Fellow ALLien Shawn Wilbur, who’s a leading expert in the history of American anarchism, would like to hear from anyone interested in taking courses on this or related subjects online.
He’s also interested in feedback about broader plans to develop a left-libertarian counter-curriculum.
Sounds like a great idea to me. Check it out.
[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]
The transcript from last night’s GOP debate is now online.
My favourite Ron Paul quote of the night:
Well, we’ve had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It’s not working, and nobody’s happy with it. The doctors aren’t happy. The patients aren’t happy. Nobody seems to be happy – except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs. You take care of poor people by turning the medical care back into the system where people have some choices. Now, we have a mess because we have – a lot of people are very dependent on health care. But I have the only way we can afford to take care of people now, because we’re going broke, with $500 billion going to debt every single year. And we have a foreign policy that is draining us. I say, take care of these poor people. I’m not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit. So you don’t have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can’t expect the managed care system that we have today, which promotes and benefits and rewards the corporations – because it’s the drug companies and the HMOs and even the AMA that comes to us and lobbies us for this managed care, and that’s why the prices are high. It’s only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.
I’m sick of hearing people – both defenders and critics of socialised medicine – talking as though the U.S. system represented a free-market approach, and comparing the merits of U.S. and European approaches to health care as though they represented the merits of state-socialist and market-based approaches respectively. In reality the U.S. system is a fascist/corporatist system; as John Graham notes (conical hat tip to Tom Ford), “Nobody is talking about a free-market approach in health care. The spectrum today is between fascism and Communism.” Nice to see Ron Paul get that right.
My least favourite Ron Paul quote of the night:
My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn’t be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.
I agree, of course, that the state shouldn’t be involved with marriage (or anything else, for that matter). My gripe is with the historical claim that state involvement in marriage in the U.S. dates from only a hundred years ago. Is Paul unaware of the state’s massive involvement in marriage during the 19th century? Has he never read of the enormous struggle that was waged against such state involvement, and the relentless legal persecution that was suffered by dissidents? What of the various legal restrictions that were imposed on the wife (such as loss of freedom over her property, her children, and her own body), or on both parties (such as denial of the right to divorce), in consequence of the state’s recognition of their marriage? What of the Mormons, who were forced at bayonet-point to abandon their religious commitment to polygamy? What of free-love activists Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, who were thrown in jail in 1886 for daring to undergo a marriage ceremony not approved by the state? Throughout the 19th century (and of course well before) the state defined the terms of the marriage contract and punished all deviation therefrom.
In other news, good for the New York cabbies! This is one strike that even my right-libertarian friends should be able to approve of.
The State in action. (Conical hat tip to Anthony Gregory.)
Nostalgia time: Part 3 of the Razor flashbacks features young Adama fighting 1970s-style Cylon spacecraft while the 1970s Galactica theme music plays in the background. But the special effects are a tad improved from the days of the old series….
The first reference I ever heard to the song “Everybody Loves My Baby, But My Baby Don’t Love Nobody But Me” was in a logic class, and at that time I assumed the professor had just made it up for the sake of an amusing logic example. But of course it’s a real song, and an excellent one. (I love these different versions.)
The reason the song is a good example to use in a logic class I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Sheldon Richman cites your humble correspondent on rule-utilitarianism and rule-egoism in his latest editorial.
I’m not sure how far I agree with Sheldon’s suggestion that utilitarianism is “a product of the positivist mindset, which held that reason can’t judge ultimate values.” That’s certainly true of the kind of utilitarianism we find in Mises, Hazlitt, and Yeager. But is it equally true of classical utilitarians like Bentham, Godwin, Mill, Spencer, Sidgwick, and Moore? Well, to some extent it is; those thinkers mostly accepted Hume’s argument that ultimate value judgments couldn’t be rationally proven. But does that mean they regarded the choice of ultimate values as purely arbitrary?
That’s a tricky question. Bentham and Godwin based their utilitarianism on theories about human psychology. Mill thought that while we can’t prove the value of pleasure directly, we can prove it indirectly, by showing that it’s presupposed as a first principle in all our evaluative practice. Spencer thought we couldn’t coherently deny the value of pleasure, because pleasure is the form of ethical intuition (in the same way that Kant thought space and time are the forms of sensory intuition); and while he granted that he couldn’t prove that life contains on balance more pleasure than pain, he thought once that premise was granted, all the rest of his theory followed. Sidgwick thought he could show that utilitarianism and ethical egoism are the only defensible theories, but that we couldn’t prove which was preferable. Moore thought we could know ultimate values by intuition. It’s hard to know how to categorise these positions.
I think what led utilitarians most astray was the loss of the Aristotelean category of constitutive means, and thus the reduction of all means-end relationships to instrumental ones; and this in turn was the result of a tendency to emphasise causal relations over conceptual ones, which in still further turn stemmed from the prevailing empiricist, mechanistic, and psychologistic approach that prevailed in early British philosophy.