Politics – Rolling Doughnut

I have pessimistic thoughts on protests

Protesting is necessary. There are injustices in the world that won’t fix themselves. It takes commitment and bravery to fight because power, the cause of most injustice, loves compliance.

Protest is also dangerous. Some of that is because power¹ loves compliance. Protest needs to remain focused and controlled. I don’t want to say “non-threatening”, since I don’t mean a willingness to accept whatever sham of rights power is willing to concede. No, not that. But at best it will be unpleasant. People whose rights aren’t violated – or who are content to have their rights violated, especially – will let you know you should like having your rights violated. They are miserable people. It will be necessary to face and ignore that nastiness.

But the danger I’m thinking of is more the danger from unleashing energy into combatting injustice. It’s easy to lose the thread on the principle involved in the fight. It’s inviting for anyone with a message to attach themselves to a protest and hijack it for other purposes. It isn’t easy to control that, either, because it’s seductive to think, “More people are joining us, we’re winning!”. Maybe, but maybe not.

Obviously the last couple days are on my mind. The protests from both Friday and Saturday reflect my point. Friday it was the predictable violence². It isn’t inevitable with a protest with a focused message, but Friday’s protests weren’t focused. “Anti-Trump” is a choose-your-own-adventure opportunity for grievances. But that also means it’s foolish to judge opposition to Trump on this inevitable violence.

Yesterday’s protest resulted in no violence, as far as I’m aware. I think that has much to do with coherence on the message. The danger awaits, though, for what the marches hope to accomplish. I’ve seen many astute voices pointing out that yesterday was the beginning. That’s correct. The work begins now. But I don’t think that work is to keep the momentum. The work is to prevent the message from fracturing. I’m not optimistic.

The stated principle for yesterday’s protest, as I understand it, was that women are human beings deserving equal rights. Great, I’m on board. But it’s clear this movement has the potential for power. That focus on principle will disappear. Here, I’ll pick a random example I encountered. The list has the above principle. It then expands to the LGBTQ community. I’m still on board because I think this is the same principle at its core. Human beings deserve equal rights. Third is resisting racism. Yep, still there.

Then, with numbers four, five, and six, are climate change, income inequality, and universal health care. That’s a fracturing divergence. “… we must immediately address the damage we have done and continue…” I agree that climate change is real, and that humans are a reason. But there’s so much room to disagree on how to address the damage. Maybe we’ll agree on what to do, but there will be disagreement.

For income inequality, “Wages for working people must rise. Wages for working people must rise. A healthy and growing middle class is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It must be cultivated through sensible economic policy.” I agree that a healthy and growing middle class is not a natural phenomenon. The natural human condition is dirt-scratching poverty. But what is the sensible economic policy that raises wages for working people? Is it by decreeing the minimum wage is $X? That is economic policy, but it is not sensible. Work that can’t justify the minimum wage will be automated. The goal is an economy in which people can support themselves (with the understanding that no perfect economy can exist). I can’t support a push for an economic policy based in feelings that will not work. But attaching “income inequality” to the push for equal rights means fracturing the movement.

And universal health care. Opposition to what other countries do is not a wish for poor and sick people to die already. That every other industrialized nation does this does not mean they do it perfectly, or that they do not get free-rider benefits from the United States because we don’t do it their way. It also does not prove it can be replicated here.

It’s clear a push like this expects the result of yesterday’s march to be the further implementation of a progressive political platform. That just takes a message that “women’s rights are human rights” and makes it explicitly – and incorrectly – political. The coherence of the demand disappears.

Some of this I already know from experience with protesting and agitating for change. I’ve protested in sunshine and rain, in heat and cold. I’ve had people yell at me and I’ve had respectful conversations. It’s a messy process with rewards and perils throughout. Along with, “I hadn’t thought of it that way,” there’s disagreement and the “with us or against us” mentality within the group. I’ve seen people be right for unbelievably wrong reasons. It’s a fringe rather than universal, but the fringe gets the attention. Did you see more of the peaceful protests from Friday or the smashing windows? And when someone encounters a group protesting what they haven’t thought about or don’t agree with, do they remember the person trying to convince them or the lunatics? What’s more effective, “May I talk with you about genital mutilation” or “May I talk with you about genital mutilation and how vaccines cause autism and the one percent”? The former is principled in science and ethics. The latter is “I have a mishmash of agenda items and you need to accept them all.” Putting human equality into a mix of progressive (or conservative) political policies is no different.

Maybe I’m wrong on thinking this is putting human equality into a mix of progressive political policies. It’s possible, and if it’s true, do you want to convince me or condescend to me? Whether I’m right or wrong, that’s your choice.

For example:

I’ve seen so many men today screaming about rights for Islamic women and genital mutilation. I look forward to your march re: those issues!

Or do you guys only bring those issues up to try to de-legitimize someone else’s voice?

