In defense of open society

Thank you. This is a reasonably specific topic: what is the best approach to crime? And in your role as public defender, you have said you would like more emphasis on prevention, where possible. I agree. In fact, I'd like to go one step further. I think at least some illegal drugs should be made legal, and that we should attack the problem of drug abuse by education rather than law enforcement.

Let me explain. I think smoking marijuana is a bad idea. It kills motivation. It impairs judgment. But I think with the exception of when people are operating heavy equipment or driving, it is behavior that affects the user and not anyone else. I don't think the law should be protecting us against our own poor judgment. And, for the most part, it doesn't. People who want to waste their time on video games can. People who want to be sexually promiscuous can. Not smart behavior, but not criminal either. It think we might have more cost effective methods of reducing marijuana use in education and treatment. The war on drugs has people serving absurd sentences for possession, in some cases more than murderers and rapists (the book "Reefer Madness" is a good one on this.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618334661/103-2928903-8986211?v=glance

This punitive approach has not reduced drug use, but has treated much of the population as criminals. I think sex education may be a more cost effective way of dealing with the problem of teen pregnancy. I think abstinence is a good idea. But I also think most kids will ignore it. I think we are better off if we give kids a sound understanding of teens get pregnant, and how to prevent pregnancy. That would reduce the abortion problem, because fewer people would get pregnant by accident.

Since teenage pregnancy and drug use are contributory factors to poverty and unemployment, just by sensible approaches to those two problems, we will have increased employability. By means of an education that gives people a knowledge of cause and effect, in particular, the connection between human actions and their consequences, we enable people to make better choices. This encourages people to be more responsible with their lives, gives them incentives for good behavior (and not just punishment for bad behavior)-and it works.

It is one reason I favor secular education that focuses on science. It is one reason I worry about proposals to tell young people to pray rather than use condoms. When I attended seminary, I belonged to the same conservative Presbyterian church as C. Everett Koop, and was there when he accepted Ronald Reagan's appointment to surgeon general. Koop caught a lot of flack for saying condoms save lives, but I think he was absolutely right.

BTW, while conceptual analysis is rather dry and abstract, I don't believe it is either pointless or empty. I come here having read George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics" where he tries to come to terms with why liberals and conservatives talk past each other. His take is that we are working with different models of 'family' when we think about the nation as a family. Lakoff is a liberal linguist who is engaged in research about how people think as evidenced by the metaphors they use to understand the world. How much is there to this? I'm not sure. But it is an interesting hypothesis. If it is true, however, it means we will have to pay some attention to the concepts we are using to frame this discussion. Otherwise, we will misunderstand each other because we will interpret what each of us says within our preferred frame.

I am flagging this as a possible source of misunderstanding because I have several times been labeled a 'socialist' here, in spite of my claims to the contrary. I don't think liberals are socialists. We believe in a mixed economy. If that looks to some like a halfway house to socialism, perhaps that is because we are working with a too impoverished palette. Our constitution allows the government to intervene for the common good, and taxes us to do its job. With government bonds and central banks (thanks to Alexander Hamilton!), and the constitutional powers to coin money and appropriate land to build infrastructure (roads, canals, etc.) our economy has always been mixed. That is not a creation of the New Deal, although the New Deal is usually where we look when we are talking about the mixed economy. And I think countercyclical policies in government can take the edge off the business cycle and help growth. Governments can do some things well. Some jobs only government can do. For the rest, liberals are quite comfortable with leaving matters to private initiative. I am serious when I say I have no problem with people getting a profit for their investments. I agree with you about the need for incentives (although I do think we define motives too narrowly when we reduce them all to monetary terms. I think there are other motivators as well.)

Some commitments of liberals are in the direction of encouraging personal responsibility, work ethic, teaching individuals to think for themselves (rather than dependence on authority). No liberal is demanding the end of private property, the nationalizing of industry, or making everyone a ward of the state. We share with the libertarians an emphasis on personal liberty and autonomy. We part company with some who might call themselves cultural conservatives, who want laws against things they consider offensive, or harmless wrongdoing (e.g., pornography, gambling, cursing, prostitution, teaching evolution and sex education in schools). For the most part, we hold the line at actions that cause demonstrable harm to others (not speculative ones, like depravity of the soul, but demonstrable ones like violence to person and damage to property).

So I do believe in some restrictions to liberty (and so do you), but please note the qualification I have made several times in this thread: we need to choose the least restrictive alternative. If we have the choice of two policies which would achieve the same good, we ought to choose the one that involves the fewest restrictions on personal liberty. So, if the concern is about drunk drivers and underage drinking, we have the options of outright prohibition or special restrictions on the age of drinkers, and activities the drinker may engage in. In a liberty-protective society, we choose the latter, more complicated regulations to the former, simpler prohibition. It makes our laws more complicated, but it leaves us freer.

