Category: Logic

On Ross Douthat Joining the New York Times

The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat is the new conservative columnist for The New York Times. I haven’t read enough of his work to suggest that this is unwarranted. And he is, in fact, a talented writer. It’s just that I’ve been unimpressed with his thinking whenever I’ve encountered it. He shows very little interest in liberty or constructing a government that respects the interests of those with whom he disagrees.

In this entry from early last year, I criticized Mr. Douthat’s thinking on two topics, prostitution and infant circumcision. His position in both cases was objectively weak, at best. I’ll leave you to follow the link for my challenge to his views on prostitution. Here, I’d like to repost what I wrote in response to his tongue-in-cheek-yet-mind-numbingly-stupid view on infant circumcision.

**********

Of course, since it’s apparently okay to ask questions unrelated to the topic, let me ask a question: Why is it automatically self-harm worthy of prohibition for an individual to sell sex, even when it’s voluntarily sold, yet it’s reasonable to permit parents to surgically alter the genitals of their healthy sons – who may or may not approve of such permanent, physical alteration – as Mr. Douthat suggested last year in defense of infant circumcision?

The answer to how one person can hold two incongruent opinions rather obviously rests in a willingness to use personal, subjective tastes and preferences to inform the legal code of a diverse, secular, civil society. It’s the same central planner impulse that resides in every individual who seeks to dictate which freedoms are abhorrent.

Since I’m off on the tangent, in that entry, Mr. Douthat states:

Proponents, like myself, point out that even saying the word smegma is really disgusting. Again, I think we pretty much win the debate right there, without even getting into the whole HIV question.

I get the tongue-in-cheek nature of the comment, whether he meant it or not. I think he did because I think he views circumcision as inconsequential. (Remember subjective tastes and preferences?) But any understanding of human biology demonstrates the stupidity of such an argument. Female genitals produce smegma, as well. We do not cut female minors for that reason. Or, more to the point, we do not permit parents to cut their daughters just because they, the parents, are disgusted by the mere mention of the word. We manage to find the correct reasoning to prohibit that. But for males, parents can use only the mere mention of smegma as an excuse to cut. Or they can reject even that reason and order it because it’s fun to check “yes” on the consent form. The law is based on our conditioned beliefs rather than facts.

**********

This wasn’t in my original response, but it warrants a comment in light of the weight Mr. Douthat’s opinions will now receive because he is a columnist for The New York Times. From his entry on circumcision (emphasis in original):

… I believe I have the weight of the American experience on my side when I say that any such dampening [of sexual pleasure] would have to be extremely negligible.

He proves that he can’t possibly know this from experience with his next sentence:

All of which is to say that I’m gratified that my parents took it upon themselves to have a procedure performed on my infant self …

Without any sexual experience with his foreskin, he knows it’s “extremely negligible”. How? “I have experience with one side of the debate, so I am an expert on both sides of the debate” is not a sign of a great thinker. It is a sign of a mind interested in selecting the necessary facts to reach a desired, self-centered conclusion. I’m unimpressed.

Linkfest

LINK: Think government manipulation of intervention in the economy is good? Read George Will’s latest column. (H/t: Cafe Hayek)

LINK: Jim Harper has an entry on Cato @ Liberty discussing President Obama’s pledge to post all bills for 5 days of public comment before signing them. Mr. Harper reviews the steps the administration has taken and offers a positive review of the idea, although he correctly criticizes the administration for playing loosely with the 5 day timeline.

I agree with that in principle, but that’s not my concern here. The deficit spending bill mistakenly labeled The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is now online for public comment. I thought about adding comments, but why? I’m realistic enough to understand that what I say will not matter. It will not matter how many people comment against it, this is a done deal. The five days concept as implemented is worthless political propaganda. Honestly, if members of Congress can’t be bothered to read the bill, yet they’ll happily vote by party line, they don’t care what the American people think. They’re trading favors for power. The game hasn’t changed. So, wake me when this fails and tell me what the next stupid idea is.

