|
| |
JOTTINGS
(Formerly "The Gadfly's
Blog")
2013
2017,
2016,
2015,
2014,
2013,
2012,
2011,
2010, 2009,
2008,
2007,
2006,
2005,
2004
Before
2004
I offer below,
random musings, reflections, correspondence, scraps of
work-in-progress, and other such miscellany, perchance worth sharing
but not ready for the prime time of formal publication.
Much of this
material has been adapted from personal e-mail
correspondence. While I am perfectly free to use, revise and expand
on my side of these exchanges, use of the "incoming" correspondence
is problematic. I have neither the right nor the inclination to
include the words of my correspondents if they can be identified
either by name or description.
If I am confident that the correspondents can not be identified and
if their part of the exchange is essential to the exchange, then I
might quote them directly. Otherwise, their ideas will be briefly
paraphrased, only to supply context to my part of these
conversations. In no case will I identify the correspondents by
name.
On the other hand, signed letters to The Crisis Papers and The
Online Gadfly are fair game as are other comments published in the
internet. They were submitted with the clear understanding that
they, and their signatories, might be made public.
Incoming correspondence will be identified by italics. My
contributions will be in plain text.
February 18, 2013
An Admirer of the Late Rev. Walter Martin asks if I am the same Ernest
Partridge who appeared on the Long John Nebel Show in the Sixties.
Yep, the same!
I only met Walter Martin at John Nebel's table. Maybe three or four
times. Our discussions were always very "spirited".
For more about my views on religion,
follow this link and especially the
links at the bottom of the essay.
The "evangelical minister" referred to at the beginning of "One Nation,
Under God, Divisible," was, of course, Walter Martin.
If you are in Walter Martin's camp on religion, you won't like what you
read in these essays.
But I am not embarrassed -- I believe what I believe, and I have arrived at
these beliefs after long study.
(He says he recently wondered: "out of the blue ...what time it is on
the sun. I thought that was an interesting question. I still don't know what
time it is on the sun. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd imagine it's 4:38
p.m. since that's the time it is in New York City.")
About "time on the sun."
I believe that the question was posed by Ludwig Wittgenstein to
illustrate that not all questions have answers -- some are meaningless.
It is NO "time" ("O'clock") on the sun. Time is determined by position on
the [Earth] relative to the sun.
Thus: "What is the sun's position relative to the sun" is meaningless.
So how could an astronomer say that "there was a solar flare on the sun
at 6 P.M. yesterday"?
Simply by arbitrarily assigning some Earth time to the event. By
scientific convention, this is GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), i.e. London time.
Hope this clears this up for you.
Here are a few more meaningless questions:
What is located ten miles north of the North Pole?
What color is an atom?
How much does a thought weight?
Where is the Pythagorean Theorem located?
Where was the present King of France born? (Bertrand Russell)
March 2, 2013
A young student in Belgium asks for my views regarding the 9/11 attacks.
Regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, I don’t have much to add to my essay
“The 9/11 Conspiracy, a Skeptic’s View.”
http://gadfly.igc.org/politics/crisis/911skeptic.htm
. (See also the “Prefatory Remarks” and the replies to critics that follow
the essay).
With time and further reflection (but little additional study) I find
that I am less skeptical of the Official Version of 9/11 and more skeptical
of the conspiracy theories. The World Trade Center towers were struck and
brought down by two airliners piloted by terrorists. There was no controlled
demolition. The Pentagon was also struck by an airliner. Was the Bush/Cheney
administration behind these attacks"? Probably not. Did they take political
advantage of these attacks? Sadly, yes.
I still maintain that the conspiracy theories fail “the David Hume test:”
The probability of the conspiracy theories being correct is far less than
the probability of the official version being correct. For details, see my
essay.
A reader of my website sent me a copy of one of David Ray Griffin’s
books, which I read in part. I was so unimpressed by his argument – most of
all, by his unwillingness to consider contrary evidence to his theories –
that I decided that finishing the book would be a waste of time. Griffin’s
theories contain an abundance of “ad hoc hypotheses” – allegations and
suggestions that are assumed true, with no independent evidence, simply to
support his conclusions.
There is no single “American” opinion of 9/11. There are many and varied
opinions, of which Griffin’s is one of the many. However, I suspect that a
majority of Americans who have thought seriously about these events are
inclined to accept the official version and to reject the conspiracy
theories. But that is just my suspicion. If you search further, you will
likely find public opinion surveys regarding that question.
