I don’t expect you to read this entire post, but I do have a favor to ask. Will you – all of you – please leave a comment with the link to what you think is the best post you have written so far? Thx.
I was reading an article in MIT’s Technology Review today when I came across a sentence that pretty much summed up exactly what I was trying to say in my post a couple days ago, Against Populism:
One of the key insights of happiness studies is that people have a hard time being content with what they have, at least when they know that others have more.
I’m gonna make an assumption – one that susanitty! has already disagreed with me on: After survival and a minimum of comfort, happiness is the natural objective of our lives. Some have argued with me that they actually prefer being sad and while I do understand what they’re saying (I enjoy some melancholy myself at times), I would argue they are still enjoying their mood which is a form of happiness/contentment. So with that assumption in mind:
The economists Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer published an academic survey of the subject in Happiness and Academics in 2001. But the truly groundbreaking work on the relationship between prosperity and well-being was done by the economist Richard Easterlin, who in 1974 wrote a famous paper entitled “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?” Easterlin showed that when it came to developed countries, there was no real correlation between a nation’s income level and its citizens’ happiness. Money, Easterlin argued, could not buy happiness – at least not after a certain point. Easterlin showed that though poverty was strongly correlated with misery, once a country was solidly middle class, getting wealthier didn’t seem to make its citizens any happier.
Now I disagree. I think that, for some, money can buy happiness. I have a lot of friends whose idea of happiness is working hard and buying shoes, a car, nice rims, and video games or DVD’s or books. Many call that materialism, but I don’t think collecting shoes is any worse than collecting friends.
When we vote, it seems to me we mostly vote according to what will make us happy (or what we think will make us happy). If, for someone like HP that’s greater access to cheap products at Wal-Mart or more control over where to invest his retirement savings, then it makes sense to vote for a party here in Mexico like the PAN.
But if your happiness values economic equality and community interaction with local goods, then it would make more sense to vote for a party like the PRD. I think a lot of it has to do with brain chemistry. I can tell you I am much happier at our local farmer’s market where I buy my produce direct from local farmers, my chocolate flan cake from the same fat lady who calls me mijo, and probably soon some t-shirts from one of the hipster kids who make their own silk screens. It’s a terribly inefficient process, a farmer’s market, but the point is I enjoy it so much more than wandering around the UV lit labyrinth of aisles at Wal-Mart until I finally find the place with the 427 toothbrushes to choose from.
And I would think most Mexicans would agree with me, but obviously they don’t because they’re all rushing to Wal-Mart while stall by stall closes up at the local markets.
One of the key insights of happiness studies is that people have a hard time being content with what they have, at least when they know that others have more.
So what I was really trying to say a couple days ago, is that I don’t think my co-workers would be such a conservative group if they hadn’t been exposed to what they perceive as better: nicer cars, bigger TV’s, gourmet brands, well lit Wal-Marts. When you come across those things for the first time (it’s hard for most Americans to picture this), the immediate response is of course they are better. It takes much longer to learn that a material lifestyle like that will only bring happiness to some people.
Muy interesante. I wonder what factors contribute to your perspective of the world versus theirs ( Mexicans ). You were raised ( I am assuming here ) in the most capitalistic nation in the world, yet you are able to value ‘economic equality and community interaction with local goods’. Some experience in your life must have contributed to this, don’t you think? Have you blogged about this?
Peter:
That is a huge assumption that “makes you sound like some sort of enlightened being”. You’re talking like “individual rights” exist completely separately from the society that protects them. That is absurd. Nobody has a “right” to shop at Wal-Mart any more than they have a “right” to live in a just and equal society. Though from a constitutional prospective I would rather argue for the latter than the former.
Individual “rights” are indeterminate.
People see the ‘luxury’ of the american lifestyle and they want a piece of it. Understandable, but as we all know, there is never ‘enough’ relative wealth. There is no cap. So I find it all a bit dangerous that the american lifestyle is a goal for many. We are less than 5% of the world’s population, but we consume about one fourth of the world’s energy resources. Simple math says the wheels are going to fall off this wagon at some point.
Bhutan defines prosperity by measuring well-being (or happiness) rather than consumption. I don’t think we can do the same, but I do believe our benchmarks need to change. If things are given no value, they are treated accordingly.
