Wednesday, June 25, 2003

An extensive excerpt from Sheldon Richman's latest

.

Hayek shows that asking too much of representative government ("democracy") can, ironically, push it toward totalitarianism.

The push comes from the fact that people disagree—the more specific the issue, the more likely the disagreement. Take central planning under representative government: Hayek points out that while getting a consensus on generalities is easy (say, that the objective should be to secure the "common welfare"), reaching agreement on the specific path to that goal is close to impossible. He writes, "It may be the unanimously expressed will of the people that its parliament should prepare a comprehensive economic plan, yet neither the people nor its representatives need therefore be able to agree on any particular plan.... [I]t is a superstition that there should be a majority view on everything" (emphasis added).

Here is where the seeds of totalitarianism are planted. The endless wrangling in the legislature may prompt people to reconsider not central planning but representative government. "The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people," Hayek writes, "will inevitably cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. Parliaments come to be regarded as 'talking shops,' unable or incompetent to carry out the tasks for which they have been chosen. The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be 'taken out of politics' and placed in the hands of experts—permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies" (emphasis added).

In a world of scarcity these experts will have to possess the power to impose their preferences on the entire population because, Hayek writes, "It is the essence of the economic problem that the making of an economic plan involves the choice between conflicting or competing ends—different needs of different people."

It is then but a short step from such sentiments to an outright call for—and the emergence of—a strong, charismatic leader who promises order and efficiency, one who possesses the "skills" to decisively—some might say ruthlessly—carry out his plan against all opposition. In a later chapter Hayek extends his thesis to explain why in such a regime "the worst get on top." In the moral-political atmosphere described, a leader mindful of the dignity of the individual is unlikely to seek or procure power. "Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure," Hayek writes. "It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism."

Thus the more that representative government is asked to do, the more its future—and that of individual liberty—are clouded by the threat of dictatorship, whether by committee or by Fuehrer. That's a persuasive reason, even if there were no other, for confining government to the strictest of constitutional restraints, leaving individuals to carry out their own plans and to resolve disagreements through private property, free trade, and freedom of association.

What can I say? When he's right, he's right. I, too, like Sheldon, find myself re-reading Hayek, Bourne, Mises, Spencer, Read, Higgs, and others, gleaning new insights from them each time. If only these insights didn't cast such a dreadful light on what Congressman Ron Paul referred to as "the biggest problem we have-- the incentive to spend". It doesn't look like the US government's incentive to spend will be going away anytime soon, especially with the Patriot Act II coming out soon, thereby limiting the questions Americans dare to ask about where all the money is going and why.

Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Cooperation on counterterrorism not too comforting.

According to a Washington Foreign Press Center Announcement, on June 25, 2003 at the U.S.-EU Summit in Washington, Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements were signed, giving police and prosecutors on both sides of the Atlantic new tools for fighting terrorism and other serious crimes. These agreements are the latest result of U.S.-EU counterterrorism cooperation that has been described as "close and productive" by the governments and agencies involved.

The concern comes with the supposed imminent implementation of the U.S.-EUROPOL Agreements signed in December 2001 and in December 2002, which enable the exchange of trend and personal data on terrorism and terrorists between law enforcement authorities. Until recently, the US and EU differed on what groups might be termed "terrorist organizations". However, over the past few weeks, these differences have been bridged as the EU has designated most of the groups and individuals listed by the U.S. for asset freezing as "terrorist groups" or organizations. The EU is set to lift the exception of the Hamas "political wing" and designate Hamas in its entirety (as opposed to just its military wing) as a terrorist group.

An excerpt from the press announcement that should be particularly worrisome:

To identify passengers that are possible terrorists and other serious criminal offenders the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Transportation Security Administration require access to airline Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. We are continuing discussions to reach a permanent solution which would allow uninterrupted access to PNR data from carriers that may be subject to the EU data privacy laws. We look forward to finding a solution that meets U.S. statutory and security needs as well as satisfies EU privacy concerns.

When we have reached the point that the EU's privacy concerns are more stringent that the privacy concerns of Americans, we are in trouble.

Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Skepticism gets the better of me.

I find myself fearing that Jim Lobe might be right in this case. On a distant, yet somehow distinct note, John Sturrock's coinage of the phrase, "military humanism", deserves notice from The Atlantic Monthly's wordsmything page.

Tuesday, June 24, 2003

El Paso: A Mix between Amsterdam and Tijuana?

Jonathan Penton certainly makes me want to take my son there at some point in his post-pubescent life. Who'd of thunk El Paso suggestive of such charm?

Tuesday, June 24, 2003

A comment on "hot mammas".

Amy Sohn's sweet little piece on lusty pregnant women deserves comment, if for no other reason than I am 6 months pregnant and expecting a little boy in October. (Did I say little? I lied. He's already fat for his age, according to the last ultrasound.)