You may find more information if you follow some of the web links in my
essay and the replies, though with time many of these links have since been
broken.
I hope this has been helpful.
March 28
Response to
"Farewell to Mormonism: No Regrests."
You might also be interested in my piec3:
Romney, Mormonism and "The Religious Test."
Should there be a “religious test” for public office (contra the
Constitution of the USA)? Short answer: “it depends.” If one’s religious
convictions prompts one to violate his or her oath of office to uphold he
Constitution, then that person is unqualified for the office. It’s the
policies, not the religious affiliation, that is the key. I have no problem
with “cafeteria Catholics” like the Kennedys, or with sophisticated Mormons
like my late friend, Wayne Owens or Scott Matheson or John Huntsman. But
surely, we would not want to vote for a “Reconstructionist Christian” who
advocates Old Testament Mosaic law, which calls for capital punishment for
disobedient children, blasphemers, and those who toil on the Sabbath. Where
Romney would stand with regard to the oath of office is unclear, as I
suspect he intended it to be.
Also unclear is how the Mormon authorities came to the conclusion that
God is a Republican, and that market fundamentalism is God’s plan. This
despite the fact that the early church came close to endorsing pure
Communism in The United Order.
As a long-time member of the Wasatch Mountain Club and the Sierra Club, I
fully endorse your environmental work in Utah, where I have explored
hundreds of miles of trails and rivers.
And speaking of “large carnivores,” we have two in the house: Alaskan and
a Siberian huskies, that somehow manage to peacefully co-exist.
August 1.
To an economist, regarding "perfect markets" and other fictions.
First of all,
here is a link to that article by Bill Black:
It won’t tell you anything that you don’t know already, but it is is a
great item to assign your students, as I would if I were still teaching.
The key paragraph, to my mind, is on the second page (print version) and
begins with “Except, and even neoclassical economists....” He then lists
fifteen reasons why “the claim that [regulatory rules] harm customers” is
false. However that paragraph makes a much more important and fundamental
argument: it proves, to my mind, that there is not, and can never be, any
such thing as a “perfect market.” (Neo-classical economics: the study of the
behavior of an imaginary person (homo economicus) in a fictitious
environment (the perfect market)).
I hope that my comments about the neo-classicists (“theo-classicals,” as
Bill Black calls them) has not conveyed the impression that I am
anti-economic or anti-economists. “Some of my best friends are economists.”
But more to the point, I can cite a long list of economists that I admire
immensely. Among them, the Galbraiths (pere et fils), Amartya Sen, Joseph
Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Kenneth Boulding, Georgescu-Roegen, Herman Daly,
Robert Costanza, Steven Levitt (and other “behavioral economists”), etc.
Granted that there are many disputes among them, but what appears to unite
them is that they are all empiricists and pragmatists – i.e., they test and
derive their theories and hypotheses from “the real world.” Neo-classicists,
and their libertarian acolytes, have an annoying way of imitating medieval
scholastics – spinning out elaborate deductive structures from “first
principles,” (e.g. the aforementioned “perfect market,” “the invisible
hand,” spontaneous generation, utility maximization, etc.). The above is,
admittedly, a gross simplification, but it will have to do for now. (Of
course, science is not “pure empiricism” as most everyone since Kant has
agreed. It has a “hypothetico-deductive” structure which begins and ends
empirically. But never mind all that. Cf. Quine, E. Nagel, Popper and Kuhn.
Also, my “Is Science Just Another Dogma?”).
I have encountered numerous academic colleagues from various fields who
“know about philosophy” and most of what they “know” is wrong (to paraphrase
Mark Twain). Some have had damaging impacts on my career. It’s a curse of
“interdisciplinary” academic programs. So I am reluctant to make grand
pronouncements about economics. And yet, dealing with issues of
environmental policy, it is impossible to avoid applied economics. Some
economists are easy targets – e.g. Julian Simon. With with others (e.g.
Milton Friedman) some caution is in order.
That said, here are a couple of my peer-reviewed and published papers on
libertarianism and economic policy. I hope that I have avoided howling
errors. Please be charitable, in any case:
“With Liberty for Some”
“In Search of Sustainable Values”
“Perilous Optimism”
Looks like I’ve written that long reply after all. Sometimes when I start
writing, it is difficult to stop.
Looking forward to continuing our conversation.
August 18, 2014
More about "Disequilibrium Ecology."
I am delighted to learn that my work has not been completely forgotten.