Yeah, for some.
I think real happiness comes from ‘creating’ something. When you start a project, albeit, a short story, art, forming a new corporation, or building something……I think happiness is working towards the finished goal. Once you reach a destined goal, there seems to be no greater feeling in the world.
En serio……it’s a rush. Even when ‘working out’, when you work on a certain muscular look or let’s say, you want to define your triceps….you will be working and working on that particular muscle. You see it start to grow and become more defined…….and you see ‘progress’. Anyway, oops, got on a tangent. je je.
I don’t have a blog, so I can’t really post a favorite post. But… should I ever get one, I will write exclusively while listening to Ryan Adams, and will hopefully muse some musing of the same idealistic prettiness as yours.
testies.
There’s no i. Shoulda used the new spell check.
Oso & Abogado,
Just got back into town so sorry for the delay in replying. I think it’s important to define what is meant by freedom so we are all on the same page. Freedom is the absence of the initiation of force/coercion.
Now, Abogado says:
…your freedom to swing your fist goes as far as the tip of my nose. I’m putting limitations on your freedom by saying you cannot hit me.
This is the same argument put forth by many conservatives as to why “freedom” needs to be limited. I can just hear Bill O’Reilly saying: “Of course there has to be limits on freedom. For example, you are not free to murder your next door neighbor if you dislike them. So freedom has its time and place.”
But murdering your next door neighbor represents the absence of freedom. Prohibiting murder, much like prohibiting Abogado from punching Oso’s nose for no reason, is to prevent the initiation of force against individuals and is therefore tantamount to freedom (properly defined).
Under true laissez-faire capitalism, the government can use force but it cannot initiate it. Its use of force is limited to only those who initiate force against others.
It’s important to also note that freedom is bound by reality. To say “I’m not free to grow feathers and fly” is to detach meaning from the concept of freedom. Similarly, to say that one is not free because they don’t have health care or food is to use the concept of freedom outside of its true meaning.
Now I’m not saying that these things are not good. Of course they are. Giving food to a starving man or medical care to a child if they fall ill are completely moral actions. But ask yourself why?
To determine right from wrong you have to start somewhere. These actions are right to me because life is my standard of value. Now Oso reentered the conversation to say that “there is no such thing as a natural right from God, but rather utilitarian rights based on human behavior”
As a side note, I should point out that a belief in natural rights does not necessarily mean that they are handed down from God. While many of the Bible’s teachings are consistent with this belief (the Golden Rule, many of the Ten Commandments, etc.), the notion can be derived from other means.
Just think about it. I assume we can all agree that slavery is wrong. Why is that so? Does it rest on the flimsy basis of arbitrary power and defining the greatest amount of good? Utilitarian rights, defined as such, are the exact justification used by Nazi Germany to exterminate millions of Jews in their concentration camps.
Let’s take another example. My younger brother is a pretty smart kid. He attended Cal and in an upper level calculus class for engineering majors he had the 3rd highest grade in the class out of hundreds of students. What is he currently doing? Getting an entry level job on an oil rig in order to support himself while he attempts to start a career as a novelist.
Does his choice reflect the utilitarian greatest amount of good for society? I’m sure many would say no. It would be much more beneficial to society if he entered engineering. But the fact is it’s his life and he should be free to chose the direction it takes.
Ironically, a free-market does direct people into fields that benefit society the most through prices. That’s why the median salary for an engineer in higher than that of an oil rig worker and the median salary for an oil rig worker is higher than that of a novelist. But ultimately, the freedom to choose a career, along with all the other important choices in life (including shopping at Wal-Mart), is up to each individual and has its foundation in individual rights, the most important of which is a right to your own life.
Anyway… I’m rambling now, but if you guys are still checking this I’d be interested in your feedback.
Have a good one.
Was going to reply to this yesterday but some other things came up. I’ve gone though Hale’s arguments and have several points to make, but it’s going to have to wait until early next week. I’m off to a seminar in LA that will last the whole weekend. Until then…
Thanks Peter. Looking forward to it.
