First, do no harm

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Jim Nicholas” had this to say on yesterday’s thread about Sarah Conly’s book Against Autonomy

Are we willing to or do we want to let persons suffer all of the consequences of their dumb mistakes or impulsive choices? Do we want a society in which there are no life-guards who attempt to rescue those who swim too far, in which there are no mountain rescue teams for those who do not realize their limits, in which there are no bankruptcy protections for those who tried and failed, in which we close the hospital doors to those whose heart attacks are caused by over-eating?

To the extent a society is willing to try to mitigate some of the consequences of bad decisions, that society pays a price for decisions of the individual. If so, is it unreasonable that society has some say about the decisions of individuals that are highly likely to be costly to society?

I am not sure that the balance between individual freedom and responsibility to others is an easy balance to achieve.

Conly’s book, and the ensuing discussion, was not so much about whether or not to let persons suffer the consequences of their dumb mistakes or impulsive choices. It was about Conly’s suggested remedy of preventing them from making those choices in the first place. That’s why it was called “Against Autonomy” rather than “Against the Consequences of Stupid Decisions.”

The proper analogy for the case of the swimmer who gets into trouble and must be rescued by a lifeguard is not to ban the rescue, but to ban ocean swimming in the first place. Rescuing the swimmer is done after the fact, but the person retains his/her autonomy to choose to swim in the ocean. Rescuing a swimmer is not compromising his/her autonomy at all, unless that swimmer is trying to commit suicide.

Naturally, the situation is not as clear and easy to conceptualize as that. There are difficult decisions to make, but they are more likely to be about financial consequences—such as, for example, whether society should pay for the increased health care costs of smokers. But that last question only really comes into play if we decide to foot the bill for other people’s health care in the first place—i.e. Medicaid, or universal non-private health care, or requiring that hospitals treat all comers regardless of ability to pay. That’s a different, although related, decision, because it’s a slippery slope from those decisions to one to limit personal autonomy and choice based on the costs of that decision to treat everyone regardless of financial ability.

I want to also call attention to one particular point that same commenter made, when he asked whether we should “close the hospital doors to those whose heart attacks are caused by over-eating.” My answer would quite obviously be “no,” but not only because I am somewhat of a libertarian. It’s also because the science is, as they say, “unsettled.” We have no idea whose heart attacks are caused by overweight and whose are not.

It is a fallacy to think that, because an overweight person has a heart attack, he/she has caused it through the mechanism of overeating. Plenty of overweight people are just fine, and plenty of thin people have heart attacks. At what point does it become clear that a particular overweight person’s overeating has caused a heart attack? And, to take it even further, since our understanding of the mechanisms by which some people end up overweight and others do not is primitive at best, at what point (and for whom) can we conclude that a particular person’s overweight is the result of a choice? All overweight people don’t even overeat as compared to many thin people, although some do.

I’m not saying these issues and their solutions are completely clear. But Mill’s harm principle is still a good basic guide:

[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mental, is not a sufficient warrant.

I would add that mere financial harm to society at large or the public purse is not enough, unless the person’s act is criminal as well (for example: embezzlement, theft, fraud, which ordinarily also result in direct harm to another person or a company).

[NOTE: When I mention commenters’ names, I always put the names in quotes, as I did here for “Jim Nicholas.” This may seem silly, but I do it for two reasons: the first is that for almost all commenters, I don’t actually know whether the names they use are their actual names or pseudonyms. The second is that, even if I did know that information, I wouldn’t use a person’s real name without getting that person’s permission to do so.]

Happy birthday…

The New Neo Posted on by

…George:

washington

But he doesn’t look all that happy, does he?

Since I seem to be into quotes today, here are some from Washington. On reading the entire page, I can’t help but be impressed, once again, by the ability of the Founders to distill to their very essence the dilemmas about liberty and government that still face us today.

Outdated? Hardly:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.

