January 19, 2005

Darwin v. Intelligent Design

The defenders of pointing out the deceptive truth (a fascinating term) that evolution is a theory rather than a fact will soldier on in trying to keep a sticker noting that evolution is 'only a theory' in their science textbooks. Meanwhile, students in a Pennsylvania science class are being taught intelligent design alongside evolution, reminding those of us who tend towards the secular that religious faith remains quite strong in America.

While I don't have any problem with strong religious faith, I have numerous problems with these cases. Intelligent design has no more place in a science classroom than evolution does in a church. Intelligent design may be the explanation for how the world developed as it did: I certainly can't prove that it isn't. And that's precisely what makes it inappropriate for a science classroom.

Science is a rigid discipline. It is a method for learning about the world that depends on open communication and the ability for others to replicate results. A scientific theory is never provable, but it is disprovable. Saying that something is 'just' a theory is to completely misconstrue science: a theory has already demonstrated predictive ability. Intelligence design cannot pass these tests.

As a thought experiment, could you disprove evolution? What if you found fossil evidence of creatures appearing from massively less complex organisms? If you could find a human fossil that dated back to a time when the only life on Earth was single-celled organisms, that would seriously undermine the theory. Find enough such fossils and it would be difficult to support evolution. I'm not holding my breath waiting for such discoveries, but it is certainly theoretically possible to disprove evolution.

Try the same thing with intelligent design. The very nature of the hypothesis renders it unscientific. There is no way to disprove intelligent design, because no matter what evidence comes to light, the proponents of intelligent design can simply argue that the intelligent designer made things happen that way.

As I said above, that may be so, but an idea that can't be disproven is a question for philosophers, not scientists. As such, it has no place in a science classroom.

I'm not certain why people are so adamant about teaching ID or creationism in schools. When 61% of Americans believe the creation story in Genesis is the literal truth, it seems that the creationists already have the upper hand. If you want to teach your children that God created the world in seven days, you're free to do so. But such teachings have no business in government schools.

Posted at 12:23 PM · Philosophy · Comments (6) · TrackBack (0)

The Enemy of the Good

I am willing to concede that it's plausible that the ideal family situation for children is a mother and a father who are committed to the welfare of their children above all else. That provides the children with strong male and female role models, which seems intuitively to be a good thing.

But we don't live in that world: we live in the real world, where children too often grow up with only one parent or in foster homes where they risk abuse and even death. We don't have the luxury of asking what the ideal family for each child would be. We have to ask what's the best we can do with the resources we have.

Which means that laws preventing homosexual couples from adopting aren't guaranteeing that children will end up in good homes. It just means that those children are cut off from potentially good, loving homes because we're making the perfect the enemy of the good. We need to be asking the right question: is a child better off in foster care, or with a loving couple that just happens to be homosexual? And that answer needs to come from facts, not from personal fears and prejudices. I find it difficult to understand how anyone could consider it better for children to be shuttled from foster home to foster home until they're 18 rather than let a gay couple raise them. Maybe there are facts out there that indicate that growing up with a gay couple is worse than foster care. But I tend to doubt it, and I think that until someone can produce evidence to that end, it's time to let common sense overcome prejudice and actually think of the children first.

Posted at 11:08 AM · Philosophy · Comments (7) · TrackBack (0)

January 12, 2005

A Message to Garcia

I try to aroid posts that are little more than a link, but in this case I'll make an exception. Neptunus Lex has posted an old story I haven't heard in years, but one that captures an important slice of the military ethos:A Message to Garcia. The story highlights the valve and scarcity of initiative. I highly recommend it to anyone seeking to understand what we expect of our military personnel.

Posted at 03:22 PM · Philosophy · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

Using Uncertainty to Our Advantage

As much as I'd like to see some clear evidence that our government has not and will not condone the torture of captive, I can see some advantage in keeping the question up in the air regarding whether or not the government is using torture. Consider: you're a terrorist who finds himself in U.S. custody. Your training tells you that the Americans can't do anything to you, so you're not too worried. But you've heard stories in the news about how President Bush's administration has been torturing people, maybe even killing them, in order to get information out of them. Then, on the first day you're being interrogated, your questioner grabs you by the shoulders, pulls you out of your seat and forces you to stand in an uncomfortable position for hours. When he does release you, you're not permitted to sleep, and mean looking guards watch over you at all times. Now you're tired, nervous, and far less certain about the trainer who told you the Americans are too weak to use torture. And in that uncertainty springs a gap a skilled interrogator might be able to use to tease some information out of you.

In order words, all this discussion could easily work to our advantage while still maintaining firm walls against torture. By keeping the notion in the press that the U.S. is rumored to be using torture against captives, we give out interrogators another weapon to use to break down their captives' resistances.

The problem with this is obvious: in order to keep the terrorists guessing, we've got to keep people thinking that we might be torturing people. But as long as we're keeping the rest of the world guessing, we end up keeping the public in the dark as well, which means people (including your humble servant) will continue to wonder just what the administration is authorizing in our name.

I am not suggesting that this is the strategy the administration is pursuing. Based on the Heather Mac Donald article I cited a few days ago, it appears we have become so gun-shy about torture accusations that we're not using even the most basic interrogation methods to extract information right now. This is cutting off our nose to spite our face, I think. As long as we've got to deal with all of this uncertainty, why not take advantage of it? Not to actually torture people, mind, but to let them think that we might. Anticipation, as any kid waiting for Christmas, is often far more exquisite than experience. Let's turn that to our advantage.

Posted at 06:41 AM · Philosophy · Comments (5) · TrackBack (0)

January 11, 2005

Trying to Walk the Line on Torture

Yesterday I talked about the need not to define torture down. Now it's time to take a look at the hard question we need to answer: what are we willing to tolerate in order to gain actionable intelligence? This is no abstract debate: we are developing rules for our intelligence officers that will determine how far they are permitted to go to extract information. These decisions (OK, not made right here, but wherever they're made) will mean life and death for Coalition soldiers and Iraqis and civilians the world over being targeted by for attack by terrorists.

There are two basic methods for extracting information from captives: forcing it out, and tricking it out. I believe most of us will agree that forcing it out is a no-go. Authorizing people to physically harm others damages us as individuals and as a people; I don't believe anyone could regularly inflict harm on people without serious psychological issues surfacing. And I don't believe anyone wants America to be seen as the land where torture is an approved method of extracting information regardless of the need. (Yes, I have said before that I would approve of torture in extreme situations, but I would never want to see such approval written into law. If we're in the 'ticking bomb' scenario, I expect our agents to do what is necessary to extract the information and deal with the consequences later.) Further, while skilled practitioners may be able to get good information out of captives through physical abuse, I'm not overly confident in the reliability of such information. I certainly think I'd say something were I physically abused, but I'd say whatever it took to get the pain to stop, true or not.

This leaves us with tactics designed to trick information out of captives. This is no easy thing, particularly since the captives already know going in that we're not going to hurt them. They will only start talking if some uncertainty can be placed in their minds. How can we do that without crossing the line into torture? I believe that sleep deprivation is probably the best instrument for such tactics, as it will not cause any lasting damage to the captive while rather quickly placing him in a disoriented state. I'm also fine with shouting at captives, playing bad music for them, and even minor physical contact, although the last would have to be very carefully monitored to avoid abuse. Poking a captive in the chest or pulling him to his feet would be acceptable methods for raising doubts in the captive's mind, but the interrogator would need someone there to ensure the contact didn't cause injury or go beyond the prescribed limits. But I see nothing wrong with the interrogator putting the idea in the captive's mind that serious consequences might follow should cooperation be refused. The trick is creating that doubt without actually allowing those serious consequences, which I believe can only be facilitated through the use of techniques like sleep deprivation and disorientation.

On the flip side, I'd like to see an end to turning terrorists over to other governments for interrogation. The fact that we're not actually performing the torture doesn't make us any less liable for it. And the fact this practice predates the Bush administration doesn't mean it's any more acceptable. I seem to recall many conservatives who point to the fact the Clinton administration used this tactic not being in favor of anything else President Clinton did. Let's all agree that we should be better than that.

I understand that the above recommendations will probably please few. The restrictions on physical contact and harm as well as the refusal to turn captives over to nominally less-scrupulous governments will mean the loss of some intelligence that will save lives. On the other hand, the use of techniques designed to fool captives into giving up information will still be unpleasant for the captives, and probably will be classed as torture by some. Nor will I suggest that this is anything approaching a comprehensive look at the subject: it's just an attempt to balance our competing requirements for actionable intelligence and retaining a sense of who we are as a people.

