Security is a given

When I previously stated that a political system should be derived from the distinct--and often conflicting--concepts of freedom and justice, one important question remained untouched: What about security?

These days, particularly since 9/11, the word security seems almost obligatory in our political discourse. The Republicans learned this lesson long ago; the Democrats are playing catchup. Hence the Energy Independence and Security Act. Passage of this bill is a "shot heard 'round the world" we're told. (Apparently security is always--what should I say?--more secure--when a few shots are fired. In the streets of the Middle East, shots are literally fired into the air. Here, we settle for the proverbial and metaphorical variety. Less collateral damage--except to the English language.)

Don't get me wrong. Security is important. But I'm not going to start the "Freedom & Security" party? A libertarian might excitedly respond: "Yeah, that's what libertarianism is all about: securing property."

Or how about "Vote Freedom, Justice, & Security." You have to admit: it has that post-9/11 ring to it, don't you think? Though also a bit clunky.

Here's the problem I have with either modification to Freedom & Justice: (1) Humans are communitarian as well as individualistic. A political system should take that into account; (2) Security is a given.

Point #1 implies a sense of justice. Point #2 argues that any system will require steps to ensure it's continued existence.

Adding the security label to concepts in our political discourse is redundant. Security is a given.

Frame the Ticking Time Bomb

Brief observation. What with all the to-do about the CIA destroying interrogation tapes, the ticking time bomb scenario comes to mind. You know the one: If you knew there was a nuclear bomb planted somewhere in NYC, and you knew the person who could prevent its detonation, would you support the torture of that person? Many say "of course, of course, of course."

This makes me think of the following: what is the proper frame for an issue--and the questions surrounding it. It is often possible to frame a question in a way that makes a detestable answer seem--well--downright upright.

Note the framing of the ticking time bomb question. The bomb is there. Certainty: Close to 100%. We know the person who has the information. Certainty: Close to 100%. We just need get the information with torture. Probability of succeeding with this extraction: Close to 100%.

At least, that's the way the question seems framed to me. Hypothetical? Yes, but nothing wrong with that. Probable?--not in the least. But the response to this improbably hypothetical questions opens the door to torture. Now it's not a question of if to torture, just a question of when. Under what circumstances.

I believe the question should be framed in a more realistic way, a way that brings to bear all the important issues: probability, ticking time bombs, guilt, and most importantly--innocence.

So here's the realistically framed question: Someone might have planted a nuclear weapon in NYC. Analysis produces a list of 1,000 people, at least one of whom is likely to have information that can prevent its detonation, if it exists. Some of them may be children. Maybe your wife. Perhaps even you. Would you support the torture of these 1,000 people in order to disarm a bomb that may not exist?

Remember: The bomb may not exist. You may not get the information you need to disarm it. But you will definitely be torturing innocent people--100% guaranteed.

New Game: Neo-Opposites

Have you heard about the new game? It's called neo-opposites. The neo-cons invented it. Here's how it works:

• Step 1: Rattle sabres above head of dysfunctional country. Best if said country has loads of oil reserves.
• Step 2: Game and prime and bludgeon the intelligence community until they say "said country (with oil reserves) most certainly has weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
• Step 3: Announce to the world: "Intelligence has demonstrated WMD. A threat exists."
• Step 4: Invade country with purported WMD (and said oil).
• Step 5: Exhibit beyond the pale incompetence after Step 4 invasion.
• Step 6: "Oops, no WMD. Bad Intelligence!!! That's ok, we did find some oil."
• Step 7: Look for something to distract everyone's attention.

So far, pretty straight forward, don't you think?

Ok, here's where it gets complicated. Here's where the opposites come into play. Pay attention. We go back to Step 1, but there's a complication. It goes like this:

• Step 1: Rattle sabres above head of another dysfunctional country. Best if said country has loads of oil reserves.
• Step 2: Shamed and infuriated intelligence community says "said country (with oil reserves) most certainly DOES NOT have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
• Step 3: Announce to the world: "Intelligence says no WMD. They were wrong last time. They must be wrong again. Hence: A threat exists."

That's the opposites part, in Step 3. And I think you can see where the game is headed.