Thus far, pregnancy has been wonderful. Sohn is right about the increased libido-- and modern medics support her thesis. As she notes:

Richard H. Aubry, the director of academic and community obstetrics at SUNY Upstate Medical University, says the libido increase is due to hormones. “There’s a huge surge in hormones during pregnancy—estrogen and progesterone,” he says. “There is also increased blood flow to the pelvic area, including the clitoris.”

And the practical part:

Allen, 38, a masseur, loves that his wife, Elizabeth, 37, who’s seven months pregnant with their second child, has an increased libido. “Elizabeth’s always been sexy, but she’s even sexier pregnant. She’s chasing me around the house nonstop,” he says, “hanging from the chandeliers. When I come home from work, I’m tired. Sometimes I have to say no.".....

studies have shown that women who orgasm frequently during pregnancy are more likely to have easy deliveries. But preggos say the best thing about their raging hormones is the overall sense of self-confidence. “It’s very empowering to be carrying a baby,” says Elizabeth. "I am wearing this belly like a badge of honor. I think, I am woman, hear me roar.”

Ironically enough, there is a ditzy, Man-Show aspect to lust during pregnancy-- I find myself visualizing everything that comes up in conversation. And my dirty imagination picks up strings of thought where polite discourse drops them. Finally, I understand how men can be such visual creatures.

Apart from the walk-like-a-woman, think-like-a-man tendency, I can't get enough of how curvy and Botticelli-esque my body has become. Being skinny, I always wanted to look sexier, curvier, more feminine. I even had an ex-boyfriend who made no secret of his preference for big-busted women. Determined to graduate to a size C, I consumed mass quantities of health food store bust-enhancers in the hopes of becoming my own sexual fantasy. Mother Nature has done more than bust-enhancing pills ever did, and I am happy to report that, with my new chest, hips, and Botticelli-belly comes a surprising calmness and newfound capacity to be amused by the world.

I am amused by my friends who obsess over their bodies and their weight-- it seems so trivial and pathetic to me now that my body has a greater purpose. I am amused by drunken debauchery and the corresponding angst that young people find so emotionally taxing-- we create so many of our own problems, and then whine to others when the world won't fix them. I am amused by zoo animals and little kids and fathers who try so hard to be good parents-- there is something so precious and underacknowledged about grace. Finally, I am amused by myself-- my tummy, that swift kick that the baby sometimes deals me, my life, my perspectives, my tendency to take myself oh-so-seriously. Life is too beautiful to waste on self-absorption or self-abnegation. Why go to extremes? I'm blissfully happy here just lolling about in the middle.

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Some unrelated items.

Did lap-dancing ruin the striptease? Click and decide for yourself.

Also, I confess to a sigh of relief upon discovering that the Romanian government has finally backed down from its official position of Holocaust denial.

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

An engagement, Chicago-school style.

My congratulations to the lucky lad.

Saturday, June 14, 2003

Transition problems in Romania.

Following the release of the World Bank's 2000 Development Report, many transition economies hopped on a euthanized version of the path to "free markets and liberalization". The most damaging part of this path to reform has been the egregious use of corporate welfare to stimulate foreign investment in countries like Romania.

The latest example of this problem surfaces in the case of a Canadian company's mining contract in the Apuseni mountains. The company, Gabriel Resources Ltd, makes little effort to conceal its excitement over the Rosia Montana Gold Corporation. Exploitation of the land fro gold is scheduled to commence in the fourth quarter of 2006 at the eyebrow-raising rate of return of 20.4 percent.

So what is the problem? Don't I want Romania to benefit from international investment? Am I missing the free-market dogma on this point? Not quite. Dumitru Balaci writes:

One of the arguments offered by the mining operation’s supporters is that new jobs will be created in the economically depressed region.

“The Rosia Montana Mine Project is designed to restore vitality to the region through economic development at the local, regional, and national levels with the creation of jobs and the generation of revenues for the private sector and government,” claims the company’s website.

However, the long-term jobs will not exceed 500, experts say. As Mayor Sicoe points out, the same 500 jobs in the region could be offered by an environmentally friendly business already operating there, such as the Montana Furniture factory. Alexandru Costea, the manager of Montana Furniture, says he could raise his work force by 500 jobs immediately had he been granted the same tax waivers as the gold-mining operation.

Rosia Montana Gold Corporation enjoys a 10-year value-added tax (VAT) waiver for manufacturing or production activity, as well as import and export duty holidays and corporate tax holidays, and has been granted indemnity against environmental damages caused by previous owners.

Some say the vested interests of Romanian officials are at stake, pointing out that Rosia Montana Gold Corporation employs relatives of county council members and priests, and even the daughter of the Alba County prefect.

The company spokesperson confirmed that relatives of high-ranking officials are indeed employed by the company, and that a company owned by the prefect’s daughter was a subcontractor for Rosia Montana.