LINK: I reject non-therapeutic infant circumcision because it is logically and ethically unacceptable. I question the science surrounding claims, particularly those involving HIV risk reduction, because there are obvious holes in the argument. However, unlike (too) many activists, I have no problem with vaccines. I think the logical and ethical arguments differ, and I don’t believe in conspiracy theories about Big Pharma. And from what I’ve read, the autism-vaccine link appears weak, at best. This report seems to confirm that (link via Kevin, MD):

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

I would use this as a lesson for everyone who thinks that a claimed HIV risk reduction for (adult, voluntary) male circumcision need to be concerned about the long-term reality of their idea. I think we will eventually look back on the HIV-foreskin connection and realize the mistakes in the studies. But I do not approach the topic from that angle. I don’t need it, of course. I can concede the point for the argument and rely on ethics and objective indications of health and easier methods prevention.

For now, it’s too late anyway. The link has gained widespread acceptance because people want to believe it, regardless of facts or reasonable caution. The mindset is the same, as this excerpt from Orac’s post at Respectful Insolence suggests. (I read the post, but there’s too much to parse easily, so I’m using the summary pulled by Kevin, MD.)

“None of this will matter to antivaccinationists,” he writes, “who view Wakefield as . . . a persecuted scientific hero . . . I’m sure that [anti-vaccine proponents] will wax ridiculous about what a great doctor and man Wakefield is and how it’s big pharma and its minions who, frightened by the implications of Wakefield’s work, are working hard to demonize him and suppress his ‘science.'”

When emotion precedes logic in an objective debate, reason is lost. That would be unfortunate but defensible if it only affected the decision maker. It does not. The individual fears of parents results in poorly conceived decisions for children. Vaccinate but circumcise. Don’t vaccinate and don’t circumcise. Neither combination is justifiable when weighing the evidence with logic and ethics.

LINK: To lighten things up just a bit, will the Mets never learn?

“Whatever they did last year, they already got paid,” [Francisco] Rodriguez told the New York Daily News. Whatever they did, I have all the respect in the world. They worked hard and they deserve it. This is a different year and different ballclubs now. I don’t want to make any controversy, but with me and (J.J.) Putz and the additions in the bullpen, I feel like now we are the team to beat.”

K-Rod should ask Carlos Beltran how that worked out last year. However, I love this rivalry.

Australia Imports American Nonsense

Arguing in favor of circumcising male infant to reduce their risk of HIV infection is flawed thinking, even in places like Africa. It’s exceptionally ridiculous when looking at the extent to which pro-circumcision advocates bypass logic. From a recent Reader’s Digest Australia article on male circumcision, included in the section labeled “Verdict”, this quote:

“‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ is the understandable attitude of many Australians,” says [University of Melbourne] Professor Roger Short. Yet he questions this wisdom. “Australia is blessed with a low prevalence of HIV infection, but parents need to remember their children will encounter high rates in many countries they visit.”

How does he know male individuals will visit other countries? How does he know that those countries will have high rates of HIV infection? How does he know male individuals will have vaginal intercourse with HIV infected women? Where logic demands a different conclusion, Professor Short relies on propaganda. He began with his conclusion and grasped for assumptions to build around that to defend what is objectively indefensible.

**********

That’s unsurprising because the article is structured to reach one conclusion. Among the arguments offered in favor of circumcision, the article includes “Appearance”:

Research by Professor Marvel Williamson from the School of Nursing at Oklahoma City University found women prefer the look of a circumcised penis. “Generally women said it is more sexually appealing,” says Williamson. “Ninety per cent of women said it looks sexier and 85% said it’s nicer to touch.”

This is a non-medical argument used to excuse surgery on a non-consenting, healthy child. It’s also a subjective criterion that will be irrelevant to the 10% and 15% of women, respectively, who disagree with the majority. It will also be irrelevant if the male is gay. This conclusion also demands that we accept an external locus of control for all male sexuality. What the society wants matters more than what the individual wants for himself. Human rights belong to the individual, so we must reject all of this.