So the game is called neo-opposites. We're in Step 3 right now. But the world doesn't seem to be buying it. That's got the neo-cons all stopped up.

The latter condition is referred to as neo-constipation. That's not supposed to be part of the game.

Stay tuned.

Fool me right, shame on left

Somewhat random observation. Not sure of its value.

I not-that-frequently run into people on the political right--or even anarchist libertarians--who proudly report they were once leftists, even socialists--or Fortune forbid: Marxists. Not that frequently. Not enough to get a statistic out of it. But this fact has impressed itself upon me all the same.

They seem proud when they report their change of heart. Sort of a prodigal son, I was once wrong, I've passed through the dark side, and now I've come clean type of story. It reminds me, in some ways, of the people who find religion after a long period of sinning.

Irving Kristol--"father of the neocons"--is a good example of someone once enamoured with the left who later became enamoured with the right.

St. Augustine is a religious example: hedonist becomes celibate.

I grapple with their logic. It goes something like this: "I was wrong once, but you can believe me now." Actually, I wouldn't call that logic. One could call it "lessons from the school of hard knocks."

To me it says: "I was once confused, but now I'm not."

We hope.

Several questions come to mind:

1. Is this mainly a left-to-right, hedonist-to-celibate phenomenon? Are there any famous people on the right who are now on the left? (Ronald Reagan moved right--who moved left? And I'm sure there a few celibates who became gangbusters hedonists.)
2. If mainly a left-to-right phenomenon, is it a manifestation of the idea that "people become more conservative as they age?" And acquire life experiences? (Which, by the way, often works in a historical sense--yesterday's revolutionaries are today's conservative icons.")

My own read: Humans have a Utopian impulse that drives them to seek perfection. And control. Or if that doesn't work: oblivion. It drives many people into drink, drugs, cults--or Fortune forbid--the embrace of the neocons.

As an Independent, once member of the GOP [insert obligatory blame my parents insinuation], I find these once-left-now-right types a little over-zealous. Running open-loop (i.e. fact free). Unreality based. Ideological. Zealous.

They replace "the state" with "the market" in the libertarian case. And they replace "I should not have behaved as such" with "you should not behave as such" in the conservative case.

Nothing against the political right, in making this observation. I'm not sure how accurate it is. Nor what use to make of it. But as someone who inhabits that somewhat fictitious and non-existent center, I say: Fool me right, shame on left.

Vote Freedom & Justice

This is an informal chatty post. Not totally thought out. A start.

In the future, I'll blog about stuff like economics, politics, ecology. A little philosophy. Anthropology. Perhaps even touch on religion now and then, particularly when considering issues such as morality or the separation of church and state. Or the meaning of life. Some Buddhism perhaps. I'll even blog a tad about science--rumor has it I have degrees in physics--but I'm thinking the physical sciences can pretty much take care of themselves. I'm not sure what I have to add. Maybe note some spectacular discoveries now and again.

And of course music. I'll blog about music. Though I'm not sure--off the top of my head--what I'll say about it.

My considerations of economics, politics, and ecology will take me into a variety of areas, in particular matter (resources) and energy--as well as how they flow and are distributed amongst the people--and not-people--who inhabit this planet. I'll probably consider the interface between society and ecosystems. And the responsibilities or obligations--if any exist--of an individual--living in the present--to others--whether living in the present or in the future. (Memo to the past: take care of yourselves.)

Humans have not inhabited this planet for a very long time. Our modern conveniences, our tools, our ways of thinking--even the very brains that create out internal and external worlds--are--in an evolutionary sense--newborn. Are we humans--with our power of reason and increasing control over matter and energy--unlimited in our potential? Or are we a flash in the pan, playing dangerous and eventually futile games with concepts--and a planet--that we don't understand?

I think the answer is: we don't know. In some cases, we have some fairly refined and useful concepts that seem to fit the world quite well--telling us what happened yesterday, what is going on right now, and--with less accuracy--what might happen tomorrow. Or the day after. But these concepts are often crude.

