phaedo2000.com Blog

And everyone is recapping 2011.  There was good and there was bad, but things are looking up and everything is going to be OK.  Really?

The American way, it seems; short attention span and optimistic out-look; wonderful.  I do not like being a pessimist; I really don’t.  And deep down I am not; we will pull out of the mess we are in, I believe, but I cannot help the nagging worry that clutters up my mind.  How can we just put aside a debt such as the one we have accumulated, especially when the deficit is such that it continues to grow at a frightening rate? at least so it continues to appear to me; and that doesn’t even take into consideration Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.  But I seem to be in the minority – business as usual; we’ll come through it ok.  But when do we start doing something about it?

Now don’t get me wrong; I am not a fan of just cutting everything off and stopping all spending; it cannot work that way; that cure would likely be worse than the disease.  Surely some additional borrowing and/or taxing will be necessary, but how about spending?  There seems to be no interest in stopping spending.  What am I missing?

Yes, “they” would tell me, just sit down and shut up and let the “system” take care of it; it always has and always will.  We are the most powerful country in the world and that means, ipso facto, that we can have it both ways – all ways?  The world cannot get along without us.  Yaddata yaddata, so why am I still frightened?

I AM still frightened.

Now there is an exciting subject: statistics.  Booooring.  Maybe so, but none the less important, perhaps, at least in my telling, less because what it has accomplished for us (and it has much) than the dangers it can pose for creating perceptions that are…well, not untrue, but misleading.

Statistics are derived from slicing and dicing masses of data.  The average (we love averages) height and weight of any group of individuals is the sum of its heights and weights divided by the number of individuals; and by plotting the individual statistics (aided mightily by computers) we can show the distribution among the group, from the smallest and lightest to the tallest and heaviest (normal distribution = bell curve).  When we do so we find that there are many less extremes than there are groupings of those nearest the average (or mean, or median).  We’ll not delve more aggressively into the details, but consider some of the confusing perceptions that can be developed.

Average income is an example.  Take six people who each make $10 a day; the average daily pay is $10.  Makes sense.  Now take another six people whose daily pay is: $5, $5, $5, $200, $200 and $2000; the average daily pay for this group is $402.5.  Now compare the average pay of the two groups.  Wow.  The first group averages $10 a day, the second group averages over $400 a day; what a difference.  But remove the $2000 outlier and see what results; the first group still averages $10 a day, but the second group now makes $83 a day.  The outlier makes a BIG difference in the average, and thus averages can be misleading.

We are misled continually by such statistics influenced by outliers that have so much influence on “averages.”  One cute quip is that statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics; there are many more of the same ilk, and the gist is that one can prove a great number of things by manipulating statistics to support an argument.  Beware of those who quote averages.  We are inundated by political and media manipulated statistics – and many of us are influenced by them such that we gain perceptions that are not correct; oh, the statistics may be correct, but the perceptions are not.  We are similarly influenced by assumptions.  Neither, of course, are as dangerous as statements presented as fact that are merely opinion.  There are so many ways a clever person can cause misperceptions, and so many people who, believing what they hear, pass it on as truth.  They are liars? no, because they believe what they are saying, having accepted what another has said as truth.  Did what was said start out as a lie or as a sincere opinion that was wrong?  Who knows?  But either way there is a tremendous amount of misinformation of one kind or another floating around used to influence.

During the Polk election for the presidency some years ago a newspaper published a letter designed to assassinate the character of one of the candidates; several weeks later the paper repudiated the letter, exposing it as fraud; but the readership preferred to believe the lie and rejected the repudiation.  Sound familiar?  There are truths and lies, period.  Uh uh; there is all kind of gray area in between, much of it generated by creative use of statistics.

Read and listen; but be careful of what you believe – and question everything: the creed of healthy skepticism.

I am frankly embarrassed at the degree of negativism, and its effectiveness, in my country.

It is every where.  I have read that there are two reasons it is used in politics: 1) it works whether true or not and 2) the fund-raisers support it because it results in higher levels of contributions.  Both disgust me.  But I see it almost every day on Yahoo! where feature articles are offered making fun of athletes, actors, politicians and almost anyone else, due, in the case of athletes because to having made a highly visible mistake; and in all others because they consider it good business, meaning that it attracts attention.  What does that say about us?  Does it make us feel good to see someone ridiculed – or taken down?  Apparently it does.