But look at what the article explicitly ignored. It’s obvious by the location of the research. A quick scan of the study reveals the omission.

This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to uncircumcised men.

Yeah, noting that the conclusion concerns American women might help Australian parents, except Australian statistics look nothing like American statistics in 2009. Also, this assumes that the mother’s preferences – or the father’s opinion about his own penis – matters. We’re not assuming that because it doesn’t matter. Professor Williamson incorrectly thinks it does, as shown in the design of her study:

Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, …

Are we really so stupid that a parent’s opinion on the sexual aesthetics of a child’s genitals is considered a valid reason for surgical alteration? I want to believe we are smarter, but the evidence is very clear that parents can and do use this excuse. That position is indefensible. Remember that all tastes and preferences are subjective, unique to each individual. The choice on whether or not to allow the subjective tastes and preferences of his future sexual partners to influence his decision regarding cultural, medically unnecessary circumcision must be left to him. Ethically, parents may offer proxy consent to circumcision only when medical need exists, and then only when less invasive solutions are insufficient.

Libertarianism is not keen to watch Rome burn.

I’ve long admired Balloon Juice because of John Cole’s insightful, considered analysis. He supported President Bush but was willing to change his mind when it became clear that Republicans had lost theirs. Then the Republicans became so despicable that he actively switched to endorsing Democrats. That didn’t bother me because I’ve voted that way most of my life. The change in Balloon Juice over the last six months or so, however, is closing in on unbearable. Like this, from yesterday:

At what point did the normally sane people at Hit and Run turn into the libertarian version of the Rush Limbaugh show? If I had to guess, I would have assumed they would think a bill of $400 billion in tax cuts and $400 or so billion in spending would at least be considered half good, but instead the reaction over there the past few weeks has made Malkin look restrained by comparison.

I will not be the first to defend Hit & Run because it tries to be – or is – too hip for me at times. Still, much of what I’ve read there during as the stimulus package loomed is best exemplified in this post by reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch [links in original]:

Why do people oppose the stimulus? Here are a few actual reasons: There is no strong evidence that stimuli work, and plenty of evidence that they don’t (a relevant consideration, no?). Like the deeply flawed PATRIOT Act, the deeply flawed Iraq War resolution, and the deeply flawed bank bailout, it is being rushed through the legislature in an atmosphere of pants-wetting crisis and presidential warnings of impending doom. It is filled with special interest giveaways, big-government featherbedding, and "Buy American" considerations that have about as much to do with stimulating an economy as playing violin has with putting out fires. By taking from fiscally responsible states (like South Carolina) and giving to fiscally irresponsible states (like California), it violates basic notions of fairness and creates still more moral hazard in an already hazardtastic universe. …

Basically.

Rather than explain further, Mr. Cole summarized my sentiments in a comment to his entry:

If you asked anyone who read me in 2004 and liked what they read and then read me today, they would tell you I am howling bugfuck insane now, so take that with a grain of salt.

I wouldn’t go quite that far because Mr. Cole still shows flashes of his earlier skepticism. But even if that was 100% true, his next paragraph gets to current mindset at Balloon Juice that’s difficult to read:

I mean, we all have principles we like to think we adhere to, but reality often seems to get in the way. I would love it if we could lower taxes, cut spending, and frugal our way out of this mess. I just don’t see how that is the answer.

Difficult times do not require that we stop being rational. A belief in limited government held at a time when the government is constantly expanding recklessly does not imply an unwillingness to deal with reality. If a person has a 50 pound cancerous tumor, the libertarian’s response is not to suggest she go about her day as if she doesn’t have cancer. Likewise, the solution to the government being too large is not to set the charges and implode it all at once. Americans have allowed (and encouraged) government to get so tangled up in daily life that a simple stop is not possible without disastrous consequences. Mr. Welch’s statement suggests how massive, unquestioned spending is not the answer.

That’s not to say that libertarians are perfect and have all the correct answers. Even if we have no other flaws, we often fail to suggest the map to limited government. I’m guilty of that, I’m sure, a problem I’m aware of when I blog. We all need to do better at selling the principle and how to get there.