Your thoughts?

Posted at 08:33 PM · Philosophy · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

January 10, 2005

Torture: Words Have Meaning

With the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General comes a new excuse to talk about everyone’s favorite subject: torture. Gonzales wrote some memos arguing that the President had the right to order the use of torture against terrorists, and the Democrats are attempting to use that advice as a reason to scuttle his nomination and deal the President a political setback. It’s an easy target: in the abstract, who wants to defend torture? It’s an abhorrent practice that yields information of questionable value, since a man in pain is likely to say whatever he must in order to get the pain to stop.

Against that abstract stand questions that are just a bit more complex. At least according to this article, the techniques authorized by the administration to extract information from terrorists sound a very long ways away from torture. When I hear someone talk about torture, I think of someone inflicting physical damage on a captive to extract information. I suspect I’m not alone in that. And if it was known the Bush administration had authorized such techniques, I suspect we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because Kerry would have crushed him in November and President Bush might well be facing criminal charges. But that isn’t what was authorized, as Ms. Mac Donald documents.

As is so often the case, imprecise use of terminology is leading to the devaluing of language. Democrats rail against President Bush authorizing torture and it gains traction because the average person doesn’t condone torture. But when you actually look at the minor moves the administration did make towards harsher interrogation techniques (steps that have not only been cancelled, but wholly reversed to a point where we are gaining little to no actionable intelligence from captives now), many people are going to come to the conclusion that this isn’t torture. This undermines the credibility of the Democrats, and it creates the risk of failing to find real problems that may not yet have been uncovered.

I am not aware of any evidence to date that the Bush administration condoned any real torture. That does not mean that such evidence does not exist, nor that the administration did not, in fact, condone torture that has yet to be exposed. If we assume that such evidence does exist, let’s consider what may happen if the current debate plays out before the real evidence surfaces: the Democrats will lose this debate, because what they can prove was authorized by the administration fails to rise to the threshold of torture for a majority of Americans. Now they come across real evidence of torture a few months later and try to bring it to light. How much more difficult will it be for them to bring out evidence of real torture when they so debased the term earlier in hopes of gaining political advantage? I would hope that such evidence would eventually be allowed to stand on its own, but it’s possible the Democrats could be placing themselves in a position akin to that of Chicken Little, unable to get out a real warning thanks to too many false alarms.

Torture is too vile a practice to be debased for political advantage. If the Democrats want to bring down Gonzales’ nomination, better for them to focus on his legal advice claiming the President wasn’t bound by laws against torture: if that’s not true, Gonzales isn’t a good choice to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. If it is true (and I certainly hope that it isn’t), then this would be an excellent opportunity to fix that problem.

Posted at 08:31 PM · Philosophy · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

Vitriol and Political Dialogue

One of the reasons I maintain this site is the belief that genuine dialogue can help to break down many barriers between political opponents. As George Will once opined, politics is the art of the possible. While I am strongly opposed to certain planks in each major party's platform, there are also areas where we might be able to work together, if we were so inclined. Unfortunately, it is frequently quite difficult to find people on the other side who are willing to actually debate the issues, rather than simply spout talking points. Today's examples include Anne of Peevish and Mike of The Sorest Loser.

Anne contributes a rant about Libertarianism in which she lays out how stupid Libertarians are and how none of their ideas would actually work. Anne doesn't just want to tell us that other ideas are bad; they're stupid and simply won't work. Meanwhile Mike is busy talking about American gulags and how it's clear that the Bush administration was behind the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Not that it's his opinion that the Bush administration was involved; it's clear, and anyone who can't see that is just a Bush apologist. Seeing a theme here: Anne and Mike aren't trying to lay out arguments in favor of their positions. They consider their positions self-evident, and they're writing them down simply to point out how stupid (or racist, in Mike's case) the rest of us are.

Virtually all bloggers have strong opinions. People who aren't sure are unlikely to spend the time required to get their opinions out there. Certainly I'll concede that I believe that the opinions I put forth on this site are correct. But, unlike Anne and Mike, I'm not convinced that the other side is not only incorrect, but also stupid, ignorant, or insincere. I don't believe that because I'm some kind of saint, but for the pragmatic reason you can't convince the other guy of anything if you don't consider his opinion worthy of consideration. Which is the message I get from Anne and Mike.

How, after all, can they consider my opinion worth the time to consider? While I am not a Libertarian, I do believe that less government involvement in our day-to-day lives would be beneficial to us. According to Anne, that means I'm a "[f]uzzy-minded idealist living in a fantasy world." Given that I don't consider it worthwhile to waste my time addressing the arguments of fuzzy-minded idealists, it seems pretty safe to believe that Anne's not going to really listen to anything I have to say. And while I'm concerned over the extent of abuses committed in Iraq and Guanantamo, I have yet to see sufficient evidence to suggest this was a deliberate policy as opposed to a result of poor supervision lower in the chain of command. According to Mike, that means I'm a racist. Are you going to listen to the opinions of someone you consider a racist? I doubt I would.

None of this necessarily makes Anne and Mike wrong. People blog for as many reasons as their are blogs. They may prefer simply venting about the stupid racists among us, which is certainly their privilege. But I do find myself wondering if they aren't even the least bit interested in convincing others to the rightness of their cause. Personally, as entertaining as it can be to vent, I prefer to keep my writing focused more on attempts to persuade rather than deride. And the first rule of persuasion is that you've got to try and understand where the other guy is coming from before you can convince him of anything. With very few exceptions, people are unlikely to take advice from people who don't seem interested in their point-of-view, let alone people who think they're stupid or racist.

Update: I should probably make it clearer that my intent is not to criticize these authors. As I said, you blog about what interests you. I just find it an interesting technique, particularly when the piece ends wondering why other people don't agree with the author. Somehow I could hear Homer Simpson talking to Moe in 'Trash of the Titans:' "I hate the voters so much! Why won't they vote for me?"

Update 2: Mike jumps into the comments to explain that it was not his intent to call everyone who disagreed with him racists. This is an excellent illustration of my point. What Mike intended as an aside came across (to me, at least) as a blanket condemnation of those who don't agree with him. This perception pulled me away from his main point and turned the argument to a side topic that tends to involve emotion rather than logic. Amusingly enough, this has had a similar effect on this debate, as my interpretation of Mike's words has made him so angry he wants to talk about it rather than about the topic I'm addressing. Hoist on my own petard, as it were. The comments explain in greater detail.

Posted at 07:02 AM · Philosophy · Comments (9) · TrackBack (0)

December 30, 2004

The Marvels of Modern Medicine

I (finally) got to visit the dentist today, after enduring an on-again/off-again toothache since October. I won't keep you in suspense: the visit's climax was the removal of one of my wisdom teeth, #16 if I recall correctly. The visit was a fascinating view into modern dentistry, something I've been fortunate enough to rarely experience.

I started feeling pain in my upper left jaw in mid-October, while I was at JRTC. So I altered my oral hygeine habits on the assumption there was either a bit of food caught between my teeth or that I was feeling a minor cavity that could be addressed through careful brushing and flossing. Since I was TDY, my dental records were all back at Fort Carson, so I hoped to at least forestall the need for treatment until I returned in January (those were the golden days when we thought we would be done in December). A foolish decision, but not atypical of people who probably should visit the dentist but would prefer not to.

The pain continued through November, however, and I decided that I had better go see a dentist and try to get it fixed. It took me a while to find out how to get treatment while TDY; I expected that there would be some odd procedure I'd have to go through to get treated, since I wasn't officially stationed at Fort Bliss. It turned out that the Army apparently still allows common sense to rule in limited areas: all I had to do was tell the DENTAC that I was TDY and didn't have my records. Unfortunately, I would not be allowed to make an appointment and would instead have to go to dental sick call. By this time (mid-December) I was in the middle of trying to plan the holiday training for D Company 1-172 AR, and since I was in charge of it all, I didn't feel comfortable taking a day off to see the dentist (sick call begins at 0700 and they will see you when they see you, the Army's form of rationing its limited dentists' available time). So I continued to take pain medicine and ignore tooth as best I could.

Today, however, the stars aligned perfectly. Our holiday training included a four-day weekend over New Year's to give the unit its last opportunity to spend some time with family and friends. But in order to resume training as soon as the rest of the brigade returned to Fort Bliss, our four-day weekend started today, while the rest of post would enjoy a four-day weekend beginning tomorrow. So I could spend all day, if necessary, in the dentist's chair without missing training.