Perhaps the hype of “class-warfare” contributes, although this is not class per se; but is it a response to envy?  Or just the satisfaction of seeing the successful pulled down?  How about moral deterioration?  I have read much about that, including relativism in particular.  One case that I might cite as result of a college study.  Respondents were asked to evaluate certain occurrences and what resulted was an opinion that almost anything goes; particularly that each culture is different and if that’s the way that culture does it it’s their business.  One respondent was asked, “even if it was murder?”  The answer was that certainly it couldn’t be done in the United States, but if that was part of another culture, he guessed it would be all right.

Whatever it is I find it reprehensible; I wish everyone did.  But maybe that’s naivite on my part.  If so I find that even more reprehensible.

Well, maybe not all that new, but expanding, or so it would seem; although in this age of advanced and ubiquitous communications it is difficult to tell whether something is increasing or just getting more attention.  But it is certainly in our faces, and the only name I can think for it is anarchy.

Anarchy in one guise or another has been with us for a long time, maybe forever; it is the extreme of individual rights, suggesting that anyone should be able to do anything whatever they wish to do, whether it interferes with others or not.  Since anarchy is basically unstable, it generally doesn’t last long as someone with power always seems to be able to exploit the chaotic instability that it can create.  But that either doesn’t occur to the budding anarchists or they choose to ignore it; no, I think it’s more than that, they refuse to believe it, preferring their own view of reality.  But then if the power is of the anarchists they are likely to welcome it since it can then be used to force their views on all, although it never looks quite the same as they thought it might.

The new anarchy seems to be both ideological and selfish, to say nothing of arrogant, and it probably has always been such.  Perhaps the most concerning element of it is that its propagators think they know best and insist on impressing their views on everyone; but then isn’t that becoming the trend these days?  Surely a little knowledge, imbued with a lot of arrogance, is a dangerous thing, and by a little knowledge I am suggesting a lot of ignorance.   Those who profess to know how things should be generally don’t know enough to even realize what that might entail, or what unintended consequences it may impose.  The anarchical mind set seems to think that whatever they wish can become reality and they are immune to facts and reality.

I  heard a young lady on television today bubbling about the demonstrations of this year throughout the world and how they were a beautiful thing, reflecting how wonderful it is that the people of the world are so positively connected through their myriad handheld communications devices, and
how this was changing the world.  Since she obviously had little understanding of how the world functions, change was assumed to be a welcome thing and could result in only goodness; had she been presented conflicting opinions or even facts surely she would have rejected them out of hand.  Visionaries tend to do that as their fantasies of how the world SHOULD be are all that matters, and therefore they assume it can be merely by wishing it so.

Another anarchy propagator besides demonstrators is hacker.  But then what are hackers but another kind of terrorist, which are the extreme form of demonstrators?  And as I have often opined, it is far easier to destroy what one doesn’t like than it is create a better alternative.  Nor are terrorists – anarchists – often able to see the negative that their destruction are likely to generate; or perhaps (and more likely) they just don’t care, and that’s the arrogance.

Am I reaching in equating anarchists with terrorists? or even as I might, ideologists?  The words slide back and forth, and meanings blur; words are, after all, only verbal icons that we use to express a reality that each of us may see in our minds differently.  So where do we draw the line between the ignorant and selfish destroyers and the pure vision drivers of positive change who see it as “creative destruction?”  That should strike a chord (Schumpeter).  The great beauty of ignorance it that facts don’t matter.  And where do we go from here?  Apparently along the same crooked road that has brought us to where we are, stumbling along blindly, and yet somehow surviving, albeit not without a great deal of pain for some, who, I suppose, just have to be sacrificed for “the cause,” whatever the cause of the moment might be.

A True Story

Christmas is a happy time, with children all aglow,

Thinking of toys and holiday joys, Santa and Mistletoe;

The girls of dolls and clothes and such, boys of trucks and horns

They know will be beneath the tree on early Christmas morn.

Yet there are children in our land who do not know it so,

Whose Christmas fare is sparse and spare, whose Christmas hopes are low.

It is Christmas in Chicago, a small department store,

In a neighborhood where all that are there, are desperately poor.

A very little girl comes in, her clothes are cheap and worn;

She shivers with cold in a coat that is old, old and tattered and torn.

She clutches the hand of a smaller boy, while craning her neck to see,

With him behind, trying to find where all the toys might be.

They see  the shelves of countless toys; each heaves a glad little sigh;

All it seems, in their wildest dreams, is here before their eyes.

And as they move along the aisles, in utter awe they bask.

Bright eyes glow, and grow and grow____is it so much to ask?

But in their hearts they sadly know that it can never be______

Oh, but then, just to pretend_____such wonderous things to see.

A man is watching the children, as he has done before;

Every year he watches here, in this same department store.