And a sample response:

@JulieDiCaro I think we both know the answer to that question.

I’ve marched and written extensively on the rights involved. I get laughed at for it. I get screamed at. I’m told how disrespectful I am when I emphasize the principle³ involved. There’s no curiosity that I maybe know what I’m talking about from research and experience. I don’t hold the right view, so my opinion should be mocked.

The same condescension is in those tweets. Maybe one/some/all of these men know? Or maybe they’re all awful people merely trying to change the subject. It’s probably the latter. Probably.

I composed a reply on Twitter but deleted it because 140 characters wouldn’t convey the message. Ms. DiCaro is saying “Don’t hijack the moment.” I agree with that sentiment but not the delivery. For example, I don’t jump into discussions purely about female genital mutilation to say “what about men?” unless the discussion includes crackpot opinions presented as fact or shoddy wishing masquerading as a principled defense of why girls deserve protection and boys should be happy about circumcision. But if you really want equality, “my body, my choice” applies to boys, or it can mean “my child, my choice” applies to girls. If you don’t stand for principle, don’t be shocked if it leads where you don’t want to go.

Anyway, my point is that protests lose focus. They work against uniting a coalition on shared principle, preferring to enforce ideological rigidity. Yes
terday’s march and what follows can be principled. It won’t be. There were speakers yesterday advocating for equal rights who also support male genital mutilation. Some rights are more equal than others, somehow, which will probably become generalized into the platform, so do not be surprised when this movement collapses into an incoherent, powerless mess without the necessary vigilance to adhere to “women are human beings deserving equal rights”. Prove me wrong, please.

Post Script: Damnit, I realized I didn’t talk about nazis yet. I’ve rambled enough, so I’m not going to work this into the above. Fucking nazis are evil scum. Don’t sucker-punch evil fucking nazi scum. Because it’s dumb and counter-productive and escalates into more violence. Yes, Hitler. But a street corner in Washington, DC on January 20, 2017 is not Omaha Beach. Maybe it will be if we don’t challenge President Trump’s administration every second until 1/20/21, 1/20/25, or his impeachment. But we’re not there today. Not sucker-punching evil fucking nazis is not appeasement. Sucker-punching nazis is closer to the definition of conceding principles in favor of political expediency. That isn’t righteous. That’s a different form of authoritarianism. And if you want to require this fight continue until 1/20/25, sucker-punching nazis is a great way to create the lawlessness excuse Trump wants in order to make that a reality.

¹ Power expects compliance from everyone, not just women. This is why emphasis on “patriarchy” is so weird to me. I’ve yet to encounter an instance of someone saying “patriarchy” in which saying “power” wouldn’t be more precise. I’m open to explanations and/or scenarios for why that isn’t true.

² Destruction of property is violence. Someone has to clean it up. Someone has to pay for its repair or replacement. That requires work, so destroying someone’s property necessarily involves forcing someone to do something they wouldn’t otherwise need to do. It is force.

³ Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. All human beings are equal, with the same rights. I’m a feminist, including on that principle. But some feminists don’t believe this right is equal. So sure, I’m a feminist, but the label isn’t enough for me to know that we agree on human rights.

Teaching through condescension doesn’t work

I love stuff like this, “16 Questions For Men That Reveal The Casual Sexism Women Experience Every Day“, in the sense that I despise it. Human interaction is messy and too often hideous. That isn’t a shaky limb to walk on. However, in my experience, “gotcha” as a teaching tool is unlikely to convince people who don’t already agree. It is built on challenging smug assumptions by making its own smug assumptions. It strengthens defensiveness rather than opening doors.

The list opens with this (links omitted):

Sexism can be hard to point out when it’s so engrained in our everyday lives. Clementine Ford, however, found an awesome way to highlight casual sexism with a simple hashtag.

Even though I disagree with the tactic, which is mostly (but not entirely) on how Huffington Post packaged these questions, the goal of challenging sexism deserves answers. First, the two tweets from Clementine Ford that kicked this off:

Question to the male writers/speakers etc out there. Is it common for you to be called an ‘attention seeker’? Or do just women get that?

A: Common? No. Men and women have told me this in debate, though.

#QuestionsForMen: When you have a hostile disagreement with someone, is it common for them to say you’re angry because no one will fuck you?

A: Common? No. Men and women have told me this in debate, though.

And 16 of Huffington Post’s favorite #QuestionsForMen tweets (source article has the links):

Q1: Have you ever been told your business ideas are cute? #QuestionsForMen

A1: No.

Q2: #QuestionsForMen Are you comfy with the federal government & Christian conservatives holding decision making parties in your “boy” parts?¹

A2: About that… This routinely happens with “boy” parts. So, no, I am not comfy with others holding decision-making parties for my “boy” parts. Yet, others already made my decision.