So I was sitting in front of the DENTAC at 0630, because that's what time sick call starts at Fort Carson. After waiting some 20 minutes, I stopped an MP driving by to see if he knew if they would be open today. He thought they might be on holiday hours. So I returned to my room. I called the DENTAC around 0815 and was told that sick call was going on right then and would continue until 0900. Back to the DENTAC. I reported to the front desk, explained my situation, and the receptionist put together a temporary set of dental records for me on the spot. I sat down and waited perhaps 15 minutes for my name to be called. There was not much traffic there on the day before a four-day weekend. The dental hygienist took me back to an examination room, determined I didn't have x-rays available, and sent me across the hall for x-rays.

Truly we live in a marvelous age. The Army now uses digital x-rays: they still put the uncomfortable plastic doohickey in your mouth, but it's attached to some kind of digital x-ray detector that is, in turn, attached to a computer. They aim the tube at your mouth, step out of the room, you hear the odd humming sound of x-rays being generated, and voila: on the screen you see an x-ray of your teeth. The Panorex was also digital, so within another ten minutes my x-rays were complete and the dentist came in.

The x-rays didn't show any damage, however. Whatever was wrong with my teeth, it wasn't a cavity or damage below the gum line. So the dentist asked where it hurt. I indicated the left top rear molar, which already had an impressive filling in it. The dentist nodded, checked the x-rays, and marvelled that my previous dentist hadn't simply pulled the tooth at the time. He then proceeded to explain one of the great philosophical debates of dentists: whether to pull wisdom teeth, or to try and save them. My current dentist was of the former school, while my prior dentist apparently subscribed to the latter. In any case, the odds were good that the deep filling was touching the root of my tooth and was causing the pain.

I had assumed I was probably losing a tooth going in, so I didn't really argue. If it meant ridding myself of the nagging ache in my jaw of the last few months, it was good enough for me. By 0930, the offending tooth had been removed cleanly and easily (although the odd grinding sound I could have lived without). It was actually rather fascinating to observe, as best I could from my vantage point. All he used was a curved piece of metal that he pressed against the tooth until it popped, at which point he used a pair of pliers to actually remove the tooth. (OK, they weren't technically pliers, but some medical device that probably costs ten times as much. I'll bet my Leatherman could have gotten the tooth out just as easily at that point, though.)

What I found particularly fascinating, however, was the hit-or-miss artistry required of the dentist. After examining the tooth's surface and looking at the x-rays, all he had left to go on was my description of where the pain was. He also had the knowledge that the filling in that tooth went extremely deep, and his experience in dealing with toothaches, but in the end all he could do was play the odds. It's rather disconcerting to think that I've given up a tooth simply in the hope that its removal will stop the pain. I suppose I may come to regret losing the tooth, if the pain doesn't stop, but it's far too late for regrets. If the pain returns, I'll have to try something different and see if the second time's the charm.

That is how so much of life works, isn't it? Those of us who believed an invasion of Iraq was the correct course of action did so based only on our knowledge of history and our belief that fundamental change in the Middle East could eventually eliminate Islamofascism. We can point to some evidence that such an approach can work (Germany and Japan following World War II), but those who disagree with us can point to evidence that suggests the approach will not work in the Middle East. Ultimately, our side prevailed, and the invasion went forward. I often find myself laughing at those who believe that the reconstruction has already failed or that it is destined to succeed; it is far too early to know whether or not our efforts in Iraq will bear fruit. All we can do is continue to do our best with what we've got. If this fails, we'll have to try something else. What's really frustrating about that is the knowledge that, like my dentist, we still won't have a clear course of action. We'll simply have to use our best judgement, tempered with what we've learned in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pull another tooth.

Posted at 11:19 AM · Philosophy · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

December 29, 2004

We Can Do Anything

I have had (and will have) little to say regarding the tsunami that has killed at least some 60,000 people throughout the Indian Ocean region, for the simple reason there’s nothing I can say that will help the problem. For those of you interested in lending a hand, you can donate to the American Red Cross’ relief efforts through Amazon, and I have little doubt various aid agencies will be more than willing to accept your time if you’re inclined to donate it.

I am quite interested, however, in the responses to the disaster. As of this writing, Amazon alone has collected some $1.4 million in aid. While that number may pale beside the $35 million President Bush has pledged, as well as the millions in additional aid the United States will provide through the military forces moving into the area to help, it holds one significant difference: while the aid provided by President Bush will probably do more simply because of its vastly higher dollar amounts, the aid seen on the Amazon page (and elsewhere) actually represents people opening their pockets to try to do something to help. It may be more impressive for President Bush to announce the devotion of $35 million to help the victims, but that money is easily spent because it isn’t his. Hey, give me the power to tax and look at how generous I can be. No, what I consider far more impressive is how much money is being collected by people who have freely chosen to give it.

Those on the left may argue that, while it’s nice that some people are willing to give a little, their contributions alone will not be sufficient to provide the aid the peoples of Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, etc., require. Perhaps not, but I think that argument falls short in many areas. No amount of money is going to replace the lost spouses and children. Money can help to rebuild some of the damage and provide the necessities of life for the survivors, but it cannot salve many of their worst wounds and it certainly cannot replace what they have lost. I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that what it would cost to provide potable water and decent food to the survivors is somewhat less than the tens of millions of dollars that will be spent on the relief. It is also fair to assume that, were the U.S. government not already spending $35 million-plus in support of aid operations, the amount of private donations would be greater than it already is (now over $1.6 million just in the time I’ve taken to type this essay). Many Americans can give less or not at all because they know that their government is already acting to ease the pain of south Asia. In that context, it seems more than a little incredible to me that some 29,000 and counting individuals have donated a combined $1.6 million to help.

It is a common refrain that we need government to do things that people cannot do acting alone. We hear it so often because it is occasionally true; a private army or police or court would be no more than the extension of one person’s power over all of us. In those cases, and a few others, government is needed to ensure generally equal treatment. But too often it is assumed that governments are needed for things that private citizens could address quite handily, if only government didn’t insist on stepping in to create the illusion of being irreplaceable.

If you’re looking to help, the Command Post has <a href="I have had (and will have) little to say regarding the tsunami that has killed at least some 60,000 people throughout the Indian Ocean region, for the simple reason there’s nothing I can say that will help the problem. For those of you interested in lending a hand, you can donate to the American Red Cross’ relief efforts through Amazon, and I have little doubt various aid agencies will be more than willing to accept your time if you’re inclined to donate it.

I am quite interested, however, in the responses to the disaster. As of this writing, Amazon alone has collected some $1.4 million in aid. While that number may pale beside the $35 million President Bush has pledged, as well as the millions in additional aid the United States will provide through the military forces moving into the area to help, it holds one significant difference: while the aid provided by President Bush will probably do more simply because of its vastly higher dollar amounts, the aid seen on the Amazon page (and elsewhere) actually represents people opening their pockets to try to do something to help. It may be more impressive for President Bush to announce the devotion of $35 million to help the victims, but that money is easily spent because it isn’t his. Hey, give me the power to tax and look at how generous I can be. No, what I consider far more impressive is how much money is being collected by people who have freely chosen to give it.

Those on the left may argue that, while it’s nice that some people are willing to give a little, their contributions alone will not be sufficient to provide the aid the peoples of Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, etc., require. Perhaps not, but I think that argument falls short in many areas. No amount of money is going to replace the lost spouses and children. Money can help to rebuild some of the damage and provide the necessities of life for the survivors, but it cannot salve many of their worst wounds and it certainly cannot replace what they have lost. I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that what it would cost to provide potable water and decent food to the survivors is somewhat less than the tens of millions of dollars that will be spent on the relief. It is also fair to assume that, were the U.S. government not already spending $35 million-plus in support of aid operations, the amount of private donations would be greater than it already is (now over $1.6 million just in the time I’ve taken to type this essay). Many Americans can give less or not at all because they know that their government is already acting to ease the pain of south Asia. In that context, it seems more than a little incredible to me that some 29,000 and counting individuals have donated a combined $1.6 million to help.

It is a common refrain that we need government to do things that people cannot do acting alone. We hear it so often because it is occasionally true; a private army or police or court would be no more than the extension of one person’s power over all of us. In those cases, and a few others, government is needed to ensure generally equal treatment. But too often it is assumed that governments are needed for things that private citizens could address quite handily, if only government didn’t insist on stepping in to create the illusion of being irreplaceable.

If you’re looking to help, the Command Post has a list of resources.

Posted at 09:54 AM · Philosophy · Comments (11) · TrackBack (0)

December 27, 2004

Why Government Health Care Won't Work

A number of people on the left seem to believe that the government could provide health care to everyone if it only chose to do so, and that to not do so is somehow cruel or inappropriate. I suppose that it’s not impossible for government to provide some semblance of health care. But would it be effective? Would it be a system under which anyone would care to live?

