a generation of people who will remember Iraq, but not Afghanistan. And that is not good news for our future.
We don't seem to be doing much better now, on many fronts. I overheard a teenaged girl talking to her father immediately after the movie asking about Afghanistan. Her father noted that we were now in Afghanistan because of the Congressional inaction depicted at the end of the movie, to which the daughter said, "We're not in Afghanistan; we're in Iraq."
Can it be that there's an entire generation who don't even know that we're fighting in Afghanistan? If so, do they know what we're fighting for? Or why we're in Iraq? This is very troubling. The reason is because the media no longer really covers Afghanistan, while the far Left would like everyone to forget about it so they can focus on Iraq. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of the 9-11 victims for their own political gain. The result is going to be a generation of people who will remember Iraq, but not Afghanistan. And that is not good news for our future.
Hillary Openly Supports Dictatorship
This sums up what I don't like about Hillary Clinton, particularly on foreign policy:
"If you remove Musharraf and have elections, that's going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next," she said.
Hillary Clinton is here arguing for dictatorship. I always knew she was for dictatorship, I just didn't think she'd ever come right out and say she was for it and against democracy. Further, she shows that not only does she think she should control all our lives here in America, but that she should control the lives and governments of other countries. The fact that she thinks that we can better control dictators shows she hasn't learned the lesson of Saddam Hussein.
Free, fair, open, transparent elections is precisely what Pakistan needs. They need to eliminate the multi-tiered dictatorship they have and replace it with a multi-tiered democratic republic. The U.S. has never had any problems with countries that have fair, free, open, transparent elections -- and countries that have them are in fact the most stable. Stable governments give you unstable countries -- unstable governments, like ours, give you stable countries.
So Clinton has it completely backwards. Who on earth wants someone in power who has an understanding of the world that is completely opposite of how the world really is?
"If you remove Musharraf and have elections, that's going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next," she said.
Hillary Clinton is here arguing for dictatorship. I always knew she was for dictatorship, I just didn't think she'd ever come right out and say she was for it and against democracy. Further, she shows that not only does she think she should control all our lives here in America, but that she should control the lives and governments of other countries. The fact that she thinks that we can better control dictators shows she hasn't learned the lesson of Saddam Hussein.
Free, fair, open, transparent elections is precisely what Pakistan needs. They need to eliminate the multi-tiered dictatorship they have and replace it with a multi-tiered democratic republic. The U.S. has never had any problems with countries that have fair, free, open, transparent elections -- and countries that have them are in fact the most stable. Stable governments give you unstable countries -- unstable governments, like ours, give you stable countries.
So Clinton has it completely backwards. Who on earth wants someone in power who has an understanding of the world that is completely opposite of how the world really is?
Saturday, January 05, 2008
On Human Evolution
For a long time we have believed two things about the genetics and evolution of our species. 1) We have believed ourselves to be virtual clones of each other, and 2) we have believed that human evolution, for all intents and purposes, stopped 40,000 years ago or so.
The Science (21 Dec. 2007) Breakthrough of the Year, Human Genetic Variation, and recent work by John Hawks et al in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science on "Recent Acceleration of Human Adaptive Evolution" together show a very different picture.
It is now estimated that of the 3 billion DNA bases of the human genome, there are "15 million places along our genomes where one base can differ from one person or population to the next" (Science, 1842). That's a o.5% difference -- still smaller than the variation within most other species, including chimpanzees, but still it's more than we thought. Of course, those raw numbers tell us little, since change of one base can have catastrophic effects. But "Genomes can differ in many other ways. Bits of DNA ranging from a few to many thousands, even millions, of bases can get lost, added, or turned around in an individual's genome. Such revisions can change the number of copies of a gene or piece of regulatory DNA or jam two genes together, changing the genes' products or shutting them down" (1843). Something like an inversion can even result in isolation of breeding populations, leading to speciation. So that can be a very significant alteration. It has also been discovered that there are "Quite a few overlapped genes, including some implicated in our individuality -- blood type, smell, hearing, taste, and metabolism, for example. Individual genomes differed in size by as many as 9 million bases" (1843). Now we're talking about much larger kinds of variation, when the genomes can differ in size by as much as 0.3%. As the author of the article, Elizabeth Pennisi, notes, "These differences matter," especially when "in some populations almost 20% of differences in gene activity are due to copy-number variants" (1843) so that, for example, "People with high-starch diets -- such as in Japan -- have extra copies of a gene for a starch-digesting protein compared with members of hunting-gathering societies" (1843). The two variations mentioned give rise to a variation of about 1%, which is approaching a more significant number.
The Hawks et al article puts this into perspective. It seems positive selection "Has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years" (1). Thus, the above mentioned variation is of recent origin. Both explanations given make a great deal of sense: 1) "Larger populations generate more new selected mutations," and 2) they believe "human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies (1).
The first observation should be obvious. If the mutation rate stays the same, but the population grows, there will be more mutations. Population genetics shows these mutations will spread rapidly through the population. Thus, mutations -- especially adaptive mutations -- will accumulate. The combination of larger population size and the dynamics of population genetics would result in an acceleration in accumulation of mutations.
The second observation is one championed by E.O. Wilson in the late 70's and early 80's, that culture drives human evolution. Our culture is our environment, so we should not be surprised if it should exhibit selective pressures. This would account for the variations the authors found between subsaharan Africans and those of European descent. We would expect this in two populations from different physical and cultural environments.
Now, the first thing to note is that Africans have more genetic as a group than do Europeans. This, too, should not be surprising as the African population is older than the European population, so they would have had time to develop more variation. Also, Africa has been much more tribal for much longer than Europe, meaning more separation of groups, which also drives variation. However, the Hawks, et al article observes that evolution seems to be accelerating overall, in both groups. No doubt much of these differences arose from differences in culture, including cultural complexity. A culture containing 300 million people (as the U.S. does) is necessarily more complex than one of 150 people (the maximum size of a tribe), as we learn from complex systems theory. There are necessarily different selective pressures on these two groups, as each lives in a very different cultural environment.
Now, of course, being humans, we want to know what this all means. When people ask this, they are typically not interested in answers like personalized medicine, nutrition, and exercise. No, they typically are interested in race. The tribalist in them hopes it means they are superior, the moralist in them (for more complex thinkers) prays it means nothing of the sort, and wishes (in order to silence their inner tribalist) people wouldn't even do this kind of research. Ashamed of their own racist conclusions, they accuse the researchers of racism, thus assuaging their shame. So let me answer by asking this question: which is superior, the grasshopper mouse or the field mouse? A ridiculous question? Of course it is.
The Science (21 Dec. 2007) Breakthrough of the Year, Human Genetic Variation, and recent work by John Hawks et al in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science on "Recent Acceleration of Human Adaptive Evolution" together show a very different picture.
It is now estimated that of the 3 billion DNA bases of the human genome, there are "15 million places along our genomes where one base can differ from one person or population to the next" (Science, 1842). That's a o.5% difference -- still smaller than the variation within most other species, including chimpanzees, but still it's more than we thought. Of course, those raw numbers tell us little, since change of one base can have catastrophic effects. But "Genomes can differ in many other ways. Bits of DNA ranging from a few to many thousands, even millions, of bases can get lost, added, or turned around in an individual's genome. Such revisions can change the number of copies of a gene or piece of regulatory DNA or jam two genes together, changing the genes' products or shutting them down" (1843). Something like an inversion can even result in isolation of breeding populations, leading to speciation. So that can be a very significant alteration. It has also been discovered that there are "Quite a few overlapped genes, including some implicated in our individuality -- blood type, smell, hearing, taste, and metabolism, for example. Individual genomes differed in size by as many as 9 million bases" (1843). Now we're talking about much larger kinds of variation, when the genomes can differ in size by as much as 0.3%. As the author of the article, Elizabeth Pennisi, notes, "These differences matter," especially when "in some populations almost 20% of differences in gene activity are due to copy-number variants" (1843) so that, for example, "People with high-starch diets -- such as in Japan -- have extra copies of a gene for a starch-digesting protein compared with members of hunting-gathering societies" (1843). The two variations mentioned give rise to a variation of about 1%, which is approaching a more significant number.
The Hawks et al article puts this into perspective. It seems positive selection "Has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years" (1). Thus, the above mentioned variation is of recent origin. Both explanations given make a great deal of sense: 1) "Larger populations generate more new selected mutations," and 2) they believe "human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies (1).
The first observation should be obvious. If the mutation rate stays the same, but the population grows, there will be more mutations. Population genetics shows these mutations will spread rapidly through the population. Thus, mutations -- especially adaptive mutations -- will accumulate. The combination of larger population size and the dynamics of population genetics would result in an acceleration in accumulation of mutations.
The second observation is one championed by E.O. Wilson in the late 70's and early 80's, that culture drives human evolution. Our culture is our environment, so we should not be surprised if it should exhibit selective pressures. This would account for the variations the authors found between subsaharan Africans and those of European descent. We would expect this in two populations from different physical and cultural environments.
Now, the first thing to note is that Africans have more genetic as a group than do Europeans. This, too, should not be surprising as the African population is older than the European population, so they would have had time to develop more variation. Also, Africa has been much more tribal for much longer than Europe, meaning more separation of groups, which also drives variation. However, the Hawks, et al article observes that evolution seems to be accelerating overall, in both groups. No doubt much of these differences arose from differences in culture, including cultural complexity. A culture containing 300 million people (as the U.S. does) is necessarily more complex than one of 150 people (the maximum size of a tribe), as we learn from complex systems theory. There are necessarily different selective pressures on these two groups, as each lives in a very different cultural environment.
Now, of course, being humans, we want to know what this all means. When people ask this, they are typically not interested in answers like personalized medicine, nutrition, and exercise. No, they typically are interested in race. The tribalist in them hopes it means they are superior, the moralist in them (for more complex thinkers) prays it means nothing of the sort, and wishes (in order to silence their inner tribalist) people wouldn't even do this kind of research. Ashamed of their own racist conclusions, they accuse the researchers of racism, thus assuaging their shame. So let me answer by asking this question: which is superior, the grasshopper mouse or the field mouse? A ridiculous question? Of course it is.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Fair Tax
There's been a bit of talk about the fair tax, with Huckabee's support of the idea. Megan McArdle points out several good and bad things about it. What it is, essentially, is a 30% sales tax. However, it's not really a 30% sales tax. Let me explain.
Companies do not pay taxes. They just hand the cost of taxes down to you. Thus, the cost of income taxes, corporate taxes, etc. makes a $70 item $100. With the fair tax, it is proposed that we get rid of all income taxes, etc., cut out he middle man, and tax directly on goods. Thus, the $100 item will still be $100, but the government will get the $30 directly from the sale, rather than having that money go through various layers of taxation. People make the mistake of thinking that this will hurt the poor and middle class, but the fact of the matter is, the price of nothing will change. However, since we all know that the Left, who use taxes for social engineering, not revenues, will object on this ground, a suggestion has been made to include a prebate for the poor that will offset these mythical costs for the poor each year.
Let me propose something more radical. We should implement the fair tax and get rid of the IRS. And then we should pay every family a $15,000 negative income tax and get rid of the entire welfare bureaucracy. That way, everyone is paying the same (well, the rich buy more, so they will in fact pay more taxes), and everyone is getting the same. It seems that those who are in favor of equal treatment under the law should love this idea. I can't say that I love it, but it's a compromise that moves the government closer toward being the kind of thing I think a government should be -- small. Also, it would eliminate most of McArdle's objections.