This question is why the smug, closed-mind “gotcha” approach is stupid. You want me to think outside the box² you think I’m in? Think outside the box your question shows you’re in.

Q3: #questionsformen do you walk home with your keys placed in between your fingers? are you constantly looking over your shoulder?

A3: No.

Q4: @clementine_ford #QuestionsForMen how often do you have to fake laugh at stupid/cringey/creepy/sexist things older men say regarding you?

A4: I’ve experienced those comments based on me being a ginger. I doubt the things said were as stupid/cringey/creepy/sexist as what is said to women.

Q5: #QuestionsForMen have you ever been late to work because you’ve had to change streets 5 times in 5minutes to avoid being catcalled by women?

A5: No. Again, I have had people bother me with rude things about being a ginger as I’ve walked. But I doubt the things said were the same. Nor has it happened a lot.

Q6: Do women jump into your face calling you fat, ugly, or that you “should get raped” for expressing an opinion online? #questionsformen

A6: I’ve been called names equivalent to fat and ugly for expressing an opinion online. I have not had threats of violence, sexual or otherwise. I have witnessed (and challenged) threats of violence against women and their children for expressing an opinion online.

Q7: #QuestionsForMen When out having a few beers, have you ever said “no” to a woman & then been hassled by her for the rest of the night?

A7: No.

Q8: #questionsformen In a job interview have you ever been asked how you will juggle work and home?

A8: No.

Q9: Do you get told ‘you’ll change your mind eventually’ when you say you don’t want to have children? #QuestionsforMen

A9: No. I have been told I should be thankful to my parents for having me circumcised as a healthy infant, even though I oppose it for myself. Similar in the sense that my opinion about myself isn’t relevant to what society may expect of me?

Q10: #questionsformen anyone not hire you on the basis of “you’re a man – you’ll be having a family soon and need to devote time to that.” ?

A10: No.

Q11: Do you send your mates a message to let them know you’ve gotten home safely? #questionsformen

A11: No.

Q12: If you take a leadership position, do you worry about being seen as bossy? Are you called bossy? #questionsformen

A12: No. No.

Q13: #questionsformen when you achieve something great, do you expect the female reporter to say, ‘give us a twirl, who are you wearing?’

A13: No.

Q14: #QuestionsForMen Have you ever been basically told that going home with a woman means that she’s entitled to rape you?

A14: No.

Q15: @clementine_ford #QuestionsForMen How often are you expected to provide an explanation for why you didn’t change your name to your wife’s?

A15: Never. (My wife didn’t take my last name. I couldn’t care less.)

Q16: Have you ever had a coworker refer to you as sweetheart? #QuestionsForMen

A16: In the context implied here, no.

Sexism exists. In many ways it’s systemic. We need to fight it. I don’t have all the answers on how. I’m not perfect. I’m paying attention.

**********¹ This person responded to someone who answered the question with the same point. She wrote:

[@…] Circumcision is NOT in a federal or state law book as a mandate, but is rather a parents’ religious or cultural #choice.

This is how to miss the point, to be inside the mental box the original question demonstrated. 1) Why should a boy care whether it’s his parents or his government imposing non-therapeutic genital cutting without his consent? 2) The state violating a child’s rights is bad. The state permitting parents to violate a child’s rights is also bad. And looking the other way matters when Congress (and states) legislated that “parental choice” is gendered. 3) Read the BBC link from my answer above. A German court found circumcision to be a violation. The German Bundestag, with support from Chancellor Angela Merkel, passed legislation to permit circumcision to continue. Twenty members of Congress publicly supported this.

The only valid choice (i.e. #choice) involved in circumcision must be the individual who would be circumcised. This “gotcha” needs rethinking.

² I’m not saying I’m outside (or inside) that box. I want to deal with this honestly. I think I’m good at not perpetuating sexism. I don’t ass
ume I am to the point I don’t need to consider it regularly.

Ignorance of Libertarianism Is the Problem

CJ Werleman opined at AlterNet on “Why Atheist Libertarians Are Part of America’s 1 Percent Problem”:

In the days running up to Thanksgiving, Walmart urged its workers to donate food to their most in-need colleagues. You know, instead of Walmart having to pay said workers a livable wage. When people ask me what libertarianism looks like, I tell them that. By people I mean atheists, because for some stupid reason, far too many of my non-believer brethren have hitched their wagon to the daftest of all socio-economic theories.

Why is it that those least knowledgeable about libertarianism speak so authoritatively on what libertarianism entails?

The Walmart story does not inherently demonstrate that libertarianism is flawed or daft. It doesn’t even demonstrate that Walmart doesn’t pay its employees enough. It might mean that, but one photo can speak a thousand words of nonsense. It’s plausible that the donation point was established to help employees who’ve fallen on unexpected hard times. That is consistent with libertarianism, which can be defined as “the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. … In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships.” There is no reason to assume that excludes compassion.

