Pursuing praxis

Mugabe is talking war, to the aggrandizement of himself at the expense of Zimbabweans, who are already dying from the effects of his powerlust. He justifies his iron grip by claiming that only he and his party can prevent white people from taking control of the country again. And leaves it at that, as if it were a self-evident conclusion that having white (i.e. pinky-tan) skin as well as presence and political clout inevitably leads to oppression of black people. This after Mugabe nationalized white-run farms in 2000, starting the precipitous economic decline of his country. He’s so openly racist, and leveraging anti-white racism as a means to retaining power is, to my eyes at least, a cheap and poorly executed schtick that should be evident to anyone. Sigh. Tribalism is not a solution for tribalism, but it is an excellent tool for fueling authoritarianism, nationalism and statism.

Is it ironic, or bitterly apropos, that the IRS is right next door to the Dept. of Justice?

Sigh. Kenyans are ecstatic that Obama got the nomination. Why? Because he’s so qualified? Because he’s a great speaker? Because they agree with his positions and policies? Because they think he will be good for our country, and advance noble ideals and practical solutions? Because he’s (more) photogenic?

No.

Because he is Kenyan. Obviously.

From the Kenya Times:

"We as a family are thrilled to be directly related to a man who has not only made a major achievement, but has also made history."– Said Obama, Barack Obama’s Uncle

"It’s unbelievable! This shows that Kenya is a great place; a great country. God has blessed this country. Senator Obama is already the next U.S. President." — Bishop Beneah Salalah of the Anglican Church of Kenya  [can you believe that?!]

"We know he will go ahead and be elected President of the United States. The American citizens have shown that they don’t see race or tribe in someone, but his or her leadership qualities. Africans should learn from this."– Kakamega Mayor Joe Serenge

"We are strongly behind him and we urge Americans to go ahead and elect him their President."– Kisumu Mayor Sam Okello

"Kenyan" is the only information most Kenyans need. It’s all they needed when I was there a year ago, and it’s all they care about now. There is no discussion of Obama’s political positions, his background, his qualifications, his experience. Only that he is Kenyan, and was a Senator for just four years in Illinois, and now he is nominated for president.

No matter that only his dad was from Kenya; his mother is rarely if ever mentioned. (It remains bizarre to me that mixed race people are judged to belong to the darker race, whichever it is, by all races). No matter that several tribes spent the better part of January trying to kill each other, resulting in about a thousand completely unnecessary deaths (the Prime Minister’s views notwithstanding). No matter that no tribe is more "Kenyan" than any other. No matter that if Obama was actually from Kogelo village and actually born in Kenya, the odds of him getting a good education and big opportunities would have been drastically reduced, not to mention being barred from running for president because he wasn’t born in the US. Yes, that sure makes Kenya great …

It’s total tribalism - whether you are blessed for it or cursed for it - which stems from determinism. In family-based tribalism, it reduces to genetic determinism. Pro-Kenyan-Obamaism, while cheerful to say the least, comes from the same premises that motivates people to burn each other alive. Lacking a machete doesn’t change the poor logic of "my family," "my tribe," "my color," "my town," "my country." You’re born into all of those, at least two of those you can never change. And if you’re very poor like most Kenyans, it can be hard to change your town or your country as well. So basically they have no choice as to whether they’re somehow linked to someone who turns out to be from one of their many groups. Ergo the person is brilliant and they are better people for being involuntarily associated with him. Wha…?

I became friends with the cook at the guesthouse I stayed at. We had many interesting and rewarding conversations, even on religion and politics, which for safety’s sake I had vowed not to discuss at all while abroad. On matters of business and politics, people were a lot more receptive than I had expected. Njenga and I talked about Obama several times. They knew more about him than I did, and were totally stoked about him back in spring 2007! I barely recognized his name.