However, the first step is to not make things worse. A $1 trillion deficit (and growing) is a very dangerous ploy. American history provides evidence of what can happen when government does and does not intervene. This is not sufficient to make a decision, but watch the way politicians are exclusively deploying fear to dismiss any need for analysis. It’s “do this or die”. They claim it doesn’t matter what we do, as long as we do something. Buying a pony for every American is something, but only the Pony Owners of America, the United Horse Food Producers, and the American Saddle Makers Association would think that’s a good idea. Unsurprisingly, that type of special interest giveaway is what we’re going to get. It’s not hysterical to call bullshit.

Irrational Requests as Ethical Dilemma

Is it ethical to use fertility treatment when the mother already has six children?

How in the world does a woman with six children get a fertility doctor to help her have more _ eight more?

An ethical debate erupted Friday after it was learned that the Southern California woman who gave birth to octuplets this week had six children already.

Large multiple births “are presented on TV shows as a `Brady Bunch’ moment. They’re not,” fumed Arthur Caplan, bioethics chairman at the University of Pennsylvania. He noted the serious and sometimes lethal complications and crushing medical costs that often come with high-multiple births.

So I don’t use this solely to leapfrog to my concern, I’ll say no, it’s not ethical, although I won’t go so far as to say it should be prohibited. But if the facts are as they’re being speculated in the media, the doctor who administered these fertility treatments acted unethically.

Okay, so to jump to my question. We’re talking about whether this is ethical, but not enough people would realize the ethical dilemma this presents for the law. This woman can legally alter the genitals of six of her newborns, for whatever reason or no reason, while her other two newborns are legally protected from unnecessary genital surgery. The general consensus in the American medical and legal community is that this is ethical. No one should be surprised that a ridiculous case of fertility treatment for a woman with six kids can occur.

Capitalism versus Corporatism, or “People Don’t Invalidate Systems”

By now everyone is aware of the recent salmonella outbreak tied to peanut butter. The origin of the contaminated peanut butter is now known, and it allegedly includes some sketchy corporate behavior, as outlined in the first, non-snark-filled half of this FARK headline:

Contaminated peanut butter factory found salmonella 12 times in two years of internal tests… and still kept shipping. But don’t worry, industry will police itself

The second half takes an ideological swipe without bothering with logic used by advocates of free markets. The comments at FARK swing to both sides of the pendulum, as one expects in a fight on the Internets. But the volley conveys a critical flaw in how those who desire strong regulation (often to the point of central planning) and a marketing failure among free market advocates. The basic, paraphrased gist of the debate:

  1. FDA?
  2. People died! “Free markets” mean killing is okay!
  3. “Free market” means the company – Peanut Corporation of America – will go bankrupt.
  4. No.
  5. Yes.
  6. No!
  7. Yes!
  8. NO!
    9. YES!

Multiple arguments are in play here. The idea that free market advocates support negligent or intentional behavior that harms is uninformed silliness. The free market is about consequences. Build a good product that meets a need and customers will buy. Build a bad product that fails to meet a need or that harms and customers will refuse to buy. The idea is that incentives matter.

The ideological “free markets kill” approach ignores the spectrum of incentives, either out of disinterest or dishonesty. Selling a product that kills (in a non-predictable manner) has consequences1. This scandal will most likely bankrupt the Peanut Corporation of America through lost business and civil lawsuits, as it probably should. Executives will most likely face criminal prosecution. I can’t think of a single free market advocate who would argue that such an outcome would be unjust, if the facts are as they seem.

The essential fact is that a belief in free markets and capitalism is not a belief in corporatism. Free market advocates argue against government interference because government unfairly picks winners and losers. Regulations are often bad because they skew incentives. Want to bet Peanut Corporation of America will claim as a defense that the FDA, via authority it delegated to the Georgia Department of Agriculture, reviewed its plants and found no violations sufficient to deem this anything other than an unfortunate accident? Here, regulation builds a defense that “the government said it’s okay”. The facts appear unlikely to support that, but the excuse is viable in many cases (i.e. pharmaceutical regulation).