Let's say that we start by just giving everyone a government guarantee of health care: if you don't have it, the government will give it to you. Sounds reasonable enough: we're just protecting the most vulnerable members of society by guaranteeing them an important resource. This new health care provides only basic care, to keep costs down: let's say an annual checkup and visits to the doctor as required by other medical problems, as well as covering the cost of your chronic and acute medical problems. The annual checkup helps to keep costs down by trying to head off medical problems at the pass, while the ability to see a doctor as necessary ensures that people don't have to skip care simply because they can't afford it, so problems don't get worse and people don't end up in the emergency room for non-emergency care. This strikes me as a reasonable plan to provide basic care to those Americans who don't have it, although I'm sure that it would require some work around the edges.

What happens next? Well, there are roughly 44 million Americans without health insurance, so we’ve now added that many people to the rolls. We’re going to assume that they’re relatively healthy; perhaps an unwise assumption, but I don’t want to be accused of stacking the deck. So we’ll assume that, in addition to one annual checkup, the average new recipient sees a doctor once a quarter for various ailments. That’s 220 million additional doctor’s visits a year, including the checkups. How many doctors does it take to address an additional 220 million visits a year? Let’s say that the doctors work 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year (2,000 hours) and can see a patient every 15 minutes. That allows each doctor to see 8,000 patient-visits a year, so we’re looking for 27,500 doctors to address these additional requirements. That’s a lot of doctors. Let’s scale back our requirements: let’s say that the average health care recipient only goes to the doctor three times a year, once for a checkup and twice for other ailments. That reduces our need from 220 million visits to 132 million visits, which means a need for only 16,500 doctors. I’m going to assume that a third of those doctors can be addressed by having current doctors take on additional patients, so we only need 11,000 new doctors.

How do we come up with new doctors? We’ve got to encourage more people to attend medical school. How do we do that? Probably a mix of increased pay and decreased costs: subsidies for medical school, tax credits for student loans, tax credits for buildings and office space devoted to medical purposes, and higher fees for medical practices to encourage people to take up the stethoscope. We can also extol the virtues of those who choose the medical profession, to create non-material rewards for choosing the profession. And we can hamstring tort law in the hopes of encouraging doctors who have left the field to return to it (although this is a risky alternative, since tort law often provides us with our only recourse to true medical malpractice). Getting an additional 11,000 doctors on the streets will probably require a mix of all of these practices, and may also result in lowered standards, recalling the old joke about what you call the guy who was last in his class at medical school. For the sake of this thought experiment, however, we’ll assume that we’re able to entice an additional 11,000 people to become doctors without lowering our standards of care.

These changes will not end our problems, however. If we increase the cost of medicine, we increase the costs of our notional program (astute readers have no doubt noticed that I haven’t yet even addressed how to pay for the initial program). We’ve got to pay more to doctors in order to encourage more people to become doctors, which means that our program is not only costing the public more money in taxes, but it’s costing all other health care providers more money to provide identical services. Given that government has already guaranteed to cover those people without health insurance, increasing costs will inevitably lead to people losing their coverage. It will become cheaper for businesses to offer their employees additional money rather than health benefits, since health benefits will no longer be such a valued commodity. More and more Americans will move from the private rolls to the public rolls, assuming we’re not willing to allow anyone to go without health insurance. The costs of the public health care program will spiral upwards as the economy adjusts to the government guarantee, until it reaches an equilibrium with the vast majority of Americans (probably all of them, actually) move onto the public health insurance program.

We now have a universal health care system in place, and every American has health insurance taking care of them. With everyone now in possession of ‘free’ health care, doctor’s visits will soar. Right now, most people don’t go to the doctor every time they have a problem, because they can’t afford it. That can be unfortunate, but the reverse isn’t any better. When people can go to the doctor without paying for it, people are more willing to see a doctor for their ailments, even minor ones that do not require professional medical care. See both Britain and Canada for examples of this in action. This means that those 132 million additional doctor’s visits I mentioned above begin to move upwards rapidly, overwhelming the ability of the available doctors to address. So we need additional doctors to cover the increase in demand.

Trying to squeeze more doctors out of the population may be possible, but only at the price of significantly increasing the cost of medicine and further increasing the costs of our idealized health care system. Once again, we’ll assume that somehow we’re able to conjure new doctors and nurses without sacrificing any of the quality of care, and we’ll ignore the problems caused by the surges in demand that cannot immediately be matched by surges in capacity. The bottom line remains the same: this new health care system will become phenomenally expensive in very short order. Right now we spend some $1.5 trillion annually on health care in America. The federal budget runs about $1.8 trillion (removing $600 billion already being spent on Medicare/Medicaid). So this universal health care system will increase the budget by roughly 30%, a figure I think we can agree is no small sum. Increase those costs by even just 10% for increased demand in the face of ‘free’ health care and that’s an additional $150 billion in federal spending every year. So we’re going to have to come up with some combination of tax increases and borrowing that adds up to $1 trillion a year to pay for this health care plan, even in a conservative estimate, meaning we need to increase inflows by almost half. Any thoughts on how we’re going to increase taxes and borrowing by 40%?

Maybe we should place caps on what we’ll pay for procedures, then. Calculate a fair price for an MRI or 15 minutes of a doctor’s time, and pay that and no more. An interesting idea, but it runs afoul of prior experience. Regardless of what one pays for a medical procedure, the cost remains the same. By cost I’m referring to what it takes to actually perform the procedure: the time put in by the doctors and nurses, the equipment used, the supplies needed, and so on. I may not charge you a dime for an appendectomy (which, given I’m not a doctor, is still overcharging you), but that won’t change the resources necessary to perform the surgery. Unless you’re willing to repeal the 14th Amendment, you can’t force people to do that sort of thing against their will. So if what you’re willing to pay isn’t enough to cover their costs (and a little something for their trouble), they’re not going to do it. We already see that in the growing number of hospitals that simply don’t accept Medicare. The fixed price is lower than what it costs the hospitals to perform the procedures, so they stop performing the procedures. Call them greedy if you like, but any business that runs at a loss will eventually go out of business. Having a number of hospitals go under strikes me as decidedly counterproductive when the system is already short on medical care.

Our current health care system has a vast number of flaws. But it simply isn’t possible to have the government wave a magic wand and suddenly create more health care where it doesn’t exist. Medicine is already a reasonably lucrative career; the rising demand for health care ought to be driving more and more people into the field. The fact that it isn’t suggests that the incentives the government would have to offer to find all the new doctors I mentioned above (not to mention nurses and administrative personnel, whom I glossed over here) would be considerable. Not necessarily insurmountable, but the costs would be much higher than what we’re spending now. (For those who would like to argue that we could lure decent people into medicine without having to spend more, think again: those people are already in the profession. Those who have chosen not to become doctors and nurses have done so because the rewards don’t meet their threshold.) My estimate of a 40% increase in the budget is conservative: it could easily surge to twice that, or worse. Unless we install some rather draconian rationing, that is.

Rationing is what the market does already: if a good is scarce, it goes to whoever is willing to pay the most for it. But if everyone can get whatever medical procedures they need without regard to cost that system doesn’t work for us any more. That doesn’t change the fact that there is a shortage, however: it just changes how we deal with that shortage. Instead of using price as a differentiator, the system can either use time (first come, first served) or some method of rationing care. The latter method would probably be the method selected, as it would give a greater appearance of equity. If you have one heart available for transplant and it can either go to a 90-year old man or a 20-year old woman, few would consider it equitable for the man to get it simply because he was first in line. Better to give it to the woman, since she’s more likely to get the most use out of the procedure. As for the man, while it is unfortunate for him, from a strict cost-benefit standpoint society is clearly better off using limited resources for the most gain, and a heart given to a young woman will result in far more years of life (on average) than a heart given to an old man. Rationing decisions will not always be so easy, however, and there will doubtless be innumerable reports of disparities in treatment and flaws in the system no matter how scrupulously and fairly it is administered. This is because systems that rely on value judgments are by their nature neither perfect nor perfectible, and therefore will always have outliers critics can point to. (Observe Captain Ed’s capture of a Boston Globe report that highlights the failures to prevent crime in a report that is forced to note that crime overall is down.) Ultimately, a rationed system becomes a system in which almost nobody is free to decide how they will be treated, because treatment is doled out in accordance with government norms. The rich will still be able to get treatment, because they can pay for it, but the vast majority will have to accept what they get from the government.

