In defense of open society

[rogerv]

How do you read this clause:

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[rogerv]

Or this one:

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[TKDietz]

I don't share rogerv's love for or trust in government either, or his irrational belief that government can or should even try to fix all of our problems. But do you really think that roads should be left only up to private citizens? That sounds a little crazy to me. Highways cost millions per mile to build. Even local roads, bridges, and so on, are incredibly expensive. There are a lot of programs I'd rather not see my tax money going to but decent roads just seem fundamentally important to our success as a country, and they're something that requires a collective effort to build and maintain. To me, roads seem squarely in the category of things that it makes sense for government to handle.

[rogerv]

Or this one:

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

My point is a simple one: having government make decisions for the common good is not my idea, it is the Constitution.

There are good reasons to have government do these things. Under the Articles of Confederation there were problems between the states. Different currency, duties places on good produced in one state--even the prospect of states going to war against each other. (I live in Michigan and am from Ohio--those two states actually went to war with each other once.)

Why do you assume privately built roads would be publicly available? We don't have privately built peers publicly available. For that matter, why should people allow others to use what they have built with their own money?

Equal opportunity is not equality of outcomes, and nothing I have said suggests otherwise. Infrastructure is there for everyone to use, and government involvement in building hydroelectric dams, canals, and roads is entirely appropriate. Whether government should be involved in redistributing wealth is another matter and requires separate arguments.

[rogerv]

I am trying to be careful in distinguishing problems government can and should solve from those it cannot or should not. We may disagree on what goes in which pile, but we are agreed there are problems government cannot or should not solve.

I am also sympathetic with the reminder that government is we the people. The whole matter is complicated by the fact that we delegate some of the decision making to elected representatives. I'm not out to make this easier than it is is. And I am in favor of much more public debate and active participation in the decision making process at all levels than we currently have. But we have to start somewhere. We have to start with the government we have, not the one we'd like to have. I'd like government to do a better job of listening to us than it does, and yes, I apply that across the board, to democrats as well as republicans, and at all levels of government. I'm not saying we should govern by polls, but if government is going to represent our interests, they should listen to what those are.

[TChris]

But do you really think that roads should be left only up to private citizens?

No, I don't. This particular line is all a hypothetical argument.

I am trying to further this debate by pointing out that the only things the government can do in a Republic are those things the citizens themselves have the authority to do, and could do, but are more efficiently done on their behalf by elected representatives. Rogerv seems to believe the idea that the government is somehow inherently wiser and more moral than the people, hence his encouragement for expansion of governmental authority.

The Open Society web pages appear to have been written by Rogerv. That, or perhaps all the members of this organization favor long-winded diatribes that wander aimlessly through gentle, windswept meadows of politically correct fluff while rarely arriving at any distiguishable landmarks of policy recommendation. The only policy recommendation I have been able to discern on their website is that they seem to think criminals shouldn't be punished for their crimes.

The bulk of their site is filled with such meaningful gems as this:

OSI and the network implement a range of initiatives that aim to promote open societies by shaping government policy and supporting education, media, public health, and human and women's rights, as well as social, legal, and economic reform.

When that much BS is stacked in one place, it is wise to don the rubber boots.

[TChris]

And I am in favor of much more public debate and active participation in the decision making process at all levels than we currently have. ... I'd like government to do a better job of listening to us than it does...

Then what, exactly, are you talking about? Is this just a long-winded mourning of government not doing what you want? If so, this is a complete waste of time! Who doesn't think the government gets things wrong? I think that, to a person, everyone on Free Republic agrees that people should be more involved in government. Do you have some specific policies to discuss, some tangible goal you want the governent to achieve?

In short: What is your point?

[TKDietz]

I don't know enough about Karl Popper's writings to argue about them. I've never read any of his books. I've only read about him. Some describe him as right wing, someone Republicans and libertarians would find appealing. The Open Society Institute is George Soros' thing. I don't really know much about what they do either or how much they adhere to Karl Popper's philosophies.