But subsidies skew incentives, as well. Look at ethanol subsidies and the subsequent, predictable increase in the price of corn. Subsidize behavior and you get more of it.

In the current salmonella outbreak, the FDA is incapable of policing every product produced in every factory. I do not seek to minimize any deaths, but how many deadly outbreaks2 actually occur? The costs of full regulation3, both in taxes and higher food prices, would overwhelm any marginal increase in safety. Some problems will slip through the regulatory framework. The question is ultimately why they happen, to which I think the reasonable answer is a basic justification for crime: Those involved thought they could get away with it.

This belief, a willingness to gamble that horrible outcomes will not result, is not surprising, but it arises from human psychology, not free market ideas. Again, no free market advocate is going to dismiss these deaths. There should be consequences. However, while further regulation probably could have prevented these deaths, the idea that more regulation will avoid such outcomes completely rests upon the mistaken assumption that we’ll always have the right regulations and the right regulators to implement them. We never will because humans are fallible in how we write laws, choose regulators, and enforce code.

Free market advocacy is about freeing individuals to pursue businesses and products they value, whether as seller or buyer. That also means freeing individuals from the influence of government picking A over B as the winner through regulation for reasons other than merit, as politicians and bureaucrats always will. Liberty is about freedom from harm, not freedom to harm. You don’t have to buy my product, and you’ll have recourse against me that I do not desire should I harm you. It takes a cynical outlook on individuals and liberty to miss that, I fear, but free market advocates also need to do a better job of pointing out the difference in capitalism and corporatism. We favor the former exclusively.

Update (2/13/09): Peanut Corporation of America to Liquidate.

1 Selling cigarettes may have fit this mold years ago. Today, cigarettes fail this test since we know the harms. Selling cigarettes is not the free market killing consumers.

2 Obligatory vegan statement: The majority of food-borne illness outbreaks result directly from meat, dairy, and egg production.

3 From the Washington Post article:

But Jean Halloran, director of food safety for Consumers Union, said if the government was adequately protecting the food supply, the outbreak could have been minimized or even prevented, and lives could have been saved. Major reforms in inspections and regulations are past due, she said.

“The average plant is inspected once every 10 years,” Halloran said. “This one was getting inspected a couple of times a year by Georgia, but neither they nor the FDA were taking enough enforcement action.”

Halloran’s statement exists in a vacuum of preferred outcomes, with no consideration for real costs. More Consumers Union nonsense here.

Female Rights Violations or Human Rights Violations?

Last Sunday, The Washington Post published a story about female genital mutilation in Kurdistan. The story is disturbing, as one should expect when dealing with FGM. The pictures – particularly number seven – show the violence involved. I’m going to let most of the story speak for itself, but I have a few comments on the larger topic.

…. In at least one Kurdish territory, 95 percent of women have undergone the practice, which human rights groups call female genital mutilation.

Any regular reader will know that I use the term “female genital mutilation”. Rarely will I use any other, and then it’s likely to be diminished only to “female genital cutting” if I reference a voluntary action an adult undertakes on her body. But many people incorrectly get caught up in the terms and miss the issue highlighted in the last sentence of that excerpt. Human rights are at stake. It’s critical to describe our world as accurately as possible, but it is more important to prevent further violations. To the extent that focusing on terminology helps, let’s focus on terminology. But where it prevents us from addressing the correct issue, we need to let it rest.

When I write about male circumcision, I generally prefer to label it “male genital mutilation”, its more accurate term. However, I don’t use that when I think it will distract from the core message. Being semantically correct helps move the discussion closer to the solution, but being stuck on semantics is stupid if I’m not connecting on the human rights issue.

The Kurdish region’s minister of human rights, Yousif Mohammad Aziz, said he didn’t think the issue required action by parliament. “Not every small problem in the community has to have a law dealing with it,” he said.