Again, to say some things are not a matter of law does not mean we do not care about them. Law has a moral basis, but does not and cannot do the job of morality. Some moral matters must be left to persuasion and social sanction rather than the police. We can't pass laws against racism, but we can against discrimination. Racism involves attitudes; discrimination involves overt acts. But that doesn't mean the attitudes are acceptable. We can and should hold racists in contempt, and find ways to persuade them, if we can, of their errors.

Popper quotes in his chapter ten of volume one, parts of a speech by Pericles. This is a really good speech, I I had never read it in its entirety until yesterday. I'd like to quote part of it at length from a translation of Thucydides "The Peloponnesian War" by Rex Warner, because it gets at some of the important features of an open society. Please forgive the length of this post; there is a point to its length:

"Let me say that our system of government does not copy the institutions of our neighbors. It is more the case of our being a model to others, that of our imitating anyone else. Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in he hands not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses. No one, so long as he to be of service to the state is kept in political obscurity because of poverty. And just as our political life is free and open, so is our day to day life in our relations with each other. We do not get into a state with our next door neighbor if he enjoys himself in his own way, nor do we give him the kind of black looks which, though they do no real harm, still do hurt people's feelings. We are free and tolerant in our private lives; but in public affairs we keep the law. This is because it commands our deep respect.

"We give our obedience to those whom we put in positions of authority, and we obey the laws themselves which are for the protection of the oppressed, and those unwritten laws which it is an acknowledged shame to break.

"And here is another point. When our work is over, we are in a position to enjoy all kinds of recreation for our spirits. There are various kinds of contests and sacrifices regularly throughout the year; in our own homes we find a beauty and a good taste which delight us every day and which drive away our cares. Then the greatness of our city brings it about that all the good things from all over the world flow in to us, so that to us it seems natural to enjoy foreign goods as our own local products.

"Then there is a great difference between us and our opponents in our attitude towards military security. Here are some examples: Our city is open to the world, and we have no periodical deportations in order to prevent people observing or finding our secrets which might be of military advantage to the enemy. This is because we rely, not on some secret weapon, but on our own real courage and loyalty. There is a difference too in our educational systems. The Spartans, from their earliest boyhood, are submitted to the most laborious training in courage; we pass our lives without all these restrictions, and yet we are just as ready to face the same dangers as they are. Here is proof of this: When the Spartans invade our land, they do not come by themselves, but bring all their allies with them; whereas we, when we launch an attack abroad, do the job by ourselves, and though fighting on foreign soil, do not often fail to defeat opponents who are fighting for their hearths and homes. As a matter of fact, none of our enemies has ever yet been confronted with our total strength, because we have to divide our attention between our navy and the many missions on which our troops are sent on land. Yet if our enemies engage a detachment of our troops and defeat it, they give themselves credit for having thrown back our entire army; or if they lose, they claim they were beaten by us in full strength. There are certain advantages, I think, in our way of meeting danger voluntarily, with an easy mind, instead of with laborious training, with natural rather than state-induced courage. We do not have to spend our time practicing to meet sufferings which are still in the future; and when they are actually upon us we show ourselves just as brave as these others who are always strict in training. This is one point in which our city deserves to be admired. There are others.

"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of things of the mind does not make us soft. We regard wealth as something to be properly used, rather than something to boast about. As for poverty, no one need be ashamed to admit it: the rel shame is in not taking practical measures to escape from it. Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well: even those mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics--this is a peculiarity of ours: we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all. We Athenians, in our own persons, take our decisions on policy or submit them to proper discussions: for we do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the worse thing is to rush into actions before the consequences have been properly debated. And this is another point whee we differ from other people. WE are capable at the same time of taking risks and estimating them beforehand. Others are brave out of ignorance; and when they stop to think, they begin to fear. But the man who can most truly be accounted brave is he who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.