Njenga asked if I supported Obama. I said no, because I didn’t know anything about him, and my views on all the candidates were preliminary at the very best, since it was early in the race and I didn’t have time to follow US politicking. I asked why he supported Obama. "Because he is from Kenya!" Njenga said, lighting up like a Christmas tree. "Obama is black - and there has never been a black President of the United States before. It would be good, very good. There is still so much racism."

I said, "Njenga, don’t you see, that is what it means to be racist - to prefer someone because of their race, or their country, or whatever. Racism isn’t just white people being unfair to black people. Racism is about being unfair to anyone because of their race, whatever their race. If you are against racism, don’t judge Obama based on his race. Judge him on the things he can control - his thoughts, his values, his actions, the kind of character he has, the kinds of policies he supports."

That stopped Njenga in his (mental) tracks. He considered it briefly, seriously, and then a smile spread across his face. "You are right. What you say is right. You are an unusual person," he said, addressing me by my last name, as was his custom. "What you say is very unusual. There aren’t many people like you," he instructed me. It was neither praise nor criticism, more like an observation, though he was often hugely entertained by my unusualness, all while being deeply interested in the ideas discussed.

This exchange probably sounds like a parody, the way I relate it. But that’s the style of speaking English in Nairobi - very much out of my third grade teacher’s book. I think it must be some combination of English as a second (or third) language, the tradition or dialect, and the state of political education even among the educated. I learned it by trial and error; speaking very simply, respectfully, cheerfully and honestly (sometimes brutally so) kept people happy and got me what I wanted. So it was wierd being hailed as an intellectual giant (staying in a roach-infested guesthouse for $10 a night), when I only said what I thought was simple and obvious, as simply as I could.

(It is exhausting speaking like that though.)

It’s lovely that Obama can be billed as the first post-racial candidate. But that’s true only among a certain demographic. It’s not true for all Americans, to say nothing of all nations. Many people still care very much about race, as an extension of a tribalistic outlook on life, selectively ignoring the contradictions that crop up. I wonder how many of Njenga’s people (the Kikuyu) are cheering for Obama (a Luo) this week. Cuz they were hacking each other to bits and burning each other alive six short months ago.

Related Posts:
Love of civilization
Thompson, Mouch, Chalmers et al., the later years

On my way into the office here in the bio building, I shared the elevator with two people I’d never seen before. From their conversation it looked like one was the manager, and the other was a new hire who would be working with one or more colonies of mice used for research.

I started paying attention when she said, "When was the last time you washed your house from floor to ceiling, including the walls? Probably never. We do it every week for the mice. And we change their bedding every day. Can you imagine washing your sheets every day? That’s what we do for the mice."

He said, "Um, I like sleep on the floor and stuff. I don’t have a bed."

She said, "Yeah, that’s just it. The mice get taken better care of than most people. We have lots of inspectors and regulatory agencies through here all the time making sure that the mice live better than humans." 

I’m sure that was some consolation for the guy: the clear implication intended was that the government cares more about mice than people. The sigh-worthy truth is that these regulations are actually a compromise between fully pro-human policies and fully pro-animal policies. A fully pro-human policy wouldn’t entertain the notion of governmental micromanagement of all animal-based research, much less the idea of animal rights. A fully pro-animal policy wouldn’t entertain the notion of any animal being used for research ever, human welfare be damned. The present compromise is therefore neither fully pro-human nor fully pro-animal. The only ultimate beneficiaries of the compromise are the government, which swells with power and unchallenged self-importance as it exerts more force in more human endeavors, and the mice, generations of which (through sheer dint of their existence) by government decree get fully funded, permanent residence in the Mouse Hilton*.

The sad thing is, had the new employee not been accompanied by this woman with a name badge around her neck, I would have been suspicious of him in my building.  His demographic doesn’t frequent summer school classes, much less the research floors of my building, and is the most frequent perpetrator of violent crime on campus. By a very large margin. Not knowing him at all, it’s hard to speculate past stereotypes, although I would like to think he is an exception to it, appearances notwithstanding. Either way, I’m glad to see he’s getting a job. Good for him. Who knows, maybe he’ll take an interest in science. Somehow, it’s hard to imagine science doing anything but good things for a person, regardless of their age, background, or level of education.