Companies do not pay taxes. They just hand the cost of taxes down to you. Thus, the cost of income taxes, corporate taxes, etc. makes a $70 item $100. With the fair tax, it is proposed that we get rid of all income taxes, etc., cut out he middle man, and tax directly on goods. Thus, the $100 item will still be $100, but the government will get the $30 directly from the sale, rather than having that money go through various layers of taxation. People make the mistake of thinking that this will hurt the poor and middle class, but the fact of the matter is, the price of nothing will change. However, since we all know that the Left, who use taxes for social engineering, not revenues, will object on this ground, a suggestion has been made to include a prebate for the poor that will offset these mythical costs for the poor each year.
Let me propose something more radical. We should implement the fair tax and get rid of the IRS. And then we should pay every family a $15,000 negative income tax and get rid of the entire welfare bureaucracy. That way, everyone is paying the same (well, the rich buy more, so they will in fact pay more taxes), and everyone is getting the same. It seems that those who are in favor of equal treatment under the law should love this idea. I can't say that I love it, but it's a compromise that moves the government closer toward being the kind of thing I think a government should be -- small. Also, it would eliminate most of McArdle's objections.
Ron Paul Ignored, Did Better Than Predicted
Did anyone else find it annoying that Foxnews.com seemed to completely ignore Ron Paul? He did get 10% of the vote, after all. Only 3% points behind Thompson and McCain and better than the polls showed he would do. I guess this goes along with their disinvite of Ron Paul to their next Republican debate. If they're truly "fair and balanced," shouldn't they have covered all the candidates? Joe Biden and Chris Dodd only got noticed with they called it quits. T.V. has ruined Presidential politics -- no substantial answers, please; please answer everything in a 30 second soundbite -- but what on earth can we do about it? I love my half dozen faithful readers, but Fox News and CNN have way more viewers than I have readers, so I'm not going to make that much of a different compared to them, I'm afraid. The internet is proving to be good for fundraising, but so far it hasn't translated into enough votes to do anything with.
On Populism
With an increasing danger of our electing a populist of some sort, perhaps I should spend a little time explaining the positions of a populist, and why I cannot support one.
It is easy to identify a populist, as they are always going on and on about "the elite" and how they are terrible and how "the people" need a representative (them, of course). John Edwards, of course, preaches populism. But so too does Mike Huckabee. In his latest appearance on the Tonight Show, he told Jay Leno that he appealed to people because he seemed like someone they worked with rather than someone who laid them off. That is populist rhetoric.
Populist ideology is typically social conservatism with fiscal liberalism. Populists revel in their anti-economic thinking, and use it and the fact that most people do not think economically to appeal to people's basest economic understandings and rives, particularly envy and covetousness.
When we envy someone, we do not so much want to do as well as them as we want them to do worse, to be brought down to our low level.
When we covet, we do not want the kinds of things another has -- we want the exact things that other person has.
Populism feeds on and off of these drives in people. Never mind the fact that one of the Ten Commandments makes it clear that "Thou Shall Not Covet." Populists like Huckabee (ironic that he was a Baptist preacher, and he's exploiting the fact that too many people are violating the 10 Commandments here) use the covetousness of others to argue for government control in the economy. Populists (and socialists, for that matter) do not understand that the economy is not a pie we divide up, and if I get more, you get less, but is rather more like a growing sour dough mix, that can grow and grow and grow if you just keep adding ingredients. Huckabee and all the Democratic candidates believe that it's not fair that you have a sour dough batch, and so force you to bake it all into bread to hand out to those without sour dough. The end result is that nobody will have any once the dough is all baked.
Unlike with Edwards, I don't think Huckabee's beliefs come from a bad place. I think he is sincere. He is just sincerely wrong. He thinks that economic populism will help people, that those on welfare are all hard on their luck, and they just need some help. My wife reports that in regards to those on welfare, most are not hard on their luck, that they are cynically using the system when they are perfectly capable of finding a job and working. Welfare just discourages most of them. In her opinion, maybe 10% of those on welfare really need the help -- help that is supposed to be temporary. I understand Huckabee's desire to help, but he's naive about how the world works, and about the realities of what too many on welfare are like. Like Huckabee, I would like to help as many people who actually need help as possible. Where we differ is how to help. He believes that government should directly help people. I am with the apostle Paul: "He who does not work shall not eat." The basic economic insight here is that if you take away peoples incentives to work, they won't work. It took the Puritans a while to figure out that and get rid of collective property to make sure that everyone would in fact work. The free riders almost caused the starvation of the entire group. And these were the strict, hardworking, moralist Puritans! More, they were in a hostile environment where they would almost certainly die if they didn't participate. And yet, they too had the free rider problem. With all the charities in the U.S., nobody is in danger of starving to death. People are generous here, and will feed just about everyone if they can. Which is why too many buy into populism -- they want to help. But are you really helping if you use my money to do so? It is immoral to rob Peter to give to Paul. Give your own money, and let me give mine.
People also look to populists because they want someone to take care of them. They do not have the confidence in themselves that I have for them. If people would understand that as adults they no longer need anyone to take care of them, that they are now big enough to take care of themselves, there wouldn't be a populist candidate for anything ever again. Unfortunately, too many aren't convinced of this fact, even though they should have sufficient evidence from their own lives that it is true. Instead of seeing the Hillary Christmas ad where she is putting government programs under a Christmas tree as presents as being despicable -- which it most certainly was -- too many likely thought, Finally! Someone who is going to take care of me!" Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee all are promising that we don't have to grow up, that we don't have to be responsible, that they will take good care of us. But all they are really offering us are bread and circuses. In the meantime, the barbarians are at the gate . . .
"Hush little baby, don't say a word . . . President's going to buy you a mockingbird . . ."
It is easy to identify a populist, as they are always going on and on about "the elite" and how they are terrible and how "the people" need a representative (them, of course). John Edwards, of course, preaches populism. But so too does Mike Huckabee. In his latest appearance on the Tonight Show, he told Jay Leno that he appealed to people because he seemed like someone they worked with rather than someone who laid them off. That is populist rhetoric.
Populist ideology is typically social conservatism with fiscal liberalism. Populists revel in their anti-economic thinking, and use it and the fact that most people do not think economically to appeal to people's basest economic understandings and rives, particularly envy and covetousness.
When we envy someone, we do not so much want to do as well as them as we want them to do worse, to be brought down to our low level.
When we covet, we do not want the kinds of things another has -- we want the exact things that other person has.
Populism feeds on and off of these drives in people. Never mind the fact that one of the Ten Commandments makes it clear that "Thou Shall Not Covet." Populists like Huckabee (ironic that he was a Baptist preacher, and he's exploiting the fact that too many people are violating the 10 Commandments here) use the covetousness of others to argue for government control in the economy. Populists (and socialists, for that matter) do not understand that the economy is not a pie we divide up, and if I get more, you get less, but is rather more like a growing sour dough mix, that can grow and grow and grow if you just keep adding ingredients. Huckabee and all the Democratic candidates believe that it's not fair that you have a sour dough batch, and so force you to bake it all into bread to hand out to those without sour dough. The end result is that nobody will have any once the dough is all baked.
Unlike with Edwards, I don't think Huckabee's beliefs come from a bad place. I think he is sincere. He is just sincerely wrong. He thinks that economic populism will help people, that those on welfare are all hard on their luck, and they just need some help. My wife reports that in regards to those on welfare, most are not hard on their luck, that they are cynically using the system when they are perfectly capable of finding a job and working. Welfare just discourages most of them. In her opinion, maybe 10% of those on welfare really need the help -- help that is supposed to be temporary. I understand Huckabee's desire to help, but he's naive about how the world works, and about the realities of what too many on welfare are like. Like Huckabee, I would like to help as many people who actually need help as possible. Where we differ is how to help. He believes that government should directly help people. I am with the apostle Paul: "He who does not work shall not eat." The basic economic insight here is that if you take away peoples incentives to work, they won't work. It took the Puritans a while to figure out that and get rid of collective property to make sure that everyone would in fact work. The free riders almost caused the starvation of the entire group. And these were the strict, hardworking, moralist Puritans! More, they were in a hostile environment where they would almost certainly die if they didn't participate. And yet, they too had the free rider problem. With all the charities in the U.S., nobody is in danger of starving to death. People are generous here, and will feed just about everyone if they can. Which is why too many buy into populism -- they want to help. But are you really helping if you use my money to do so? It is immoral to rob Peter to give to Paul. Give your own money, and let me give mine.
People also look to populists because they want someone to take care of them. They do not have the confidence in themselves that I have for them. If people would understand that as adults they no longer need anyone to take care of them, that they are now big enough to take care of themselves, there wouldn't be a populist candidate for anything ever again. Unfortunately, too many aren't convinced of this fact, even though they should have sufficient evidence from their own lives that it is true. Instead of seeing the Hillary Christmas ad where she is putting government programs under a Christmas tree as presents as being despicable -- which it most certainly was -- too many likely thought, Finally! Someone who is going to take care of me!" Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee all are promising that we don't have to grow up, that we don't have to be responsible, that they will take good care of us. But all they are really offering us are bread and circuses. In the meantime, the barbarians are at the gate . . .
"Hush little baby, don't say a word . . . President's going to buy you a mockingbird . . ."
Inflation, Food, Energy
While oil does have a few disadvantages -- 1) it's not renewable, and 2) it seems to be primarily located under dictators -- it does have this one distinct advantage: we don't use it for much else other than fuel. Most importantly, we don't eat it. But we do eat corn. And we eat things that could be grown in places where we can grow corn. Thus, it is probably a bad idea, in a world with 6 billion people whose middle class is growing with the increased economic freedom in China and India, the world's two most populous countries, to turn our food into vehicle fuel. Yet, that is what the U.S. government is encouraging with subsidies and various energy bills. The results? The Financial Post reports that the result has been a 6.5% rise in food prices overall this year, with a 22% rise in raw food prices. Wheat prices this year have gone up 92%, and corn prices have gone up 44%. The reason corn has not gone up in price as much is because of the subsidies (meaning the true price of corn is hidden, since you are paying for it with your taxes), and because of the subsequent increase in acreage dedicated to corn. Yet, despite these two factors, the price has gone up significantly. The higher price of corn affects the price of meat, since it is a feed grain, and it also strongly affects the price of food south of the border -- in places where people really do not need to be spending more money on food. The wheat prices are going to have more of an effect here in the U.S., and that price has almost doubled. In a year. In the meantime, oil rose to $100/barrel. With this much inflation in food and fuel, someone is lying to us about the inflation rate. And in the meantime, the dollar is crashing . . . What have they been doing to us over there in Washington?
On Thompson's 3rd Place Win
I am happy to see that Fred Thompson made 3rd place in Iowa. I get annoyed at people complaining that Thompson doesn't seem to want the job of Presidency -- in fact, Thompson has said as much. Let me tell you, though, that NOT wanting the job should be a criteria for having it. I don't trust people who want power -- I would rather have someone who sincerely believes that they need to run because nobody else is promoting their values than someone who is just dying to have the job and will do what it takes to win. Is Thompson that candidate, or is it just a clever ploy on his part? Well, if it's a ploy, it's not all that clever -- and he's smart enough to have changed it by now if it were a ploy. Of the top 3 candidates, I would much rather have Thompson. He's a federalist -- the only one, other than Paul, as far as I can tell -- and that makes him the only one of the top three (top six if you count the Democrats) who supports the kind of government laid out by our Constitution. The rest want to set up a national government that runs your lives. Under federalism, if you don't like what your state or local government is doing, you can vote with your feet. Under nationalism, you can't escape the slimy tendrils of government.