Werleman continues:

Famed science author and editor of Skeptic magazine Michael Shermer says he became a libertarian after reading Ayn Rand’s tome Atlas Shrugged. Wait, what? That’s the book that continues to inspire college sophomores during the height of their masturbatory careers, typically young Republicans (nee fascists). But unless your name is Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), most people grow out of the, “Screw you, I have mine” economic principles bestowed by the Russian-born philosopher by the time they’re legally old enough to order their first beer.

Atlas Shrugged does not push the idea that “Screw you, I have mine” is an acceptable worldview. (Or “Fuck you, I’ve got mine”, as I described this theory in my response to author John Green’s similar misunderstanding.) The idea is better expressed as a rejection of “Screw you, I want yours.” An implicit tenet within libertarianism is that people are generally good, both able and willing to cooperate. Werleman demonstrates what appears to be a fear that people are generally awful without the force of government compelling them to be “good”.

Atheists like to joke that faith makes a virtue out of not thinking about things, but the belief in libertarianism is an act of faith given libertarianism has not only never been tried before anywhere, but most of the world’s leading economists denounce it as a folly that would exacerbate the central economic challenges we face today—most significantly, wealth disparity.

The assertion that libertarianism has never been tried before does not constitute proof that libertarianism is therefore wrong-headed. Anyway, libertarianism happens every day when two or more people engage in voluntary exchange. The difference is scale. That difference in scale is relevant, of course, and is not meant as proof that libertarianism would work. But to say that it’s never been tried is inaccurate.

Without a link, what “leading” economists believe strikes me as little more than an appeal to authority. I’ll pass.

When I hear an atheist say he is a libertarian, I know he’s given absolutely no thought to it other than the fact that he likes the sound of no foreign wars and no drug laws. The aphorism that libertarians are Republicans with bongs is just about spot-on. Thinking Ron Paul is a genius because he’s anti-war and anti-drug laws is like thinking a Big Mac is good for you because it has lettuce and a pickle.

This is the point at which I think Werleman is trolling. He can’t possibly be this ignorant of the topic. Also, Ron Paul is not a libertarian. (The Libertarian Joke Generator is at work.)

Werleman wanders through a few paragraphs about all of the horrible, awful economic consequences of the last 35 years, a time when libertarianism wasn’t tried, remember. We’re supposed to take it on faith that this is the result of Reagan because of privatization, deregulation, and free trade. These are Reagan’s “holy trinity”. Sure, I guess, but Werleman provides no evidence to support his assertion that these three resulted in the economic crisis we now face. It’s Reagan as bogeyman.

He explains what he thinks a libertarian world would be:

… With libertarianism, property is sacred; all governments are bad; capitalists are noble heroes; unions are evil; and the poor are pampered good-for-nothings.

In order: yes, no, maybe, maybe, and no. Property rights are at the core of a functioning society, starting with one’s own person. Libertarians believe that government has legitimate powers but also the opportunity to do evil, which is why its powers must be limited. (Libertarianism is not anarchism.) Capitalists in the pejorative sense Werleman intends are most likely better described as corporatists or crony capitalists. To the extent that unions are voluntary organizations, they need not be evil. Being a pampered good-for-nothing is bad, but it has nothing to do with wealth.

He prefaced that fantasy with this:

Atheists who embrace libertarianism often do so because they believe a governing body represents the same kind of constructed authority they’ve escaped from in regards to religion. This makes sense if one is talking about a totalitarian regime, but our Jeffersonian democracy, despite its quirky flaws, is government by the people for the people, and it was the federal government that essentially built the great American middle-class, the envy of the world. …

Our Jeffersonian democracy is built on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, including liberty. It is not built on naked majoritarianism or other offensive ideas that glorify the state at the expense of individuals.

He then quotes Robert Reich¹ (from… somewhere):

Robert Reich says that one of the most deceptive ideas embraced by the Ayn Rand-inspired Right is that the free market is natural, and exists outside and beyond government. He writes:

“In reality, the ‘free market’ is a bunch of rules about 1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); 2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); 3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); 4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); 5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on. These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t ‘intrude’ on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t ‘free’ of rules; the rules define them.”

To say that these rules are human creations that don’t exist in nature is semantics for political purpose. These rules are human creations. They exist outside of government, as any cursory understanding of p
rohibition and black markets demonstrates.

They also exist within government, which libertarians do not dispute as a basic fact. And since libertarians believe that governments have just powers, the issue is about what constitutes a just power. Voluntary exchange does not include fraud, for example, so a rule against fraud can be appropriate. A court system that provides a means for peaceful resolution of disputes can be justifiable. Werleman incorrectly presents the political difference as one of whether or not rules should exist, which is informed by his far-too-common misunderstanding of libertarianism-as-anarchism (or libertarianism-as-fuck-you).

Link via Butterflies & Wheels. (“Never read the comments” definitely applies to that post.)