He comes with his holiday bonus, and a heart that reaches out,

So in his way, he can say, what Christmas is about.

He makes a sign to the sales girl, a little wave of the hand;

Well she knows, and quickly goes, to where the children stand.

“Well, well,” says she to the children, “Whatever have we here?”

They clutch tight, in sudden fright, pretending not to hear.

Dropping the toys in their places, they look around to fly______

But she with a grin, glancing at him, standing there nearby,

Picks up the space commando and the doll with the golden hair,

And blinking her eye, so not to cry, gives them to that pair.

“Santa Claus was here today,” said she with a choke in her voice,

“And told me then, to make sure when you two had made a choice,

To give these toys to you to have, before you went away,

So they could be beneath your tree on early Christmas day.”

They took the toys with trembling hands, eyes so wide and bright,

And all four knew the spirit true; it filled their hearts that night.

He paid the bill without a word, emotion holding sway,

On modest means, he lived his dreams, waiting for this day.

For so he spent his Christmas, each and every year,

With simple joys for girls and boys replacing bitter tears.

True Christmas came to four that day; their hearts had touched each other,

And way up high above the sky twas noted by Another.

I am a philosopher.  Wait, wait; before branding me insufferably pretentious, think about it.  The definition I use, selecting from various suggestions in the dictionary is one who reads, observes, questions and thinks about it.  Plato?  Aristotle?  Get real.  I would prefer more along the line of Socrates who practiced his avocation (he wasn’t paid for doing it) by walking around and asking questions.  How better can one learn than by asking questions?  Even in reading, one must continually ask questions; and particularly in watching television one MUST continually ask questions (which leads to being very skeptical).

Why do people do what they do?  Why do things happen as they do?  Watch, read, and ask questions, but most of all THINK about it.  I gain great pleasure from sitting back and watching, just watching, and thinking about it, and asking that momentous question, why.  Usually the answer is not too deep; people are rather predictable, actually.

Anyway, want to be a philosopher?  Read, observe, question and think about it.  But mostly think about it.  And if nothing comes, read some more, then think some more.  It really is a wonderful avocation – or even hobby.

During a political discussion yesterday I was informed that they are all crooks; I have heard this before.  I don’t believe it, and I am glad I don’t, else how could I believe in and accept my government, and even its form?  Why do people believe this?  Negative campaigning (and advertising) is one reason, and clearly it works; instead of talking positions it is more successful to attack the opponent’s character, through inuendo if necessary.  The word crook describes someone who has broken a law; and one might question, what law was broken?  Often none can be quoted, but that doesn’t matter, since if someone has engaged in something that we don’t like, he or she is a crook; end of discussion.  So all of our congressmen are crooks?

One thing that can suggest such is our election model; it lasts for too long and is incredibly expensive.  So where does that money come from?  Contributions mostly, and accepting contributions is prime facie evident that a congressman is on the take.  If he or she even votes for a bill that favors a contributor it is prime facie evidence that it means they are on the take; thus there is no way a congressman can vote for something favored by constituents, particularly wealthy constituents, without being branded a crook.  So what does he do?

And what are we seeking?  Once, at about the time of our national founding, the model was one who was successful in life then turned to repaying through public service; the model originated in England.  That would probably be impossible today because we don’t seem to trust people who have been successful.  Add to that that since they have completed their career – succesfully – they are no longer young – or glamorous.  And perhaps such persons are not charismatic and likeable enough for our satisfaction.  Washington, Madison and even perhaps Jefferson might have been unelectable.

So what is it we seek?  Attractiveness and well as charisma; we prefer, it seems, rugged good looks in men, but what in women?  surely not too attractive; but also not too “hard.”  Intelligence?  No, we don’t seem to trust intelligence.  Experience?  who needs that? since they are all crooks we need someone who has never had anything to do with politics so that he might be pure.  Really?  Honesty, sincerity, character?  ha, why bother? since they all lie and hide behind a public facade, who can tell?  And we disparage political experience, preferring perhaps to defer to staffers that are hired, without voter approval?

What is it we seek?  We want someone we like, who makes us feel good and gives us warm and fuzzies?  So it would seem.  He or she doesn’t have to be a celebrity because we’ll take care of that right off; but rubbing elbows with celebrities and having celebrity endorsements are certainly helpful.  Why? because it means…well,that they rub elbows with celebrities and therefore must live an “exciting” life, right; we LOVE excitement.  What of respect?  Hmmmmmmm, what of respect?  Does that word even have a meaning in our language any more? respect; we don’t really seem to respect anything any more.  How can we? we are too busy tearing everything down, criticizing, belittling, making fun of.