*The inverse is not necessarily true, and constitutes poor logic, i.e. that without government oversight, some or all research animals will be poorly taken care of or even abused.

Would that only ….

 ——

Dear Senator Kennedy,

I understand you are recovering from surgery on a brain tumor, undertaken at Duke University Medical Center with Dr. Allan Friedman. Although I wish you a speedy recovery and good results with your ongoing treatment, I note with sincere concern your consistent and long-standing advocacy for universal health care in the United States. As a neurosurgeon by choice and by profession, I would like to bring to your attention a very deep contradiction between the services you advocate for, and the services which you have personally sought out and benefited from, as underscored in your present circumstances. I have said it before, so permit me to quote myself:

"Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? . . . I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything — except the desires of the doctors . . . . I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind — yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating room table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims."

I ask you, sir, to re-consider your position on universal health care, and the attending issues of doctors’ rights together with patients’ rights. Good health care presupposes doctors who are both willing and able to treat patients. Remove the incentives and ability of doctors to exercise their best judgment - which is what we have been trained to do - and by logic the system will retain only the willing, irrespective of ability.

High esteem stands as nothing compared to a person’s inalienable right to choose, think and act as he sees fit. In the case of a doctor, he has chosen to devote his life to thinking and acting to improve and protect the health of his patients. Protect his individual rights, and you ensure the kind of health care we have created and come to expect in this country, for individual rights apply to doctors as well as their patients, to providers as well as consumers. When both are free to think and act, each by his best judgment, their common goals define the relationship and speed progress to those ends.

Your sincerely, 

Thomas Hendricks, MD (retired)

———

From "Doctors and the Police State" by Leonard Peikoff, June 1962, The Objectivist Newsletter (special supplement):

In a free society, a man cannot force his terms on others; those who dissent are free to deal elsewhere. A patient who disapproves of a doctor’s methods of treatment can seek out another doctor; a doctor who considers a patient’s demands irrational is not compelled to give in to them. And, in the long run, it is the best and ablest doctors—those who achieve the cures and demonstrate their value—that rise to the top and set the example for the rest of the profession.

But when the government sets the terms, they are enforced by the police power of the State. The standards of the government become the laws of the country, and no others are legally permitted. Should any doctor object to the decrees of the officials who staff the State Health Board—should he attempt to act on his own best judgment and make an unauthorized use of the drugs, the hospital beds, the operating rooms being paid for by the State—he becomes thereby a criminal, and he is legally subject to retribution: to loss of license, or fine, or jail-sentence. There is no one to whom he can turn: the government is his sole employer. He either submits—or he leaves medicine—or he escapes from the country.

Moral Health Care vs. "Universal Health Care"
Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh

Synopsis: surveys the history of government interference in health insurance and medicine in America, specifying the rights violations and economic problems caused thereby; enumerates the failed attempts to solve those economic problems by means of further government interference; and shows that the only viable solution to the debacle at hand is to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in these industries. Read the article.

Update 6/25/08: The New York Times has an essay on physicians’ growing frustration and reluctance to practicing medicine, and how its the bureacracy that’s making their profession intolerable.

Monopoly: where a single company becomes and remains the sole or majority producer in a given industry or market.

Take-home points:

1. There are two kinds of monopolies in business, not one: monopolies resulting from rights violations (whether commited by government, business, or an individual), and monopolies resulting from voluntary agreements among people.

2. What makes companies able to out-compete all or most of their competitors is quite different in each case - exploiting economic pressures created by rights violations (which are properly illegal) vs. expliting economic pressures stemming only from the rights-respecting choices and agreements made by businesses and individuals, producers and consumers (i.e. the free market). From a certain perspective, monopolies aren’t caused or controlled by the company; they are enabled (and therefore ultimately controlled) by government favor, directive or control, OR they are enabled (and therefore ultimately controlled) by the choices and desires of consumers.