Alright, well first off, sorry for the delay in replying. I should also add that like HP I’m probably going to bow out of this debate (that is if you guys are still checking this and there still is a debate going on to bow out of). I’ve just got too much on my plate over the next two months, and these replies really do take me a while to put together. I wish I was a more prolific writer so I could just crank this stuff out in no time but, alas, I’m not. So here goes what will most likely be my last contribution to this debate:
Freedom
First off why don’t we start with the definition of “freedom” since I obviously ruffled some feathers by putting forth a definition of the word. You’ll be happy to know you don’t need to call to get “Peter’s TRUE definition of Freedom”. But years ago I did realize that I needed to be able to define what the word meant. I did so by reading the likes of Locke, Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Marx, Dewey, Rousseau, Rawls, and a few others. But, for me, the clearest definitions without a doubt came from George Reisman and Ayn Rand. While I believe that these authors provide the best definition of the word freedom, what became even more apparent was that I really needed to understand what others meant by “freedom” or debates would be pointless.
And that is really the point. For if you would like, we can throw the word “freedom” completely out of the conversation and talk instead about types of constraints that burden individuals. Being free, in the broadest sense, means that an individual’s actions are not constrained. But these constraints can vary greatly in their nature. People of course can use the word “freedom” however they like but for this conversation let’s define what we mean. If someone says: “I’m not free to grow feather and fly,” let’s agree that this lack of “freedom” is a constraint of reality. Similarly, if someone says: “I’m not free to play video games all day because I need to work so that I have money to eat,” then let’s agree that the necessity of food is a constraint of reality.
Now, hopefully, we can also agree that to say “Jorge Campos’ father was not free when kidnapped by armed gunmen” is different in nature. It is so because individuals, not laws of nature, constrained his action against his will. And when you say that “Rosa Parks was not free to sit in the front of the bus when a white man asked for her seat” it should be clear that she was coerced against her will by a group of individuals (the city government of Montgomery Alabama and the police acting on their behalf), not laws of nature.
Clearly the word has different meanings (yet another area where one might claim to not be “free” would be when bound by a contract they entered into voluntarily, something I’ll get into a little later). But while we can’t do anything to change the fundamental laws of nature like gravity or the fact that people need nourishment, we can attempt to limit the initiation of force by an individual or a group of individuals against any other individual or group of individuals. By what right? I believe it stems from the fact that we can observe that we are all volitional beings that chose how to live our lives. We can also observe that we are all fundamentally equal in nature. It follows then that since by the nature of our being we desire to live, and we are capable of choosing how we do so, it is possible to attempt to live however we see fit. But if we also recognize that other individuals are our equal, we must respect their right to live as they see fit to avoid contradiction.
Under this rational, life is your standard of value, and while many might not be able to define it at such, I believe for most people deep down understand that fact. That’s why as a whole we are repulsed by slavery, we have an urge to help people in need, and we prefer voluntary exchange between individuals over relationships based on coercion.
Quickly, the basic premise is that you are the owner of your own life, and others have no right to initiate force against you nor do you have the right to initiate force against any one else. Self-defence is not the initiation of force, but action to defend yourself against the initiation of force. Men can delegate their rights to a group of individuals (a government) but they cannot delegate rights they do not possess. Since men have no right to initiate force against others, neither can their governments that represent them. This is consistent with my statement that: “Under true laissez-faire capitalism, the government can use force but it cannot initiate it. Its use of force is limited to only those who initiate force against others.”
(I’ll admit these last paragraphs are extremely oversimplified and turned into more of a laundry list of thoughts… I haven’t even gotten into property rights which encompasses the right to the product of your labor… but hopefully you can see where I’m coming from. The essays “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government” by Ayn Rand would be a good place to start for a more detailed description).
But speaking of government this leads us right into Hale’s essay.
Hale
The most glaring problem with Hale’s argument is that he defines coercion in such a way that it is applicable to nearly every interaction. He can then proceed to his preconceived conclusion that since coercion is “omni-present” (as you put it) nearly any government action can be justified. And if justifying nearly any government action he lays the groundwork for his real purpose of the paper…defending communism.
