Observations on the Nature of Humanity

I’ve done a lot of stupid things in my life. I’ve made unfortunate hairstyle choices (more than once). I’ve driven cars of dubious structural integrity (brakes are overrated). I even once decided to take a stroll during a hurricane. Most recently, as my friend Mike pointed out to me, I stopped posting to my blog and allowed myself to lose any minor momentum I might have had. While pondering upon my all too frequent lack of good sense, it occurred to me that most of these episodes were uncorrectable, but I could certainly correct the last, and although I am not yet ready to jump into constitutional minutiae, the subject of stupidity did give me an idea for a post.

I’ve often stated that I find it easier to convert conservatives to libertarian ideals than liberals. There are several reasons for this, but for this post I will focus on just one. It’s not that I find liberals stupid or even less intelligent than conservatives for that matter. I don’t associate with people I think are stupid (No, not even you.), so I don’t have much occasion to argue political philosophy with them. The real problem is that liberals believe people are stupid.

The argument usually goes something like this: “Kelly, your belief in individual rights, personal responsibility, and rational self-interest is all well and good, but it fails to take into account a fundamental reality. Most people are stupid. Without guidance, people will make poor decisions, and we’ll all suffer as a result.” While I will readily concur that people are stupid, – you can get far by appealing to my intellectual arrogance –I’m surprised that they assume I haven’t taken this into account. I’m even more surprised by their alternative to my position.

Their solution is invariably government involvement, always well planned and never overly intrusive. The government in their mind can be used to regulate markets that might otherwise be unfair or restrict peoples’ behavior that can often be harmful. After all, they say, we do it all the time. We have laws against murder and rape, don’t we? We have agencies like the FDA and the EPA to protect us from dangerous products and practices, do we not? The government provides services that simply couldn’t be addressed in any other way like roads, the postal system, and a social safety net, doesn’t it? What could be better, or more constitutional, than democratically elected representatives looking out for the interests of the people and enacting laws that they desire?

It is at this point that my eyes generally roll back in my head, and I say something snarky and uncalled for. I’ve grown as a person and mellowed with age, though, so I think I can offer a more moderated refutation.  Perhaps I will have better success with the liberal mindset this time.

Actually, this train of thought fell off the rails of logic pretty early on, but the truly salient point comes at the end. The most faulty premise here seems to be that duly elected representatives somehow have the intellectual ability or the constitutional authority to look out for these “interests.” The original corollary seems to have been forgotten: People are stupid. If I accept this as being true (and I do), I am being asked to pin my hopes on a large (stupid) group of people electing a smaller representative (stupid) group of people to enact legislation and regulation that reflects their (stupid) desires.

I’m pretty sure that playing in traffic would be safer.

The truth about people can be stated in three parts:

1.   People sometimes act stupidly – even me.

2.   Groups of people often act even more stupidly – congress and mobs come to mind.

3.   All this breaks down only at the largest levels. When peoples’ decisions are considered as an aggregate, their decisions are surprisingly good. When people have a truly free market they generally choose the best of the products they are offered – arguments with respect to Betamax, Apple, and Baywatch are accepted if not conceded.

This is of course why my preferred ideology is anarcho-capitalism. That said, I understand that we already have a system in this country. But, if I really must have elected representatives making decisions in far off places, I would prefer that they did as little as humanly possible. The Constitution seems to me a pretty good indication that the Founders felt the same.

Tomorrow is Election Day.  I will, as it seems I always do, vote the lesser of two (or more) evils.  And I will no doubt lose – I live in Vermont after all.  The stakes are high this year, and I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that all most some a few . . .  Oh whatever, we’re probably doomed no matter what happens.

Common Ground

In the summer of 1787, our Founders began work on a governmental framework that could replace the Articles of Confederation. It wasn’t an easy task. It took three months to agree on the initial wording, and that was only the beginning of debate. There were many concerns about creating a government that might become a threat to the liberty of its citizens.  In order to reach agreement, several changes. that would later become the Bill of Rights, had already been promised.  Ultimately, it wasn’t until early in 1789 that the final state, New Hampshire, ratified the Constitution and it could be put into effect.

The Tea Party movement and its supporters face a similar challenge. Dissatisfaction with the status quo is a clear area of agreement, but that doesn’t really make for much of a platform. While we all might agree that we are headed in the wrong direction, the change in course is certainly up for debate.  If the Tea Party is to have any influence, some decision has to be made as to what candidates and policies will be supported.