3. Whatever enables a monopoly to exist determines how a monopoly can behave in the absence of competitors, while remaining solvent. If rights violations are how a monopoly was created, maintenance and/or multiplication of rights violations are necessary for it to continue being a monopoly. If consistent respect for rights (by government, and by the business) is how a business became a monopoly, that is the context in which it must continue to do business. A monopoly on a free market must always race alongside the changing interests and desires of its consumer base, in true Red Queen fashion, and against the constant pressures of new competitors and multiplying niches.

4. Equating monopolies with lack of competition is therefore inaccurate and counter-productive thinking. It lumps together phenomena based on a common result, ignoring the very different processes by which the results were produced. (I.e. thinking correlation is causation; or, mistaking homoplasy for symplesiomorphy, for you evolution folks). 

5. This kind of thinking also has the effect of smearing honest businessmen (by equating them with rights violators) and ignoring or forgetting about the conditions they need to conduct business properly: consistent protection of individual rights, an emergent property of which is a free market. This poor thinking fosters a kind of self-imposed, society-wide forgetting that makes it seem like free markets are the culprit, and more government tinkering is needed to shore them up or make them fair. Clearly, this results in a positive feedback cycle of increasing government intervention and control.

6. Rights are a kind of social principle - and as such, they are designed to be heeded absolutely consistently, and for extremely good reasons. Ignoring a rule of thumb may cause you some inconvenience; ignoring a principle will keep you from reaching a goal altogether. If you have a right not to be punched, but someone punches you randomly once a month, he does not respect your right; and a government that deems once a month to be ok, has no actual grasp of what a right is. Rights and consistency are inseparable.

7. Given that the proper job of government is to protect individual rights - and it’s the only entity that can in a civil society - the biggest, most consistent criminal in the history of "monopolies" is the government. (Unless properly and explicitly restrained at all necessary points, all governments are primed to be criminals. They specialize in the use of force. It’s just a matter of how and why).

8. But, the government is only as good as the people that elect it, compose it, run it, and use it: it’s a mirror with a memory, originally designed and framed by craftsmen with a particular vision, but constantly tested, tweaked and modified by the centuries of people that come after. It evolves, with constraints (which can also evolve).

9. But, unlike biologically evolved entities, government need not be ignorant of the forces which shape it, or complacent about what it becomes, because (up to a point) it is an extension of ourselves as a society. A healthy, far-sighted, self-regulating, delimited organism - or cancer. We do have a choice.

10. So what have you done today, this week, this year to value and protect individual rights - your rights?

I discovered an interesting paragraph on the Wall Street Journal’s online opinion homepage, a single short paragraph, halfway down the right side, titled About Us. It says:

We speak for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s "Wealth of Nations." So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities.

I found it after doing a window search for ‘collectivist’, while looking for David Boaz’s May 28 editorial entitled Our Collectivist Candidates (which I did not find on wsj.com, but is posted on Boaz’s Cato Institute page).  

Now, I’ve liked the WSJ for many years. I got my first subscription when working in Boston, and it sucked up untold hours of my non-working time. Good stuff. I never read about their mission statement, political or economic philosophy (though you can guess it, especially when comparing its contents with the SF Chronicle or NY Times).

But here it is - and it’s good! I like that it explicitly lumps together kings, collectivists, dictators, bullies, and majorities. Because all those people can claim is some combination of the authority to use force (via other people under his control) or the ability to be force, by sheer dint of taking up space like a herd of cattle and threatening to trample you by having more people on ‘their’ side. The former has simply coopted and coordinated the latter.

I also like that the individual is explicitly mentioned, although I might wish for ‘individual rights’ to be mentioned as well, but it’s only a paragraph. And they link to a 1951 editorial entitled A Newspaper’s Philosophy (which is under About Us and not Our Philosophy …) that does:

On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical. Just as radical as the Christian doctrine.

We have friends but they have not been made by silence or pussyfooting. If we have enemies, we do not placate them.