Quite frankly, I am suspicious of "conservationist" appeals to the
"aesthetic values" of nature. To be sure, I recognize such values and they
are personally very important to me. But they are notoriously difficult to
define and even more difficult to confirm. Moreover, they are unquestionably
culturally and historically contingent. (See Roderick Nash's
"Wilderness and the American Mind"). So appeals to "aesthetic values" seem
to me to have a hint of desperation to them, as if there are no better
arguments. (For my views on "natural aesthetics" see
"The Tonic of Wildness").
Case-in-point: Mark Sagoff, after defending the radical contention that
there is no such thing as an "ecosystem" -- (he writes: "the terms 'eco' and
'system,' when conjoined, constitute an oxymoron") -- looks to a
quasi-aesthetic defense of wilderness. (See my
"Reconstructing Ecology" for
a summary of Sagoff's position and my rebuttal. Follow the references
therein for Sagoff's published opinions).
I am interested to hear of Dan Botkin's response. (Botkin was the Chair of
the Environmental Studies Program at UC Santa Barbara, when I was there in
1980-2). He seemed to believe at the time that he was promoting some kind of
profound heresy by questioning "the balance of nature." But as you know, I
came to believe that this was "Much Ado About Nothing." Still, his
contribution (notably in his book "Discordant Harmonies) has been
significant. Incidentally, while I was at UCSB there was much concern about
the pending extinction of the California Condor. The government response
was to capture the eggs and then to raise the chicks in captivity and then
release. Botkin pointed out, correctly I believe, that this effort was
pointless absent an aggressive attempt to preserve the Condor's habitat.
This view appears to be concordant with the theme of your thesis.
Conservationists, I believe, "need not worry" about disequilibrium ecology
for much more substantial reason than "aesthetics." Having read "Much
Ado..." you are familiar with my argument: while it is true that on a
"primary" level, there is no settled "balance of nature," there is a
second-order stability and harmony in nature. The attempt to preserve a
steady state of nature ("wilderness" as a noun) is futile, while policies
that preserve the processes of nature ("wildernessing" as a verb) are
scientifically informed and constructive. "Much Ado.." is taken from an
unpublished paper that deals with disequilibrium ecology at greater length.
It is called "Nature for Better or Worse,"
also at my website, "The Online
Gadfly."
September 2, 2013
A Conservative Friend passed on an article suggesting that the western
wild fires were caused by "Al Qaeda terrorists." My reply:
What was most interesting about this presentation was not what he said,
but rather what he didn't say -- perhaps because he couldn't say it.
He presented not one scrap of physical evidence of "fire terrorism" and
identified not one single captured suspect, much less one indicted Al Qaeda
arsonist. When either are forthcoming, then I will take notice.
Instead, he carelessly gave us the most significant contributing causes
these catastrophic fires: accumulation of ground fuel, extremely low
humidity, drought, and beetle infestation. All of these causes, except the
first, are probably intensified by global warming. So the informed
scientists tell us. (But who pays attention to climate scientists any more?)
Add these familiar and undisputed contributing causes, the usual
proximate causes -- a cigarette tossed from a car, lightning, spontaneous
combustion from organic decay, campfires, non-terrorist arson, etc. -- and
you have all the explanation that you need for the increase of disastrous
fires.
Is Al Qaeda another cause? Possibly. But evidence is required to deliver
that hypothesis. He offered us none. (Oh, what the hell! Never ruin a
good story by demanding evidence! The secret of Fox).
On one point, I am in full agreement: we need much more investment in
fire-fighting equipment and personnel. But that means more government
involvement and investment, ergo taxes. (QUELLE HORREUR!!)
During the San Bernardino mountain fires of 2003, which very nearly
consumed our home (stopped at our property line), tanker aircraft were
leased from the Canadians, the US apparently having none. Most of the
National Guard troops and equipment were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gov. Gray
Davis (remember him?) requested more federal fire-fighting funds the
previous year. Pres. Bush formally refused that request in October 24, 2003.
The very next day, "The Old Fire" broke out in the San Bernardino mountains.
More from EP about western fires (The San Bernardino Mountains in particular):
If it Burns, it
Earns.
The California Wildfires and Right Wing Smoke.
Privatized Hell.
December 8, 2013
AN EXCHANGE WITH A LIBERTARIAN ON GOVERNMENT.
(The Libertarians' response, in paraphrase, in italics. As always,
without explicit permission I will not disclose the name or directly quote
my correspondent).
