Nancy Razik sent me this url for the trailer to HBO's upcoming movie Taking Chance starring Kevin Bacon. It will air on Feb. 21. HBO's movies and series are often first rate--need I mention John Adams, the Sopranos and so many others (John from Cincinnati was an unfortunate exception)?
I think you'll agree after watching the trailer and interviews that this one is not to be missed.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Where Montesquieu Was Wrong
Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws is remarkable. He outlines the basic principles of federalism: the three branches of government; the upper and lower house of the legislature; the independent judiciary. He discusses why federations of states work better than single states in establishing a republic. He contrasts the main forms of government: republics, monarchies, tyrannies and aristocracies with respect to the kinds of laws that are appropriate to each. Then, in a massive historical tour de force, he traces how various social, climatic, cultural, religious and other variables interacted with laws in a wide range of countries to make them effective or ineffective. He covers moral and religious law as well as monetary policy. The Spirit of Laws was written in the 1740s. The Founding Fathers relied on it heavily in writing the Federalist Papers and conceptualizing the Constitution and the earlier Articles of Confederation. Montesquieu is not the economist that Adam Smith was, but his political insight and the strength of his historical analysis, which spans ancient law and culture, to include law and culture of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese and the Barbarians, including a fascinating analysis of the Law of Salique, which he quotes at length and the customs of the Franks, Lombards, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians and other Barbarian tribes in the times of Rome through Charlemagne are breathtaking. His expansive analysis of Rome could have constituted a book in itself. One of the things I found interesting is that as a Frenchman, Charles de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu, Montesquieu still conceptualized himself as a Frank and a German. When he mentions his "ancestors" he is thinking of a German tribe, the Franks, not Roman or Gaul ancestry. Also, he mentions that German tribal law was still dominant in the time of Charlemagne.
Here is his discussion of Roman depreciation of the currency, which he argues began when Rome was still a Republic during the Punic War. He does not believe that republics can inflate secretly, or that inflation is impossible in the modern world without it being evident:
"In the changes made in the specie during the time of the republic, they proceeded by diminishing it: in its wants, the state intrusted the knowledge to the people, and did not pretend to deceive them. Under the emperors, they proceeded by way of alloy. These princes, reduced to despair even by their liberalities, found themselves obliged to degrade the specie; an indirect method which diminished the evil without seeming to touch it. They withheld a part of the gift and yet concealed the hand that did it; and without speaking of the diminution of the pay, or of the gratuity, it was found diminished.
"We even still see in cabinets a kind of medals which are called plated, and are only pieces of copper covered with a thin plate of silver. This money is mentioned in a fragment of the 77th book of Dio.
"Didius Julian first began to debase it. We find that the coin of Caracella had an alloy of more than half; that of Alexander Severus of two-thirds; the debasing still increased, till in the time of Gallienus nothing was to be seen but copper silvered over.
"It is evident that such violent proceedings could not take place in the current age; a prince might deceive himself but he could deceive nobody else. The exchange has taught the banker to draw a comparison between all the money in the world, and to establish its just value. The standard of money can no longer be a secret. Were the prince to begin to alloy his silver, everybody else would continue it, and do it for him...If, like the Roman Emperors he debased the silver without debasing the gold, the gold would suddenly disappear, and he would be reduced to his bad silver..."
I guess Montesquieu never heard of Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and the Federal Reserve Bank!
Here is his discussion of Roman depreciation of the currency, which he argues began when Rome was still a Republic during the Punic War. He does not believe that republics can inflate secretly, or that inflation is impossible in the modern world without it being evident:
"In the changes made in the specie during the time of the republic, they proceeded by diminishing it: in its wants, the state intrusted the knowledge to the people, and did not pretend to deceive them. Under the emperors, they proceeded by way of alloy. These princes, reduced to despair even by their liberalities, found themselves obliged to degrade the specie; an indirect method which diminished the evil without seeming to touch it. They withheld a part of the gift and yet concealed the hand that did it; and without speaking of the diminution of the pay, or of the gratuity, it was found diminished.