Propaganda has an effect of course, resulting in creating a public personality.  Our commitment to entertainment does as well.  But so does the lack of respect that we seem to have accepted as our general outlook.  But roll it all together and the answer is we want someone who we can like.  What does that mean.  It is an IKIWISI kind of thing (I’ll know it when I see it).  And what is it that causes us to like someone?  Friendliness, warmth, casualness, agreement with us; good looks help (chemistry); someone we feel at home with.  You can see that among television entertainers where more women seem to be able to fit that model than men, since they are friendlier, more casual; we feel at home with them.  Which is not directed at women; they are that, and men tend to be more stiff, formal and narrow, perhaps; they are too into the career in which they have been successful, but then we don’t care for that anyway – success begs suspicion.  Oh talking too; talking is a big part of creating that kind of person; we really like someone who talks the way we expect them to talk – not stiff, friendly, smooth but not too smooth; we want to be able to trust them.  Oh, oh, another word that has become difficult to handle – trust.  In a world where there is a definate tendency to push to get everything we can, to which we are entitled, we want someone we can trust?  A con man perhaps? no, no, no a con man; someone we can trust.  I have always referred to our voting mentality as akin to American Idol.  But recently I had the occasion to talk with a gentleman who had become a contenstant, one who was apparently well received, initially.  But he was continually pressed for his “story;” they really wanted a story they could milk.  Let there be no doubt, he told me, the selections are made by the executive staff.  Hmmmmmmm; I wonder if there is a parellel; who, after all is the executive staff of political polling?

It is truly confusing.

I have always been rather negative toward our proclivity toward material ostentation, but always pull back when I remind myself that that is where the jobs come from, and through them our comfortable standard of living.  Every bauble, car or house or vacation that is purchased underwrites jobs, not only the obvious, but all those other jobs that service the obvious; all products must have suppliers – of all kinds.

This morning, with Christmas in the air, I put it – for myself – into a more comprehensive perspective.  The most effective way to spread the wealth is through the creation of jobs that produce that which we want to have, and therefore want to buy.  I shan’t belabor the arguments of pride and independence that earning one’s own money through honest labor provide; they have been articulated widely, and anyone not aware of them is not likely to listen anyway.  So when all those obnoxious advertisements flood the airwaves, even political advertisements, I am quite content to confront them with that phrase: spreading the wealth.  Advertising jobs, transportation jobs, sales clerk jobs, not to mention the jobs associated with manufacturing the product; even those jobs protecting the businesses from law suits that would destroy them; as well, of course as law enforcement and fire protection.  Fourteen trillion or so dollars worth of them, all spreading the wealth VOLUNTARILY and pleasurably.

Yes, that works for me: SPREAD THE WEALTH – voluntarily and pleasurably – and be thankful that we have the incredible capacity to do so.

Max Weber once said, “the state is that agency within society which possesses the monopoly on legitimate violence.”  It seems the truth of that statement is beginning to blur – at least in the opinions of many.  We, many, seem to have come to believe that violence is ok if violators have a “just” cause.  Weber, of course, was talking from the legitimacy of the nation state that had become the accepted (by most) form of government.  It is an interesting concept to consider.  In fact it could be considered in light of circular argument.

A state is the legitimate government; it is awarded the monopoly of legitimate violence to maintain the legitimacy of the state.  Once that is successfully contested the state ceases to exist and usually a period of anarchy ensues and there is no legitimate violence; but of course there is still violence; just no legitimacy.  I suppose we could call that free market violence?  Or competition for violence?  At least until someone else comes along with enough power to reestablish legitimacy, usually by retaking violence as its monopoly.  Free access to violence does not a pleasant environment make, and thus it cannot last.

If all are generally in agreement with that, realize it and accept it, and accept that violence is the legitimate monopoly of the state, then the state can reconstitute and remain until that monopoly is once again contested.  That is the basic understanding of rule of law; and it works when people go along with it.  I would say that in the Western world we generally support Weber’s statement; which is not to say that no violence will every exist.  Violence, after all, is part of human nature, along with most animals for that matter.  Some is emotional explosion or result of frustration; some results in pursuance of power or advantage; and some perhaps comes from desperation.  But by and large the majority of the members of a successfully functioning nation state accept it as a necessity.  It is the price of order.  This does not condone police brutality, but it questions just what constitutes police brutality,

What happens, and it does happen in poorly functioning nation states, when the statement is not accepted?  Well, we already said that when the legitimate monopoly is contested, and generally accepted, order disappears.  There is, however, a position somewhere in the middle.  It is that point where a radical minority tries to contest it but the majority is not with them, and expects the state to take the necessary action, to which it has been given the monopoly to do something about it, to maintain the order that the majority demands.