But Rosia Montana Gold Corporation spokesperson Dana Golea denies the company had any intent to shape the views of the decision-makers in the region. In a telephone interview, she said that the company would never go against the will of the people for the benefit of a few connected officials.

As it turns out, this is yet another situation in which political profit and/or capital plays far too large a role in the economic decision-making. Far from being a "free market solution", the Romanian government's decision to subsidize Gabriel Resources Ltd. is an example of political profiteering at its worst.

Saturday, June 14, 2003

I can't wait until September 8th.

Frank Black has a new album, entitled Show Me Your Tears, coming out. A list of the songs for those who might web-surf for the MP3's:

"Manitoba"
"This Old Heartache"
"Massif Centrale"
"Goodbye Lorraine"
"My Favorite Kiss"
"Horrible Day"
"New House of the Pope"
"The Snake"
"Nadine"
"Coastline"
"When Will Happiness Find Me Again?"
"Everything Is New"
"Jaina Blues"

Friday, June 13, 2003

Mixed reviews.

When new technology makes life difficult for shifty, awkward nerds (a.k.a. my favorite people in the world).....

Friday, June 13, 2003

Post-conceptions misconceptions.

When reading the press or talking to friends, it seems to be conventional wisdom that women are more "demanding" than men. After all, how often do you hear men described as "high-maintenance"?

As it turns out, the male sex might be more demanding that stereotype cares to acknowledge. According to a recent study released by Harvard and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, even before birth, boys demand more than girls. From extra calories to expensive sports equipment, do men ever grow up? Or do their toys just get bigger?

Friday, June 13, 2003

Odds and ends.

In case you have managed to live your life in ignorance about the filthy secrets of medieval toilets, the rat is out of the bag, thanks to an exhibition in Paris which attempts to show that medieval sewage technology might not have been as nasty as commonly thought.

More interesting, however, is the clever use to which Aussies have put their camera cell-phones. Of course, a law has already been passed to prevent such creative use of cell technology.According to the chief executive of the YMCAs of Australia, Bob Nicholson, the law comes as "a proactive response to a potential problem". Don't they all?

Friday, June 13, 2003

William Stafford's Objector.

In line at lunch I cross my fork and spoon
to ward off complicity---the ordered life
our leaders have offered us. Thin as a knife,
our chance to live depends on such a sign
while others talk and The Pentagon from the moon
is bouncing exact commands: "Forget your faith;
be ready for whatever it takes to win: we face
annihilation unless all citizens get in line."

I bow and cross my fork and spoon: somewhere
other citizens more fearfully bow
in a place terrorized by their kind of oppressive state.
Our signs both mean, "You hostages over there
will never be slaughtered by my act." Our vows
cross: never to kill and call it fate.

Thanks to David Mellor for the introduction.

Friday, June 13, 2003

Of interest...

Gary Nolan talks about why he left the Republican party, and Paul Bremer officially bans "anti=American activity" in Iraq. The sweet bells of liberty aren't quite as sonorous when free speech and the democratic right to criticize one's government give way to enforced silence.

Friday, June 6, 2003

Ron Paul: Anti-war Congressman extraordinaire.

Great piece on Ron Paul's recent statements against the drug war.

Friday, June 6, 2003

"Who needs men?" is not the right question....

The better question to ask is, "Who wants men?". I'll explain why I am guilty as charged in a moment. First, allow me to draw your attention to a a question posed by Julian Harrow to the staff of New Scientist this month:

"Why is the ratio of men to women roughly equal? As a man can impregnate a woman more quickly than a woman can make a baby, the human race could easily survive on a ratio of, say, 50 women to one man, so is there another reason for the equality?"

If you prefer a general, theoretical reply to Julian's question, then take a look at the staff's replies. All that I can honestly offer is my subjective explanation for this seeming mismatch of numbers.

Men are roughly numerically equal to women as a sex because some men are not equal to the ejaculation of their sperm character-wise. Simply put, it takes maturity, self-knowledge, and wisdom to be able to accept the consequences of the decision to have sex.

Many pregnancies in the US are not planned. According to USA Today (March 5, 2001), nearly half of the 6.3 million pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unplanned. About 47% of those result in abortion.

Some men (and women) are more capable of handling the uncontrolled, un-scheduled aspect of an accidental pregnancy than others. And some men are still too estranged by and in their own childhoods to be able to handle the childhood/s of their biological offspring.

When it comes down to it, successful sperm alone does not make a man a parent. Since many men are unable to rise to this occasion in all but the crudest fashion, a larger number of males exists to compensate for the penis-wearing gents who lack the honour and/or sense of personal responsibility that is the true mark of humanity and understanding. Thank God/Buddha/Isis for the men out there who make their sex seems a little less barbaric and a lot more beautiful.