The problem for Hale is that he skirts around the issue that the INITIATION of force is what is immoral. He confuses this issue in the first paragraph by asserting that the government is actually acting by abstaining (i.e. not acting) to initiate force against property owners. He proceeds to say that “[The government] is exerting coercion wherever that is necessary to protect each owner, not merely from violence, but also from peaceful infringement of his sole right to enjoy the thing owned.” Peaceful infringement? How can infringement be peaceful? Defined as such a property owner can be made to look like the aggressor and a thief the victim, which is exactly what Hale ends up attempting to do.
By again ignoring the key concept of the initiation of force, Hale goes on to “prove” that employers paying their workers higher than subsistence level wages is not voluntary, but again coercive on the part of the employees. Next he blurs the terms “promises” and “threats” with the bizarre comparison between breaking a contract to running over an innocent bystander by failing to break. He equates both to a failure to act, while in the examples he uses both are clearly conscious choices, and therefore, by definition, actions.
With all these twisted definitions it’s no surprise when near the end of the article he insinuates that a society where the government can confiscate factories with force backed by the barrel of a gun would involve no less coercion than a society based on voluntary exchange.
Give me a break. This stuff has been laid to rest by experts in multiple disciplines for the past century.
Kant
We’re actually in agreement on Kant, in that I’m not willing to take his philosophy to it’s logical conclusions, but that is probably as far as our agreement goes. If “Kantian morality” is the basis you’re using to define individual rights then we’ve found the problem with your analysis. Kant believed in duty for duty’s sake (i.e. sacrafice) as a source of virtue. Contrarily, Kant viewed when a man acted on his own behalf he was acting immorally. He even went so far as to say that if an act was performed out of duty, but the person performing the act received any kind of pleasure from it, then there would be no moral credit given to the action.
It’s clear that under such a philosophy your life is not your own. As I’ve explained, I believe moral actions stem from living your life for yourself as you see fit. Now that doesn’t mean helping others is inconsistent with morality. To the contrary, let’s say you have $150 and can spend it on a X-box for yourself or loan it to a friend that has fell on hard times and is in dire need of cash. Now critics of Rand often argue that being moral in her view would be spending the money on an X-Box for yourself, as anything less would be a sacrifice. But this isn’t true. Not giving it to your friend would represent that you have no concept of the word friendship in the first place.
This can be extrapolated to all mankind. When the tsunami hit South East Asia sending $50 to Oxfam isn’t a sacrifice if it means I eat in instead of out twice that month. It means I value human life, even the life of complete strangers, and I want to help them as they were struck by this unforeseen natural disaster that could have happened to anyone. I mean think of it, I’ve spent countless dollars going to movies to get the pleasure of watching fictional characters succeed and better their lives in fictional situations. It would almost be sick not to think that I wouldn’t get more pleasure when receiving an update from Oxfam explaining how my money is helping real people overcome this real and horrific tragedy.
The End
Anyway this is getting long and this response has been sitting on my computer in pieces for weeks. Hope it makes some sense. I’d strongly recommend reading some Rand and Reisman if any of these issues of ethics and economics has sparked some interest.
If you don’t have the time just ask yourself questions like these: Why is slavery wrong? Why is murder wrong? What happens when your not in the majority in a world of utilitarian rights?
That’s about it for me. Have a good one. It was fun.
Peter – I appreciate the time you put in to your response and I would like to do you the same service in mine. You bring up some very good points, and since this is something that I am very interested in, I would like to continue the conversation, or at least give the reply that I think your post deserves. I am in the middle of exams, unfortunately, so I will have to put this off until next week, but if you are interested, check back then and I will have something up.
Sounds good. Yeah, I did put some time into it but not enough to catch all the typos. Change “break” to “brake” in the discussion about Kant and “your” to “you’re” in the second to last paragraph… and I’m sure there are some more.
Like I said I’ll probably let you have the last word on this one. I’m slammed as well but I’ll definietly check in to read your reply.
’til then…
What’s up guys… long time no talk. How about that decision by the Supreme Court today? Sorry for the sarcasm but can’t resist…
Abogado is bulldosing old lady’s houses to put up Wal-Mart’s something the government CAN do?
Tough to say no if “there is no such thing as a natural right,” huh Oso?
Take care guys…
I finally remembered what case sensitive i used when signing on. Hell yeah.
can do.
Let me try that again.