Lies, Lies, and More Lies
This morning on the Today Show Priscilla Ceballes, that pathetic, lying "mother" of the six year old who disrespected our troops -- and all troops throughout history who died for their countries and for their families -- continued her pathetic lies with a letter her lawyer wrote for her. In it she said she didn't "intend to deceive" -- what a crock of bull! Of course she intended to deceive! And then she said she refused the tickets. Another lie. The company clearly stated that they took the tickets away from her, and I would believe them over her any day. So now the woman has lied to her daughter as well.
This trash tried to get people's sympathies by complaining that she had to move. Well, I say it's good that she had to move. She can move right out of Texas as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad that there's enough moral outrage in our communities to make people not want scum like her to be living amongst them. I wouldn't want her in my neighborhood either.
She also complained about the vitriol on the internet against her. Good. She deserved all the god, and deserves all she will get. Especially after that incredibly insincere apology.
The psychologist she brought on with her was a waste of time and oxygen. I won't waste any more time on her here.
This trash tried to get people's sympathies by complaining that she had to move. Well, I say it's good that she had to move. She can move right out of Texas as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad that there's enough moral outrage in our communities to make people not want scum like her to be living amongst them. I wouldn't want her in my neighborhood either.
She also complained about the vitriol on the internet against her. Good. She deserved all the god, and deserves all she will get. Especially after that incredibly insincere apology.
The psychologist she brought on with her was a waste of time and oxygen. I won't waste any more time on her here.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
The Winners In Iowa
Well, it looks like the populist using Christian rhetoric won in Iowa. Don't expect free markets to receive any support for the next 4-8 years. At least that smarmy ambulance-chaser whose lawsuits helped to drive up health care costs so he could run against a free market in health care didn't win. Believe it or not, I'd rather have Hillary than that insincere $300 hair cut.
The Origins of Foreplay
Well, men, it's official: the need to get women in the mood has deep biological origins. Though I doubt most women -- or men -- are ready to have sex 3.5 times an hour!
It's Time For a Change!
The American poet Ezra Pound said, "Make it new!" And that is what artistic Modernism did: it made it new, made it new, made it new, and made it new, until it reached a postmodernism completely disconnected from the past. It became newness for newness sake. Change for the sake of change. Why change? Because change is what art is all about!
Today's politicians expose their postmodernism in their constant mantra for "change." What we need is change! But what kind of change? Is it just change for the sake of change? Not all change is created equal. The attitude that "anything else is better than this" is what will get you things like national socialism, fascism, and communism. All of those are something else. All of those will result in change. And all of those were touted as precisely untethered change.
It is thus perhaps no coincidence that Ezra Pound was a fascist.
Today's politicians expose their postmodernism in their constant mantra for "change." What we need is change! But what kind of change? Is it just change for the sake of change? Not all change is created equal. The attitude that "anything else is better than this" is what will get you things like national socialism, fascism, and communism. All of those are something else. All of those will result in change. And all of those were touted as precisely untethered change.
It is thus perhaps no coincidence that Ezra Pound was a fascist.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
$100 Oil
Not long ago, Hillary Clinton promised that, when she is President, she will make oil prices go down. I didn't know Presidents had that special power. Hold it, wait, isn't that what Nixon, Ford, and Carter tried -- price controls? As I recall, it resulted in long gas lines and gas shortages. Sounds like someone's nostalgic for the 70's!
I'm afraid, with oil prices hitting $100 a barrel today, that the American public will naively (and amnesiacly) think such price controls are a good idea.
Of course, right now it's looking like we might be choosing between Clinton and Huckabee, and Huckabee is nothing more than a Nixonian Republican himself. Nixon was all about interventionist economics, price controls, etc. And we all remember stagflation, don't we?
I'm afraid, with oil prices hitting $100 a barrel today, that the American public will naively (and amnesiacly) think such price controls are a good idea.
Of course, right now it's looking like we might be choosing between Clinton and Huckabee, and Huckabee is nothing more than a Nixonian Republican himself. Nixon was all about interventionist economics, price controls, etc. And we all remember stagflation, don't we?
Theory of Mind and Melina
Yesterday, as we were eating dinner, Melina was in her walker, eating a cracker. Our miniature schnauzer, Diego, was trying to eat her cracker, and she was pulling it away, protesting. Finally, she grew tired of his insistence, reached up, and tapped me on the leg. I looked down at her, and she pointed at Diego and babbled at me. SHe had a look on her face that said, "would you please tell him to leave me alone?" She was telling on the dog! My wife was shocked to see it. I tapped Diego on the nose and told him, "No." and he went away, much to Melina's clear satisfaction.
There are various levels of development of theory of mind, ranging from mere mimicking of others (present almost immediately upon birth, or shortly thereafter), to understanding that another person understand you and has intentions, knowledge, beliefs, etc. This latter happens at about 14-18 months. Melina is one (a week away from 13 months, to be exact), and she clearly demonstrated an understanding of intent on the part of Diego, and she understood that I would understand what she was "saying" to me, and that I would respond in a way that would help her with her problem, and that Diego would be encouraged to change his behavior by my actions. I mean, this is pretty complex thinking -- and 14-18 month old children can do it! Or in this case, a child just short of 13 months. Of course, there's typically a developmental window, with the 14-18 months being the larger portion of the bell curve, though children will also, of course, be found in the tails of the bell. I'm not sure how far along the tail Melina is, but this is a good sign.
Along these lines, Melina is also drinking from a straw. She's been doing that for almost 2 weeks now. A few people have expressed surprise at her doing it, but it's apparently not all that uncommon at her age.
I have also noticed that Melina's babbling sounds like "sentences" -- though it's hard to say why or how. It would be interesting to see if sentences have certain sounds based on their structures. I don't know if anyone has done such research, but listening to my baby's babbling has made me think that our sentences may have structures based on sound patterns, or perhaps lilts of voice. This is free for any linguists out there who would be interested in finding this out. I don't have time to look into everything I think of.
There are various levels of development of theory of mind, ranging from mere mimicking of others (present almost immediately upon birth, or shortly thereafter), to understanding that another person understand you and has intentions, knowledge, beliefs, etc. This latter happens at about 14-18 months. Melina is one (a week away from 13 months, to be exact), and she clearly demonstrated an understanding of intent on the part of Diego, and she understood that I would understand what she was "saying" to me, and that I would respond in a way that would help her with her problem, and that Diego would be encouraged to change his behavior by my actions. I mean, this is pretty complex thinking -- and 14-18 month old children can do it! Or in this case, a child just short of 13 months. Of course, there's typically a developmental window, with the 14-18 months being the larger portion of the bell curve, though children will also, of course, be found in the tails of the bell. I'm not sure how far along the tail Melina is, but this is a good sign.
Along these lines, Melina is also drinking from a straw. She's been doing that for almost 2 weeks now. A few people have expressed surprise at her doing it, but it's apparently not all that uncommon at her age.
I have also noticed that Melina's babbling sounds like "sentences" -- though it's hard to say why or how. It would be interesting to see if sentences have certain sounds based on their structures. I don't know if anyone has done such research, but listening to my baby's babbling has made me think that our sentences may have structures based on sound patterns, or perhaps lilts of voice. This is free for any linguists out there who would be interested in finding this out. I don't have time to look into everything I think of.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The Middle Way, Part 12 (On Hatred, War, and Peace)
Why does hatred seem to be on the rise in the world, including in the U.S.? True, there has always been hatred, and humans seem programmed to hate the Other, but there seems to be an increase of late that reverses the world-historical trend in the opposite direction.
If we take a look at each of the stages of spiral dynamics, we can see an increase in the number of people we consider to be in our tribe (Darwin himself noted this trend, associated with an increase in ethical behavior). At the first level, we have tribes of about 150 people. Everyone not in our tribe, we hate -- and we have to hate because if we make the mistake of not hating the Other, we put ourselves in the position of being killed by them. But as tribes grow, they must split, and as population density grows, we have to develop more complex societies. The early splits are aided by what is probably a genetic drive to split over the tiniest disagreement -- precisely to drive the creation of 150 and less tribal populations. But density creates new problems, meaning more must live together. Thus, larger tribal unities are fostered by creating identity across tribes. Religion works well here as well to create these bonds. The ancient Greeks were culturally unified, identifying themselves as Greeks by language, culture, and religion. The unification of these elements even more through the philosophies of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and politically by Philip II and Alexander the Great allowed for the emergence of the next level. Economics allowed for even stronger connections among even more people, transcending religion, language, culture, and politics in the next level. But it is the last level which we will be most concerned with in discussing the U.S., and it is this level which is most curious in its combination of tolerance for all while fostering deep chasms among groups. As Marinoff observes, "America is a nation of extremists as well as moderates, increasingly polarized and fractured along many axes -- political, religious, economic, cultural, educational, recial, sexual, to mention but a few" (175). This fractionalization is increasingly fostered by the postmodern Left rather than racist, sexist elements on the far Right. As Marinoff observes:
At the extremes of liberalism itself I encounter Marxists and anarchists, who want to bring down Western civilization (and who have already made great strides, as we shall see). At the extremes of conservatism I encounter racists and religious fanatics who are intolerant of human diversity. Too many self-proclaimed "moderate" liberals appear to be in complete ignorance of extravagant denial of the extreme left; they are too busy hating Bush and conservatism to know or care. Too many self-styled "moderate" conservatives are willing to apologize for or tacitly condone the knee-jerk bigotry and religious intolerance of the extreme right; they are too busy hating Clinton and liberalism to care. (176)
Many in America who are in the first three levels of the spiral already foster hatred against Others. It's a natural part of their thinking. The postmodern Left encourages such behavior by 1) opposing what worked best to eliminate such hatred, free markets (Voltaire once commented that the Christian, the Jew and the Moslem all get along at the London Stock exchange), 2) opposing religion, which fosters unity among quite large groups as well (yes, it fosters divisions too -- but it thus acts as a kind of strange attractor, attracting and repelling in turn), and 3) seeing the first two levels as victims whose bad behaviors are excused and even defended, and whose arguments for separation along racial and sexual lines are accepted and even philosophically codified. Why does the Left, who claim to support and love all mankind, do this? Ever heard of divide and conquer? If they can get each group fighting the others, they can argue for their own superior reason, love, and ability to govern -- and get themselves into government. Fear and hatred are how they gain power -- but this is a strategy common to every level of the 1st Tier.
"Hatred is one of three venomous toxins (the other two are greed and envy) that poison the mind, harden the heart, and debase the spirit" (Marinoff, 177). Free markets are now we dissipate and make positive use of greed. But the Left in particular feeds off of and fosters envy, building it up wherever they go, using it to foster hatred. (I emphasize the Left because the sins of the Right are well known to all.)
Between the Left and the Right, and fostered by both, is an "opposition without complementarity" (183), so that "The left perceives the right as fundamentalist, dogmatic, repressive, authoritarian, anti-intellectual; while the right perceives the left as deconstructed, radical, promiscuous, anarchic, amoral. Self-righteous extremists on both wings have carved a yawning chasm in American society, across which sanctity and profanity hurl mutual condemnation, fear, and loathing" (183). Of course, both sides are absolutely correct about the other -- but neither side sees the positive contributions of each. They do not see that the Other isn't better or worse, only different -- and, being different, supply vital elements to the world the other cannot.