This next one may surprise some people, but those who have studied what the Founders actually meant by separation of church and state will probably not find it contradictory:

It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.

This next one seems particularly apropos, especially after yesterday’s post about depriving people of autonomy in the name of “helping” them (note the gracefulness and economy of expression, too):

It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.

And for those who find themselves losing heart, remember this:

Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.

[ADDENDUM: Caveat—“Kentucky Packrat” writes that some of these quotes are suspect and may not have come from Washington. I’ve noticed that happens a lot with quotes from famous people; some of the most famous cannot be reliably authenticated.]

Thatcher quotes, Thatcher style

The New Neo Posted on by

Today’s the day for Margaret Thatcher quotes.

Most of us have become intensely aware of what I think might be her most famous saying, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” And in recent years we’ve certainly become more aware of it, not less.

It strikes me that one of the great things about the quote is its bumper-sticker-readiness. For the most part, other conservatives seem to lack the ability to master this sort of catchy, compressive language, although Thatcher was a champ at it. I wonder why. Was it because her conservative principles were so firmly rooted and well-thought-out? I doubt it was just that. Was it because Brits are more used to the give-and-take of Parliament, and have to hone their skills in developing the economically-worded and well-placed riposte? That’s certainly part of it, too. But Thatcher had a special gift, even among the British.

She was no slouch in the delivery department, either. Watch nearly any YouTube video of her (there are tons of them) and you’ll see her combination of steeliness, biting intelligence, and wit.

Here are some other Thatcher quotes, both short and longer:

There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.

What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ”˜I stand for consensus’?

We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.

There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.

Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. ”¦ In short, the state [is] everything and the individual nothing.

Freedom is not synonymous with an easy life. ”¦ There are many difficult things about freedom: It does not give you safety, it creates moral dilemmas for you; it requires self-discipline; it imposes great responsibilities; but such is the nature of Man and in such consists his glory and salvation.

I have a suggestion for the Republican Party (doesn’t everyone?—not that they’re taking any of the advice): borrow some of the shorter, catchier ones and use them. Thatcher’s not going to sue you for plagiarism.

For our own good

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: Ace.]

The liberal agenda continues apace, in ways that are especially chilling but not at all surprising.

I’m referring to Sarah Conly’s new book entitled Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism, which purports to use social science research to undo none other than John Stuart Mill. Here is Cass Sunstein, reviewing Conly’s work in the NY Review of Books:

Mill offered a number of independent justifications for his famous harm principle* [see note at end of post], but one of his most important claims is that individuals are in the best position to know what is good for them. In Mill’s view, the problem with outsiders, including government officials, is that they lack the necessary information. Mill insists that the individual “is the person most interested in his own well-being,” and the “ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else.”

When society seeks to overrule the individual’s judgment, Mill wrote, it does so on the basis of “general presumptions,” and these “may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases.” If the goal is to ensure that people’s lives go well, Mill contends that the best solution is for public officials to allow people to find their own path. Here, then, is an enduring argument, instrumental in character, on behalf of free markets and free choice in countless situations, including those in which human beings choose to run risks that may not turn out so well.

Mill’s claim has a great deal of intuitive appeal. But is it right? That is largely an empirical question, and it cannot be adequately answered by introspection and intuition. In recent decades, some of the most important research in social science, coming from psychologists and behavioral economists, has been trying to answer it. That research is having a significant influence on public officials throughout the world. Many believe that behavioral findings are cutting away at some of the foundations of Mill’s harm principle, because they show that people make a lot of mistakes, and that those mistakes can prove extremely damaging.

Okay, let me get this straight: social science research as a guide to ceding to the state some of our liberties? It would be funny if it weren’t so very sad and so very very dangerous (although I imagine that if it weren’t social science research as the justification, they’d find something else). I studied social science research at the graduate level, and there are precious few studies through which you can’t poke holes the size of a Mack truck. And I worked in the field, too, doing such research. Let’s just summarize by saying the enterprise is deeply flawed, and some of this is inherent in the problems of doing research on human beings.