Government health care is a wonderful idea, except when we try to put it into practice. But as Robert Heinlein so succinctly put it, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Shifting the costs of health care onto the government (which is ultimately funding by all of us anyhow) would simply cause the costs to rise, because by reducing the perceived price, we would increase demand. We would end up with a bigger problem than if we had simply left well enough alone. I don’t know what the solution to our health care problems is. But I am quite confident a government health insurance plan will not do the trick.

Posted at 08:42 PM · Philosophy · Comments (9) · TrackBack (0)

December 24, 2004

A Necessary Evil

In my post discussing the Washington D.C. city council’s decision to spend millions of dollars to build a stadium for the Washington Nationals in exchange for the team coming to Washington, I called government a necessary evil. I suppose I should have know that such a comment would draw the ire of those on the left who consider government a force for good, and who might therefore take such a description personally. To me, the statement is self-evident, but I’ll try to explain it more clearly.

I’ve noted previously that government boils down to force. Ultimately, the only way to get another person to do something they don’t want to do is through the threat or the use of force. Granted, you can try many other avenues first, but persuasion, begging, bribery, etc. are not guaranteed to get the results you want. Eventually, you’ve got to resort to force. Since government involves the creation of rules under which a society will exist, government assumes a monopoly or near-monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I believe it was George Washington who pointed out that government is force, and that you cannot refine it, and it’s true. As long as we choose to organize ourselves at a level above anarchy, we must accept the ability of the government to use violence.

Government hands the tool of violence over to a limited number of citizens. I’m confident that the vast majority of people who involve themselves in government do so for the best of reasons. But in any society there is a percentage of the people who want to force their fellow citizens to act in certain ways. When government is the avenue we provide to legally coerce others to do certain things, it should not surprise anyone that it will attract that fraction of the people who are driven to control other people’s lives. (This is elaborated in some detail in Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.) We see this every day, whether in complaints to the FCC attempting to ban certain programming from radio and TV or environmentalists who want to treat carbon dioxide as a regulated substance. Both of those groups want to force the rest of us to act in certain ways, and they want to use government’s legal monopoly on force to get their way. They generally want to do it for good reasons: because they think it’s the right thing to do. But that doesn’t change the fact they’re ultimately willing to use force to make us do what they consider the right thing.

These two facts make government an evil to me: government gives the power to use force to a relatively small number of people. If that isn’t an idea fraught with potential for abuse, I can’t imagine what would be. That is precisely the reason the founders attempted to limit government’s power: they were familiar with the damage unrestrained government could do, and they hoped to prevent such damage from being inflicted again. So they sat down and tried to puzzle out what the absolutely necessary functions of government were and limit the government to only those powers. That worked for a time, but there people seeking additional power slowly eroded those limits to our present situation, where the federal government has only a very tenuous restraint holding it back, and those restraints are subject to a court system that is more concerned with outcomes than processes.

Government can be a force for great good. There are some things that only government can do. Without a system of government, the capitalist system that has enriched us all so greatly could not exist, because businesses would have no easy way to enforce contracts. Nor am I sanguine about the ability of large groups of individuals to build a military capable of defending a country as vast as the United States, or to negotiate with foreign powers in any consistent manner. But government by its nature involves force and violence, even if it rarely has to exercise those powers. Too often, we forget that fact, and so we ask government to do things that we consider good without addressing whether or not we’re willing to use violence to accomplish those goals.

And that is, to me, the greatest evil of government: by disguising the use of force, it makes it so much easier to use it without considering the consequences. If you think of government only as people voting and letting the majority rule, it doesn’t sound like a problem. Until you realize that the 49% who voted against what the majority wants can either go along with the majority or face the promise of violence. (I should think this would be self-evident to those on the left: if you don’t like something the government is currently doing, try not paying whatever fraction of your taxes goes to fund that activity and see what happens.)

I don’t advocate anarchy. But I do believe that using government is much akin to being a mahout: as long as you’re careful and you keep the elephant on a tight leash, it can accomplish many things you could never do on your own. But the number one cause of death among mahouts is being killed by their own elephants, because they failed to keep their eye on what they were doing. Government, by its nature, is always a threat to do the same thing to the societies it is supposed to work for.

Posted at 11:12 AM · Philosophy · Comments (6) · TrackBack (0)

December 22, 2004

Other People's Money

It was too much to hope for: Washington D.C. caved in to Major League Baseball extortion this week, agreeing to pay $584 million (or however much more it actually will end up costing) in order to lure the Montreal Expos to the district. (Imagine what they might have had to pay for a major league team.) The city council made the decision despite evidence that public support was against spending public money for a baseball team. That's no surprise; the city of Milwaukee pulled a similar trick several years ago when the Brewers threatened to move. After a referendum to raise taxes to pay for a new stadium was voted down by the people, the local government passed a tax increase to override the amendment. That D.C. would follow in Milwaukee's footsteps is hardly surprising. We'll see if the district at least ends up with a decent product on the field.

Personally, I'm a little more interested in what drives city government to make this kind of deal. Washington D.C. is not a town noted for fiscal stability in the first place. The city is fraught with problems that really are government's business, particularly the district's appalling crime rates. Yet the city government is going to burn half-a-billion dollars (or more) to build a stadium for millionaire owners so that millionaire players can play a game there. And I say that as someone who believes that baseball is one of America's greatest inventions and that the presence of a baseball team can be a great thing for a community. But all the great things that baseball brings don't cover the fact it's an improper use of public funds to subsidize a sports team.

It seems that a lot of people believe that all money belongs to the government, and that the rest of us should just be thankful for what we get to keep. That's certainly the attitude of the people who argue that tax cuts take money from government or subsidize the wealthy. But that attitude completely inverts the relationship between the American people and their government. Here government is supposed to exist to serve the people, not the reverse. Many people will argue that government does try to do just that, by giving money to those who need it most. Except that this once again elides the question of where that money comes from. The money Democrats use to help the poor and the money President Bush is spending on AIDS programs share one important trait: it's not their money to give.

Democrats frequently argue that compassion demands that the government help people. A common frame for this argument is how can a country this rich allow people to be homeless, or be poor, etc. This is a powerful argument that speaks to most of us regardless of our political affiliation. It is hard to look at the poor and argue that things shouldn't be done to help them. So, very often, we end up standing by while the government steps in and spends money it has no right to give.

I've talked about our being a nation of laws and not of men many times. I suspect some have not understood precisely what that means, however. Being a nation of laws does not simply mean that we have a judicial and criminal system in place to deal with those who break the laws. Every dictatorship is full of laws, but few would argue that a dictatorship is a nation of laws and not of men. A nation of laws is a nation that sets out certain codes in advance and that holds everyone to those standards. Think of a board game: when you sit down with your friends to play Monopoly, the rules are laid out in advance for you. You probably wouldn't play the game if people could change the rules after the game had started, because other players could agree to change the rules to favor themselves and disadvantage you (or vice versa). Only by setting down the rules in advance and requiring everyone to play by them can you keep the game fair. A nation is no different. In a nation of laws, everyone knows the rules (or at least can easily discover them) in advance, and they choose how to live in accordance with those laws. Contrast that to what we have in America today, where laws are continually changed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others. As just one example, Archer Daniels Midland lobbies for ethanol subsidies and farm subsidies, guaranteeing them big profits regardless of the market value of their work. This makes a mockery of the free market, which is supposed to give people the opportunity to test their products against the desires of the people, not get a government law passed that ensures profitability. By choosing winners and losers, our government long ago gave up any claim to being a nation of laws.

Note that this does not mean we cannot ever pass new laws. In the 200-plus years since the adoption of our Constitution, the world has changed dramatically, and we'd be foolish to try and prevent our government from addressing those changes. But government is supposed to address those changes within the framework that was intended to limit it: the Constitution. As this anecdote relates, however, we stepped outside those bounds long ago, and show little inclination to look back.

Government is unquestionably a necessarily evil. There are certain functions that the private sector cannot address adequately, so we grant our government the powers necessary to resolve them. But the intent of the Constitution was to restrict those powers very carefully in order to prevent abuse. Power may or may not corrupt, but it certainly draws a certain type of person to it just as a moth is drawn to a flame. Except when these people take power, instead of them going up in smoke, the limits on their power char like tissue paper.

Which brings us back to today's story, where the so-called representative government of Washington D.C. is patting each other on the back for bringing baseball back to the Capitol without giving a second thought to who will actually pay for it. It isn't their money, after all.

Posted at 06:55 AM · Philosophy · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

December 14, 2004

The Role of the Death Penalty

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?