Who wrote the following?
“We have learned about the importance of private property and the
rule of law as a basis for economic freedom. Just after the Berlin
Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, I used to be asked a lot:
"What do these ex-communist states have to do in order to become
market economies?" And I used to say: "You can describe that in
three words: privatize, privatize, privatize." But, I was wrong.
That wasn't enough. The example of Russia shows that. Russia
privatized but in a way that created private monopolies-private
centralized economic controls that replaced government's centralized
controls. It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic
than privatization. Privatization is meaningless if you don't have
the rule of law. What does it mean to privatize if you do not have
security of property, if you can't use your property as you want
to?”
“To be free is not merely to castoff one's chains, but live in a
way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
Libertarians understand that freedom is necessary but not sufficient for
happiness.
While in Moscow in 1992 (+/- a year), a Russian friend (Professor at MGU
– Univ. of Moscow), put it perfectly: “Under communism we had order without
freedom, followed by freedom without order, only to discover that without
order there is no freedom.”
Those quotes, in order: Milton Friedman and Nelson Mandela.
That final clause by Friedman – “if you can't use your property as you
want to?” – points to one of my primary disagreements with libertarianism.
I believe that we both agree with Mill’s “like liberty principle” – that
each individual is entitled to maximum freedom consistent with the maximum
liberties of others. My complaint is that I don’t believe that libertarians
take this principle seriously and consider its full implications.
What if an individual or corporation wants to use his/its property in a
manner that harms others? (E.g. the tobacco industry, the chemical industry,
the drug industry, etc.). Your answer, as I understand it is “STB – “sue the
bastard!” As I have pointed out in some detail, the “courts and torts”
solution simply won’t work for several reasons. Neither will “the free
market.” History validates this claim. (See my
“With Liberty for Some,” published in Environmental Philosophy, ed. Zimmerman et al 2004).
It’s that danged “externalities” problem again. So what is the remedy?
Constraint with sanctions by the only agency legitimately established to act
in behalf of those unconsenting and uninformed third parties negatively
affected by others “using their property as they want to.”
That agency? (Wait for this!) Government, of course – through laws
and regulation.
I could go on – and have in the aforementioned publication and elsewhere.
But once again, I have no appetite for an extended argument over points that
I have already worked on and published.
This is my opinion, and that’s that. If you want elaborations and
justifications, you know where to find them
The libertarian solution: internalize the externalities. Enforcement of
regulations by government bureaucracies never works out.
So who or what agency will internalize those externalities or require
such internalization? With what sanctions against those who choose not to
internalize?
What else but rule of law – which is illegitimate if not enacted by
government, and impotent if not enforced by government?
I regard the word “bureaucracies” as a “snarl-word” packed with useless
connotations. So I don’t use it. If I did, I would concede half my case,
which I don’t.
But do you mean to say that government agencies cannot enforce laws and
regulations?
Tell that to the drug companies who are required to prove the safety and
efficacy of their products. Tell that to the meat packers who are not
allowed to sell tainted meat, and face fines and prison if they do. Tell
that to to people in prison for failure to pay taxes or who violate
securities laws (e.g., Madoff, Milkin, etc.). Seems that time and again,
government agencies can do a fine job of enforcing laws (“regimenting
matters”). Just saying they “cannot do” this doesn’t make it so.
As for the latter (securities law), there are far too few persons in
prison for those offenses. And why? Because the Justice Dept. and the SEC
(under both parties) has been captured by the very persons that they should
be prosecuting. But this need not be the case, and hasn’t always been so. As
history testifies. Remember the savings and loan scandal, which put hundreds
of S&L officials in prison? That happened under the Reagan Administration.
Government agencies (“bureaucracies”) can enforce
legitimately legislated laws and regulations (“regiment matters”). As
history testifies.
I don’t see any other way to “internalize externalities.” The free
market? That has been tried and has failed every time. Following which
government (as “rule of law” and enforcement of law) has had to step in to
fix the market failure. That’s history.
Another of my abiding criticisms of libertarianism (as you can see from
the above): ignoring the clear lessons of history.
By the way, if you do take the trouble to read “With Liberty to Some,”
first go directly to Section IV, about half way through. That’s where I
directly address the “courts and torts” remedy.