Here also, the Constitution and our Founders can be helpful. One of the greatest complaints of the disaffected electorate is that the Constitution is not being followed. Members of government, who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, seem to forget that oath the moment they lower their hand. This is a problem in each of the branches and at all levels of government. While the Federal Government receives the greatest criticism, states also overreach; no one in government seems immune to this imperial attitude. Many of the Founders predicted as much in their original debates, and perhaps this is the best place for the Tea Party to start.

The Tea Party movement is hardly a unified front. It has cobbled together people from a wide variety of ideologies, and there seems to be limited agreement on specific policies. One thing that we should be able to agree on, though, is that the government should be restrained to its constitutional functions. If policies and candidates are first viewed through this lens, a great many other issues may solve themselves.  As opposed to battling one another in the arena of ideas, perhaps it would be best to focus on supporting people that seem most dedicated to their constitutional oath and policies that clearly fall within the responsibility of government.  This back-to-basics approach should at least help to limit the damage that is being done, if not solve every problem.

The problems we currently face didn’t happen overnight, and they won’t be solved quickly. I would like to offer a reminder (particularly to my libertarian readers) that compromise will be necessary on many fronts if we have any hope of getting out of this mess. Our current economic woes are a destabilizing factor, and nothing will get done if we can’t turn the economy around. The deficit, which I see as a related issue, is equally troubling, and if we can’t find a way to get that under control, there will be little left to save. It is an unfortunate truth that “taking back the country” will be an incremental, and almost assuredly painful, process. It saddens me to say that I don’t think the country could survive a “libertarian revolution.”

That doesn’t mean that I’m “jumping ship.” I intend to promote libertarian ideas on this blog and elsewhere (when appropriate), and I encourage others to do the same with whatever beliefs they hold. Even the Constitution will not offer an area of perfect agreement, though, varying interpretations are inevitable. That is why I intend to discuss the Constitution in this blog as I move forward. (You’ll find a link to the right of the page.) I plan to offer my interpretations – perhaps one article at a time -- and try to point out areas where we seem to have strayed.  I invite others to do the same in the comments section; I am always interested in new information and viewpoints.

Recommended Reading: The 5000 Year Leap

I recently picked this book up from a friend. I had seen it discussed on the Glenn Beck show but hadn't gone out to purchase it myself. It is well worth a look.

The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen, focuses on the founding of the United States and how certain principles enshrined in our constitution have served to create the most prosperous and free society the world has ever known. Skousen identifies 28 of these principles, looks at where the ideas originated, and ties them to the Founders.

Perhaps the best feature of The 5000 Year Leap is that it offers a rich supply of other sources for those interested in learning about the Founders and the beliefs they held. For those of us who believe our country has taken a wrong turn, developing an individual understanding of our founding principles is essential, and it is sometimes difficult to know where to find information. Even if there are views in The 5000 Year Leap that you disagree with – and I have found one or two myself – the book provides an excellent roadmap to further research.

What is a libertarian?

Hope for Change

The Teaparty movement is the most exciting thing I have seen in American politics in my lifetime.  To paraphrase Michelle Obama, I'm finally proud of America.  The Teaparty movement is trying to do what America has needed for years -- to bring together a coalition of varied viewpoints, all dedicated to reforming the system.

While this movement started with libertarians, it quickly captured both Republicans and Democrats who felt unheard by their government.  So far, the Teaparty has organized a number of protests and made incumbents on both sides of the aisle very nervous about their chances for reelection.  That's a great beginning, but the real work will be in finding the common ground amongst traditionally disparate views.  A platform has yet to develop that will help to outline the goals of the movement in detail, and  I think the key to making this happen will be found in libertarian ideals.

The Nolan Chart

Of course, the biggest hurdle to proving that is in effectively explaining what a libertarian is.  Fortunately, this isn't something new to libertarians, and brighter minds than my own have developed a very good place to start -- The Nolan Chart.

The Nolan Chart has been used by the Libertarian Party for years to help people identify where they fall in the spectrum of political thought.  What has often been called the "world's shortest political quiz" is designed to show you how much you have in common with Libertarians, and you can take the quiz that will place you on the Nolan Chart here.  I hope you'll take the time to finish the quiz before you read on, I'll wait.

What Does it Mean?

In America, political thought is typically divided from left to right as liberal or conservative respectively.  This doesn't work very well for libertarians who tend to agree with the most left of liberals on some issues and the most right of conservatives on others.