I haven't followed the Peterson trial beyond the very basics, so I have no idea if the jury did well or poorly in convicting Scott Peterson and recommending the death sentence. I won't let that stop me from using the topic as an opportunity to talk about the death penalty, however.

It is my belief that the death penalty is not an appropriate power to give the state. It gives the state a power unnecessary for the pursuit of its rightful goals. It is irreversable. It doesn't provide a deterrent to criminals, and encourages worse crimes. And it costs our criminal justice system time, money, and credibility to deal with it.

It may seem odd for me to argue that the state shouldn't have the ability to execute someone when I've already conceded that the state does hold precisely that power: ultimately, if you don't go along with the state, it has the power (and arguably the right) to kill you. That having been said, there is a difference between an agent of the state killing someone in the pursuit of his duties and the government imposing death as a punishment for certain offenses against the state. Police must have the ability to use force, including deadly force when appropriate, to perform their duties. Without that ability, the people can violate the laws with impunity and you have anarchy. Once a person has been taken into custody and is standing trial for their offense, there is no requirement to use lethal force. I would argue that the state should not be permitted that option either. As my friends at Samizdata have noted many times, the state is no one's friend. Regardless of how benign the intentions behind any government, the government is ultimately a tool of force and violence, even if directed to good ends. And because the state does marshal such a great deal of power, it is all too easy for the corrupt among us to use that power for bad aims. The state should be given only the minimum tools necessary to accomplish its aims. By removing the death penalty from the state's toolkit, we eliminate the massive potential for abuse inherent in such a powerful tool.

The death penalty is unique in that there is no way to reverse it when a mistake is made. A prisoner may spend 20 years in jail after having been wrongfully convicted, but at least he is still alive to be released and the state can (and should) provide some compensation for the error. If someone's property confiscated due to error, that property can be returned to them and restitution made. But if the state executes you, all the money in the world won't bring you back if it turns out you're innocent. I think it is probable that somewhere in the United States the state has already executed an innocent man, although I suspect it is far less common than some death penalty opponents would have us believe, as nobody has yet found a documented case of an innocent man being executed. Nonetheless, I see no reason to take the chance even if it hasn't happened yet.

Laws do provide a deterrent effect on people, but there is a limit to how much laws can do. For those crimes the death penalty normally addresses, I'm dubious how much deterrent value it provides. For example, murder is a common rationale for the death penalty, which seems logical enough on its face; kill someone and the state kills you. But does the threat of death really significantly deter anyone from killing? There are two basic murder scenarios: premeditated and acts of passion. If someone is willing to kill someone else badly enough to plan that murder out, how much more likely is he or she to give up because of the death penalty as opposed to life without parole? Most criminals operate on the assumption they won't get caught anyhow, and anyone planning out their crime is going to plan on getting away with it. That leaves acts of passion, which by definition are unlikely to be deterred by anything. If your temper is so bad that you're willing to kill someone when it breaks, I find it difficult to believe that the knowledge you could face the death penalty is likely to somehow snap you out of your murderous rage in time to save your victim. I believe that these issues would pertain to any other crime for which the death penalty could be applied. It doesn't seem likely the death penalty would provide any additional deterrent effect to prevent crime.

But if a criminal does think of the death penalty, it's as likely to drive him to commit worse crimes as to stop what he's doing. If a criminal knows he's committing a crime that carries a death penalty sentence, he has good reason to kill anyone who has knowledge of his crimes. He's already facing the threat of death, so why wouldn't he kill any witnesses in order to reduce his chances of going to trial? Since the death penalty can only be applied once, as soon as a criminal crosses that line it perversely incentivizes the criminal to commit worse crimes.

Finally, the death penalty is incredibly costly. Because we rightly do not want to execute an innocent man, we have placed a number of important safeguards in the system to provide the innocent many opportunities to escape a wrongful death penalty sentence. These options all require court time, which means at least a judge, a clerk, and two lawyers, all of whose time costs money and who are rarely the only involved parties. Working a death penalty case through that system amasses great costs that the state must ultimately pay, even when the accused is found guilty. But the costs come not only in money, but in prestige. When someone on death row is found to be innocent, it undermines faith in our legal system, because people realize that the potential was there for an innocent person to be executed (even though the system did work, releasing the person before that could come about). This costs us the key currency of any popular system: the perception of legitimacy. Our legal system is accepted because people believe, by and large, that it works. If people stop believing that, the system might continue for some time, but it would become more and more ineffective as contempt for the system spread through the populace. Ultimately, a lack of confidence would bring the system down, as it should. But this is a catastophic method of resolving a problem that could be resolved far more easily.

I don't doubt that many criminals are well-deserving of a warm seat in Hell. But it's not the place of the government to give it to them. It's time to end the use of the death penalty.

Posted at 01:59 PM · Philosophy · Comments (7) · TrackBack (0)

December 08, 2004

The Tyranny of the Majority

David at Cronaca has debunked an alleged Thomas Jefferson quotation that reads "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." Those familiar with America's first populist would likely realize that the words don't sound like Jefferson from jump street, but it's difficult to be certain when you see something attributed to the same place over and over. David is to be commended for taking the time to do some research and demonstrate that the words are at odds with everything we know of Jefferson.

Having done that, however, David feels compelled to close with the snarky rejoinder "Why the great popularity of such an openly antidemocratic "quote" in online signatures? Do so many people really feel that some should be more equal than others?" David, of course, is a worshipper at the feet of democracy who is either unable or unwilling to accept the harsh fact: democracy is just one more system people use to govern themselves, and that quote is wholly accurate regardless of who said it.

Democracy is majority rule, which comes down to mob rule. That's why the founders specifically did not bequeath us a democracy, but a republic. In a true democracy, the will of the majority is law. So if I can convince 51% of the people that you have no right to your property, then it is perfectly legal for me to take it from you. It seems odd that anyone would defend such a system, since we can never be assured of always being in the majority. (Not to mention the horrors a true democracy can inflict on the minority.)

David's confusion is caused by the corruption of the word democracy. America is not a democracy, as I noted. We are a constitutional republic. We elect others to speak for us. And we have a written constitution that (sometimes) protects our rights, to prevent those representatives from using their power to oppress us. The reason our constitution is viewed with such awe is because of the responsibility we place in it: it is the brake on abusive government power. Pure democracy offers no such brake.

That is not to say that pure democracy couldn't necessarily work effectively under similar restrictions. Indeed, it's arguable that it is doing just that to a limited extent in many states today, through the referendum process. I question whether or not it could be effective in dealing with day-to-day government business, but that might be a plus.

Democracy in and of itself, however, is no mystical thing. It's just a method of governance, with advantages and disadvantages like any other. As Churchill once said, it is probably the best basis on which to build a government, but that hardly makes it a great system. (OK, so Churchill said it a little differently; our meaning was much the same.)

Hat tip: Asymmetrical Information.

Posted at 05:41 PM · Philosophy · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

December 07, 2004

A Few Questions

Kevin Drum has a few questions he'd like answered in response to perceived conservative glee over the discussions over the direction of the Democratic party in the wake of Peter Beinart's provocative article. Speaking strictly for myself, I don't see why conservatives would feel smug over these discussions, but perhaps I'm just not in the proper mindset. In any case, while I suspect that the questions Kevin is asking aren't necessarily aimed in my direction, I'll answer them anyhow.

1. Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?

I don't know that I've ever believed that American military power was a good way to promote democracy in the Middle East, only that it was the best available tool for the job. In retrospect, however, I do now wonder if we would not have been wiser staying out of Iraq. I don't think this question is the no-brainer the doves claim, but I think that what I've seen over the past two years suggests that America wasn't prepared to do the job in Iraq. Given that failure may leave us with a worse situation than the status quo, it therefore follows that we might have been wiser to stay out entirely. I'm not sure about this, but I have been trending that way over the past six months or so.

2. Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?

This may be my blue state background coming to the fore, but it's difficult for me to worry about Falwell and Robertson because I don't know anyone who takes them seriously. It is my opinion that the liberal dominance of entertainment helps Republicans here, because extremists on the right tend to be marginalized in the discussion in the popular press to a much greater degree than extremists on the left (see Michael Moore for the prime example of this phenomon). Having said that, I would probably feel more comfortable with President Bush steering as clear of those two as possible; on the other hand, I'm not aware of him being close to them now.

3. Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush's policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.