Thursday, June 5, 2003

Picking up the stream of philosophical pick-up lines.

Philosophy just doesn't get any better than this, though I'm surprised no one has gone the molest-as-many-female-students-as-possible way of Saul Kripke yet. Allow me to quote a few of my favorites in the ongoing struggle of philosophy nerds to get laid:]

"Once you've tried a Leviathan, you never go back".
"You make my proletariat rise".
"My dear, I believe you're leading to spontaneous organization-- in my trousers."
"I can see that underneath that veil of ignorance you're unencumbered. So why not take it off?"
"Hey gorgeous, I came in here looking for some ethico-political justification. But you're so fine as to make probable my uncoerced acceptance of the original position."

Thursday, June 5, 2003

A commendation.

The Volokh blog receives warm mention in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Thursday, June 5, 2003

Testing the not-so-beautiful minds.

According to a Reuters piece today, the Implicit Association Test can get inside the mind of a serial killer. Researchers suggest that this test might become "an important tool for distinguishing psychopaths who are likely to commit extremely violent offenses from those who are not". Take a test and see if your views of violence qualify you to be the next serial killer. Now I just wish Harvard and Corp. would come out with a test to predict whether one person is more likely to be war-lusty. Back up those campaign promises with test scores.

Wednesday, June 4, 2003

The scorn and the fury.

It seems there is nothing like scorn to turn a female, village-touting Democrat into a war-comfy Senator. Conclusion? Women who have been as scandalously cuckholded as Hillary might be more hawkish than your average, faith-filled wife.

Wednesday, June 4, 2003

Pinkerton revives discussions of the fatal conceit.

I couldn't help enjoying James Pinkerton's great opinion piece, "God Save the Iraqis From the American God". A savory excerpt:

Once upon a time, conservatives opposed God-playing hubris. The Austrian-born economist Friedrich Hayek, for example, wrote a book titled "The Fatal Conceit." And what was that "fatal conceit"? It was the idea that "man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes." Hayek was no enemy of progress - which is achieved, he argued, through the trial-and-error experiments of the marketplace. His criticism was aimed at central planning, which sought progress instead by overturning the hard-learned lessons of human nature.

To Hayek, the idea that experts in a marbled ministry could gather the information necessary to make good decisions was the most lethal of follies. And the same centralization that strangles economic growth, he maintained, also strangles free expression, eventually turning technocrats into tyrants.

Hayek's conservatism was based on caution and prudence. The new conservatism, often called "neoconservatism," is radically different; it should be called pseudo-conservatism. It's based on the profoundly hubristic unconservative idea of creating heaven on earth, of playing God. To be sure, the pseudocons proclaim the purest of motives, but they should be judged on their results, not their rhetoric.

The pseudocons went in to Iraq - or, more precisely, watched from their armchairs as others went in - with vaultingly high hopes of a new world order based on American values, enforced by power. That left little room for anyone else. Ahmed Chalabi, for instance - groomed for years to be the Pentagon's man in Baghdad - feels betrayed by his bosses. He complained in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, "They told us, 'Liberation now,' and they made it an occupation." Promises of participatory democracy, in other words, are now on indefinite hold.

As Pinkerton so aptly points out, Hayek's "fatal conceit" is as relevant now as it was sixty years ago. Perhaps those of us living in DC should watch and wear our hubris with a little less pride.

Sunday, June 1, 2003

For Will, per request.

"Yield to temptation -- it may not pass your way again."
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Friday, May 30, 2003

Ode to the conversations of yore.

Let's face it-- conversations aren't what they used to be. By this, I don't intend to suggest that conversations aren't interesting, engaging, sexy, or enthusiastic anymore. My problem is not with the style, per se, but with the confounding limpidity of the substance.

We've gotten so good at coyness, cattiness, and other such Junior-League-esque virtues that we have forgotten how to excite each other with the subject matter. When I think of all the conversations deferred or put off due to the general acceptance of relativist assumptions (i.e. everyone has their own truth), it seems fair to say coyness might be no more than a delicate veil for cowardice. People should discuss the topics that matter to them-- it is the only way to ensure that we learn to understand both ourselves and humankind in a broader sense. Enough of the excuses masquerading as tact or politeness! You cannot even mount the pretense to a serious discussion without conceding your own moral and philosophical perspectives, and agreeing to discuss them as well as their particular applications.

So why the sudden chalor on my part? Well, I happened upon an article by Ruth Chenoweth in which she voices concern over the extent to which professors and academics are no longer "intellectuals" in the honorable sense of the term. The big concerns on college campuses nowadays include tenure, publication, and departmental politics. Posner's public intellectuals were perhaps not public enough for my taste. May God and his allies protect the campus on which I might one day teach.

CASTIGAT RIDENDO MORES.

SEARCH TOTALITARIANISM TODAY SEARCH THE WEB