[Original Kamaaina]

You got it. An immense amount of "reasonable" blather, with no specific point, other than "government" should listen to the "people," and the "people" should create a government which will solve all problems. This leads to Bertholdt Brecht's wicked comment on the aftermath of the 17 Jun 53 East Berlin worker's uprising. The Communist Party admonished the workers to redouble efforts to regain the Party's confidence. Brecht suggested that it might be simpler for the Party to abolish the People and elect another.
I studied Political Science in the early 50s when Marxism and Communism were taken seriously. Volumes and volumes on Dialectical Materialism and the rest of the Communist baloney. Popper's and "Rogerv's" stuff is the same. Just mountains of verbiage which can be reduced to: Put us in power and you'll never have to think again.
And I thought that Lysenkoism was long dead, i.e., the creation of the New Soviet Man by osmosis.
By the way, how much has the great philanthropist Soros donated to tsunami relief?

[rogerv]

I am not personally associated with the Open Society Institute, although I wouldn't mind working there. I agree with their aims. As for Soros, I know he is disliked for having weighed in with the Democrats this election. He was trying to be a kingmaker. But their are billionaires trying to be kingmakers for the conservatives as well--Scaife, for example. In my opinion, there is far too much of this going on. When money has this much influence in politics, democracy does not fare well. I think McCain and Feingold have the right idea, although I don't think their bill put more than a speed bump in the soft money pouring in to campaigns.

Still, back to Soros. Soros grew up in Hungary and saw both the Nazis and the Soviet Communists. I think his distaste for totalitarianism is sincere and his desire to help societies (like Russia) democratize ought to be taken at face value. He is a flawed individual (as am I) who is trying to do the right thing. The academic impenetrability of the prose at his website notwithstanding, I think he is trying to do some good things.

[rogerv]

It is not simply government that has a hard time listening. This is true of institutions across the board. There is something like institutional inertia, continuing to do things the way they have been done in the past, notwithstanding evidence that the old ways did not work as well as we would like or perhaps need change in the light of new realities. And what is worse are changes inspired not by evidence, but by ideology. Do I have specific examples? You betcha!

When sex education is replaced by abstinence only counseling, nobody asked for evidence that this is more effective in reducing teen age pregnancy or incidence of STDs. We just 'knew' the old ways were better. This was a values issue, not an issue where statistical evidence was sought.

When research on stem cells was all but halted, no one was asked to present evidence that such research was harming anyone, or that is was a waste of resources. It was halted because it was inconsistent with someone's conception of the value of life, even at the unformed embryo stage. It was claimed to increase abortions-but no evidence was given that it did so.

Regulations on securities were scaled back, and the staff for the SEC cut, on the claim that regulation increases the cost of business (no doubt it does) and that markets worked more efficiently without regulation. As a result, we got Enron and a number of other cases of corporate bad behavior that cannot, on anybody's list be counted as victories for free enterprise. In Enron, management managed to simultaneously cheat shareholders, employees, and consumers (Californians paying outrageous prices for energy because of market manipulation by big players like Enron). This was predictable--deregulation gave a window of opportunity for cheaters to cheat with impunity. That is why such protections were put in place back in the thirties in the first place.

Generous corporate CEO compensation and corporate downsizing were hailed as the road to productivity. No evidence was demanded for such claims. Now, with studies by people like Wayne Cascio, we have reason to doubt that downsizing is always a good idea. In Fortune 500 companies, there is no evidence that corporations that have downsized are more profitable than those that have not. And there is no evidence that companies that pay CEOs well, without tying pay to performance, do any better than companies that pay less generously.

There is a movement in medicine called evidence-based medicine. Cochrane and others started the movement. The simple premise is this: test out drug or surgical therapies by random clinical studies or at least epidemiological studies. It turns out some widely accepted practices among physicians don't have any clear evidence of their effectiveness. Hormone replacement therapy for women has been stopped. Circumcision is no longer routinely done, unless requested. I think this is the model I'd like to see institutionalized. Check the evidence to see if what we are doing is really effective. Pay attention to signs that things are not working and do not push forward in the faith that things will just straighten themselves out.