Democracy (or self-government, more precisely) is the core concern for me. I believed that we needed an Arab state where the people ruled since day one, and I stand by that. How far am I willing to go to demonstrate my credibility? That strikes me as a great question, since it now gives Kevin the opportunity to set the parameters and declare that, no matter how far you go, it's not far enough to be 'credible.' In my case, however, I have volunteered to go to Iraq or Afghanistan with any of the units that are slated to go, although I haven't been selected for any of those missions as yet. I would not endorse military action in either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to press for democratic change, but I would certainly support attempts to open up both societies (though we would need some safeguards in Pakistan; I can live with an Islamic Pakistan as long as their nukes are under control).

4. On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

I don't know, and I'll concede that this is a concern. As I noted above, I am concerned about spreading self-rule in the Arab world, and I think that the Bush administration represents the only game in town on this point. The Democrats are already on the record as saying they don't see any reason to push for democracy in the Arab world. The Republicans claim to be for it, and are doing some things in that area. It's a lousy choice, quite frankly, but politics rarely involves good choices. As for the 2001 energy task force, I couldn't care less. I think that the argument that such task forces need to be free to discuss options without having to fear political repercussions is valid, whether they're discussing energy policy or health care.

5. A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

It's a reasonable belief as long as you accept the premise that the Bible is accurate. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I'm not ready to declare people who do believe that to be 'loons,' and I don't advocate purging people from either party (of course, I'm not a Republican, either, so my recommendation wouldn't carry much weight in any case). I do not think we should base our policy on such a belief.

6. Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

I think we would be unwise to invade Iran. Given our current commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't see an Iran occupation as feasible. Ultimately, I suspect we may have to accept a nuclear Iran, although Israel may have something to say about that. Kevin's second question is a false choice, but I am on record as opposing a draft an reiterate that opposition here.

7. If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

Almost certainly not. Unless there is substantial evidence to suggest that the Iraqis can take care of themselves, withdrawal would be disastrous. Unless the new government asked us to leave, in which case I don't think we would have any choice but to leave.

8. Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie's crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?

I think they're jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence, but I'm curious what Kevin means by what should be done with them.

I don't think Kevin actually cares about these questions or the answers to them, because he thinks the answers are self-evident. That's his business, of course. Which is a shame, since I'm a lot less interested in following interparty squabbles than I am in hearing how we address the very real problems we face, because those questions are just begging for discussion from both sides untainted by partisan sniping.

Posted at 08:24 AM · Philosophy · Comments (4) · TrackBack (1)

December 04, 2004

Opinions <> Science

We had fun discussing scientific illiteracy a few weeks ago regarding creationism and evolution. Today's example comes courtesy Kevin Drum, who points to Congressman Don Young (R-AK) discussing global warming: "I don't believe it is our fault. That's an opinion," Young said. "It's as sound as any scientist's."

Actually, Young's first statement is a fact: he clearly doesn't believe that global warming is anthropogenic. That doesn't mean that his belief is necessarily as sound as any scientist's, however. Once again, we have someone who simply fails to understand how science works.

Regular readers probably know that I'm skeptical regarding claims of anthropogenic global warming (as I understand it, there is clear scientific consensus that global warming is happening; the dispute is whether or not it is caused by human activities), although I'm not familiar enough with the science to come to a definitive conclusion. What I do know is this: regardless of what I believe, it is either happening or it's not. (Profound, eh?) My point being that what I believe doesn't affect what is actually happening: global warming's causes have to be determined on the merits.

That having been said, the idea that we can simply wish away bad news if it turns out to be true is asinine. Young is arguing that scientists' are simply putting forth an opinion when they claim human activity is affecting global warming, and that his opinion should therefore carry equal weight with theirs. Now I'm sure that there are scientists who are willing to put forth their opinion as scientific fact because scientists are human beings and are therefore as likely as the rest of us to put partisanship first. But even if this is the case (and I find it extremely difficult to believe that every scientist who puts forth a study showing a link between CO2 emissions and global warming is fudging his data), the way to refute a hypothesis or theory is to demonstrate that it is incorrect, not to mislabel it as an opinion.

An opinion is something that cannot be verified. I think chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. That's an opinion. You may disagree, and there are no objective standards we can turn to that will resolve our disagreement. This rule does not pertain to global warming.

Scientists have put forth a hypothesis that the Earth's temperature is getting higher over time, and that the change is caused by human carbon emissions. In support of this hypothesis, they have attempted to show that there is a correlation between increasing carbon emissions and global temperatures and that carbon in the atmosphere does cause increases in temperatures. (Note that the first issue alone is insufficient, as correlation does not prove causation.) If this hypothesis is valid, it should have predictive power that will allow people to use it to show how things will happen in the future. If those predictions are borne out, the hypothesis is strengthened (and may rise to the elevated level of a theory). If they are not, the hypothesis may need to be revised or even discarded. The bottom line is simple, however: the hypothesis will rise or fall based on the facts, not opinions.

Perhaps Congressman Young is correct, and his opinion correlates to the facts. Perhaps not. But he does his constituents a disservice by failing to understand the underlying theory of knowledge required to validate or deny claims. His opinion may be as valid as anyone else's, but science isn't about opinions. Foolish statements like his will only damage his own cause and further blur the general understanding of how we are coming to understand the universe.

Posted at 11:45 PM · Philosophy · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

Force and Government

These days, I can really sympathize with Ronald Reagan's old saw about him not leaving the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party leaving him.

Never one to consider the possibility the government might not have a role in an issue, John McCain is now telling Major League Baseball to test for drugs voluntarily or else. I can recall a time when the Republican Party stood for keeping the federal government out of people's business, but that seems like a very long time ago. Now Senator McCain has decided that whether or not baseball players use steroids is the business of the federal government. There's not much left the federal government isn't supposed to regulate, apparently.

I have mixed feelings about steroid use in baseball, as I suspect many fans do. While I'd rather see players not using the drugs in principle, obviously I've still enjoyed the sport for years when players are using the drugs, so it doesn't really appear to have reduced my enjoyment of the game. Players like Ken Caminiti demonstrate the unfortunate risks steroids pose, but plenty of people take unfortunate risks in life; I don't see it as the purview of the federal government to prevent that.

This article arrives at an interesting time, as today I also read this fascinating article about the true nature of moderation.

I frequently get into disputes with my father regarding the true nature of government. We disagree on what backs government: I argue that it is force, but I'm never able to convince him of it. Poretto lays out the case more cogently than I've ever managed, demonstrating that any time we decide to ask government to regulate something, we're giving it the power to use force to control that thing. Which tends to undermine the case of people like Senator McCain to use the power of government to attack issues that are so far outside the realm of proper governance.

Let's think about this for a minute: McCain thinks that it is fitting and proper that the government use its monopoly on force to regulate a sports issue. While I'm sure we can all disagree on precisely where the fine line should be drawn between using force and standing aside, it frightens me to think that too many people either don't understand government well enough to realize that we're crossing that line, or that they simply don't care.

Posted at 06:05 PM · Philosophy · Comments (1) · TrackBack (1)

December 01, 2004

End Corporate Taxation

Hats off to Kevin Drum, who uses his soapbox to call for an end to corporate income taxes, an idea whose time has come. The bottom line for opposing corporate income taxes has always been simple for me: all those taxes do is end up as higher prices or fewer jobs available for the people who need them most. Taxing business is just a clever subterfuge by people who want to raise taxes, but also want to get reelected. So they offer the 'free lunch' of a tax on corporate income, because we all know that the people who own corporations light huge Cuban cigars with $100 bills and laugh about the latest scandal down at the country club.

As Kevin points out, this isn't a free lunch either; conservatives would have to offer up a compromise to address the $131 billion in government revenue this would take out of federal coffers, and I'll wager Kevin's not willing to settle for cutting government spending (at least, not the kind I'd like to cut). But I'd be willing to trade slightly higher income tax rates for an elimination of corporate taxes, despite my general aversion to the income tax. While the swap would have to be done using a static model, I'd be willing to be the deal would end up raising more money for everyone as businesses would be able to cut some costs associated with not having to pay corporate taxes, creating more jobs and greater economic prosperity. Or maybe not; I'm not a seer or an economist. But I say it's worth a shot; with a static model, there would be nothing to lose in terms of government revenue, and there's an awfully big upside to encouraging economic growth.

Posted at 06:42 PM · Philosophy · Comments (8) · TrackBack (0)

Time for an Amendment

The Washington Post has an editorial today that is almost a textbook example of the problems with how the left prefers to govern: via the courts. The proximate cause of the Post's anxiety is Ashcroft v. Raich, a case currently before the Supreme Court that addresses California's right to maintain state laws regarding medicinal marijuana. California has a rather loose law allowing people to grow and use marijuana for personal use as long as they have a note from their doctor. The federal government claims that the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes) gives it the right to overrule that state law with federal antidrug laws.