Economics, as I see it, is particularly crude. Not it's fault. I'm not complaining. After I became interested in energy--and started looking at world energy production, I was on occasion startled by the statements made by people in positions of influence, statements that were purportedly backed by the science of economics. But a closer look showed that many of these predictions were often little more back-of-the-envelope (at best) guesses--or worse, an assemblage of jargon (with a supply/demand chart thrown in to boot) that--amazingly enough--produced an answer that accurately supported the ideological position of the person making the prediction. Go figure.

(Note: I admit that abuse or exaggeration occurs in many fields--not just economics).

Many economists are addressing these issues, looking at human psychology, the interaction of economic systems with the surrounding environment, dabbling in complexity, and in general finding ways to refine their science to better explain and predict our world--or at least the choices we make in it.

But I do believe that economics as a field is (a) easily subverted or wrongly used by those with ideological agendas to fulfill and has (b) found itself in a place of great influence in our society. Note the order in which we consider controversial topics on many occasions: (1) Is a phenomenon true? (e.g. a biological truth). (2) Is it economical? (3) Is it politically tenable?

Economics is the gateway to, and in some ways intermingled with, the political. It's no wonder it was originally called Political Economy.

Libertarians provide what I believe is the standard by which we should consider all questions, whether general or specific: Who chooses? It is an important question. We all want to make our own choices. Though the fact is--because of fortune or otherwise--many people are not in a position to choose. They have few choices. Maybe none. In other cases, the topics are very complex. Our choices interact with other choosers--directly or indirectly. Or in the case of the future, the choosers don't even exist--yet.

The idea that autonomous independent self-serving agents produce optimal solutions is not true under all circumstances. For example, we humans have a brain--a central government--that monitors and controls aspects of the many cells distributed through our bodies. Not total control. But our bodies are not libertarian.

On the other hand, they are not Marxist. Our bodies are not a command economy.

More importantly, optimal is not always good. Or just.

The answer is not libertarian. And it's not Marxist. It is not conservative (the past is always right--if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Nor progressive (the past is bad, it's always broken, let's make it better).

The answer is a balance between freedom and justice. Not equality, mind you. Justice.

Equality makes no sense. If everyone were equal, we'd all be the same person, a physical impossibility. We should stop talking about equality and talk more about justice.

There are some significant issues that I think the world needs to consider, and consider very soon: (1) energy production and our dependence on it; (2) the environment, including the possibility of global warming. (3) the distribution of goods and services in the economy. (4) the balance between competition and cooperation.

I once considered starting a political party: The Freedom and Justice Party. I wanted to define a platform that took into account personal freedom and balanced it with a sense of justice, defining each in the process.

Maybe I'll print up a bumper sticker: "Vote Freedom & Justice". Put it on my car.

Anyway, that's the answer I came up when considering some of these issues I might blog about: Freedom & Justice.

Now what was the question?

The politics of survival

Adding to what David Roberts and Matthew Yglesia said: many people these days express a great dislike for politics and politicians. “It’s all politics” they say. “I can’t stand politicians—they’re all the same” I’m told again and again.

The causes of this belief are no doubt many. But I still lay significant blame on the doorstep of the libertarians and conservatives who have purposely short-circuited and disabled the efficient working of government (in their open attempt to drown it). They blame government for our ills and inefficiencies while rallying public contempt for the political process.

In a democracy, it is all politics. And we can be thankful for that. “It’s all politics” is a positive, not a negative. The only forms of government that are theoretically politic-free: totalitarianism or anarchism. Yet in practice, even the totalitarian and anarchic system require politics—the establishment and enforcement of rules—at some level. In totalitarian Iraq under Saddam, politics was more than a game. It was about personal survival. In post-Saddam anarchic Iraq, the same statement can be made. In both cases, the rules in Iraq were and remain arbitrary, usually set by raw power. In a democracy, we can be thankful that the rules are defined through due process guided by a sense of moral justice.

So it is all about politics. True, the border between the political that is public and the political that is private will always be in question. But in both cases—public or private--power—whether brute as in Iraq, or financial and moral, in a democracy—requires a respect for the political. And even in a democracy, political questions—how they are asked, the process by which they are answered, and the answers we reach—have implications for our survival.

Politics should be taken seriously. And respected. Not maligned. Our personal survival may not depend on it. The survival of humanity and the planet may not depend on it. But the survival of democracy most certainly does.