¹ For perspective I’m not fond of how Robert Reich lets politics creep into his economics in the form of “Screw you, I deserve yours.” Is he one of Werleman’s leading economists who denounce libertarianism?

My 2012 Presidential Ballot

Reason posted Who’s Getting Our Votes: Reason Writers’ 2012 Presidential Picks. It’s worth a read. For fun, I’ve answered the questions here.

**********

1. Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why?

Gary Johnson, because he is the only candidate offering anything resembling a defense for the liberty and rights of individuals. I disagree with his support for a national consumption tax, but overall, he’s interested in economics based on economics, not politics. Liberty has to start somewhere.

2a. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including things such as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?

Romney, but only because I expect he would have a friendlier Congress to his political trading. Obama’s policies will probably be worse, if not by much, without consideration for what he might get passed. If I thought a Romney administration would do anything on fixing or repealing Obamacare, my answer would change to Obama.

2b. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?

Romney, even though I’m not convinced he’d get too much accomplished there because of what he could push through the Congress.

2c. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding foreign policy, military interventions, and the global war on terror (including domestic restrictions on civil liberties)?

Romney, because he’d see the extra powers Obama has taken after the newly-assumed powers of the Bush years and add his perspective. Obama would likely extend what he’s doing without the creativity of a fresh eye.

3. Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, and 2008?

Gore (because I didn’t understand my politics), Kerry (because Bush needed to go), and Barr (because I was a trusting moron). If the choice was Barr instead of Gary Johnson this year, I’d vote for myself.

4. Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall?

The various marriage equality issues to cement cultural change before DOMA gets to the Supreme Court, although marijuana is critical to reveal popular support for this liberty issue. Perhaps further wins will force changes at the federal level, regardless of who wins the presidency. Since that is unlikely, I’m going with marriage equality.

5. Reason’s libertarian motto is “Free Minds and Free Markets.” In contemporary America, is that notion a real possibility or a pipe dream?

Pipe dream. The citizenry isn’t getting any dumber, but the public perception that it is creates more entrenched support for government control everywhere, including the economy, speech, and personal choices in general.

In The Top 1% of Artificial Narratives

I’ve seen a series of animated gifs about J.K. Rowling and taxes floating around for a few weeks. Here is a screenshot, because copying the gifs would make this post too clunky. The series is summarized this way, from Hank Green’s Tumblr:

wilwheaton:

geardrops:

fauxmosexualtranstrender:

sandandglass:

Total respect.

I love her.

She donates so much she went from “billionaire” to “millionaire.”

MAD respect for that.

Listen to J.K. Rowling, and put your money where your mouth is, 1%.

I think there really needs to be a cultural shift among the wealthy. It’s very inspiring to hear Jo telling it like it is.

I get the message. I disagree because it endorses a specific solution to a problem. Even if we pretend that the solution is effective, it’s more concerned with enacting a specific solution. It’s an effort to bludgeon opponents with a silly, nonsensical political narrative.

As Forbes wrote:

New information about Rowlings’ estimated $160 million in charitable giving combined with Britain’s high tax rates bumped the Harry Potter scribe from our list this year.

Hank Green’s position above is a lot more subtle on this, although I think it fails to address whether the perceived necessity isn’t a red herring. J.K. Rowlings donated $160 million to charity. Other wealthy individuals also donate to charity. Should these charitable donations be sent as taxes to governments to distribute as politicians deem appropriate? Would the charities that received Rowlings’ $160 million donations receive donations from the government in the redistribution of taxes? And why should we assume that the government doesn’t have the necessary tax revenue to fund such necessary expenditures if unnecessary (or unjustified) expenditures ceased?

The 1% narrative works to fit problems into a solution rather than addressing the problems with whichever solutions are effective for each problem.

Liberty, But Only If Your Parents Let You Have It

I have no problem with the label libertarian, even when it’s conflated with the Libertarian Party. I have a problem with being associated with what passes for thinking on the rights of children among too many self-proclaimed libertarians. Somehow the libertarian view for so many shakes down to something equivalent to children as parental property. This is most easily seen when the topic turns to male circumcision. So it is again. In response to charges filed against a rabbi/mohel in Bavaria following the recent court decision in Cologne declaring that non-therapeutic circumcision of a child violates the child’s rights to physical integrity and self-determination, Doug Mataconis writes at Outside the Beltway (links in original):

There’s also been a bizarre movement growing against circumcision itself here in the United States and in Europe. Just last year, for example, a referendum that would’ve banned circumcision in the City of San Francisco was scheduled to appear on the November 2011 ballot before being removed. The motivations for this version of the anti-circumcision movement seems to be something similar to what the Judges in Cologne stated, that it was some kind of assault about a party who is unable to grant consent. …

Surgically removing a normal, healthy, functioning body part from an individual who does not consent should be recognized as battery, yes. That is not bizarre. It’s merely extending the usual rational standard for non-therapeutic surgical intervention on healthy children to male genitals.