The Nolan Chart, developed by David Nolan in 1970, addresses this problem brilliantly.  The chart measures a person's tolerance for self-governance on two scales: personal and economic.  This adds another axis to the political spectrum, an up and down to go with the left and right.  Since Libertarians prefer a government that is limited to a few specific functions, this new axis helps to differentiate them from Republicans on the right, Democrats on the left, and those of either stripe who are interested in a more expansive role for government.  Although the Nolan Chart does what it was designed to do very well, it has done two other things, and neither has been very helpful to the Libertarian Party.  You've probably already seen a clue to the first of these problems.

Problem #1: libertarian or Libertarian

You may have noticed that I don't always capitalize the word libertarian like I do Republican or Democrat.  That isn't a mistake,  I'm making a distinction between big-l Libertarians (capitalized) and little-l libertarians (not capitalized).  Libertarians are members of a political party like Republicans or Democrats; libertarians are people who hold libertarian views, whether they vote for the party or not.  Unfortunately, the Nolan Chart leads some libertarians to work against Libertarians.

The chart is designed to help bring people to the Libertarian party.  People who take the quiz are likely to see that they hold some views in common with Libertarians.  In reality, the quiz is designed to be as inclusive as possible.  Libertarians would ideally like to draw anyone who scores above the center line of the chart into the party.  Those people are more libertarian than they are authoritarian; they might need to be convinced of certain policy points, but they could be useful allies.  Some libertarians, though, react very differently to the quiz.

For some libertarians, the quiz sparks a competitive spirit.  They want to prove how dedicated they are to libertarian ideals; the higher they score on the chart, the more libertarian they are.  The goal suddenly becomes to move your position to the apex of the chart.  (That's where I score by the way.)  Unfortunately, this places them ideologically further away from those closer to the center line -- the very people the Libertarian Party is trying to court.  The Nolan Chart becomes a "purity test" that drives some members away from the "big tent" goals of the Party.

Problem #2: Something for Everyone or Nothing for No One.

The second problem can't be blamed on libertarians; it's more a problem with human nature.  The quiz for the Nolan Chart is good at pointing out similarities with libertarian ideals, but it is equally good at making clear the differences.  People who take the quiz will almost always find something they vehemently disagree with.  Libertarians support a very limited role for government, but most people want the government to do some things for them.

The government has cleverly offered "goodies" that people want.  These are usually the things that Libertarians would seek to remove (or at least curtail).  The only thing that Libertarians have to offer is less of everything -- although, I would hope that more freedom counts for something.  This is a difficult position to be in, and it's not an easy problem to solve because it's tied to the ideology itself.

What is a libertarian?

Both Libertarians and libertarians want a more limited government.  Personal responsibility and individual freedom are the cornerstones of libertarian thought.  Modern libertarians sometimes have trouble selling these ideas to the public at large; they find themselves on the fringes politically.  If that's true, how can libertarian ideals help to bring people together?  To do that, libertarians need to focus on people who supported limited government, personal responsibility, and individual freedom who also have the respect of most Americans.  Those people are the Founders, of course.  They believed in all those things and they left a framework that couples those ideals with a working government, the Constitution.  (But, let me save that discussion for next week.)

Recommended Reading

 If I could only choose one author to recommend to people who want to expand their political horizons, it would be P. J. O'Rourke. His wit makes even the most wonkish of subjects entertaining, and his

self-deprecating, aw-shucks style is perfect for skewering those who take themselves too seriously. 

O'Rourke describes himself as a libertarian, but he is far more likely to ridicule liberal ideas than conservative ones.  That being said, you can take nothing for granted in his writing; anyone who acts stupidly is fair game -- which covers just about anyone in politics.  He is even ready to take jabs at fellow libertarians on occasion, when they make it easy for him.

In All the Trouble in the World O'Rourke takes a look at the sort of issues we typically expect government to address and shows how government involvement rarely makes things better and often makes them worse.  Overpopulation, famine, disease, ethnic strife, poverty and ecological issues are all addressed in the book, and O'Rourke provides direct evidence for the adage, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."  In many cases he shows how government has used eminent domain and taxation to expand that road into a superhighway for ease of travel.

I enjoy everything O'Rourke writes, and I expect that many more of his books will make my recommended reading list, but All the Trouble in the World is such a perfect exposé on how government doesn't work that I wanted to get to it early.  I expect that as libertarian ideas get inserted into political discourse more frequently, these are the very issues that people will be forced to talk about.  Looking at what does not work and why is a good way to start looking for common ground.

The lesson we need to learn from the BP oil spill.