But that’s not even the biggest issue, although it’s one I doubt Conly (who is a professor of philosophy at Bowdoin) tackles. Let’s look more closely at one part of Mill’s argument [emphasis mine]:

When society seeks to overrule the individual’s judgment, Mill wrote, it does so on the basis of “general presumptions,” and these “may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases.”

So Mill has actually covered the bases here. Social science research indeed “may be altogether wrong,” (in fact, very often is). And social science research—“even if right,” even if impeccably done and even if the results are convincing and valid—can tell us nothing whatsoever about individuals. At best, it only describes an aggregate population.

But perhaps that’s the point for people such as Conly. They are interested in the collective—the hive, not the individual. And invariably, of course, they end up hurting the hive as well as the individual, in their attempts at “helping” us all.

I’ve not read the book, of course. But it does not sound as though Conly has any sense of the value of an intangible such as autonomy, although she purports to deal with that issue. Sunstein writes:

[Conly asserts] that autonomy is “not valuable enough to offset what we lose by leaving people to their own autonomous choices.” Conly is aware that people often prefer to choose freely and may be exceedingly frustrated if government overrides their choices. If a paternalistic intervention would cause frustration, it is imposing a cost, and that cost must count in the overall calculus. But Conly insists that people’s frustration is merely one consideration among many. If a paternalistic intervention can prevent long-term harm – for example, by eliminating risks of premature death – it might well be justified even if people are keenly frustrated by it.

(By the way, I’m not sure why the word “paternalistic” keeps being used here, except that it’s part of Conly’s title. There’s a reason we call it the “nanny state” and not the “pappy state.”]

Does Conly really think that because (in her words), “We are too fat, we are too much in debt, and we save too little for the future,” we should surrender our liberty to a benevolent government that will always act in our best interests? Does she know anything whatsoever about government and power? As is so often the case, I’m not sure whether Conly is a fool or a knave, or both. I vote for both.

So please save the lectures, Professor Conly, and get your oh-so-helping hands out of my life. I’m not your little social science experiment. I have a more polite message for Conly as well: in the end, there are intangibles that liberty and autonomy afford us. Those things cannot be measured or quantified, but they are pearls of great price.

And one more thing—Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor would be proud of you.

[*Mill’s “harm principle” goes as follows:

…[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mental, is not a sufficient warrant. ]

A brief for short stories

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve never been all that keen on novels, except for those novels on which I’ve been very keen. The latter tend to be classics: Jane Eyre, David Copperfield, Moby Dick, 1984, with a coupla Russian guys and some random others thrown in.

But I’ve always loved short stories. Loved, loved, loved them. In fact, most of my favorite fiction has always been short stories, and that’s even before the internet shortened my attention span and age reduced my patience.

I love John Updike, but I love his short stories rather than his novels. I prefer Nabokov’s stories to his novels, as well, and the same for Isak Dinesen, Katherine Anne Porter, Jhumpa Lahiri, and even, if truth be told, Tolstoi. I’m fond of Shirley Jackson’s stories (although they’re probably too creepy to justify the word “fond”), and even though I think Kundera’s novel “The Book of Laughter and Forgetting” is a masterpiece, it actually follows something closer to the form of a series of short stories connected somewhat in theme but well able to stand alone.

I’ve often wondered why I’m drawn to the short story form. I know that I’ve never even considered writing a novel, although I’ve written poetry, essays, and to a lesser extent short stories, for the greater part of my life. I’ve heard it said that poets and essayists have in common the fact that they liked compressed forms and language, and that’s probably at least one reason why I like short stories so much. Novels often seem to have long passages that are insufficiently interesting to me (yes, I know, I like Moby Dick, which specializes in that sort of thing—“everything you never wanted to know about the whaling industry,” but go figure).