The Post would be perfectly happy to allow California to continue permitting medical marijuana, but they're terrified that the Court will further restrict the federal government's powers. They point to various environmental and civil rights laws that would not pertain if the federal government wasn't permitted by the courts to overstep its ennumerated powers. They therefore call on the Court to act in accordance with Wickard v. Filburn, a 1942 case in which the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate the amount of wheat a man grew even if it was strictly for his personal use and was not involved in interstate commerce. Under Wickard, the government has the same ability to ban marijuana growing as it does to prevent you or I from sowing a field of corn or beans. No overstretch there.

The Post wants to sustain this federal overstretch because it is a predicate for many federal actions the Post likes. This is, however, precisely why the Constitution contains rules for amendments. Despite the paranoid ravings of the far left, there is a pretty solid consensus in this country in favor of environmental regulation. The amendment process might require some compromise on both sides, since we don't all agree on means even as we concur on the end result (rivers we can drink from, air we can breathe, etc.), but that debate is overdue. We turned environmental regulation from a valuable tool into farce years ago, peaking with the ridiculous 2001 claims that President Bush was trying to poison the water supply because his administration wanted to take a second look at last-minute Clinton administration regulations on the permissable amount of arsenic in groundwater supplies. It's easy to argue that we shouldn't have any, but that fails to take into account what that would do to the price of the water. Better to do the research necessary to see what levels of natural arsenic can be tolerated by the human body and make sure the water is safe without going overboard and pricing a rather important resource out of the reach of many Americans.

Amending the Constitution would not only provide a salutary opportunity for us to openly discuss the best methods for accomplishing certain goals, it would also restore something we gave away in the 20th century: the rule of law. While there will always be room for argument regarding the correct way to interpret the law, we ought to come together and agree on some basics. I would argue in favor of two things: Randy Barnett's presumption of liberty and the assumption that the law means what is written. Barnett's presumption of liberty simply states that when the government passes a law, the burden of proof in the courts is on the government to prove the necessity of any law restricting freedom, as opposed to the current system which presumes that a law is Constitutional unless the people can demonstrate otherwise. Simply shifting that burden of proof would go far towards protecting the average person from government overreach. The second premise seems simple enough, yet somehow we see it ignored frequently in the courts today. The Constitution is pretty direct in laying out what the federal government can and cannot do. Yet the courts have been ignoring that for decades, as in the commerce clause. While the Rehnquist court has started placing a few limits on the use of the commerce clause, there is still much work to be done in that area. A rollback of fourth amendment abuses would be an excellent start. But that's neither here nor there. The key is to come up with a consistent standard for the courts to use when we have disputes over the laws. Only when the law is interpreted consistently under a single set of premises can we truly return to the rule of law.

Posted at 04:37 PM · Philosophy · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

November 29, 2004

What Affirmative Action Can't Fix

The Washington Post is bemoaning a dramatic drop in black admissions at major universities this year. The numbers are disturbing: 25% fewer applications at the University of Michigan, 26% fewer at the University of Georgia, 29% fewer at Ohio State University and 32% fewer at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Those are appalling dips, and there's little to suggest the numbers will improve in the future.

The Post correctly deduces the problem: not racism, but lousy schools. (Actually, racism may play a part in the schools at lower levels; but the colleges are anything but racist.) Far too many black children attend substandard schools in this country. This leaves far too many of them unprepared for college, leaving colleges fighting over a shrinking pool of qualified applicants. This is arguably bad for the colleges, as they're looking for an ethnically diverse mix of students in each class. It is apparently not so good for the students either, as studies are now suggesting that blacks are frequently accepted at colleges they aren't academically prepared for, and therefore drop out at higher levels than their peers.

This is the true tragedy in my mind: these are kids who are capable of earning a college degree. But not all colleges are equal; I did well enough at the university I attended, but I might have had trouble at a more competitive institution. Thanks to affirmative action, too many black kids end up attending those more competitive institutions and start out at a significant disadvantage because their classmates are all ahead of them right from the start. I saw this firsthand in college: one of my best friends had to drop out due to academics after his first year. Not because he was dumb; he was one of the smarter guys I knew. Nor was it effort; I rarely saw him not buried in his books, doing his homework and trying to keep up. It was simply a matter of preparation: he didn't have the grounding necessary to keep up with his classes. For all intents and purposes, he was trying to jump from algebra to calculus; without the intervening classes, there just wasn't any way for him to make the leap. I lost track of him, so I don't know if he eventually finished college or not, but I feel safe in saying that the university did him no favors in accepting him. If he had gone to a somewhat less competitive institution, I suspect he would have done very well, because he wouldn't have had to tried to play catch-up all the time.

I have no problem with universities seeking to create an ethnically diverse student body. Of course, this cuts both ways: I don't know why anyone would want to attend a college like Bob Jones University, but if colleges can favor certain groups to create a more heterogenous student body, they can also favor certain groups to create a homogenous student body. But affirmative action isn't an answer to the very real problems faced by the black community in America today. Affirmative action is using makeup to cover the real blemish. Sure, colleges can point to their freshman classes and note the number of blacks, Hispanics, etc. as evidence of their diversity, but only because the media rarely discusses the ethnic balance of those who actually earn degrees. And despite what a number of my friends in college thought, the purpose of attending college is to earn a degree, not just to get in.

Until we find ways to improve our schooling at the lowest levels, we're not fixing anything. Affirmative action programs may make college administrators feel better about themselves, but they're not fixing the problem. Colleges would be much better served to take the money they're pouring into cosmetic fixes like affirmative action and ethnic studies programs and direct those funds into improving inner city schools. You want better applicants? Grow them. Create school systems affiliated with your colleges and teach the kids in them what they'll need to know in order to succeed at your school.

That's not an easy fix. It will take years to bear fruit, and there will be many heartbreaks and problems along the road. But if done properly, the rewards would be a miracle of sorts. Unfortunately, it's all too likely we'll continue down the road the Post advocates: continuing to use the same programs that haven't fixed the problem for the past 20 years, and watching another generation's talent pour down the drains of our public school system.

Update: Captain Ed beat me to the punch.

Posted at 07:03 AM · Philosophy · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

November 28, 2004

Competence vs. Values

Whenever I read Michael Kinsley, I'm never sure if I should be happy or depressed. On the one hand, he's getting paid very good money to write when he does it so badly. On the other hand, I suppose that should give me hope that I could make a living in the business, too.

Today's target is Kinsley's attempted verbal subterfuge involving the meme that won't die: that values were the decisive factor in this year's election. Kinsley claims to be tired of hearing about values, when what really should matter is competence (shades of Michael Dukakis!). Kinsley points to various instances of Republican incompetence to make his case that competence should be more important. Certainly he's got a valid argument that competence is important, and Congress is making his job easy these days. But arguing that competence is more important than values is trying to compare apples and oranges.

Competence is making sure that your work is done well. That's important, but it really doesn't matter much if you're not doing the right job. If you're a construction worker, you might be extremely competent at laying brick, but if you're working on the wrong building or using the wrong blueprints, your competence isn't doing you any good.

Values is about deciding what work to do. And while competence isn't easy, it's a cinch compared to values. That's because we can generally agree on how to improve competence, but we disagree quite strongly about values. Despite Kinsley's insistence that values are a private matter, they are indeed quite public.

Should government provide financial assistance to people who make less than a certain amount? We can all probably agree on how to do so effectively. If someone told us that we needed to make sure that everyone received $40,000 a year by some combination of private earnings and government spending, we could probably work through out options and agree on the best way to go about it, within limits. Certainly we could assess the programs we were using over time and figure out how to do it better. That's not really the issue though, is it? (Actually, it's not that easy, thanks to politics, but it's much easier than the values issue.)

In time, we could come to a consensus on how to accomplish that mission. But we might never come to a consensus on whether or not we should accomplish that mission. Because our values lead us to different answers to the question. Kinsley's values lead him to argue that a well-off society like ours should be able to afford to provide a certain minimum level of comfort to its citizens. My values, on the other hand, say that it's inappropriate to take money from some people to give it to others simply based on someone's definition of need. Your values might agree with Kinsley or with me, or you more likely believe something slightly different from either of us. And there's no real way to resolve that kind of dispute.

In a dispute over competence, we can look at metrics and experiment with different techniques to see what works best. Over time, we can get closer to an ideal solution. When it comes to values, there is no ideal solution, because your solution is diametrically oppos