_____________________________
Here’s a relevant quotation from Frederick Hayek, regarding morals:
“That freedom is the matrix required for the growth of moral
values--indeed not merely one value among many but the source of all
values--is almost self-evident. It is only where the individual has
choice, and its inherent responsibility, that he has occasion to
affirm existing values, to contribute to their further growth, and
to earn moral merit.” In F. A. Hayek, “The Moral Element in Free
Enterprise,” Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967), pp. 230.
“Obedience has moral value only where it is a matter of choice
and not of coercion.” (ibid)
“It would be impossible to assert that a free society will always
and necessarily develop values of which we would approve, or
even…that it will maintain values which are compatible with the
preservation of freedom.” (ibid)
I will ponder on Hayek opinion.. Sounds consistent with my oft-published
analysis of “responsibility:” implies knowledge, capacity, choice (freedom),
and value significance.
However, I have an instinctive aversion to claims of “self-evidence.” In
that direction lies dogma.
After all, it is “self evident” that the Earth is flat. Just look outside
your window..
_________________________
Political failures and more likely and more harmful than market failures.
_______________________________
Re: markets and regulations (“political failures”), let this suffice for
now. Seems to me that “political failures vs market failures” is a false
dichotomy. In a primitive society, economics plausibly preceded politics. If
a fisherman bargains with a roof maker to supply a month of fish in return
for a repair on the fisherman’s thatch roof, each party will likely abide by
the bargain. The informal sanctions will likely guarantee that much, for to
renege involves shame, shunning, or even banishment from the village. Even
so, if there is a dispute, it will likely be brought before the village
elders, which is proto-government.
However, this condition does not apply to literate and industrial
societies. In such societies, markets presuppose governments. I understand
that libertarians agree, as they stipulate that courts and rule of law are
necessary functions of government. But if there are to be courts, there must
be established law and means of enforcement. Broadly speaking, markets are
plus-sum 2-part/n-part games -- namely, “a cooperative, rule-governed,
other-contingent, and goal-directed activity.” (From my
“Morality as a Plus
Sum Game”). And in advanced societies all public games require explicit rules and
referees. In the market-game, these rules and referees are called
“government.” For without that referee and those rules (laws and
regulations) and the sanctions against violation – e.g. copyright and patent
laws, laws against insider trading and fraud, laws enforcing contracts, etc.
– there can be no markets. So remarks like Reagan’s “government is not the
solution, government is the problem,” is like the sports fan’s cry “Kill the
Umpire!” forgetting that when the umpires leave the field, the game is over.
Government is neither the solution or the problem: it is a necessary
pre-requisite for market activity. Ergo the proposal of “courts in place of
government” is an oxymoron, and, as I noted above, political failures vs
market failures is a false dichotomy. Like saying, “my right leg is
healthier than my left leg, so I guess I will walk on my right leg only.”
As I have written repeatedly, there are no “perfectly free markets” – no
exchanges with total knowledge, numerous buyers and sellers, total trust and
honesty, perfect and unconstrained competition, no transaction costs, no
externalities, parties in the transactions that have only economic motives
(“homo economicus”). Markets generally function better when these
conditions are approximated (never fully realized), and such conditions must
be applied and enforced externally – i.e., by governments.
Hence my definition of neo-classical economics: “The study of the
behavior of a fictitious person (“economic man”) in an imaginary environment
(“the perfect market”).” I am much more interested in what happens in the
real world, ergo my repeated plea: “look to history.”
And so, if the libertarians concede that courts of law are necessary
functions of government, I submit that they have given away their game. If I
may be permitted a bit of auto-plagiarism:
“Suppose that I have decide to heat my house with a wood stove.
How am I to know beforehand that I will be safe from a pollution
suit by my neighbors -- since, by hypothesis, our libertarian
government has abolished all those "dictatorial" clean air
standards? Clearly "the courts" will have to define, in detail,
acceptable and non-acceptable effluent standards based on extensive
scientific research. And all this will all have to be done in
advance of any suit against me. Otherwise, the suit would be ex
post facto, and thus legally invalid. Similar questions arise
with claims of damages due to food poisoning, unsafe drugs, vehicle
malfunction, etc..
“The implication is clear: the libertarian reformers, having
disbanded the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other
"big government" regulatory and research agencies, will have to
re-establish them if the courts are to function under the enormously
expanded burden of responsibility handed to them by the
libertarians. In point of fact, the libertarian scheme of "pollution
control through the tort laws" does not eliminate government, since
it requires a reliable government to codify and defend personal and
property rights.” (“With Liberty for Some”).
Again, “economic vs political solutions” is a false dichotomy.
|