We had speech codes on campus. The intention was good. No one wants to condone disrespectful behavior, racism, ethnic slurs, sexism. But my take on political correctness is that it is a superficial attack on a deep problem. It drives the attitudes underground rather than challenging them. I think letting racists air their views makes them subject for debate. We have a chance to show just how little can be said in defense of such views once they are openly debated. Do I have evidence for that? No. But wouldn't it be interesting to put the matter to a test? Have campuses try alternative strategies for combating racist views and see what evidence there is of effectiveness.

There are some people who want creationism taught along with evolution. I once was one of them. I was a high school valedictorian, national merit scholar, the best science student in school--and a fundamentalist Christian who defended creationism in Sunday school. So I think I understand why somebody would care about this issue. There is some thought that our culture is hostile to religion, that science in particular leaves no room for God, and that non-Christian values are being fostered under the guise of science. But the trouble with all this is that no one is ever asked to produce evidence that such harms are caused, or that teaching creationism will remove those harms. Do we have any evidence that creationism produces better scientists or more moral people? I think it is unlikely that the evidence would support the claim that we are producing better scientists or scientific literacy in non-scientists. In fact, I'm willing to bet, if the evidence ever is examined, that we have a weakening of respect for scientific theory, the scientific method, for experiment as a way at getting at truth among those who opt out of classes in evolutionary biology and substitute a class in intelligent design or flood geology. Whether we create more moral people this way is also in doubt. My guess is that the people attracted to such course revisions are already religious, and as moral as they are going to get. And if the bargain leads to contempt for the true scientific spirit of hypothesis, experiment and revision of theory--I don't see how that should count as a victory for morality. I can see a place for respectful treatment of religion in the curriculum, but not as a competitor to science.

Welfare reform. Let's look at that one. Do we have evidence that welfare fosters dependency and cutting welfare forces people to work? Actually, what evidence we have suggests that most people on welfare do work (not all; there are some comfortable with handouts), but are not making enough to support themselves or their families. Christopher Jencks wrote about this in his book "Rethinking Social Policy".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060975342/qid=1104950140/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-5860905-6547155?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The problem seems to be that some work does not pay enough for people to stay above the poverty line. Part time, minimum wage jobs with no benefits--even a couple of these jobs strung together, often do not generate enough money for food, rent, clothing, child care, medical care, etc. What was not studied during the clamor for welfare reform was what alternative ways of solving this problem were available, and what was the likelihood any of them could fix the problem. The point is not to defend a particular government program. The point is to find an alternative that does a better job of solving the problem. And the point is to demand evidence, not faith, even faith in free markets.

Tax cuts. Let's look at that one. We have been asked to believe that tax cuts are good for: reducing surpluses, ending recessions, job creation, deficit reduction. Is it plausible to think that one solution can solve all those problems? Is it probable? Consider the analogy of another complex system--the human body. Surgery is good for some diseases, but not all. Any doctor who recommends the same cure for every disease is a quack. The sources of bodily problems are multiple, and no one solution works for all diseases and injuries. Similarly, the problems in an economy have multiple sources, and no one measure will solve them all. I believe tax cuts are sometimes a good idea, when done in the right circumstances and in the right way. But to believe that tax cuts are always the right idea, no matter what the problem, is to believe in magic, and I don't believe in magic. If the goal is to shrink the size of government, there are alternative, more direct ways to do that. But those too should be based on good evidence that we don't need those parts of government to do the tasks we expect of it. As for taxes, I believe we have no idea what the right level of taxes is until we first are clear on what we expect government to do for us, and what a reasonable cost for those things might be. Until then, we don't know if our taxes are too high, too low or just about right. I think we need to be more rational on tax policy. We should throw money at problems (hey, I don't want my money wasted either!), but neither should we beggar the government so that it cannot meet the obligations we have imposed on it.