"We even still see in cabinets a kind of medals which are called plated, and are only pieces of copper covered with a thin plate of silver. This money is mentioned in a fragment of the 77th book of Dio.
"Didius Julian first began to debase it. We find that the coin of Caracella had an alloy of more than half; that of Alexander Severus of two-thirds; the debasing still increased, till in the time of Gallienus nothing was to be seen but copper silvered over.
"It is evident that such violent proceedings could not take place in the current age; a prince might deceive himself but he could deceive nobody else. The exchange has taught the banker to draw a comparison between all the money in the world, and to establish its just value. The standard of money can no longer be a secret. Were the prince to begin to alloy his silver, everybody else would continue it, and do it for him...If, like the Roman Emperors he debased the silver without debasing the gold, the gold would suddenly disappear, and he would be reduced to his bad silver..."
I guess Montesquieu never heard of Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and the Federal Reserve Bank!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Rather Than Gay Marriage, Abolish Civil Marriage
Holly Baird has an interesting post on gay marriage. Personally, I think that gays are crazy to want to get married. Insurance companies could permit domestic partner coverage without marriage.
I do not think that the government should be involved in regulating marriage. Marriage is a religiously derived sacrament. The Catholic Church or any other religion should not be obligated to recognize what it considers to be a sin. However, there is no reason why a gay religion might not recognize marriage among gays. I don't believe the strong arm of the state should interfere with private choices unless the choices cause harm.
The abolition of state regulation of marriage need not modify divorce laws. The contractual nature of marriage need not change if all marriage is religious rather than civil. On the other hand, I think I can be convinced that divorce court should be abolished, and all divorce law should be religious in nature. I'm not convinced that marriage is a civil issue. It is religious.
I also disagree, incidentally, with the illegalization of polygamy, or for that matter polyandry, which feminists might prefer. The Bible has alot of polygamy, and there is no reason why the Mormons should have had to give it up. I don't see why the state needs to be involved in victimless crime questions. Child abuse is another story, of course. It is not victimless.
There is a long standing debate among people I know as to whether homosexuality is learned or inherited. The "liberal" view is that it is inherited, which contrasts with the "liberal" view on IQ scores--that they are environmentally acquired. That poses an interesting question: why do "liberals" send their children to elite private universities if the criteria to get in (SAT scores) are mere environmental artifacts and not inherited? Do they really believe that students learn more in expensive colleges?
It is kind of interesting: "liberals" say homosexuality is inherited but IQ is acquired, while "conservatives" say that IQ is inherited but homosexuality is learned. Whether one prefers the chicken or the egg seems to be a temperamental trait. I wonder if that trait is inherited, or environmentally determined!
I do not believe in gay marriage. First of all, marriage is a religious sacrament and/or state-derived relationship. I do not believe the state should play a role, so all marriage should be religious. If someone wants to get married, they should not have the right to ask the taxpayers to subsidize their folly. Go to church or sign a contract. I don't see how City Hall can sanctify a marriage. If gays want to start their own religion, then more power to them. The state should not be involved one way or the other.
I do not think that the government should be involved in regulating marriage. Marriage is a religiously derived sacrament. The Catholic Church or any other religion should not be obligated to recognize what it considers to be a sin. However, there is no reason why a gay religion might not recognize marriage among gays. I don't believe the strong arm of the state should interfere with private choices unless the choices cause harm.
The abolition of state regulation of marriage need not modify divorce laws. The contractual nature of marriage need not change if all marriage is religious rather than civil. On the other hand, I think I can be convinced that divorce court should be abolished, and all divorce law should be religious in nature. I'm not convinced that marriage is a civil issue. It is religious.
I also disagree, incidentally, with the illegalization of polygamy, or for that matter polyandry, which feminists might prefer. The Bible has alot of polygamy, and there is no reason why the Mormons should have had to give it up. I don't see why the state needs to be involved in victimless crime questions. Child abuse is another story, of course. It is not victimless.