I am winding around to suggesting we put ourselves in the position of the police to whom the responsibility has been given.  When challenged with some amount of success, but that which does not result in disintegration, their position is difficult.  Police are people too, and mostly people who support order, and who have dedicated themselves to upholding it; but as people they experience fear.  Is it reasonable to expect them, when their lives are threatened, to react stoically, reasonably and without emotion?  I think we have gotten to the point of expecting just that, and if so that can result lead to a situation leading to something akin to local disintegration.  In short we ascribe to the nation state (government) the monopoly of violence (punishment) but deny it to those who are expected to administer it.

The secret, of course, is acceptance of rule of law.  What if the majority of the population, although not violent themselves, accept the violation of others and reject the violence of those charged to maintain order, and the rule of law?  I suggest we are maneuvering ourselves into that position.  That position is where we accept governments’ monopoly and responsibility to maintain order, but refuse to those charged to do it the tools they need to make it happen.  Every violent act of a policeman, or a soldier for that matter, acting in pursuance of his responsibility is at best questioned more and more often these days, and at worse condemned.  Who would want the responsibility under such conditions?

What we in the West do not stop to consider is that there are whole peoples in the world who do not cede the monopoly, are excitable, and are quite prepared to use violence to get what they want, not individually, but as a contrived force.  Yet when the police attempt to meet violence with violence we condemn them.  And that same way of thinking seems to be creeping into our local thinking as well.  There are a number of places both abroad, and here as well, where police avoid entering areas of violence because as soon as they do, and meet it head on, they are condemned.  On the other hand they are also condemned if they don’t enter places where violence is almost inevitable.

No, no, you say, that doesn’t happen;  yes, yes, I say, it does.  And it appears to me that those who support that conundrum, and thus encourage the very violence that results, had better wake up.  It is nice to make laws and expect them to be obeyed, which they should be; it is quite another matter to take a position with respect to that that immobilizes those charged with upholding it.  I am reminded of something an Israeli friend recently told me: you Americans are so naive; I did not disagree.

I don’t know how it is now, but in the past almost everyone knew of the parable of the good Samaritan.  I’ll not dwell on the historical Samaritan, but suffice it to say Samaritans were controversial folks, which made a noble act of a Samaritan towards a Jew an unusual thing.  But what must be understood is that in those days it was the custom, if not the law, that once one had touched (tried to administer to) another who was sick or injured, he assumed responsibility (women in those days would never have been in a position to do so, and would not have been allowed had they been).  Thus once someone tried to administer, it would have been unthinkable to shrug and continue one, which is why few even considered making such a gesture, and the approved action was to go to the other side of the road and pass quickly.  Which is why in the parable the act was so noble, and thus the point of the parable.

So what would one expect today when a traveler encounters one injured?  In much of the world, many if not most, would do as most would have done then, go to the other side of the road and pass quickly.  And in the United States we would likely call 911 on our cell phone; that’s reasonable.  But for awhile back in the fifties or sixties much was made of the fact that when violence threatened our response was similar: pretend you didn’t see it.  Different?  yes, accepting responsibility and taking what could be a fatal risk are different, and discharging responsibility is accomplished by calling 911.  In fact one can encounter advice these days that suggests not stopping to assist someone apparently injured because is could well be a set up to a robbery – or worse.

Moving on to modernity, what is the prescribed method of helping others?  giving money to charitable organizations or paying taxes and letting the government take care of it; there is major differences concerning which method is “the right way” to do it.  But what of helping friends in need?  One could ask to what extent, and that would be a reasonable response in this day and age of massive cost, particularly of medical care.  But even with our own children, what is the limit when they choose, usually of at least temporary necessity, to move back home?  Or if they have disabilities, such as Downs Sydrome or similar disability that precludes their handling life effectively or even surviving on their own?  What is man’s obligation to his fellow man?  It is controversial.  And one of the reasons it is is that some/many will take advantage of the provider of aid.  That is why, in a liberal society (both classical liberal and modern liberal, but in somewhat different ways) the challenge is anything but simple.  And where does personal responsibility end and public responsibility begin? and how is that decided?

What is the limit that is reasonable in helping those that are in need?  How is “need” determined and responsibility determined (that is, the extent of responsibility)?  What is to be done with those who “game” the system for their own benefit at the expense of others?

This is not a trivial question, nor do I have an answer to put forward.  But it is something we should all give thought to, because resources are always limited, both personal and public.  In the future we may all be confronted with it, in one way or another.