If, as I said, fear and hatred are part and parcel of 1st Tier thinking, what on earth can we do? We can't really bring everyone up to the 2nd Tier, where, as Beck and Cowan observe, "fear falls away." Thus, too, hatred falls away here as well. But everyone is born in and must rise through the levels of the 1st Tier to get to the second. The majority of people will always be 1st Tier thinkers.
Well, what we can do is do away with "opposition without complementarity." We see this everywhere, including in our rhetoric surrounding War and Peace.
The Russian word mir, which translates as “peace,” also translates as “world.” Thus, when former Soviet leaders said they wanted “peace,” they were also saying they wanted “the world.” What the Russian language exposes is the fact that the only way one can ever get peace in fact is through having the entire world – through world domination. Their admission: when they had the world, there would be peace.
The Russian word allows us to get closer to the truth of peace – one gets peace only through domination, through having the entire world. Thus, we will have world peace only when we have world domination by one form of government, one way of thinking, one kind of economy, one religion. Now, depending on what or whose side you are on, these exist at varying degrees of desirability. Will world peace be achieved through world democratization? Will world peace be achieved through world-wide capitalism? Possibly. Democratic countries rarely go to war with each other – free trade partners are even less likely to do so. But we could equally admit that we would have world peace if only we submitted to worldwide fundamentalist Islam. We would also have world peace if we had an extremely oppressive dictatorship ruling the world who enforced peace with the threat of certain death. I submit that neither of these latter two choices are desirable to most people. Getting everyone to think one way is neither possible nor desirable – if we want people to continue being creative. And even in places where people do practice the same religion, we find religious conflicts within the religion. Peace is, perhaps, impossible.
There is a certain unhealthiness to sameness. Clones are in greater danger of extinction because they do not have the genetic variability to adapt or to resist disease. And a cell that tries to replace the diversity of cell types in the body with its own cell type is cancer. So some plurality is desirable, whether it be among species, within a species, or within an individual body. The key is that this diversity is also unified – in an ecosystem, a species, or a body. The unified body has a diversity of cells, but these cells all have the same genetic code. Thus, there is unity-variety-unity. Unity and variety are complimentary opposites. We need both to have a healthy system.
A problem occurs when plurality implies war. Peace, as domination, also implies war – a war to impose domination, to have domination over others. So to say one wants peace is to say one wants domination over others, that you want everyone to be thinking and acting exactly the same way as you think and act. Any rhetoric of peace is thus a rhetoric of dominion and domination. This is what we mean when we call for peace. The architects of war are our architects of peace – for we will not have peace until the wars of domination have succeeded. To that extent, groups like Hamas are more honest when they say that there will be peace only when their enemies are destroyed.
War and peace are contradictories. You cannot have one without the other. And, as I suggest above, each is united to the other through the ideology of domination and power. It seems, then, that we need something other than “war” and “peace” – something that allows for the creativity inherent in “war,” and yet manages to avoid killing people. We need something other than domination. This “something” must be neither some sort of impossible to achieve utopian egalitarianism nor a pluralism that must allow anything in order to avoid dominating anyone (both positions are, in a strange way, the same position, since the latter form of pluralism comes about precisely because every different culture and subculture and belief is placed on the same level). The sad reality is that there are those in the world who simply will not play well with others, and thus do not deserve equal consideration – we have to rid the world of Nazis, Talibans, al Qaidas, murderers, thieves, and rapists. It was Churchill who made the moral choice in waging war on Nazi Germany; Chamberlain held fast on a most immoral peace.
So peace in and of itself is not necessarily always desirable, or even ethical. Hitler could not be talked out of taking over Europe or committing the Holocaust. You can only talk to someone who is reasonable and who values reason. The leader of one of the most brutal anti-Enlightenment governments cannot be reasoned with. Those who rule by force can only be removed by force. And they must, if we are at all serious about human rights, freedom, and equality. Those who oppose the removal of dictatorships tacitly support those who rule by force.
I have mentioned egalitarianism and equality. The two are not the same. Egalitarianism opposes itself to any kind of hierarchy. Equality opposes itself merely to domination-based hierarchy. Equality is in fact betrothed to fluid hierarchies – to what we could call holarchy. A democractic republic is precisely this kind of holarchy – the President of the country is simultaneously above and equal to everyone else in the country; and everybody can, potentially, become President. This kind of equality, and the holarchy it creates, exists on the creative boundary between rigid, unequal hierarchy, and completely chaotic egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is related to a kind of radical individualism that, due to its dissolution of social bonds like family, church, community, etc., first results in the alienation of individuals, since it insists that individuals are radically different from one another and thus cannot relate to or communicate with other (in other words, it results in nihilism) and then results in collectivism, since collectivism treats everyone the same. If everyone is in fact the same, then people need to be organized by an arbitrarily chosen leader (his choice, as well as the choice of others’ jobs, would be arbitrary since all are equal). Collectivism is a consequence because egalitarianism is an equality of sameness – and this sameness must be enforced to ensure egalitarianism. Thus, egalitarianism is not an individualism of expression, but of atomistic isolationism.
Equality is related to a kind of communitarian individualism, where one’s individuality is intimately woven into things like family, church, community, etc. This form of individualism is not alienating and, being heterarchical, does not allow for collectivism. People gain their positions within the community through what the Greeks called ergon, which means “in work,” and from which we get the word “energy.” Position is gained through work – working at education, working at maintaining and strengthening social bonds, working to raise children, working to be a persuasive speaker, working at a job to make money for yourself and your family and to be a productive, contributing member of society, etc. This kind of equality is not an equality of sameness – nor is it an equality of pure difference, either. By individuals developing their identity through various communities, they come to identify with various kinds of people as well. We associate with different people – and different kinds of people – in our churches, schools, neighborhoods, places of work, coffeehouses, bars, clubs, associations, etc. We also have friends, whom we pull from these various places. The more communities we are members of, the more kinds of people we come to know, and the more people we come to know, the more people, the more kinds of people, we humanize. It is an ethical equality because it is voluntary – we should treat people as equals, as individuals. In other words, we should treat all humans as humans (which is really to say, as family). When we do, we cannot help but to be ethical.
By familiarizing ourselves with different people, we develop more familial relationships – they become part of our extended family, become honorary members of our families. The familialization of others is the source of ethical behavior. We do not rape, murder, lie to, or steal from family (how much more outraged are we when a mother or father kills their children than we are over a stranger killing a child?). So to the extent that we can consider more, and more kinds of, people as “family,” the more ethical will be our actions. It is in this extension of virtuous actions to the way we treat others that we will begin to get closer to the goal of having a healthy relationship among various peoples. Thus, it is virtue which is “beyond” war and peace. And if, as Aristotle says, and I too believe, virtue aims at the beautiful, then it is even more beauty which is beyond war and peace. For if there is one thing beauty is not, it is domination. Beauty persuades action, it does not force it.
There is the argument that identity is created by otherness – that if we do not insist on the difference of others, that each individual will not be able to individuate. Masculinity is defined by how it differs from femininity, and vice versa. Christian is defined by non-Christian; West by East; black by white. This approach has its source in Scholastic negative theology. We can know at least what God is not. The implication is that we cannot know what a thing is, only what it is not. This leads to absurdity. If we define masculine as not-feminine, and feminine as not-masculine, and do not try to posit what masculine and feminine in fact is, we end up with one abyss defined by another. We end up with a pair of absences, and no presence – not even the presence of a complex system around two strange attractors. We end up with no identity at all. Further, this is the way warring tribes define themselves and each other – “we” define ourselves as human, and the tribal name translates to “human” in other languages, while “they” are who we define ourselves against, as not-human. Thus, to negatively define ourselves in this self-other fashion, has its foundations in our most racist and sexist world views.
This negative definition of identity also comes with other problems. If we can only create identity through having “others”, we must “other” everybody, to strengthen identity. The social aspects of identity are discarded. But our identities arise precisely when and because we identify with others. Part of our identities arise precisely because we are members of a particular religion, speakers of a particular language, educated in particular ways, members of particular clubs and organizations, friends with particular people, raised by particular parents. Aristotle says the best way of knowing what the good is is to have a positive definition of the good – to indeed know what the good is. A worse way – but sufficient in a pinch – is to at least know what the bad is, and then derive from that its likely opposite good. To create one’s identity through others is like knowing what the good is through first knowing what the bad is, and then deriving the opposite. It implies that the other is, indeed, bad – since if you are their opposite, you must find something wrong with that person, so that you would not want to emulate them. A better way of creating one’s identity is to learn more about the various systems you are embedded in by your being a social mammal, which are the things that help to create your identity. Now, of course, just because you posit an other, it does not mean that the other is necessarily worse than you – the recognition of difference does not mean you necessarily have to judge one better than the other. This is precisely what ethical people do not do – but we have to deal with actual humans, and actual humans, in order to derive an identity from recognizing themselves as the negative of some other, will equate self with good, and other with bad more often than they will recognize that difference does not necessarily mean better or worse. There are those who do not seem to think dealing with how actual humans actually act or think should matter – they seem to think that they should only be positing how people should act in all cases. These same people, because of such thinking, have been the causes of tragedies like Soviet Communism being enacted in the world. I am more interested in developing a philosophy for people to actually live in the world, and for people to actually become better in the way they are capable of becoming better (this also requires recognizing that humans are not necessarily always bad, and that we can never become angels).
It seems we have traveled far from the issue of war and peace, but in fact we have strictly stayed the course. It is precisely in issues of identity and ethics that we can come to eventually avoid deadly wars. If we come to identify with various others, become familiar with them, and do not try to dominate them, deadly wars can become avoidable. To do this, there will have to be one world – on this, the Russian word “mir” is instructive. But this world does not have to be dominated by one religion, one culture, one identity – though it may in fact have to be dominated by democratic republican governments and free trade among all nations. But these latter two are in fact not domination – they are the vary antithesis of domination. Thus, we will get beyond war and peace only when the world becomes beautiful, healthy, and holy – which is all the same thing, all three being unity in variety, and variety in unity. When the world becomes free, it can and will finally have the stable world we have all been wishing for.
But to do this, we have to recognize all the different ways people think, as well as the different ways people organize themselves. Fortunately, these two things are not in fact separate, but are intimately related. Particularly if we take a historical view. We see in the West, for example, a very consistent, orderly development from pure animal survivalism to the pre-Homeric tribal world of magic and animism, into the Homeric Greek world of heroes and gods, and the beginning of an orderly world view in Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy that culminates in the West in Christianity. From this developed the capitalist, scientific Modern Era, which led into communitarian/egalitarian ideas – and attempts to realize those ideas. The biggest problems arise when a new level tries to make a clean break from lower levels, as happened when communitarians tried to break from capitalism in fascism and communism. When we have had Tragic Eras/Renaissances, we have not had nearly as explosive conflicts – the Greek tragedians moved Greece from being Homeric into being influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Shakespeare helped move Christian England into capitalist England – allowing England to retain both. Continental Europe seemed to have missed out on this lesson, resulting in the Thirty Years War and the French Enlightenment thinkers’ complete rejection of the church. Further, there were no tragedians to move us into the communitarian level – and we ended up with the wars of the 20th century because of it. What tragedy teaches us is that we cannot give up the lower, less complex levels of thought and organization. We have to integrate them. To the extent that we can both integrate these levels together and move more people into more complex ways of thinking, the better off we will be. After all, we do need to survive, we do need strong family/tribal bonds, we do need our heroes, we do need to feel our lives have purpose and to have people tell us how it can have that purpose, we do need capitalists, and we do need a larger, global communitarian view (as opposed to statism, which is how communitarianism was first practiced in the 20th century, and even as far back as the French Revolution, which created the first state with France). We need them all, simultaneously – and we need them all integrated. We need people who exemplify these ways of thinking – and we need to think each of these ways ourselves.