… Andrew Sullivan, for example, contends that infant circumcision is an assault on infant boys. Left out of the argument, though, is the fact that parents have been long assumed to be able to competently make medical decisions for their minor children. …

Except there are limits, including a specific limit on the option for parents to make “medical” (i.e. non-therapeutic) surgical decisions for the genitals of their minor children. USC § 116 – Female genital mutilation clearly establishes conditions upon which we ignore this alleged competence. If non-therapeutic genital cutting falls within the realm of making “medical” decisions for a child as a parental right, then 18 USC § 116 infringes on this supposed parental right. If this is about parental rights rather than individual rights, the child, whether male or female, would be irrelevant to the law. It isn’t. It’s about the harm to the child. Section (b) makes it clear that all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors is illegal, including any cutting analogous to or less harmful than male circumcision. Section (c) demonstrates that no parental justification will be accepted for this intervention on their daughter(s). The primary consideration becomes whether or not male circumcision is harmful, not this:

… Leaving that argument aside, I would think that any ban on circumcision in the United States would, because of the First Amendment, have to include an exemption for Jews and Muslims who consider the procedure a requirement of their religion.

Because boys don’t have the same basic human rights as everyone else, at least for the physical integrity of their normal, healthy genitals? Eugene Volokh’s parental and religious rights posts during last year’s San Francisco ballot initiative identifies a plausible response to this. Again, the correct question is whether or not male circumcision is harmful, not why parents might choose it for non-therapeutic reasons.

On the question of harm, the evidence is quite clear. Circumcision inflicts harm every time. The individual loses his foreskin. He has nerve endings within his penis severed. He may lose his frenulum. He will have a scar. There is also the risk of complications. Some males will suffer those, and some subset will suffer horrible outcomes. The mortality rate from non-therapeutic child circumcision is very low, thankfully, but it isn’t zero. Treating individuals as statistics is hardly a libertarian position.

Next, he quotes an ad hominem attack by Jonathan Tobin:

Circumcision opponents may claim they are not anti-Semitic, especially since their campaign also targets Muslims. But there is little doubt that the driving force behind this movement is resentment toward Jews and a willingness to go public with sentiments that long simmered beneath the surface in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Just last week, French scholar Michel Gurfinkiel wrote on his blog that anti-Semitism has increased in France since the Toulouse massacre in March. Since then violence has grown, fed by what he calls a rejection of Jews and Judaism. In France, these sentiments are fed by the Jew hatred openly expressed by the expanding Muslim population. Throughout Europe, the demonization of Israel hasn’t just increased hostility to the Jewish state; it has served as an excuse for anti-Semitism to go mainstream for the first time since World War Two. Just as some claim circumcision critics aren’t intrinsically anti-Semitic, there are those who blame anti-Semitism on Israeli policies. But when you add all these factors together what you get is an undeniable upsurge in Jew-hatred.

There is significant doubt that resentment is the driving force. I won’t speak for Germany, although I think the court’s ruling was not based in religious animosity. The ethical human rights-based case against non-therapeutic circumcision exists on its own. It’s clear, based in the basic rights to physical bodily integrity and self-determination. The ability to find instances of anti-Semitism does not discredit that case or the general movement to restrict non-therapeutic circumcision to those who choose it for themselves. Where anti-Semitism occurs, and it unfortunately does, it discredits the individual purveyor, not the movement as a whole. And such instances should be denounced without ad hominem against anyone who shares only an opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting individuals.

Mataconis’ response to Tobin’s charge:

If that’s true, then it is a quite troublesome development. Even leaving this element out of it, though, there’s something troublesome about this entire affair. Circumcision has been an accepted practice in Western societies for centuries …

That’s interesting but proves nothing. History provides plenty of examples of rights being violated for a long time. The rights are no less violated. Non-therapeutic circumcision constitutes guaranteed physical harm to the child in pursuit of his parents’ preference(s). It’s the objective versus the subjective.

… and, in the case of two religions, it isn’t just an elective medical procedure, it is a requirement of their faith. …

Being a requirement of Judaism and a recommendation in Islam are relevant, but they are not the first question in this context. The circumcision is being imposed on someone. It’s an odd conception of free
dom that says imposing surgery on someone else is an individual right within religious freedom. Under the proposed public policy stance, religion would have to adapt. That expectation is no different from the numerous declarations in religious texts that we do not permit in civil law. Religion deserves no special exemption. The protection required is for individuals to choose circumcision for their own bodies, not for others.

… The arguments of the circumcision opponents strike me as being little more than ridiculous nonsense that, for some, has turned into some kind of weird cult of the foreskin. As far as I’m concerned, parents are perfectly capable of making this decision for their sons and the state really has no business getting involved in at all. When you bring the element of religion into it, state interference becomes even more problematic. One would hope that the government in Berlin will intervene and put an end to the nonsense that the judges in Cologne started.