The Patriot Act. Let's talk about that. Do I want sleeper cells in the US figuring out how to do the most damage to us? No. Do I want turf wars between law enforcement agencies to prevent sharing of information that can help stop terrorists? No. So there was need for reform in the way we admit and track people in our country, and the way we enforce the laws. But the Patriot Act was thrown together in a hurry, driven by fear, never carefully studied or debated, and goes much too far in shutting down basic civil liberties that protect law abiding citizens against unreasonable search and seizures, surveillance, arbitrary arrest and detention. It was used to locate dissenting Texas lawmakers who had no other way to protest a gerrymander but to deny the majority a quorum. It led to Arab Americans being held without charge or counsel. It led to women having their hospital records seized for having abortions. There were worries about seizures of records of book sales and library usage. There were undercover agents investigating peace groups. This all ignore the principle I have repeated here several times--the principle that in a liberal society, we have an obligation to look for the least restrictive alternative. That is, if we need to search more people to check for weapons, we need to do so in the way that restricts liberty the least.

The upshot? My point? We can have good reasons for thinking our standard ways of doing things are not working as well as they should, and we should have good reasons for the new ways we adopt in their place. That is what I mean by rational reform. It is not centralized. It is not done by a government that is wiser or more moral than we are. It should be done by all of us, in all institutions. Yes, government can play a useful role in adjudicating conflicts between institutions, or between institutions and persons. And when government does this, we should find ways to ensure it is done in a wise and moral fashion. But we should insist on that in the private sector as well. We should insist on ethical practice in business, law and education. We should insist on evidence for effectiveness. And insofar as we can ensure voluntary compliance without regulation, or with minimal regulation, we have saved money and energy for other things.

[rogerv]

I can't really answer those questions for you. My point is to use Popper as a starting point for thinking about what is in need of attention in our own society. I support some of what Soros is trying to do, but again, I didn't come here to defend Soros. He's a smart guy--he can defend himself! My point in this thread is to talk about how we can be more rational in our approach to institutional reform, and wean ourselves from magic thinking. People who would substitute faith healing for going to a doctor, ought to be persuaded to keep praying, but see the doctor anyway. We have lots of evidence that in the old days when doctors had little to offer besides sympathy that many children routinely died from diseases that we can effectively prevent or cure now. I think some of the refusal to believe we are doing environmental damage is based on magical thinking--the idea that God would not let us destroy the planet because there is nothing about it in the Bible. I can respect someone who takes the Bible seriously, but cannot respect this as a reason to ignore the evidence that human actions have changed important ecological cycles, and are affecting climate. I have said before, and I repeat here--I don't have all the answers. I may not even be asking the right questions. But I do think we should be much more demanding than we are about what will count as an acceptable answer. And I think we should be more disciplined in the way we search for and evaluate possible answers.

[rogerv]

I'd be inclined to reverse this: put us in power and you will have to think harder than ever. I'm not just blowing smoke here. This is the way I approach my students. I tell them they should never let anyone (certainly not me!) do their thinking for them, because we all stand to suffer if our beliefs are wrong. We should no more let others do our thinking for us than we should let others chew our food for us. When we discuss things in my class, we all work under the same set of rules. No view is above criticism or beneath contempt. We demand reasons and evidence from everyone, and it is fair game to criticize my views or the views of the textbook. Everyone has to make their case.

I don't think the problem is the people. I think for the most part, we are all doing the best we can. But I think there is room for improvement, and we can help each other do better. Let me be specific. Cass Sunstein has written a book "Why societies need dissent" where he makes the claim that when conservatives or liberals have large enough majorities that they can ignore the opposition, they behave badly. He give evidence! But the point is our critics do us valuable service by forcing us to consider questions and evidence we and our friends may have overlooked. Answer objections forces us to be clearer on our reasons, more objective about the validity of our reasoning--and that makes our deliberations and choices better. I believe that. That's why I am here, to learn from you about my blind sides. I have some challenges from the liberals I engage with at another website. They raise some good questions. But over here, you have a different set of questions for me. And it is good for me to hear those questions and think about those objections.

[Sunsong]

Hey rogerv,

You mentioned that you are here to find out some of your blind sides. Here’s a huge one: you are a socialist, rogerv. You are selling socialism. You need to tell yourself the truth.

America is a spiritual country. She is founded on the acknowledgement, not of any religion, but of the existence of God. And She is founded on the inalienable truth that our rights come from God. You are selling not only socialism, but Godless socialism.