All of the foregoing is by way of an introduction to this article, which claims that short stories are enjoying a renaissance because they go better with kindles and modern internet-formed sensibilities. Although my sensibility formed long before that, and I have yet to transition to a kindle although I own one, I’m happy to hear that the short story is still very much alive and kicking:

Well, pigs fly…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and I agree with Newt Gingrich here.

Anyone who followed the primaries knows I’m not a fan of Gingrich the candidate or the man. I’m not going to rehash those arguments; just do a search for his name on this blog if you’re interested, and the links will come up.

But I do sometimes agree with him. Although I think he’s a very bad and basically unappealing candidate for national office, with baggage that needs a truck to haul it around and little or no personal appeal, I admire his intelligence and his fighting spirit, two things that are needed on the conservative side (I would have added “his conservative principles,” but I think he compromised them too often in the last couple of years).

I’ve thought for quite some time that he’s needed not as a candidate but as some sort of idea-generator. He’s known for spinning off ideas, half of them half-baked and half excellent. Other people would need to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and Gingrich is difficult to work with. But I still think he can lend quite a bit to the rethinking that has to go on for the Republican Party to be vital in the future (note I don’t say “continue to be vital”).

[NOTE: Very shortly after the 2012 election, commenter “Gary Rosen” pointed out this post-election piece by Gingrich. I meant to write about it but never got around to mentioning it till now; I think it shows the proper spirit and I agree with virtually all of it.

However, I think the problem is much bigger than Gingrich addresses, and is deeply systemic and has nothing to do with the GOP and everything to do with American culture: education, press, entertainment, what I’ve come to think of as The Big Three. And it’s been going on for decades and really since early in the 20th century. If you want to, you can even trace it back further, because it has very deep roots.]

About that “natural born citizen” business

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m opening up a huge can of worms here, because people can (and will) argue about this till the cows come home or longer (it’s been going on for many years already, and no end in sight), but yesterday’s thread on Rubio engendered a lengthy comments-section discussion of the term “natural born citizen,” and I want to state my point of view in a post.

I realize that people will define “natural born citizen” any way they think makes sense. Law is like that, and legal terms are terms of art that can be argued almost endlessly, and often are. The point is that the courts are highly highly unlikely to agree with the very narrow definitions of the term that some people want them to adopt (to exclude Rubio, for example, whose exact fact situation is not addressed by precedent), and my opinion is that the courts would be correct in rejecting those arguments.

“Natural born citizen” is a phrase that was not defined in the Constitution, nor did it have a strong common law tradition of use to point to, and it has been used mainly ever since to distinguish such a person from a “naturalized citizen.” The latter is not a citizen of this country at the time of birth, and is never eligible to be president or vice-president.

A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated this view in more precise legal language than I’ve just done:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Someone could be born to citizens living legally in another country (such as John McCain) and even live there for quite some time, and still be a natural born citizen. Someone can be born here to non-citizens “under the jurisdiction of the US” (legal permanent residents seeking citizenship) and still be a natural born citizen—that is, a citizen at birth. Rubio did not have to be naturalized because he was born here under those circumstances, and as far as I know no one is asserting he is a naturalized citizen.

There is no doubt that a lawyer could make an argument that Rubio, or someone with similar conditions of birth, is not a natural born citizen. A lawyer could make an argument (and will, if someone pays him/her) that the moon is made of green cheese—although I’m not suggesting the argument about Rubio is anywhere near as fanciful as that. But the fact that it can be argued does not make it correct, nor does it mean it has much of a chance of carrying the day in a courtroom.

I’m not shilling for Rubio’s nomination, either. I’m talking about the law. I’ve been listening to people strain and strain for definitions of “natural born citizen” for a long time. It reminds me of the plot of “Macbeth,” where Macbeth is told he can only be defeated by a man not “of woman born.” He thinks he’s safe, but it turns out Macduff was “from his mother’s womb untimely ripped” (i.e. born by Caesarean). I keep thinking (and yeah, I’m not completely serious here, but I wouldn’t say it’s impossible) that the next step will be people trying to define “natural born citizen” as excluding people born by Caesarean section, or people conceived in vitro.