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual violates basic human rights. That isn’t ridiculous nonsense. We apply it completely to females. We don’t apply it to males. Instead, it’s easier to smear with words like cult and fetish. Fine, if that’s the standard, we should start telling activists against female genital cutting/mutilation that they’re spouting ridiculous nonsense that is some kind of weird cult of the clitoris? We wouldn’t because there we recognize the facts. With circumcision we forget to apply the same standard that protects the property interest of the individual. For reasons. That makes no sense.

It’s certainly not within a reasonable understanding of libertarianism. For anarchists, sure, opposition to the state becomes the overriding goal. But if one assumes a state to be legitimate with a specific interest in protecting the rights of its citizens, then it’s legitimate for the state to prohibit this form of possibly unwanted harm. That is the approach that recognizes humans rather than statistics. (To hope that politicians will step in to reverse a judge is a foolish action to endorse.) Parents don’t just circumcise their sons. They effectively circumcise the autonomous adult he will become. Proxy consent based on anything other than clear medical need is insufficient to permit that.

**********

Post Script: In the comments to his post, Mataconis responded with a standard trope:

Fine. Then if you have a son, don’t get him circumcised, that’s your choice.

Treating children as property is not libertarian. The correct formulation is “If you don’t want to be circumcised, don’t have yourself circumcised”. That’s the method to protect individual preferences, not the illegitimate force of individual preferences on another. Shared DNA is not a defense.

That flows into a later comment:

What is the medical benefit the foreskin provides?

To the silly question, it protects the glans and provides sexual sensitivity. But let’s assume neither is true. “It’s mine” is sufficient. The onus is not properly on the person who doesn’t want his property taken to explain why his property shouldn’t be taken. Or, at least, that’s what I thought libertarians believed.

I Hate Politicians, and So Should You

Partisan propaganda is easy. Today I saw this photograph (source via Wil Wheaton’s Tumblr):

Anti-Romney Propaganda

Of course we should forget about Mitt Romney. That shouldn’t default as an endorsement of Barack Obama. I created the image below:

See how easy that is? Should I thus assume that those against Romney think any (or all) of the factual marks against Obama indicate the same “don’t vote for him” decision that facts about Romney indicate?

They’re both liars. All politicians are liars. Why would I vote for either of these liars, when both will only take away the rights of citizens and steal more power for government?

Pee-wee Herman Should Read the Transcript

Last month Arnold Kling wrote a great post:

The following thought occurred to me recently. Suppose we look at writing on issues where people tend to hold strong opinions that fit with their ideology. Such writing can

(a) attempt to open the minds of people on the opposite side as the author

(b) attempt to open minds of people on the same side as the author

(c) attempt to close minds of people on the same side as the author

So, think about it. Wouldn’t you classify most op-eds and blog posts as (c)? Isn’t that sort of pathetic? …

I think that’s right, and worth remembering when writing to persuade. More importantly, he wrote about Tyler Cowen:

Tyler is good at paying attention to the strongest arguments of those with whom he disagrees. Focusing on weaker arguments instead is a classic (c) move. …

That is exactly right, and it’s the antithesis of partisan politics. It’s the primary reason I despise partisanship.

With the new perpetual election season, but specifically the imminent 2012 election, we’re stuck with this. The current example is Rush Limbaugh pretending that the villain in the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, is a liberal swipe at Mitt Romney because the character’s name is Bane, which is similar to Bain, the venture capital firm Romney ran. So, Limbaugh is a radio DJ who said something obviously ridiculous. Therefore, we get to indict Republicans for believing this.

For example:

To believe that Bane is a Hollywood conspiracy to elect Barack Obama, you’d have to believe that Bane co-creators Chuck Dixon, Doug Moench, and Graham Nolan* (COINCIDENCE?!?!?!) anticipated prior to Romney even announcing a run for public office that Romney would eventually win the GOP primary in 2012, or that Christopher Nolan, anticipating all of this, chose to pick a villain whose name sounds like the company Romney used to work for. On the other hand, if you’re the kind of Republican who believes Barack Obama’s parents placed a fraudulent birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper in order to shore up his claim to American citizenship in the event he might someday run for president, this probably doesn’t sound like the dumbest thing ever.

Rush Limbaugh is estimated to have around 15 million listeners. Fifteen million.

If you’re that kind of Republican, of course you’re that gullible. But if you’re that kind of person, you’ll believe anything your partisan friends spew. You want to believe. That’s powerful in hiding the truth.

Even if we assume all 15 million listeners of Limbaugh’s program believe every stupid thing he says, we’re left with 294 million Americans who don’t listen to him. Are they all Democrats? If so, President Obama has nothing to worry about. If not, then presumably the goal is to convince the non-Democrats that President Obama is the best choice. Using this as a tool for anything other than mocking Rush Limbaugh is focusing on the weaker arguments.