This brings up the prominent argument too many libertarians deploy. (Read through the comments on the story at Hit & Run.) Notice the use of an adjective to dismiss the need to protect each individual. This is a common tactic among libertarians and non-libertarians alike. The speaker means to convert the subjective into an objective based solely on the his or her opinion. “Small” problem to whom? Clearly not the 7-year-old now-mutilated girl described in the article, Sheelan Anwar Omer.

But she became more animated when asked whether it was worth it to have the operation so her friends and neighbors would be comfortable eating food she prepared. “I would do anything not to have this pain, even if meant they would not eat from my hands,” she rasped slowly.

“I just wish that I could be the way I was before the procedure,” she said.

The issue is individual rights. All tastes and preferences are subjective, a core lesson a libertarian must understand. It is not enough to suggest that parents are acting in what they believe to be their child’s best interests. Objective standards exist for evaluating parental behavior. The article describes an elderly (mutilated) women describing how genital mutilation makes a woman “spiritually clean so that others can eat the meals she prepares.” Our ability to reason suggests that’s ridiculous. In the unlikely event that it’s true, it is subjective. Each individual should decide for herself.

The struggle against all genital mutilation, female and male, is primarily about the violation of forced cutting where no medical need exists for the victim’s genitals. That’s a basic human rights concept. It transcends nationality, culture, gender, and degree of harm. Either we defend the principle or we don’t. A selective defense based on nationality, culture, gender, or degree of harm is also a selective endorsement of the underlying violation.

———-

From the article, a complication in the flawed “FGM is always perpetrated by men on women” argument:

… The circumcision is performed by women on women, and men are usually not involved in the procedure. In the case of Sheelan, her mother informed her father that she was going to have the circumcision performed, but otherwise, he played no role.

The article stated that one of the reasons it’s performed is to control the female’s sexuality. Of course. Arguing as I have in the past that FGM is not always performed for this reason is not a denial that control is the dominant excuse in most cases. I merely highlight this fact from the article because the issue is more complicated than what too many anti-FGM activists argue.

———-

From the blog entry at Hit & Run:

As readers of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s memoir, Infidel, can attest, among the most disturbing elements of such practices are the explicit urge to violently control female sexuality (even when the act is mostly symbolic, that’s the function it performs) and the way it is enforced by other women. (Read Reason’s interview with Hirsi Ali here). Say what you will about widespread male circumcision in the West (and elsewhere, for that matter), but it is not performed as a ritual of punishment defined to rigidify unequal standing in sexual, cultural, economic, and political matters.

I’m only arguing here against the violation of cutting a healthy individual without that individual’s consent, not the physical damage caused or the excuses used to justify the violation. The violation is a universal principle. In that context, the argument in that paragraph – particularly its last sentence – is problematic factually and ethically, the latter being embraced with the myopic, haphazard application of individual rights too many libertarians use. (The entry’s author, Nick Gillespie, doesn’t exhibit that flaw here, in my opinion. But it is pervasive in the comments.)

Circumcision in America has been a tool to rigidify unequal standing in sexual matters, in males and females. (We could debate the other matters, but that’s unnecessary here.) The surgery gained its acceptance in America – for male and female children – in the late 19th century as a tool to prevent masturbation. Regardless of how unsuccessful that’s been, that is its origin, both medically and theologically. The lingering effect from that is essential to understanding the complete issue.

Then there are the parents who circumcise their sons because mom prefers circumcised partners. Would we accept fathers forcing breast implants on their daughters because dad likes large breasts? The revulsion at the mere hint is obvious. The conclusion with respect to male circumcision is also obvious.

There is little comparison in the degree of inequality typically imposed by male and female genital mutilation. I readily concede the point. But both involve placing the individual’s desires below that of another who has physical power over him or her. That is the flaw, the violation of a universal human right.

For reference, Ms. Hirsi Ali states in this documentary that male circumcision is genital mutilation. Again, I’m not equating the typical degree of mutilation. They are different. But the core issue is the violation. That is the same. It’s possible to focus on FGM without minimizing MGM.