"Again, in questions of general good feeling there is a great contrast between us and most other people. We make friends by doing good to others, not by receiving good from them. This makes our friendship all the more reliable, since we want to keep alive the gratitude of those who are in our debt by showing continued goodwill to them: whereas the feelings of someone who owes us something lack the same enthusiasm, since he knows that, when he repays our kindness, it will be more like paying a debt than giving something spontaneously. We are unique in this. When we do kindness to others, we do not do them out of calculations of profit or loss: we do them without afterthought, relying on our free liberality. Taking everything together then, I declare that our city is an education to Greece, and I declare that in my opinion each single one of our citizens, in all the manifold aspects of life, is able to show himself the rightful lord and owner of his own person, and do this, moreover, with exceptional grace and exceptional versatility. And to show this is no empty boasting for the present occasion, but has real tangible fact, yo have only to consider the power which our city possesses and which has been won by those very qualities which I have mentioned. Athens, alone of the states we know, comes to her testing time in a greatness that surpasses what was imagined of her. In her case alone, no invading enemy is ashamed at being defeated, and no subject can complain of being governed by people unfit for their responsibilities. Mighty indeed are the marks and monuments of our empire which we have left. Future ages will wonder at us, as th present wonders at us now. We do not need the praises of a Homer, or anyone else whose words may delight us for the moment, but whose estimation of th facts will fall short of what is really true.For our adventurous spirit has forced an entry into every sea and into every land; and everywhere we have left behind us everlasting memorials of good done to our friends or suffering inflicted on our enemies>"

excerpt from Pericles's funeral oration, fifth century BC in Thucydides "The Pelopponesian War", trans. Rex Warner. Penguin, 1959. pages 117-120

I agree that there are "problems of insider trading, corruption, and socializing cleanup costs where there are unconsented to risks and costs borne by people who are not party to the transactions, and not beneficiaries of the gains." But such problems are particular, and each have, conservatively speaking, criminal law, civil law, or free market solutions, that do not necessitate changes or unique interpretations to our Constitution.

With regard to the depression, I suggest Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression." Admittedly, Rothbard is a bit conspiratorial, but his explanations of what economically happened in this book, go right to the point. By the way, it was the Republicans throwing money at the market, that prolonged the depression, which the market would have quickly adjusted. Democrats saw this, criticized it, and campaigned on a government reduction platform in 1932, only to do the opposite once elected.

I find your words just vague enough, that I really don't disagree with the most of what you said in reply #85. No criticism here, as I'm sure the same can be said about my words prior. I do however disagree with:

I think the challenge is to do so in such a way as to not undermine incentives to work and improve, and to do so in ways that do not weigh down economic growth. But I think we can do this now.

The challenge, is to address the problems, without limiting our freedoms. Or better still, address the problems, while increasing freedom.

I agree. I think our constitutional framework is flexible enough that a lot of the fixes we would want to implement would occur within its present scope, without need for amendments. The point is to admit we have problems that need to be solved rather than go into denial. Then we can go on to evaluate alternatives that have some chance of fixing the problem without causing worse problems of their own.

BTW, I think urban sprawl is precisely what happened from lack of planning.

There are several problems as I see related to urban sprawl. The largest of which is not government planning, but rather popular expectations of government. Urban sprawl that occurs naturally, is not a negative. That is where those who choose to move out, away from the conveniences of the city, do so knowing that the conveniences will be lost, or have to be paid for at their true market values. This has not been the case.

Urban planners, first drive out people who want to keep the freedom they were accustomed to on private property in the cit.y. They then demand increased service that they are not entitled to. That brings everyone else. Today of course, the entire process has been corrupted, with entire industries continuing the process. It is no longer initiated by a few people wanting their freedom.

To me the challenge is not in what is happening outside the urban areas, but what is going on in the urban areas. The modern frontier that needs to be tamed, is the urban frontier. Give those people freedom, and the rest of the problem will take care of itself.

Thanks. I agree. If we value liberty, we need to pay attention to the impact of our policies on liberty, and make sure we choose the alternative that restricts liberty the least. If we can actually enhance liberty, so much the better.

...there is a question about the production of public goods by government with our tax dollars. It is a question we ought to discuss: which goods count as public goods we would want government to produce, even if we were not direct beneficiaries?

The government does not produce; it consumes. The government is managerial overhead. To the degree that the government provides services to the public, they are those our elected representatives have, correctly or incorrectly, deemed broadly necessary enough to be implemented with tax funding. The overwhelming majority of those, IMO, were established either fraudulently or with a Communism-flavored intention.

I think some of the motivation for suburban flight was the desire for more space--the same thing that drove settlers over the Appalachians westward. Some of the motivation was racism-white flight. But at least some of it was because we could. The motor car made travel reasonably cheap and quick. But I think no one ever intended urban sprawl. It is something that result from a bunch of intentional actions that had unintended results. I think much of our lives are like that. Cities exploded in the early 1900s because of the waves of immigrants coming in needing housing. Much of the building occurred without any real planning, and the congestion followed as an unintended result.