Obviously yes. I personally disagree with the decision for reasons I will write later, but clearly it is something the government can do.
???
Abogado… are you saying that it is obvious that the govt “can” bulldose houses as in it is physically possible for them to do so, or that it is obvious they ought to be able to do so, even if you disagree w/ the “liberals” on the court in this particular situation.
Don’t want to butt in where I don’t belong, but I think what Abogado meant was that the constitution already gives the government the power to take over private property, the only thing being discussed here is the limits of that power, not whether or not it is allowed in extreme circumstances.
HP- Even if that is what Abogado means it’s still confusing. If I take it in that sense, then it follows that he is saying it is “obvious” that a business like Wal-Mart could be classified under “public use” by the Founders. I don’t think that’s obvious… just pick up a news paper and read how outraged people are or even head to the opinions of the justices that dissented.
Clarrification Abogado?
There is no legal question that the government can bulldoze granny’s house to build a highway. There is not even any doubt that they can level a poor neighborhood in order for a private company to build a railroad and even profit off of it. This decision is, as HP said, about the limits of a power that is explicitly in the Constitution as it has been interpreted over the centuries. Many people, like Justices Scalia and Thomas, wanted the court to declare some sort of “bright-line” rule that would make it clear when the government can and can’t take an individual’s property for some “greater good”. Where to draw that bright line, whatever its merits, is not obvious.
When I said that bulldozing old ladies’ houses to build Wal-Marts is something the government can do, I meant it in the less sophisticated way: who’s going to stop them? If Congress, the Supreme Court and the President decide that is something the government can do then consider it done. Now, if you are asking the question of whether Kelo v. New London gives local governments constitutional permission to do so, then the answer is no. Reading the opinion, there are certain limitations that the Court puts on the power to take property for public benefit. Like some of the dissenters, I believe that such a policy has the potential to be abused. Unlike some of the dissenters, I do not think that the idea is inherently wrong. As for this comment:
I don’t understand why this follows from your question. If I say “no” (which I did) then it is based solely on the precommited limitations that the Founders placed on the government in the form of the Constitution. It has nothing at all to do with natural rights. To say that this decision changes anything in a philosophical sense is a misunderstanding of the precedent of governmental takings. It expands the scope of a power that has been long recognized. Again, the debate here is Constitutional not philosophical.
Abogado-
I’m sorry but I just don’t have the time to reply in detail, although I wish I could. I’ll just say that the point I’m trying to get across is that I believe the interpretation of the Constitution does need to take into account it’s philosphical roots (i.e. a basis of individual liberty and individual rights). Ironicaly, Scalia doesn’t subscribe to this belief as his interpretation is based on “textualism,” which in my view is subjective and in the longrun dangerous, although still much better than the “living constitution” view taken by many of the court’s “liberals.”
Notice the first sentence your wrote when listing things my brother could and could not do:
He clearly cannot do so because it is immoral, and a blatant violation of an individual’s right to his or her own life. Even if this was something that “Congress, the Supreme Court and the President ” decided he could do it would still be in violation of the priciples and philosophy that this country was founded on, and it is those ideals I’m trying to defend.
The right to property is no exception. It’s morally wrong for anyone to bulldose old lady’s houses against their will to put up a Wal-Mart in my world.
How about yours?
The basis philosophy enshrined in the DOI and the constitution is that of individual sovereignty. Did the Founders make mistakes? Yes… slavery and the belief that interest was immoral are who glaring examples. But the core philosophy of individuals rights has withstood the test of time.
Since you like Jefferson quotes here’s another good one for you:
A few more comments:
Check your premises. We’d have all these things they just might look differently. A quick example is that one of the first transcontinental railroads was built without the use of eminent domain or even any public funds by J.J. Hill. A good book you and Oso might like is The Myth of the Robber Barons by Folsom has all the details.
No they’re not… but they are sure a hell of a lot closer to it than the current batch of Dems in office. Look at the reaction of the likes of Pelosi to this decision. It’s sickening. Just shows that when the basis of your philosophy is “the greatest amount of good” even the Dems have no problem turning on poor landowners in favor of rich developers.
I usually vote Libertarian… but it’s decisions like these that make me elated that Bush beat Kerry.