In the above outline I have used the ideas of Claire Graves, Don Beck and Christopher Cowan quite liberally. Their idea that thinking becomes more complex over time, as we are made to interact with more and more people, fits complex systems theory and the theory of emergence very well. The more elements there are to a system, the more complex that system will be – and the more complex the system, the more likely it is to emerge into something much more complex. Within the genetic confines of what it means to be human – which includes all the human universals, which are all instincts – there is a great deal of plasticity in the human brain and in human thinking. We are capable of extremely complex ways of thinking – and we have probably only seen the beginnings of complexity in thought and in social organization. There is little doubt in my mind that we will never see the end of it – or of increasingly complex ways of organizing ourselves socially and culturally. What we are seeing at the present time is the beginnings of more integrationist and even holistic thinking. This precludes simple one-world thinking – and thus precludes “peace” as we have always thought of it. The present proponents of peace – those who fall into the communitarian way of thinking – explicitly want a world that is entirely and only communitarian, rejecting all other levels below it. They want a uniform world, one wherein everyone thinks the way they do. Thus, they are absolutists and tend to embrace dictatorial politics (such as that of Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il) – which we see in the postmodern view that all forms of political organization are essentially the same, since they are all based on power. Is it any wonder, then, that many postmodern liberals opposed not just the war against Iraq, but the very deposition of Saddam Hussein? Or that they use arguments which essentially suggest that the Iraqis wanted such a form of government, or that the peoples of the Middle East or Africa are not capable of having democratic republican forms of government (why do postmodern liberals not get called racists when they say these things?)? Certainly to the extent that the Middle East has been living through a religious, monarchical form of social organization, many are ready for more complex thinking, a move into free markets and democratic republican forms of government (the Middle East version of the Summer of Love is still quite a bit off – one step at a time), though from a social complexity point of view, there are still places in Africa that have a ways to go. Rather than trying to jump them up several levels of complexity (something doomed to failure), we need to patiently move them into the next highest level of complexity, while at the same time attempting to integrate them into an increasingly complex world.
It is this movement – to integrate all levels into a more complex world that both includes all levels of social complexity, and attempts to move people into higher levels of complexity at the same time, while including a place for all kinds of individuals, with their individual levels of thinking – that we need to embrace. To do this, the egalitarian communitarians, for example, will have to stop being so condescending and elitist. Their thinking may be more complex than all the levels below them, but their way of thinking is not necessarily better because of it, especially to the extent that they think it could or should exclude all other levels. Besides, their thinking is hardly the most complex. It will be an even more complex world that includes all levels in it – and it will be an even more complex way of thinking that includes all levels in it. We should have a world that allows all forms of religious expression to exist within it – and further, we should in fact allow all forms of religious expression to exist within it, without being condescending toward those who have religious belief. For religious believers are a valuable part of the world, and add to its complexity. A world of secular communitarians has no depth to it – and thus lacks in complexity. Both flat worlds and rigid hierarchies are simple world views compared to a view of the world as a fluid hierarchy, or holarchy. (Bureaucracy is not really hierarchy in the natural sense – since natural hierarchy creates complexity and allows more and more complex things to get created, while bureaucracy, the complete opposite of this, evolves out of the flat world view of the communitarians, and is built from the top-down rather than from the bottom-up.)
To the extent that we can completely integrate all levels into a complex whole, we shall achieve neither war nor peace. There will be a natural tension among all the different levels, and among individual elements within a given level. But at the same time, we shall not have any sort of single world view – which is most commonly associated with what we call “peace,” as we see, again, in the Russian word “mir.” There should be a place in any given society for families, for heroes such as firefighters and athletes, for churches and police, for businesses big and small, and for people helping people because they are people. To date, the only form of government that has allowed for such complex forms of societal organization have been hierarchical constitutional democratic republican governments. When all governments become constitutional democratic republics, we shall have a world beyond war and peace, a world of competition and cooperation (in other words, it will be a more natural world, since nature itself is based on competition and cooperation, not war and peace). Thus, we need to replace the contradictory poles “war” and “peace” that make up our world, and the way we think of the world, and replace them with the complementary opposite poles “competition” and “cooperation,” to create a more complex system that is even more generative and alive. Héctor Sabelli’s bios theory, which describes the creation of complexity and creativity out of the interactions of complementary opposites, fully supports this idea. War and peace are linear views of the world – and insofar as the world is not made of linear systems, but more accurately describes as sets of nonlinear feedback systems, then war and peace are poor concepts on which to base any sort of foreign policy.
While war is in fact in direct opposition to peace – when we have one, we necessarily do not have the other – when we have competition and cooperation, we do not have true opposition, or contradiction. We instead have opposite poles of the same system – complementary opposites. One can be cooperative and competitive at the same time, and with the same group or person. Just because we compete with Great Britain economically, that does not prevent us from also cooperating with them on foreign policy. In fact, we can even simultaneously cooperate and compete with them economically. And we do. But we cannot simultaneously be at war and at peace with them. One excludes the other. And, with each excluding the other, complexity is reduced. Only competition and cooperation together create greater complexity – and thus can lead us toward creating a more just world.
Cooperation is a necessary component of emerging complexity. Each new complex system is a magnitude more complex than its parts would suggest. This is due to the co-operative aspects of the system. “Co-operation is considered in a broad sense as a phenomenon that can be found in all complex, self-organizing systems” (Christian Fuchs, 2). And not only is each system more complex as one goes up the hierarchy, but “Co-operation is itself an evolving phenomenon, during the course of its evolution new higher emergent qualities and levels of co-operation arise that can’t be reduced to lower levels or qualities” (2). Further, we have to realize that “All unity is unity only as organization and co-operation: no differently than a human community is a unity – as opposed to an atomistic anarchy; it is a pattern of domination that signifies a unity but is not a unity” (Nietzsche WP 561). Due to the fact that we have had the 20th Century between us and Nietzsche, I would personally avoid the use of the word “domination” here. Where Nietzsche uses “domination,” I prefer “hierarchy” – one that avoids the kind of physical coercion implied by the word “domination.” The point, however, is that all forms of unity in the universe are unified only as organization and cooperation. As complex systems. The universe itself becomes more and more unified as it becomes more and more complex, organized, and cooperative. And the ability to cooperate – as in social mammals, for example – allows one to become even more able to compete. Thus, cooperation and competition can, and often do, go hand-in-hand.
Nature is thus not “red in tooth and claw,” and neither is it a “war of all against all,” but rather, as Darwin himself observed, a world of highly integrated and interrelated cooperation and competition, working together to create more complexity. To the extent that we, too, come to realize this, we will be able to help create a more complex world – one beyond war and peace. One, hopefully, not interested in either war or peace, but rather in cooperation and competition. And we must have both together if we are going to get a more complex society. We cannot have one at the exclusion of the other – they must be in co-operation and competition themselves. This iterative depth of cooperation and competition will also come to reflect nature as it truly is.
This of course means too that while we may be able to move beyond war and peace, we will never be able to rid the world of violence – as nature too continues and will continue to have violent elements to it. Even chimpanzees murder one another. Meerkats go to war. It seems unlikely we will ever be able to completely rid the world of violent elements. However, we should do our best to reduce as much as possible the violent elements in the world. Our governments should to the best of their abilities avoid having laws on the books that perpetuate violent and coercive crimes such as rape, murder, theft, and bearing false witness. If this means eliminating many laws from the books because as a result of those laws more crimes are perpetuated against its citizens, then that is what we must do. Laws against rape, murder, theft, and lying to harm others do not perpetuate these crimes – but laws against many other things do. Typically, these are laws that are designed to prohibit competition and cooperation. Any laws that prohibit competition and cooperation are unjust laws – for both the above reason, and because such laws reduce the amount of complexity in the world.
This of course also presumes that increasing complexity is necessarily good – and I have yet to prove such a claim. Before I do, I would like to go so far as to say that the very definition of ethical behavior is anything that positively contributes to the complexity of the world – while the definition of bad, or even evil, is what reduces the complexity of the world (the bad out of ignorance, the evil out of knowledge).
Without going into all the different ways we can understand what we mean by more or less complex, let’s take two things that are clearly of different levels of complexity: chemistry and biology. It should be clear to everyone that even the simplest living thing is more complex than the most complex chemical. For one, a single bacterium is made up of a complex of complex chemicals and chemical cycles, while no single chemical can be considered to be alive. The question here is: which is worse, destroying a cell, or destroying a chemical? Perhaps you don’t care about either one. So let us consider this: which is worse, destroying a bacterium, or destroying a human being? Clearly the human is more complex than the bacterium. And anyone who says they are on the same level should reconsider taking antibiotics the next time they get sick. Why, if humans and bacteria are on the same level of complexity, should we privilege ourselves over any bacteria that might attack us? Clearly our own immune systems are of the opinion that we are more important than are the bacteria. And considering how much money we spend on medical care to fight off bacteria and viruses, we clearly agree that we are more important than the bacteria attacking us.
When we die, we for all intents and purposes become a pile of chemicals. Thus, when we kill someone, we reduce them in complexity to the level of mere chemistry. Further, when we psychologically damage someone, we reduce the complexity of their thinking. And when we deprive the world of a person, we reduce the complexity of the world dramatically, considering how highly complex human thinking is. The elimination of an individual or, worse, an entire tribe or culture, reduces the complexity of the world overall. This is why it is important to fight those who murder either individuals or ethnic groups. The complexity of the world is increased whenever we eliminate a dictator with a history of killing the people he rules. It is increased because we have eliminated all future killings – killings we can be reasonably sure of, considering his past actions. We can further eliminate the future killings by future dictators by promoting such things as federal democratic republics in every country across the globe, since such governments typically do not try to kill off parts of its populace. Especially if such countries have a constitution that specifically protects minority rights, and has political parties that represent minority interests. Certainly this is not perfect – the United States has spent decades, even centuries, trying to expand the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution to everyone – but such governments have far better track records than any other form of government. Being highly complex forms of government themselves, they have a tendency to promote and protect diversity and, thus, complexity within the culture and populace. And they do this in great part through promoting both competition and cooperation within their societies.
There are different ways we can promote both competition and cooperation. Families are cooperative. But we should not allow families to become competitive, as that creates tribalistic strife. Athletic teams are internally cooperative, and externally competitive. When we attach ourselves to athletic teams, we allow ourselves to exercise a deep need to ritualistically “hate” some other group, but in such a way that we don’t harm anybody over it. Churches are cooperative. But, again, we should not allow things such as churches, mosques, and temples to become competitive, since again that creates tribalistic strife (unless they want to compete with each other on who can do the most good and help the community most, in which case we should encourage such friendly competition). Companies are also internally cooperative and externally competitive – and their competitiveness allows for the growth of our economies and the ever-increasing material well-being we have seen in capitalist countries. And when it comes to countries, we need a complex relationship between competition and cooperation – they should allow economic competition among the companies within their countries, while combining this with international and economic cooperation (insofar as having free trade between the two countries is cooperative). Further, it makes no sense to have competition among different cultures and societies – I can appreciate Czech literature (Milan Kundera and Kafka) as well as Russian literature (Dostoevski and Chekov), even if the two nations have had a history of rocky relations. This is a kind of pluralism and multiculturalism that we should fully embrace.