Hey, it’s a new topic!

The SEC charged billionaire Mark Cuban with insider trading. He denies the charges. I despise the inevitable schadenfreude. (Read the comments at the link. We’re a nation of envious, success-hating malcontents.)

I have no idea whether or not Mr. Cuban did what the government alleges. Maybe he did, or maybe the conspiracy theories about political payback are true. The latter is too transparent to pass my skepticism, but I never underestimate government’s ability to be nakedly vindictive. If it’s the former I do not care because I think insider trading should be legal. I wrote a paper for my business school ethics class making that case. I’m an unrepentant libertarian at my core.

The gist of my support rested on the idea that, if markets are efficient, then more information is better than less information. I don’t want to pretend that markets are efficient in the short-term; they’re not. But they’re less inefficient than anything else in the short-term. In the long-term, I trust markets completely. (Your time horizon may vary.)

Nor do I wish to pretend that the information resulting from insider trading is easy to get at or evident to everyone because there’s never going to be information equality. That’s okay. Hard work to gather information – and the mind to organize and filter that information – deserves a reward.

Consider the opposite of what the government argues. If an investor is ready to pull the trigger on a stock purchase but uncovers bad news, she’ll refrain from the purchase. She’s used the information to her advantage. Is that unethical? I don’t believe it is, nor can I imagine anyone suggesting otherwise. However, the facts alleged by the government in cases like that now pending against Mr. Cuban suggest an entirely different ethical code to avoid a loss on a possession than a potential acquisition.

I’ve over-simplified in my hypothetical. There’s far more intricacy than I understand. Conceded. But the case for insider trading laws partially rests on a suspension of self-interest, of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others without regard for how self-interested behavior may benefit others. That is not rational.

I endorse skepticism.

I’m a huge fan of Penn Jillette. He’s consistently libertarian, as evidenced by his Showtime! series, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Also, his Vegas show with Teller is entertaining. So I read with interest this recent interview he did with reason about the presidential election.

reason: You were critical of the old newsletters that were revealed during the primaries, but on balance was Ron Paul good for libertarians?

Jillette: The basic underlying premise of that question I disagree with. I believe in individual rights so much that I don’t like any sort of “what’s good for the cause”-type question. A little while ago I was at skeptics, atheists conference and a question like that came up. How do we best win people over? As soon as we ask that question, we’re pigs. We have to leave open possibility that other side is right. Even as we call them assholes!

A lot of people listened to Ron Paul and a lot rang true to them. A lot of what he said, I agreed with. But my job professionally, my job as human, my job as an American citizen is not to do what I can to further the libertarian cause. If Obama came out and said “when I’m elected I’d make government as small as I can” I’d really get behind him. I’m not trying to get Libertarians elected. I’m even uncomfortable telling people who to vote for.

I heard Jillette say good things about Ron Paul on the Howard Stern Show too long after Paul’s past racist associations became clear, which I felt was unfortunate. But, yeah, it’s about the ideas. It always will be. I’m interested in liberty first, process second. That comes through here, and it’s the takeaway point.

For example, does this arugment make sense under any skepticism?

And here we see a fundamental difference between the progressive worldview and the conservative worldview. Progressives believe in a robust safety net for everyone. It’s very possible, as we’re seeing, that you’ll experience financial hard times for reasons that have nothing to do with you. A lot of the people doing unskilled service work in the Lehman Brothers office may lose their jobs as a result of this unwinding even though they didn’t do anything wrong. And that sort of thing happens all the time — people get laid off because adverse things happen to the companies they work for. Or people are struck by other kinds of misfortune — they get hit by buses, hurricanes destroy their houses, all kinds of stuff. Misfortune strikes ordinary people, and not just billionaires. And in the case of ordinary people, just as in the case of billionaires, you can offer improve social welfare by helping people out when they wind up in trouble.

But conservatives don’t believe in that kind of safety net for regular people — just for the billionaires. Guaranteed health care? Forget it. Guaranteed retirement income? No way. Just let the market work, and when it stops working the executives will be okay and the rest of us will, oh, something or other.