It’s also worth asking whether or not it’s possible to find 15 million Democrats who believe stupid, irrational nonsense about Republicans.

P.S. The Limbaugh transcript should get this treatment.

All Your Citizens Are Belong to Us

Thomas Ricks has an op-ed in today’s New York Times on reinstating a peace-time draft. It’s embarrassing in many ways, but two especially:

And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.

Great, can we implement this now? That means no taxes, as well, right? I know, hahahaha, of course not. A straw man dipped in gasoline is easily burned.

But most of all, having a draft might, as General McChrystal said, make Americans think more carefully before going to war. Imagine the savings — in blood, tears and national treasure — if we had thought twice about whether we really wanted to invade Iraq.

Three words: starve the beast. With the national debt standing at $15,883,106,924,772.24 and counting, when can we put that to rest? Politicians do not operate on logic. And the majority of voters would still not be participants whenever our government waged war. The cannon fodder would still be a minority to be wielded by the majority. They just wouldn’t be volunteers any more. That’s not an improvement.

Political Healing Is Not Physical Healing

So, I was wrong with my prediction on the ACA. I was correct that if the mandate went down, all of it would go. But Chief Justice Roberts agreed that the mandate acts as a tax. Okay.

There are still other problems. Eugene Robinson highlights them, although not intentionally.

The political impact of Thursday’s stunning Supreme Court decision on health-care reform is clear — good for President Obama and the Democrats, bad for Mitt Romney and the Republicans — but fleeting, and thus secondary. Much more important is what the ruling means in the long term for the physical and moral health of the nation.

I find the idea that this is an improvement to our nation’s “moral health” ridiculous and offensive. It’s the simplistic view that opposition to the ACA is opposition to the claimed goals. It’s the pretense that opposition is founded on an “I got mine, so screw you” idea. It’s hackish. Opposition guarantees no such intention, and maybe I’m foolish, but granting the government more power to use force against individuals is hardly an improvement in our moral health.

All but lost in the commentary about the court’s 5 to 4 ruling, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. unexpectedly joining the majority, is that the Affordable Care Act was intended as just a beginning. We have far to go, but at least we’re on our way.

Obama’s great achievement is not any one element of the health-care reform law — not even the now-upheld “individual mandate,” which compels individuals to have health insurance or pay a fine. The important thing is the law’s underlying assumption that every American, rich or poor, should have access to adequate health care.

But that’s not the issue. The important thing is how well the law will achieve its aims. Will it? Which unintended consequences will result? What will it cost in trade-offs? Early evidence suggests a strong “no” for the first question, which should raise further concerns about questions two and three.

Here, we don’t even get to the first question. Mr. Robinson is endorsing the Do Something theory of government. This is Something, so it must be good. It’s untethered from outcome. We’ve merely expressed the right feelings that every American should have access to adequate health care. That isn’t a solution to a problem that exists in large part because of previous feelings-premised public policy solutions. The ACA is not the only way to try to achieve the real goal of reform and improving health care access and outcomes. The ACA merely doubles down on the existing structural problems. When government is failing, ordering more government is hardly a credible solution.

As I wrote in my prediction, tying insurance to employment is inefficient and stupid. Our current unemployment rate is an excellent indicator of a flaw in the policy. Mr. Robinson gets at this:

Most working-age Americans who have health insurance obtained it through their employers. But this is a haphazard and inefficient delivery route that puts U.S. businesses at a disadvantage against foreign competitors, most of which shoulder no such burden. Tying health insurance to the workplace also distorts the labor market and discourages entrepreneurship by forcing some employees to stay where they are — even in dead-end jobs — rather than give up health insurance.

With this acknowledged, it appears the only way to endorse the ACA is to focus on the important thing, the good feelings. The ACA will work to untie insurance from employment, but only because it makes the burden of employer-provided insurance so onerous. It pushes people into public options. That’s aiming for single-payer without having the political courage to admit the aim. Such lack of courage does not suggest good outcomes when the inevitable financial crisis from the ACA results. And now, because this reform was so ham-fisted and clueless, no one will have the political capital necessary to reform the reform.

Rather than seek a radical reshaping of the health-care system, Obama pushed through a set of relatively modest reforms that will expand insurance coverage to a large number of the uninsured — about 30 million — but still not all. He also tried to use free-market forces to “bend the curve” of rising costs, slowing but not halting their rise.

The ACA doesn’t try to use free-market forces. It attempts to manipulate them, at best, and pretend they don’t exist, at worst. It’s the idea that prices can be mandated, that supply and demand are fully malleable with political will. It’s neither an honest nor an intelligent attempt by the Congress and President Obama. It will fail. The only questions are how soon, who will be harmed, and what will we do in response.