In fact, that is precisely what we need: an ethical multiculturalism. Difference indeed does not necessarily indicate better or worse. Women are different from men. Men are different from women. One is not better than the other – both have strengths the other lacks (or, is found in lesser quantities), which work to balance each other. A balanced society is one in which both masculine and feminine elements are in balance, especially if, as Ken Wilbur claims, “the typical male orientation tends to be more agentic, autonomous, abstract, and independent, based on rights and justice; whereas the female orientation tends to be more permeable, relational, and feelingful, based on care and responsibility” (46). Certainly we need all of these elements in order to have balanced societies. And this idea of one way of thinking not being better than another can and should be extended to different cultures, religions, etc. That having been said, however, I will say that killing a group of people because of their race, religion or culture is not just part of the rich fabric of world culture just because some culture other than Western culture does it. It is a tear in the fabric when other cultures do it, the same as when Western cultures do it. Whether it be for his slaughter of the Kurds or of the Shi’ites, his propensity for invading his neighbors, or just his being a dictator, there is no legitimate reason for supporting Saddam Hussein – or, let me go so far as to say, opposing his overthrow to replace him with a democratic republican form of government – unless one is in fact in favor of this kind of government and in opposition to democratic republican forms of government (or, worse, cannot recognize that one is good, the other bad). Dictatorship is not a mere cultural difference. Culture blossoms fullest in the soils of freedom, under governments that do not provide too much shade from the warming, enlightening sun. When egalitarian thinkers insist that there is no difference between a dictatorship and a democratic republican form of government, we are seeing precisely where such thinking falls short. To do so takes pluralism and multiculturalism too far.
Yet, at the same time, we have to be careful. While it’s true that democratic republican forms of government are best in creating a world involved in cooperation and competition, not all groups are ready for such forms of government. Remember, each group has to move through each of the levels. But in the case of dictatorships, since that form of government and social organization is just below the capitalist/scientific form of social organization that gave rise to democratic republican forms of government, we are in fact moving people into a new level of complexity they may be ready for. At the very least, it is only with a democratic republican form of government that people do in fact have a government of their choosing, rather than one imposed upon them. These are all good reasons for opposing dictatorship throughout the world.
In investigating the shortcomings of a rhetoric of peace, I have appeared yet again to have gone off in several directions. But all of these ideas are in fact deeply connected. We have to develop this kind of thinking in order to get beyond the kind of black-and-white dualistic thinking of war and peace – a destructive kind of dualism insofar as the existence of one of these poles necessarily excludes the existence of the other. The benefit of the competition-cooperation pair is that they are generative, do not exclude each other, and are both good things, bringing benefit to any and every society. And when each country has a democratic republican form of government, and is open to pluralism, we will be able to move away from a rhetoric (and reality) of war and peace – since such countries will not be engaging in activities that make others have to choose between war and an immoral peace. Indeed, when every country enters a state of constant revolution, using Thoreau’s idea of civil disobedience as the model rather than revolution as civil war, then we can finally be assured of increasing human rights from now on in every country. Indeed, in today’s media-saturated world, Thoreau’s civil disobedience may be the very best way to create change within a society. After all, who thought that communism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe would collapse due to millions of people in those countries engaging in civil disobedience? Indeed, it was cooperation – realized through civil disobedience – in those countries, not war or peace, that brought about the downfall of those communist dictatorships.
Bibliography
Beck, Don.
Beck, Don and Christopher Cowan. Spiral Dynamics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 1996
Fuchs, Christian. “Co-Operation and Self-Organization” tripleC 1(1) 2003
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power. New York: Vintage Books. 1968
Sabelli, Héctor. Bios. New Jersey: World Scientific. 2005
Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience
Wilbur, Ken. A Theory of Everything. Boston: Shambhala. 2001
If we take a look at each of the stages of spiral dynamics, we can see an increase in the number of people we consider to be in our tribe (Darwin himself noted this trend, associated with an increase in ethical behavior). At the first level, we have tribes of about 150 people. Everyone not in our tribe, we hate -- and we have to hate because if we make the mistake of not hating the Other, we put ourselves in the position of being killed by them. But as tribes grow, they must split, and as population density grows, we have to develop more complex societies. The early splits are aided by what is probably a genetic drive to split over the tiniest disagreement -- precisely to drive the creation of 150 and less tribal populations. But density creates new problems, meaning more must live together. Thus, larger tribal unities are fostered by creating identity across tribes. Religion works well here as well to create these bonds. The ancient Greeks were culturally unified, identifying themselves as Greeks by language, culture, and religion. The unification of these elements even more through the philosophies of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and politically by Philip II and Alexander the Great allowed for the emergence of the next level. Economics allowed for even stronger connections among even more people, transcending religion, language, culture, and politics in the next level. But it is the last level which we will be most concerned with in discussing the U.S., and it is this level which is most curious in its combination of tolerance for all while fostering deep chasms among groups. As Marinoff observes, "America is a nation of extremists as well as moderates, increasingly polarized and fractured along many axes -- political, religious, economic, cultural, educational, recial, sexual, to mention but a few" (175). This fractionalization is increasingly fostered by the postmodern Left rather than racist, sexist elements on the far Right. As Marinoff observes:
At the extremes of liberalism itself I encounter Marxists and anarchists, who want to bring down Western civilization (and who have already made great strides, as we shall see). At the extremes of conservatism I encounter racists and religious fanatics who are intolerant of human diversity. Too many self-proclaimed "moderate" liberals appear to be in complete ignorance of extravagant denial of the extreme left; they are too busy hating Bush and conservatism to know or care. Too many self-styled "moderate" conservatives are willing to apologize for or tacitly condone the knee-jerk bigotry and religious intolerance of the extreme right; they are too busy hating Clinton and liberalism to care. (176)
Many in America who are in the first three levels of the spiral already foster hatred against Others. It's a natural part of their thinking. The postmodern Left encourages such behavior by 1) opposing what worked best to eliminate such hatred, free markets (Voltaire once commented that the Christian, the Jew and the Moslem all get along at the London Stock exchange), 2) opposing religion, which fosters unity among quite large groups as well (yes, it fosters divisions too -- but it thus acts as a kind of strange attractor, attracting and repelling in turn), and 3) seeing the first two levels as victims whose bad behaviors are excused and even defended, and whose arguments for separation along racial and sexual lines are accepted and even philosophically codified. Why does the Left, who claim to support and love all mankind, do this? Ever heard of divide and conquer? If they can get each group fighting the others, they can argue for their own superior reason, love, and ability to govern -- and get themselves into government. Fear and hatred are how they gain power -- but this is a strategy common to every level of the 1st Tier.
"Hatred is one of three venomous toxins (the other two are greed and envy) that poison the mind, harden the heart, and debase the spirit" (Marinoff, 177). Free markets are now we dissipate and make positive use of greed. But the Left in particular feeds off of and fosters envy, building it up wherever they go, using it to foster hatred. (I emphasize the Left because the sins of the Right are well known to all.)
Between the Left and the Right, and fostered by both, is an "opposition without complementarity" (183), so that "The left perceives the right as fundamentalist, dogmatic, repressive, authoritarian, anti-intellectual; while the right perceives the left as deconstructed, radical, promiscuous, anarchic, amoral. Self-righteous extremists on both wings have carved a yawning chasm in American society, across which sanctity and profanity hurl mutual condemnation, fear, and loathing" (183). Of course, both sides are absolutely correct about the other -- but neither side sees the positive contributions of each. They do not see that the Other isn't better or worse, only different -- and, being different, supply vital elements to the world the other cannot.
If, as I said, fear and hatred are part and parcel of 1st Tier thinking, what on earth can we do? We can't really bring everyone up to the 2nd Tier, where, as Beck and Cowan observe, "fear falls away." Thus, too, hatred falls away here as well. But everyone is born in and must rise through the levels of the 1st Tier to get to the second. The majority of people will always be 1st Tier thinkers.
Well, what we can do is do away with "opposition without complementarity." We see this everywhere, including in our rhetoric surrounding War and Peace.
The Russian word mir, which translates as “peace,” also translates as “world.” Thus, when former Soviet leaders said they wanted “peace,” they were also saying they wanted “the world.” What the Russian language exposes is the fact that the only way one can ever get peace in fact is through having the entire world – through world domination. Their admission: when they had the world, there would be peace.
The Russian word allows us to get closer to the truth of peace – one gets peace only through domination, through having the entire world. Thus, we will have world peace only when we have world domination by one form of government, one way of thinking, one kind of economy, one religion. Now, depending on what or whose side you are on, these exist at varying degrees of desirability. Will world peace be achieved through world democratization? Will world peace be achieved through world-wide capitalism? Possibly. Democratic countries rarely go to war with each other – free trade partners are even less likely to do so. But we could equally admit that we would have world peace if only we submitted to worldwide fundamentalist Islam. We would also have world peace if we had an extremely oppressive dictatorship ruling the world who enforced peace with the threat of certain death. I submit that neither of these latter two choices are desirable to most people. Getting everyone to think one way is neither possible nor desirable – if we want people to continue being creative. And even in places where people do practice the same religion, we find religious conflicts within the religion. Peace is, perhaps, impossible.
There is a certain unhealthiness to sameness. Clones are in greater danger of extinction because they do not have the genetic variability to adapt or to resist disease. And a cell that tries to replace the diversity of cell types in the body with its own cell type is cancer. So some plurality is desirable, whether it be among species, within a species, or within an individual body. The key is that this diversity is also unified – in an ecosystem, a species, or a body. The unified body has a diversity of cells, but these cells all have the same genetic code. Thus, there is unity-variety-unity. Unity and variety are complimentary opposites. We need both to have a healthy system.
A problem occurs when plurality implies war. Peace, as domination, also implies war – a war to impose domination, to have domination over others. So to say one wants peace is to say one wants domination over others, that you want everyone to be thinking and acting exactly the same way as you think and act. Any rhetoric of peace is thus a rhetoric of dominion and domination. This is what we mean when we call for peace. The architects of war are our architects of peace – for we will not have peace until the wars of domination have succeeded. To that extent, groups like Hamas are more honest when they say that there will be peace only when their enemies are destroyed.
War and peace are contradictories. You cannot have one without the other. And, as I suggest above, each is united to the other through the ideology of domination and power. It seems, then, that we need something other than “war” and “peace” – something that allows for the creativity inherent in “war,” and yet manages to avoid killing people. We need something other than domination. This “something” must be neither some sort of impossible to achieve utopian egalitarianism nor a pluralism that must allow anything in order to avoid dominating anyone (both positions are, in a strange way, the same position, since the latter form of pluralism comes about precisely because every different culture and subculture and belief is placed on the same level). The sad reality is that there are those in the world who simply will not play well with others, and thus do not deserve equal consideration – we have to rid the world of Nazis, Talibans, al Qaidas, murderers, thieves, and rapists. It was Churchill who made the moral choice in waging war on Nazi Germany; Chamberlain held fast on a most immoral peace.
So peace in and of itself is not necessarily always desirable, or even ethical. Hitler could not be talked out of taking over Europe or committing the Holocaust. You can only talk to someone who is reasonable and who values reason. The leader of one of the most brutal anti-Enlightenment governments cannot be reasoned with. Those who rule by force can only be removed by force. And they must, if we are at all serious about human rights, freedom, and equality. Those who oppose the removal of dictatorships tacitly support those who rule by force.