This is a bit out of date (mid-September), but the flaw is timeless. First, an overwhelming number of Democrats voted for the bailout plan. Do they not count as progressives? Does the claimed need to Do Something outweigh the obvious welfare for the billionaires?

But note how this kind of statement is a nasty simplification that could be rebutted if the accuser – in this case, Matt Yglesias – replaced his assumption with a question directed at the target of his attacks. I’m including myself in his definition of conservative, even though I identify as a libertarian. The comparison is close enough because what he’s attacking is the idea that government shouldn’t be providing X service (i.e. safety net). That’s not what he’s saying, of course. Instead, it’s a veiled “you hate poor/unlucky people because you don’t support my solution”. Any worldview condensed to such inanity is a sad commentary on the believer.

I support a reasonable safety net for the truly incompetent. I’m even willing to consider temporary safety nets for such cases as layoffs, hurricanes¹, or whatever. However, those are questions of how to effectively resolve the problems with minimal interference (i.e. taxation, regulations). I don’t think widespread government-provided safety nets are the universal solution. We can agree that not having mass numbers of people living in the streets is worth achieving. It does not flow from there to the implication that those who disagree on how to achieve the goal are selfish degenerates who want babies to die in the streets.

Stretched back to the context of Penn Jillette’s statement above, I can vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, but I’m not saying I think the Libertarian Party is the only, or best, way to achieve liberty. Like he said, if Obama stands up tomorrow and proposes a policy that enhances liberty, I will support it. It’s the principle, not the policy. All of politics is the same idea.

¹ It’s not too much to expect, in return, for the government to stop incentivizing stupid, risky behavior. This applies more to building homes in flood plains, I suppose, but it’s applicability to hurricanes is almost the same. Also, financial risks. Don’t encourage bad luck and then expect me to pay those who embraced it.

Stealing from another is not compassionate to the robbed.

I didn’t watch the debate on Wed. night, so I have little background to understand the context of Senator McCain’s discussion of abortion beyond what I read from various people who live-blogged the debate. That is admittedly incomplete. From what I can piece together, this blog entry at Flotsam (link via Dooce) is an excellent rebuttal to McCain’s attitude. But I wish to point out one flaw in the entry:

McCain states that he would deal with the issue of abortion with “courage and compassion.” I quote: “the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby.” As if terminating my pregnancy would be the easy way out, the way not requiring his precious “courage.” As if dictating my medical care based upon his religious beliefs is compassionate. And I find it interesting to note that his “compassion” for this newborn does not extend to guaranteeing it health insurance.

First, McCain is pandering on abortion. I do not believe he cares. He’s trying to secure the Republican base with a few well-rehearsed lies. That makes him a scumbag, but for his pandering, not his position.

More importantly, the issue at stake is the right to control one’s own body, an issue I care deeply about. As much as I personally do not like abortion, I recognize that this is the issue involved. That matters as a principle of individual liberty. I believe it’s incomplete as an absolute when considering abortion, but not in a self-evident, attack-proof manner. It’s a complicated issue that will never be clear enough for a definitive policy. Therefore, we must err on the side of the individual with the clearer claim. Restrictions based on science are not abhorrent, but abortion should be legal, generally.

I do not get how that right to control one’s own body creates a right to have someone else provide material support (i.e. money for medical insurance) to care for the child. If a woman and her partner make the choice to have a child, it’s their obligation to support the child. In not guaranteeing health insurance, McCain is correct. His stated position is more logically consistent in that he’s saying people choosing to have children are responsible for everything involved, from start to finish, which is different from this blogger’s apparent belief that individual’s are responsible for the good (children, yay!), while society is responsible for at least some of the bad (health care expenses, boo!). No. This is a cheap straw man.

McCain is wrong on abortion. Attack that. He is cruel because he uses air quotes where compassion and understanding are necessary. Attack that. But he is not cruel because he won’t offer “free” health insurance.