I hope that you are not being paid with tax payer money – because, based on your writings here – you are doing a grave disservice to the tax payers and to this extraordinary country.

You promote the idea of “open society” but you, yourself, are not “open”. There have been so many excellent posts written to you and you seem either unable or unwilling to assimilate what they have communicated. Sometimes people waste their whole lives looking for something outside of themselves – never realizing that where they need to look – is inside.

I told you that you have not gone deep enough – and that is true. You have not found common ground with us. You replied:

Even with the best of institutions, we need to keep our eyes open. This is one reason why I am and always have been a advocate of something like the doctrine of countervailing powers: no institutions should be completely trusted to police itself, and no institution should have unchallengeable power. I think we both agree with the founding fathers on this, and this is common ground between us.

That’s not enough, rogerv. Yes, I believe that government should be watched like a hawk – but that is not enough for you and I to establish common ground and have a meaningful discussion about “social engineering” or the proper role of government. You have a blind spot there, as well. You need to dig deeper to find common ground among us.

No one seems interested in talking with you anymore. You may have a blind spot about that as well. You may think that no one can answer your amazing arguments. But you would be wrong. In the posts that have been written to you on this thread – people have been straight with you. They have said what they meant. They have no interest in social engineering. You cannot seem to grasp that. This is a conservative site. It is for conservatives to talk and debate and be active in watching their government and supporting candidates and policies that they want. Free Republic is years ahead of you in “the people” talking and debating what they want from their government. You insult everyone here when you say:

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.

The governmental system that we have in America is good enough. The “proof” of that – the “evidence” – is the fact that we are the only super power. We are the most free, most successful, most powerful country in the world. People are willing to risk everything in order to come here. Whether there is room for improvement is, to me, not compelling. Perfection doesn’t interest me. Excellence does. And what we have now is excellent.

This has been expressed to you in so many ways by so many different people – and yet you blithely go along on your socialist mission of trying to “perfect” society and play savior to those who might fail in a free system not allowing for the possiblity that each *individual* is best served by a system that gives them the freedom of choice and its consequences. Try and let this in, rogerv: Swear. To. God. Conservatives are about the business of reducing the size and scope of government. That is how we want to “better” society. That’s why we are here. That’s the philosophy we have freely chosen and that is what we are about. You have a real blind spot in not understanding that.

Government is absolute power. It is not like a business. Government can kill you, imprison you, take your property or you pay check etc. That kind of power must be limited. To us conservatives that is obvious. An analogy might be like anesthesia – a little bit will allow you to have a successful surgery, too much will kill you. That’s why the Founders “enumerated” the powers of the Federal government. Government is to do a small number of things and do them well.

[secretagent]

I think letting racists air their views makes them subject for debate. We have a chance to show just how little can be said in defense of such views once they are openly debated. Do I have evidence for that? No. But wouldn't it be interesting to put the matter to a test? Have campuses try alternative strategies for combating racist views and see what evidence there is of effectiveness.

If racists start to get the upper hand , should we close off the debate?

[rogerv]

No. I think there has been far too much of shutting up unpopular views. I have always opposed speech codes and political correctness. They are shallow and don't solve the problem. I think in open debate there is at least a chance that errors will be exposed and misinformation replaced by good information. I am guardedly optimistic that in the marketplace of ideas, bad or false ideas will get weeded out. I don't think truth has anything to fear from open debate.

[Original Kamaaina]

I've figured it out! "Rogerv" is none other than a computer program stuffed with automatic responses to almost any question or objection. Pithy ripostes, stirring calls to humanity, gagging bathos, masses of quotes and citations. "Rogerv" almost never really replies to any posts, but just clumps along its same basic line: "can't we all get along?"

[secretagent]

Next, we do best if we introduce change in small increments, and monitor the effects--what he calls 'piecemeal social engineering'. This rules out grand Utopian schemes--but that is just as well, because most of those have been disasters.

'Piecemeal social engineering' reminds me of "powers reserved to the states".

Regarding Utopia:

Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those ideal theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape? Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?"

Alexander Hamilton, 1789