I have mentioned egalitarianism and equality. The two are not the same. Egalitarianism opposes itself to any kind of hierarchy. Equality opposes itself merely to domination-based hierarchy. Equality is in fact betrothed to fluid hierarchies – to what we could call holarchy. A democractic republic is precisely this kind of holarchy – the President of the country is simultaneously above and equal to everyone else in the country; and everybody can, potentially, become President. This kind of equality, and the holarchy it creates, exists on the creative boundary between rigid, unequal hierarchy, and completely chaotic egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is related to a kind of radical individualism that, due to its dissolution of social bonds like family, church, community, etc., first results in the alienation of individuals, since it insists that individuals are radically different from one another and thus cannot relate to or communicate with other (in other words, it results in nihilism) and then results in collectivism, since collectivism treats everyone the same. If everyone is in fact the same, then people need to be organized by an arbitrarily chosen leader (his choice, as well as the choice of others’ jobs, would be arbitrary since all are equal). Collectivism is a consequence because egalitarianism is an equality of sameness – and this sameness must be enforced to ensure egalitarianism. Thus, egalitarianism is not an individualism of expression, but of atomistic isolationism.
Equality is related to a kind of communitarian individualism, where one’s individuality is intimately woven into things like family, church, community, etc. This form of individualism is not alienating and, being heterarchical, does not allow for collectivism. People gain their positions within the community through what the Greeks called ergon, which means “in work,” and from which we get the word “energy.” Position is gained through work – working at education, working at maintaining and strengthening social bonds, working to raise children, working to be a persuasive speaker, working at a job to make money for yourself and your family and to be a productive, contributing member of society, etc. This kind of equality is not an equality of sameness – nor is it an equality of pure difference, either. By individuals developing their identity through various communities, they come to identify with various kinds of people as well. We associate with different people – and different kinds of people – in our churches, schools, neighborhoods, places of work, coffeehouses, bars, clubs, associations, etc. We also have friends, whom we pull from these various places. The more communities we are members of, the more kinds of people we come to know, and the more people we come to know, the more people, the more kinds of people, we humanize. It is an ethical equality because it is voluntary – we should treat people as equals, as individuals. In other words, we should treat all humans as humans (which is really to say, as family). When we do, we cannot help but to be ethical.
By familiarizing ourselves with different people, we develop more familial relationships – they become part of our extended family, become honorary members of our families. The familialization of others is the source of ethical behavior. We do not rape, murder, lie to, or steal from family (how much more outraged are we when a mother or father kills their children than we are over a stranger killing a child?). So to the extent that we can consider more, and more kinds of, people as “family,” the more ethical will be our actions. It is in this extension of virtuous actions to the way we treat others that we will begin to get closer to the goal of having a healthy relationship among various peoples. Thus, it is virtue which is “beyond” war and peace. And if, as Aristotle says, and I too believe, virtue aims at the beautiful, then it is even more beauty which is beyond war and peace. For if there is one thing beauty is not, it is domination. Beauty persuades action, it does not force it.
There is the argument that identity is created by otherness – that if we do not insist on the difference of others, that each individual will not be able to individuate. Masculinity is defined by how it differs from femininity, and vice versa. Christian is defined by non-Christian; West by East; black by white. This approach has its source in Scholastic negative theology. We can know at least what God is not. The implication is that we cannot know what a thing is, only what it is not. This leads to absurdity. If we define masculine as not-feminine, and feminine as not-masculine, and do not try to posit what masculine and feminine in fact is, we end up with one abyss defined by another. We end up with a pair of absences, and no presence – not even the presence of a complex system around two strange attractors. We end up with no identity at all. Further, this is the way warring tribes define themselves and each other – “we” define ourselves as human, and the tribal name translates to “human” in other languages, while “they” are who we define ourselves against, as not-human. Thus, to negatively define ourselves in this self-other fashion, has its foundations in our most racist and sexist world views.
This negative definition of identity also comes with other problems. If we can only create identity through having “others”, we must “other” everybody, to strengthen identity. The social aspects of identity are discarded. But our identities arise precisely when and because we identify with others. Part of our identities arise precisely because we are members of a particular religion, speakers of a particular language, educated in particular ways, members of particular clubs and organizations, friends with particular people, raised by particular parents. Aristotle says the best way of knowing what the good is is to have a positive definition of the good – to indeed know what the good is. A worse way – but sufficient in a pinch – is to at least know what the bad is, and then derive from that its likely opposite good. To create one’s identity through others is like knowing what the good is through first knowing what the bad is, and then deriving the opposite. It implies that the other is, indeed, bad – since if you are their opposite, you must find something wrong with that person, so that you would not want to emulate them. A better way of creating one’s identity is to learn more about the various systems you are embedded in by your being a social mammal, which are the things that help to create your identity. Now, of course, just because you posit an other, it does not mean that the other is necessarily worse than you – the recognition of difference does not mean you necessarily have to judge one better than the other. This is precisely what ethical people do not do – but we have to deal with actual humans, and actual humans, in order to derive an identity from recognizing themselves as the negative of some other, will equate self with good, and other with bad more often than they will recognize that difference does not necessarily mean better or worse. There are those who do not seem to think dealing with how actual humans actually act or think should matter – they seem to think that they should only be positing how people should act in all cases. These same people, because of such thinking, have been the causes of tragedies like Soviet Communism being enacted in the world. I am more interested in developing a philosophy for people to actually live in the world, and for people to actually become better in the way they are capable of becoming better (this also requires recognizing that humans are not necessarily always bad, and that we can never become angels).
It seems we have traveled far from the issue of war and peace, but in fact we have strictly stayed the course. It is precisely in issues of identity and ethics that we can come to eventually avoid deadly wars. If we come to identify with various others, become familiar with them, and do not try to dominate them, deadly wars can become avoidable. To do this, there will have to be one world – on this, the Russian word “mir” is instructive. But this world does not have to be dominated by one religion, one culture, one identity – though it may in fact have to be dominated by democratic republican governments and free trade among all nations. But these latter two are in fact not domination – they are the vary antithesis of domination. Thus, we will get beyond war and peace only when the world becomes beautiful, healthy, and holy – which is all the same thing, all three being unity in variety, and variety in unity. When the world becomes free, it can and will finally have the stable world we have all been wishing for.
But to do this, we have to recognize all the different ways people think, as well as the different ways people organize themselves. Fortunately, these two things are not in fact separate, but are intimately related. Particularly if we take a historical view. We see in the West, for example, a very consistent, orderly development from pure animal survivalism to the pre-Homeric tribal world of magic and animism, into the Homeric Greek world of heroes and gods, and the beginning of an orderly world view in Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy that culminates in the West in Christianity. From this developed the capitalist, scientific Modern Era, which led into communitarian/egalitarian ideas – and attempts to realize those ideas. The biggest problems arise when a new level tries to make a clean break from lower levels, as happened when communitarians tried to break from capitalism in fascism and communism. When we have had Tragic Eras/Renaissances, we have not had nearly as explosive conflicts – the Greek tragedians moved Greece from being Homeric into being influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Shakespeare helped move Christian England into capitalist England – allowing England to retain both. Continental Europe seemed to have missed out on this lesson, resulting in the Thirty Years War and the French Enlightenment thinkers’ complete rejection of the church. Further, there were no tragedians to move us into the communitarian level – and we ended up with the wars of the 20th century because of it. What tragedy teaches us is that we cannot give up the lower, less complex levels of thought and organization. We have to integrate them. To the extent that we can both integrate these levels together and move more people into more complex ways of thinking, the better off we will be. After all, we do need to survive, we do need strong family/tribal bonds, we do need our heroes, we do need to feel our lives have purpose and to have people tell us how it can have that purpose, we do need capitalists, and we do need a larger, global communitarian view (as opposed to statism, which is how communitarianism was first practiced in the 20th century, and even as far back as the French Revolution, which created the first state with France). We need them all, simultaneously – and we need them all integrated. We need people who exemplify these ways of thinking – and we need to think each of these ways ourselves.
In the above outline I have used the ideas of Claire Graves, Don Beck and Christopher Cowan quite liberally. Their idea that thinking becomes more complex over time, as we are made to interact with more and more people, fits complex systems theory and the theory of emergence very well. The more elements there are to a system, the more complex that system will be – and the more complex the system, the more likely it is to emerge into something much more complex. Within the genetic confines of what it means to be human – which includes all the human universals, which are all instincts – there is a great deal of plasticity in the human brain and in human thinking. We are capable of extremely complex ways of thinking – and we have probably only seen the beginnings of complexity in thought and in social organization. There is little doubt in my mind that we will never see the end of it – or of increasingly complex ways of organizing ourselves socially and culturally. What we are seeing at the present time is the beginnings of more integrationist and even holistic thinking. This precludes simple one-world thinking – and thus precludes “peace” as we have always thought of it. The present proponents of peace – those who fall into the communitarian way of thinking – explicitly want a world that is entirely and only communitarian, rejecting all other levels below it. They want a uniform world, one wherein everyone thinks the way they do. Thus, they are absolutists and tend to embrace dictatorial politics (such as that of Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il) – which we see in the postmodern view that all forms of political organization are essentially the same, since they are all based on power. Is it any wonder, then, that many postmodern liberals opposed not just the war against Iraq, but the very deposition of Saddam Hussein? Or that they use arguments which essentially suggest that the Iraqis wanted such a form of government, or that the peoples of the Middle East or Africa are not capable of having democratic republican forms of government (why do postmodern liberals not get called racists when they say these things?)? Certainly to the extent that the Middle East has been living through a religious, monarchical form of social organization, many are ready for more complex thinking, a move into free markets and democratic republican forms of government (the Middle East version of the Summer of Love is still quite a bit off – one step at a time), though from a social complexity point of view, there are still places in Africa that have a ways to go. Rather than trying to jump them up several levels of complexity (something doomed to failure), we need to patiently move them into the next highest level of complexity, while at the same time attempting to integrate them into an increasingly complex world.
It is this movement – to integrate all levels into a more complex world that both includes all levels of social complexity, and attempts to move people into higher levels of complexity at the same time, while including a place for all kinds of individuals, with their individual levels of thinking – that we need to embrace. To do this, the egalitarian communitarians, for example, will have to stop being so condescending and elitist. Their thinking may be more complex than all the levels below them, but their way of thinking is not necessarily better because of it, especially to the extent that they think it could or should exclude all other levels. Besides, their thinking is hardly the most complex. It will be an even more complex world that includes all levels in it – and it will be an even more complex way of thinking that includes all levels in it. We should have a world that allows all forms of religious expression to exist within it – and further, we should in fact allow all forms of religious expression to exist within it, without being condescending toward those who have religious belief. For religious believers are a valuable part of the world, and add to its complexity. A world of secular communitarians has no depth to it – and thus lacks in complexity. Both flat worlds and rigid hierarchies are simple world views compared to a view of the world as a fluid hierarchy, or holarchy. (Bureaucracy is not really hierarchy in the natural sense – since natural hierarchy creates complexity and allows more and more complex things to get created, while bureaucracy, the complete opposite of this, evolves out of the flat world view of the communitarians, and is built from the top-down rather than from the bottom-up.)