There is a long standing debate among people I know as to whether homosexuality is learned or inherited. The "liberal" view is that it is inherited, which contrasts with the "liberal" view on IQ scores--that they are environmentally acquired. That poses an interesting question: why do "liberals" send their children to elite private universities if the criteria to get in (SAT scores) are mere environmental artifacts and not inherited? Do they really believe that students learn more in expensive colleges?
It is kind of interesting: "liberals" say homosexuality is inherited but IQ is acquired, while "conservatives" say that IQ is inherited but homosexuality is learned. Whether one prefers the chicken or the egg seems to be a temperamental trait. I wonder if that trait is inherited, or environmentally determined!
I do not believe in gay marriage. First of all, marriage is a religious sacrament and/or state-derived relationship. I do not believe the state should play a role, so all marriage should be religious. If someone wants to get married, they should not have the right to ask the taxpayers to subsidize their folly. Go to church or sign a contract. I don't see how City Hall can sanctify a marriage. If gays want to start their own religion, then more power to them. The state should not be involved one way or the other.
The Fallacy of the Middle Ground: The Case of the O'Reilly Spin Zone
One of my favorite posters here reads my blog to balance the views of left wing blogs. He believes that if he sees all sides, he can find the moderate view, the happy medium, that is truthful because it takes all views into account. This is something like a Fox television program, the O'Reilly Spin Zone, where the announcer claims to be "balanced". O'Reilly, however, is anything but balanced. He gives two rather extreme points of view, call them the Progressive Republican and the progressive Democratic, then he splits the difference between them. The O'Reilly Spin Zone is characterized by its persistent omission of the most important issues facing the nation, especially monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Bank, which O'Reilly seems to believe is unimportant compared to the activities of shadowy speculators. Given that monetary policy is the one issue of crucial importance to his working class viewers, his claim that he "looks out for his viewers" is especially vicious.
There is no such thing as a happy medium much of the time. O'Reilly's claim is nonsensical. The truth does not lie in the middle. For instance, in the 18th century Dr. Benjamin Rush advocated bleeding as a cure for various illnesses. Today, physicians use antibiotics. Is the truth in the middle? Do you want your doctor to use bleeding half the time and antibiotics the other half? Or is bleeding based on an erroneous theory, so you are hopeful that your doctor dispenses with it?
How about astronomy in ancient Greece? I think it was Parmenides who believed that the universe was a sphere with the earth at the center, while Democritus believed that the earth revolved around the sun. Would a balanced view, that the center of the universe was midway between the earth and the sun, have been accurate? Or was the truth of the matter irrelevant to what either Parmenides or Democritus had to say?
In the 1920s Ludwig von Mises argued for the importance of price in the functioning of an economy, and that socialist coordination would be inefficient because of the absence of price. In the 1930s, Oskar Lange claimed to have disproven von Mises's arguments because socialist planners could equate marginal revenue product and price, but his argument is so laden question begging and circular reasoning that it is difficult to believe that anyone would have take it seriously. Yet, academic economists and sociologists for many years seriously stated that Lange had disproven von Mises. Many prominent scholars, such as Clark Kerr, advocated a "consensus" view of the "convergence" of capitalism and socialism in the 1950s. But this view of a happy medium was patently false. It was an extreme fallacy to say that there would be convergence. Von Mises and Hayek were right, Lange and Kerr were wrong. Kerr's "medium" view of socialism was an extreme one. Von Mises's and Hayek's view of the efficiency of information in a capitalist economy was an accurate and moderate one.
In 1989 the Soviet Union fell for the very reasons that von Mises and Hayek said it would. But not one of the academic economists or sociologists who insisted on the nonsensical convergence theory, the ancient idea of the happy medium, admitted that convergence was wrong because socialism failed. Rather, many continued to advocate socialism and to apologize for Lange's argument.
Today, we see on Fox News continued advocacy of the convergence doctrine, support for the bailout and the like, views which coincidentally favor the interests of Rupert Murdoch and various other contributors to the American Enterprise Institute, interests which do not have O'Reilly's viewers' happiness in mind.