Now we have the reverse problem of gentrification. Poor people have to move into the housing they can afford, but then they are helpless when landlords and local government collude to drive them out to build condos or stadiums. I believe the rule of eminent domain can and has been abused. This is a concern.

Government does build roads. Those roads would not be built without government involvement. I agree there needs to be public discussion about what we want government to do and what we don't want it to do. But I don't think what a government should do is written in stone. It is up to us, the people, to decide what services we think government should provide, and why government should do it rather than the private sector.

Stop beating around the bush and tell us your master plan.

His "master plan" is the Open Society of George Soros (huge contributor to the Kerry/Edwards campaign via MoveOn.org)

I'm not sure why this truckload of bovine excrement is still around. Trolls just last longer these days I guess.

I'm kind of glad the censors haven't gotten to him yet. There is nothing wrong with open debate with people with different points of view. I wouldn't call the guy a troll. A troll just comes to cause trouble. Rogerv has been civil.

Government does build roads. Those roads would not be built without government involvement.

No, private construction companies build roads under contract from governments, which paid for them with tax money. It's a simple process to imagine a method for accomplishing the same results without government involvement. Alternatives may operate more or less smoothly, but it is clearly possible.

Rogerv has been civil.

True, he has been civil, but I'm sure Joseph Stalin could be civil when discussing communism too. Perhaps not troll material, but certainly not FR material, IMO.

You have a right to your O.

You are right. They could be, but rarely have. I think the reason is worth thinking about. Suppose two groups could not agree on where to build a road, or had competing road projects? There is a need for coordination. I think this is why we usually decide these things at the community level, and why government is the appropriate body to make such decisions. If we could coordinate our efforts and resolve our conflicts without violence, we would not need government. But that is not the world we live in.

There is one further reason to think about. If roads were only built by voluntary subscription, the wealthy would have roads and the poor would not. Given our commitment to equal opportunity, it makes sense to have a neutral authority like the government arrange for the building of roads so that the roads are available for all, not just some. No concern about free riders. All may use the roads.

Thanks. BTW one of my closest friends in high school went on to be a public defender. You guys do good work, and I for one am glad you are helping make the legal system work the way it should, with equal protection of the law for everybody.

Well, we don't exactly have equal protection for everybody. But it is important that even those who can't afford it up front have the assistance of counsel if they are accused of violating the law, especially since we've created so many laws and arrest so many people these days.

Wow. So many subtle misdirections and incorrect conclusions... where to begin...

First, you conceded the point that governments are not necessary for such amenities as paved roads, but rather become the most convenient method for providing certain, widely-used services. Early citizens of the country did just fine without government-funded road projects. Clearly, such services are a consequence of widespread adoption of higher technology, the automobile, and increasing wealth in the taxpaying populace. Such projects underscore the fact that much of what governments now do is not germane to the core function of government at all.

There is a need for coordination.

No. Once again you overreach in your language. There is a desire for coordination, even an advantage to coordination. Need? No.

...why government is the appropriate body to make such decisions.

In our form of government, that "body" is the people themselves! Remember all that "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." business? The government, when administered correctly, represent the people and their interests. Therefore, the decisions made are those which would have been made by the people themselves, only administered in a more efficient, representative fashion.

You continue to exhibit an affection for the elitist government, writing in terms which clearly separate the government from the governed. In your estimation, it seems, ordinary citizens are incapable of doing much of anything well without the helping (mandating) hand of the morally superior government.

If roads were only built by voluntary subscription, the wealthy would have roads and the poor would not.

Here, your true colors shine a bit more brightly through the gentle veil of politically correct language you and Soros so love. Apparently, an important function of government is to correct social imbalances such as the distribution of wealth.

You assert as a "reason" for government involvement that there may be an imbalance to the quality of roads constructed by private funding, with the obvious presumption that such imbalance is unfair and therefore undesirable. Subtle and innocuous as this example may be, the socialist principles at work in the background of your discourse are clear.

Given our commitment to equal opportunity, it makes sense to have a neutral authority like the government arrange for the building of roads so that the roads are available for all, not just some.

Again displaying your talent for the non sequitur, you functionally redefine the phrase "equal opportunity" to mean something closer to "equal outcome". The fact that the wealthy could build higher quality roads than those less so is no indictment of equal opportunity at all. An imbalance of results is not necessarily evidence of an imbalance of opportunity.

Roads would be available to all; every citizen, or group of citizens, would have an equal opportunity to build whatever road of which they were capable. Those who funded the roads, whether rich or poor, would certainly, and rightly, have something to say about who may or may not use the roads. In our society, such concern for "free riders" takes the form of vehicle registration and license plates.