To the extent that we can completely integrate all levels into a complex whole, we shall achieve neither war nor peace. There will be a natural tension among all the different levels, and among individual elements within a given level. But at the same time, we shall not have any sort of single world view – which is most commonly associated with what we call “peace,” as we see, again, in the Russian word “mir.” There should be a place in any given society for families, for heroes such as firefighters and athletes, for churches and police, for businesses big and small, and for people helping people because they are people. To date, the only form of government that has allowed for such complex forms of societal organization have been hierarchical constitutional democratic republican governments. When all governments become constitutional democratic republics, we shall have a world beyond war and peace, a world of competition and cooperation (in other words, it will be a more natural world, since nature itself is based on competition and cooperation, not war and peace). Thus, we need to replace the contradictory poles “war” and “peace” that make up our world, and the way we think of the world, and replace them with the complementary opposite poles “competition” and “cooperation,” to create a more complex system that is even more generative and alive. Héctor Sabelli’s bios theory, which describes the creation of complexity and creativity out of the interactions of complementary opposites, fully supports this idea. War and peace are linear views of the world – and insofar as the world is not made of linear systems, but more accurately describes as sets of nonlinear feedback systems, then war and peace are poor concepts on which to base any sort of foreign policy.
While war is in fact in direct opposition to peace – when we have one, we necessarily do not have the other – when we have competition and cooperation, we do not have true opposition, or contradiction. We instead have opposite poles of the same system – complementary opposites. One can be cooperative and competitive at the same time, and with the same group or person. Just because we compete with Great Britain economically, that does not prevent us from also cooperating with them on foreign policy. In fact, we can even simultaneously cooperate and compete with them economically. And we do. But we cannot simultaneously be at war and at peace with them. One excludes the other. And, with each excluding the other, complexity is reduced. Only competition and cooperation together create greater complexity – and thus can lead us toward creating a more just world.
Cooperation is a necessary component of emerging complexity. Each new complex system is a magnitude more complex than its parts would suggest. This is due to the co-operative aspects of the system. “Co-operation is considered in a broad sense as a phenomenon that can be found in all complex, self-organizing systems” (Christian Fuchs, 2). And not only is each system more complex as one goes up the hierarchy, but “Co-operation is itself an evolving phenomenon, during the course of its evolution new higher emergent qualities and levels of co-operation arise that can’t be reduced to lower levels or qualities” (2). Further, we have to realize that “All unity is unity only as organization and co-operation: no differently than a human community is a unity – as opposed to an atomistic anarchy; it is a pattern of domination that signifies a unity but is not a unity” (Nietzsche WP 561). Due to the fact that we have had the 20th Century between us and Nietzsche, I would personally avoid the use of the word “domination” here. Where Nietzsche uses “domination,” I prefer “hierarchy” – one that avoids the kind of physical coercion implied by the word “domination.” The point, however, is that all forms of unity in the universe are unified only as organization and cooperation. As complex systems. The universe itself becomes more and more unified as it becomes more and more complex, organized, and cooperative. And the ability to cooperate – as in social mammals, for example – allows one to become even more able to compete. Thus, cooperation and competition can, and often do, go hand-in-hand.
Nature is thus not “red in tooth and claw,” and neither is it a “war of all against all,” but rather, as Darwin himself observed, a world of highly integrated and interrelated cooperation and competition, working together to create more complexity. To the extent that we, too, come to realize this, we will be able to help create a more complex world – one beyond war and peace. One, hopefully, not interested in either war or peace, but rather in cooperation and competition. And we must have both together if we are going to get a more complex society. We cannot have one at the exclusion of the other – they must be in co-operation and competition themselves. This iterative depth of cooperation and competition will also come to reflect nature as it truly is.
This of course means too that while we may be able to move beyond war and peace, we will never be able to rid the world of violence – as nature too continues and will continue to have violent elements to it. Even chimpanzees murder one another. Meerkats go to war. It seems unlikely we will ever be able to completely rid the world of violent elements. However, we should do our best to reduce as much as possible the violent elements in the world. Our governments should to the best of their abilities avoid having laws on the books that perpetuate violent and coercive crimes such as rape, murder, theft, and bearing false witness. If this means eliminating many laws from the books because as a result of those laws more crimes are perpetuated against its citizens, then that is what we must do. Laws against rape, murder, theft, and lying to harm others do not perpetuate these crimes – but laws against many other things do. Typically, these are laws that are designed to prohibit competition and cooperation. Any laws that prohibit competition and cooperation are unjust laws – for both the above reason, and because such laws reduce the amount of complexity in the world.
This of course also presumes that increasing complexity is necessarily good – and I have yet to prove such a claim. Before I do, I would like to go so far as to say that the very definition of ethical behavior is anything that positively contributes to the complexity of the world – while the definition of bad, or even evil, is what reduces the complexity of the world (the bad out of ignorance, the evil out of knowledge).
Without going into all the different ways we can understand what we mean by more or less complex, let’s take two things that are clearly of different levels of complexity: chemistry and biology. It should be clear to everyone that even the simplest living thing is more complex than the most complex chemical. For one, a single bacterium is made up of a complex of complex chemicals and chemical cycles, while no single chemical can be considered to be alive. The question here is: which is worse, destroying a cell, or destroying a chemical? Perhaps you don’t care about either one. So let us consider this: which is worse, destroying a bacterium, or destroying a human being? Clearly the human is more complex than the bacterium. And anyone who says they are on the same level should reconsider taking antibiotics the next time they get sick. Why, if humans and bacteria are on the same level of complexity, should we privilege ourselves over any bacteria that might attack us? Clearly our own immune systems are of the opinion that we are more important than are the bacteria. And considering how much money we spend on medical care to fight off bacteria and viruses, we clearly agree that we are more important than the bacteria attacking us.
When we die, we for all intents and purposes become a pile of chemicals. Thus, when we kill someone, we reduce them in complexity to the level of mere chemistry. Further, when we psychologically damage someone, we reduce the complexity of their thinking. And when we deprive the world of a person, we reduce the complexity of the world dramatically, considering how highly complex human thinking is. The elimination of an individual or, worse, an entire tribe or culture, reduces the complexity of the world overall. This is why it is important to fight those who murder either individuals or ethnic groups. The complexity of the world is increased whenever we eliminate a dictator with a history of killing the people he rules. It is increased because we have eliminated all future killings – killings we can be reasonably sure of, considering his past actions. We can further eliminate the future killings by future dictators by promoting such things as federal democratic republics in every country across the globe, since such governments typically do not try to kill off parts of its populace. Especially if such countries have a constitution that specifically protects minority rights, and has political parties that represent minority interests. Certainly this is not perfect – the United States has spent decades, even centuries, trying to expand the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution to everyone – but such governments have far better track records than any other form of government. Being highly complex forms of government themselves, they have a tendency to promote and protect diversity and, thus, complexity within the culture and populace. And they do this in great part through promoting both competition and cooperation within their societies.
There are different ways we can promote both competition and cooperation. Families are cooperative. But we should not allow families to become competitive, as that creates tribalistic strife. Athletic teams are internally cooperative, and externally competitive. When we attach ourselves to athletic teams, we allow ourselves to exercise a deep need to ritualistically “hate” some other group, but in such a way that we don’t harm anybody over it. Churches are cooperative. But, again, we should not allow things such as churches, mosques, and temples to become competitive, since again that creates tribalistic strife (unless they want to compete with each other on who can do the most good and help the community most, in which case we should encourage such friendly competition). Companies are also internally cooperative and externally competitive – and their competitiveness allows for the growth of our economies and the ever-increasing material well-being we have seen in capitalist countries. And when it comes to countries, we need a complex relationship between competition and cooperation – they should allow economic competition among the companies within their countries, while combining this with international and economic cooperation (insofar as having free trade between the two countries is cooperative). Further, it makes no sense to have competition among different cultures and societies – I can appreciate Czech literature (Milan Kundera and Kafka) as well as Russian literature (Dostoevski and Chekov), even if the two nations have had a history of rocky relations. This is a kind of pluralism and multiculturalism that we should fully embrace.
In fact, that is precisely what we need: an ethical multiculturalism. Difference indeed does not necessarily indicate better or worse. Women are different from men. Men are different from women. One is not better than the other – both have strengths the other lacks (or, is found in lesser quantities), which work to balance each other. A balanced society is one in which both masculine and feminine elements are in balance, especially if, as Ken Wilbur claims, “the typical male orientation tends to be more agentic, autonomous, abstract, and independent, based on rights and justice; whereas the female orientation tends to be more permeable, relational, and feelingful, based on care and responsibility” (46). Certainly we need all of these elements in order to have balanced societies. And this idea of one way of thinking not being better than another can and should be extended to different cultures, religions, etc. That having been said, however, I will say that killing a group of people because of their race, religion or culture is not just part of the rich fabric of world culture just because some culture other than Western culture does it. It is a tear in the fabric when other cultures do it, the same as when Western cultures do it. Whether it be for his slaughter of the Kurds or of the Shi’ites, his propensity for invading his neighbors, or just his being a dictator, there is no legitimate reason for supporting Saddam Hussein – or, let me go so far as to say, opposing his overthrow to replace him with a democratic republican form of government – unless one is in fact in favor of this kind of government and in opposition to democratic republican forms of government (or, worse, cannot recognize that one is good, the other bad). Dictatorship is not a mere cultural difference. Culture blossoms fullest in the soils of freedom, under governments that do not provide too much shade from the warming, enlightening sun. When egalitarian thinkers insist that there is no difference between a dictatorship and a democratic republican form of government, we are seeing precisely where such thinking falls short. To do so takes pluralism and multiculturalism too far.
Yet, at the same time, we have to be careful. While it’s true that democratic republican forms of government are best in creating a world involved in cooperation and competition, not all groups are ready for such forms of government. Remember, each group has to move through each of the levels. But in the case of dictatorships, since that form of government and social organization is just below the capitalist/scientific form of social organization that gave rise to democratic republican forms of government, we are in fact moving people into a new level of complexity they may be ready for. At the very least, it is only with a democratic republican form of government that people do in fact have a government of their choosing, rather than one imposed upon them. These are all good reasons for opposing dictatorship throughout the world.
In investigating the shortcomings of a rhetoric of peace, I have appeared yet again to have gone off in several directions. But all of these ideas are in fact deeply connected. We have to develop this kind of thinking in order to get beyond the kind of black-and-white dualistic thinking of war and peace – a destructive kind of dualism insofar as the existence of one of these poles necessarily excludes the existence of the other. The benefit of the competition-cooperation pair is that they are generative, do not exclude each other, and are both good things, bringing benefit to any and every society. And when each country has a democratic republican form of government, and is open to pluralism, we will be able to move away from a rhetoric (and reality) of war and peace – since such countries will not be engaging in activities that make others have to choose between war and an immoral peace. Indeed, when every country enters a state of constant revolution, using Thoreau’s idea of civil disobedience as the model rather than revolution as civil war, then we can finally be assured of increasing human rights from now on in every country. Indeed, in today’s media-saturated world, Thoreau’s civil disobedience may be the very best way to create change within a society. After all, who thought that communism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe would collapse due to millions of people in those countries engaging in civil disobedience? Indeed, it was cooperation – realized through civil disobedience – in those countries, not war or peace, that brought about the downfall of those communist dictatorships.
Bibliography
Beck, Don.
Beck, Don and Christopher Cowan. Spiral Dynamics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 1996
Fuchs, Christian. “Co-Operation and Self-Organization” tripleC 1(1) 2003
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power. New York: Vintage Books. 1968
Sabelli, Héctor. Bios. New Jersey: World Scientific. 2005
Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience
Wilbur, Ken. A Theory of Everything. Boston: Shambhala. 2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)