There is no medium. Socialism fails because it interferes with the communication of information. Cognitive limits of socialist managers inhibit innovation. There is no in between. You either reward people fully for their innovation, or you don't. If you don't you get less innovation. You get the bailout, failed firms like Citibank and General Motors receiving massive taxpayer subsidies in the name of the "economy" and economically illiterate bozos on Fox telling us that it is good that the large firms steal from us. We should be grateful because it is midway between what the Republicans say and what the Democrats say. The bailout reflects the middle ground between the two. It must be right.
The fallacy of the middle ground may have evolved from a misinterpretation of Aristotle. In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle argues that virtue is typically the mean, so that courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness. There is a difference between ethics and science, though. Aristotle did not claim that truth was the middle ground, only that virtue is. It seems likely that those who believe in "moderation" and "the middle ground" are confused between virtue and truth. The truth depends on an accurate depiction of how the world behaves. The middle ground between two nonsensical views, such as those of the Democrats and the Republicans, is neither moderate nor truthful.
There is no such thing as a happy medium much of the time. O'Reilly's claim is nonsensical. The truth does not lie in the middle. For instance, in the 18th century Dr. Benjamin Rush advocated bleeding as a cure for various illnesses. Today, physicians use antibiotics. Is the truth in the middle? Do you want your doctor to use bleeding half the time and antibiotics the other half? Or is bleeding based on an erroneous theory, so you are hopeful that your doctor dispenses with it?
How about astronomy in ancient Greece? I think it was Parmenides who believed that the universe was a sphere with the earth at the center, while Democritus believed that the earth revolved around the sun. Would a balanced view, that the center of the universe was midway between the earth and the sun, have been accurate? Or was the truth of the matter irrelevant to what either Parmenides or Democritus had to say?
In the 1920s Ludwig von Mises argued for the importance of price in the functioning of an economy, and that socialist coordination would be inefficient because of the absence of price. In the 1930s, Oskar Lange claimed to have disproven von Mises's arguments because socialist planners could equate marginal revenue product and price, but his argument is so laden question begging and circular reasoning that it is difficult to believe that anyone would have take it seriously. Yet, academic economists and sociologists for many years seriously stated that Lange had disproven von Mises. Many prominent scholars, such as Clark Kerr, advocated a "consensus" view of the "convergence" of capitalism and socialism in the 1950s. But this view of a happy medium was patently false. It was an extreme fallacy to say that there would be convergence. Von Mises and Hayek were right, Lange and Kerr were wrong. Kerr's "medium" view of socialism was an extreme one. Von Mises's and Hayek's view of the efficiency of information in a capitalist economy was an accurate and moderate one.
In 1989 the Soviet Union fell for the very reasons that von Mises and Hayek said it would. But not one of the academic economists or sociologists who insisted on the nonsensical convergence theory, the ancient idea of the happy medium, admitted that convergence was wrong because socialism failed. Rather, many continued to advocate socialism and to apologize for Lange's argument.
Today, we see on Fox News continued advocacy of the convergence doctrine, support for the bailout and the like, views which coincidentally favor the interests of Rupert Murdoch and various other contributors to the American Enterprise Institute, interests which do not have O'Reilly's viewers' happiness in mind.
There is no medium. Socialism fails because it interferes with the communication of information. Cognitive limits of socialist managers inhibit innovation. There is no in between. You either reward people fully for their innovation, or you don't. If you don't you get less innovation. You get the bailout, failed firms like Citibank and General Motors receiving massive taxpayer subsidies in the name of the "economy" and economically illiterate bozos on Fox telling us that it is good that the large firms steal from us. We should be grateful because it is midway between what the Republicans say and what the Democrats say. The bailout reflects the middle ground between the two. It must be right.
The fallacy of the middle ground may have evolved from a misinterpretation of Aristotle. In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle argues that virtue is typically the mean, so that courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness. There is a difference between ethics and science, though. Aristotle did not claim that truth was the middle ground, only that virtue is. It seems likely that those who believe in "moderation" and "the middle ground" are confused between virtue and truth. The truth depends on an accurate depiction of how the world behaves. The middle ground between two nonsensical views, such as those of the Democrats and the Republicans, is neither moderate nor truthful.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