Extraordinary case

The New Neo Posted on by

And the correct decision, I believe (at least part of it; I’m not so sure about the part about making the parents pay—although if they don’t, the taxpayer will).

I have the following question: how would this case have been decided if it had occurred in a more liberal state than Texas?

As for what this says about the girl’s parents, it seems very sad to me that they would insist on her compromising her own integrity and beliefs, and try to coerce her to abort a child against her will. And it says something chilling about their own attitude towards their prospective grandchild.

I’ve written before on my own attitudes about abortion (especially here). And I do support the right of parents of minor children to have some control over those children. But the type of control these parents tried to exercise goes way too far and amounts to a form of abuse.

It’s interesting, though, to contemplate the opposite type of case, that in which the 16-year-old wants to have an abortion and the parents want to stop her from doing so. At what age should a teenager be able to make such decisions? And does it matter which decision she favors, and which the parents are trying to force her to accept?

And what of the father? Shouldn’t he have a say? Or should he?

[NOTE: Somewhat related post here.]

Lincoln had a thing or two to say about it

The New Neo Posted on by

Most people know of Lincoln’s eloquence and his gift for the pithy saying, but mainly in his role as Civil War president and especially the champion he became of freeing the slaves.

But Lincoln had opinions on a lot of other things. There’s some wonderful stuff here, with many great quotes to choose from. Here are my offerings:

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence.

Property is the fruit of labor”¦property is desirable”¦is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name ”“ liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names ”“ liberty and tyranny.

I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure.

Apropos of that latter thought, yesterday I was mulling over the fact that the attention we used to give to holidays for individual presidents Washington, and Lincoln himself (Feb. 22 and Feb. 12, respectively), has now morphed into the more generic Monday of Presidents’ Day.

[NOTE: The site also has quotes from Thatcher, but I’ll save those for another time.]

Is Rubio electable?

The New Neo Posted on by

…asks Nate Silver.

I’d be inclined to pay attention to what Silver has to say. He proved his mettle in the last election (actually, I always paid attention to what he had to say, because try as I might to poke holes in it during 2012 because I didn’t like his message, I was unsuccessful).

So what does Silver have to say about Rubio? The first thing is that he’s no RINO:

The last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, had a score of 39 by comparison, meaning that they were more moderate than Mr. Rubio. Mr. Rubio is also rated as being to the right of Ronald Reagan, who had a score of 44, and George W. Bush, who had a score of 46. Among Republican presidential nominees since 1960, in fact, only the extraordinarily conservative Barry Goldwater, who had a score of 67, rates as being more conservative than Mr. Rubio.

And Rubio’s a good representative of Republican voters, and therefore well-positioned to win the primaries:

…[M]y contention that Mr. Rubio is a good representative of the Republican Party as it stands today.

This is a potentially advantageous position for a Republican competing in the presidential primaries. In both parties, nominees have usually come from the center of their parties, rather than from the moderate or the “extreme” wings. There are exceptions: Mr. Reagan, although he would fit right into the Republican Party today, was much more conservative than most of his contemporaries in 1980. But in general, Mr. Rubio is pretty close to the sweet spot of where a presidential nominee might want to be.

Unfortunately, Silver has almost nothing to say about how Rubio would do in a national election. That’s probably smart of Silver; it is awfully early, to be sure. And the Democratic attack machine has only been warming up its engines.

As for me, I’ve decided who I’m supporting in 2016, at least for the moment. I have no idea whether he will decide to run, but if he does—and if the election were to be held today (wish it were!)—I’d choose Scott Walker. He’s conservative and he’s smart and he’s proven that he’s brave and a fighter. Those qualities are very appealing.

[NOTE: Should I start a category for “Election 2016”?]