For two months now, oil has poured into the Gulf of Mexico from the blowout that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon oil platform. The media has provided a nearly as relentless stream of images, from computer generated predictions of the oil as it escapes the Gulf and climbs the East Coast, to tear inducing video of pelicans struggling but immobilized in oil the consistency of hot fudge. Through it all, rage has built against the company responsible for this mess, BP. After 60 days, I think it is high time that someone stands up for BP, and since I have seen no one else willing to do it, let me be the first. Leave BP alone! I’m not sure that they have done anything wrong, but I will happily tell you who did, and is.

All right, that last part includes a bit of hyperbole. Obviously BP has done one or two things wrong. As I already pointed out, they are ultimately responsible for the spill -- accident or not, and I think it is safe to say that their CEO Tony Hayward made a public relations gaff or two.

That, in itself, seems to be a mistake of BP’s. Hayward started out by saying that the oil spill was really pretty “tiny” when compared to the scope of the Gulf, a statement that was a both true and completely uncomforting. It was at this point that Hayward’s popularity began its decline, and this would have been the correct time for BP to find someplace new for him to be – like upper Latvia or at the bottom of an abandoned Kansas salt mine. This problem, at least, seems to have been rectified today; Tony Hayward has his life back, and he can enjoy it far away from the public eye.

Aside from this, BP has acted pretty much as I would have expected them to, both before and after the blowout. Regardless, in an effort to find someone to blame, a great deal of finger-pointing is going on. The desire to place blame is just human nature, but people should be careful that they are not tricked into believing that BP should be the focus of their ire. Only one party in this fiasco has acted “recklessly” or “negligently,” and it’s not BP; it’s our government.

The government decided where BP would drill this well, what safety features were required, and what BP’s liability would be in the event of an accident. As it turns out, none of these decisions were right, and the government’s reaction has been predictable: blame someone else.  The government's talking points are designed only as misdirection.

• It was corporate greed that caused BP to drill at depths which were clearly unsafe. Never mind that oil companies have been forced away from drilling inland or in shallow coastal waters, or that BP doesn’t drill anywhere without the expressed consent of the government.

• BP was “reckless” in their pursuit of profits. They made decisions based on cost and not safety. We are expected to ignore that businesses balance risk all the time. The government can offer a laundry list of things that BP could have done to prevent this disaster; none of these were things that the government required.

• BP must be made to pay for any of the costs that are related to the spill, and if there has been any criminal conduct they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Of course, BP has, from the beginning, offered to pay any legitimate claims of damages, something not required by law since the government capped liability in 1990 at 75 million. And, if we are concerned about criminal behavior, perhaps we should be taking a very close look at the Mineral Management Service.

As usual, this complete failure by our government is used as justification for greater control and authority. This accident isn’t seen as a reason to drill in safer areas, but instead, to limit drilling to an even greater extent. The immediate loss of jobs from this is already being blamed on BP. We are told that tighter regulation and more oversight are needed, but no one in government seems to be able to answer why oversight was lax or why current regulations were insufficient in the first place. What good will new standards do if they are waived or ignored? The current cap on liability is being revisited, and lawmakers are questioning what an appropriate cap might be. I have yet to hear anyone suggest, however, that perhaps we shouldn’t have a cap, particularly if the government has no intent to honor it anyway – as appears to be the case with the current cap.

People have finally started to open their eyes to the fact that government cannot solve every problem. If you are reading this, I implore you to leave BP’s blame to the court system where it belongs. Don’t let yourself be misdirected by those who are themselves culpable. Listen closely to any politician from any party who uses the tactics I have described. When they call for accountability, be sure that you help them with that -- at the voting booth.

Recommended Reading

What type of an English teacher would I be if my blog didn't include a recommended reading list?

Each week I plan to recommend a book to my readers, and what better book to start out with than Atlas Shrugged? This book is so important that I intend to write a much larger article about it at some point in the future, but, for now, I think it is a perfect place to start my recommended reading list.

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged tells the story of a dystopian America collapsing under collectivist policies. While attempting to save her railroad, Dagny Taggart uncovers a surprising conspiracy and answers the question that everyone has been asking: Who is John Galt?

Atlas Shrugged provides amazing insight to both libertarian and objectivist thought, and in light of current events, seems almost prophetic -- it was written in 1957. Rand's portrayal of the dangers of creeping socialism and political pull are particularly salient today.

I have to offer a warning to those who have never read anything by Rand before. This is her longest book, and nothing Rand writes could be considered an "easy"read. If reading is not a passion for you, this book might be worth doing in the audio format.

(I have set up an Amazon Store where I will set up links to all of the books that I recommend. Hopefully I will be able to set up a separate page just for book recommendations as I become a bit more blogging savvy.)