Consider The Mite

I've never been one for poetry, but Robert Frost's A Considerable Speck is worth a read.

A Considerable Speck

A speck that would have been beneath my sight
On any but a paper sheet so white
Set off across what I had written there.
And I had idly poised my pen in air
To stop it with a period of ink
When something strange about it made me think,
This was no dust speck by my breathing blown,
But unmistakably a living mite
With inclinations it could call its own.
It paused as with suspicion of my pen,
And then came racing wildly on again
To where my manuscript was not yet dry;
Then paused again and either drank or smelt--
With loathing, for again it turned to fly.
Plainly with an intelligence I dealt.
It seemed too tiny to have room for feet,
Yet must have had a set of them complete
To express how much it didn't want to die.
It ran with terror and with cunning crept.
It faltered: I could see it hesitate;
Then in the middle of the open sheet
Cower down in desperation to accept
Whatever I accorded it of fate.
I have none of the tenderer-than-thou
Collectivistic regimenting love
With which the modern world is being swept.
But this poor microscopic item now!
Since it was nothing I knew evil of
I let it lie there till I hope it slept.

I have a mind myself and recognize
Mind when I meet with it in any guise
No one can know how glad I am to find
On any sheet the least display of mind.

Should The State Protect Individuals From "The Tyranny of Prevailing Opinion?"

The following is intended to generate thought and discussion. I kept the post as neutral as possible, as I think these are questions everyone can enjoy chewing on.[1]

__________________________________________________

In his masterful essay, On Liberty, J.S. Mill sets the stage for one of the most enduring questions in modern political philosophy: What is liberty and what is the state's role in protecting it?

Defining Liberty

 For Mill, liberty is comprised of three principles. Violating any of these principles is tyrannical.

"It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.

"No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified."

          - J.S. Mill, On Liberty (emphasis mine) 

Whereas enlightenment thinkers believed that organized, authoritative bodies (e.g. the state and the church) represent the greatest threats to liberty, Mill recognized a potent threat from the prevailing opinion of unorganized masses:

"When society is itself the tyrant [...] its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually held by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them."

 - J.S. Mill, On Liberty (emphasis mine)

Enlightenment thinkers proposed that, to protect against systemic tyranny, we design our governing systems with limiting internal controls. Hence western political systems emphasize separation of powers, constitutional limitations on government, separation of church and state, etc. But how do we combat the organic tyranny of majoritarian opinion without tyrannizing the majority?

Case #1

In 2014 Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused to bake a wedding cake for engaged gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig claiming his religious convictions as the reason for discrimination. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division contending that Phillips had violated state anti-discrimination laws. A CCRD ruling in the couple's favor led to an appeal by Phillips to the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts. The court upheld the prior ruling and ordered Phillips to pay associated fines, take re-education classes on discrimination, file quarterly compliance reports with the CCRD for two years, and make wedding cakes for any prospective gay clients. Further appeals were denied, and Phillips chose to close his bakery instead of violate his beliefs.

If we treat the religious community's refusal to participate in gay weddings as a Millsian social tyranny on the gay minority then the state's intrusion can be justified as a promotion of social liberty. On the other hand, many would argue that Colorado's laws tyrannize devoutly religious business owners by forcing them to choose between betraying their religious convictions and going out of business. Is liberty served by these types of anti-discrimination laws? Is there another way to ensure that minority communities are protected from this type of social tyranny?

Case #2

In May 2016 liberal activists interrupted a DePaul University College Republicans event hosting conservative columnist Milo Yiannopoulos. To shut down the event the activists blew whistles, took over the stage, stole the microphone from the interviewer, and threatened physical violence against Yiannopoulos. The event was eventually canceled after school administrators told campus security and the Chicago PD, who were both present, not to interrupt the protest.

Mill would argue that the liberal activists' attempt to shut down political speech represents an affront to liberty and a social tyranny. How can we ensure that freedom of expression is preserved in our society amid a significant, organic movement to silence certain viewpoints? Is there a way the state can protect freedom of expression from organic threats without becoming tyrannical towards protest movements?

[1] Beef for conservatives, curry for liberals, kale for progressives, and hemp for libertarians.

The Victimization Narrative

Politicians love to make you angry at their opposition. Not only is it an effective way to get you to check their name in the voting booth, but anger is unique among negative emotions - it increases reliance on heuristics and stereotypes, and decreases reliance on issue concordance.[1]

One way politicians get you to feel angry is by convincing you that you are a victim (or potential victim) of the opposing candidate or his policies.[2] One example was on display in Monday night's presidential debate. Trump effectively pinned job outsourcing on Clinton, thereby telling displaced workers that they are victims of free trade agreements and the Clinton agenda. Though NAFTA, and free trade generally, are not cause for concern, expect Trump to continue this line of attack as he makes a play for Rust Belt swing states.

Hillary Clinton also wants you to think you have been victimized. In a speech given at Texas Southern University Clinton charged the GOP with "systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting." Specifically, Clinton referred to attempts by Republican governors to restrict early voting in their states as "a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other." Clinton wants non-white, poor, and young voters[3] to ignore the evidence that early voting policies actually decrease voter turnout, in order to convince them that Republicans want to take away their right to vote.[4][5]

Given that the best thing going for each candidate is that they are not their opposition[6] we should expect our victimhood will be preached from the housetops[7] by politicians and the political media. I encourage voters to be skeptical of such claims. Ask yourself, are you truly a victim? What harm has come to you? How direct is the connection between the offending politician and the harm? What was the politician's intent? With regards to being the potential victim of hypothetical, future policies, examine the policies carefully and consider the likelihood that they will be approved by congress. In many cases you may find that there's nothing to fear, in others you may have a legitimate claim to victimhood, but healthy skepticism yields the assurance that you aren't being duped.

[1] Likely because angry citizens spend less time researching candidates positions on the issues.

[2] Anger only works as a political mobilizer if a politician can effectively blame their opposition. Diffused blame, such as anger in the aftermath of the Great Recession, demobilizes low efficacy citizens. Additionally, higher efficacy citizens are more likely to vote for non-establishment political parties. See here.

[3] Is it coincidental Clinton highlights these demographics? Not a chance.

[4] She also would like us to ignore the Democratic Party's much more effective method of voter suppression - keeping local elections off cycle. Political hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[5] The Big Two don't have a duopoly on the victimization narrative. Libertarians and Greens attempt to convince citizens that Dems and the GOP collude to exclude the voices of voters better represented by third parties.

[6] Evidence that Madison Ave has perfected negative advertising?

[7] Gospel of Atwater 3:5

Occupy Wall Street

This first post is mainly for test purposes.

As a response to an editorial in my university newspaper (in which the author "stands up in acceptance of the [Occupy Wall St.] movement"), I wrote this op-ed piece. Read, comment, whatev.

...

As disorganized as the Occupy Wall Street movement is, it's safe to say that their underlying sentiment is thus: greedy industrialists + corrupt politicians = trouble. With that, I couldn't agree more, but all Occupy has done is identify the problem. Until the movement officially publishes a list of analyzable policy demands they’re nothing more than a throng of crybabies.

Though Occupy as a movement has yet to take an official stance, it appears that many of the protesters support government restrictions to control the greed of big business. With that, I couldn't disagree more. They blame capitalism as the problem and government as the answer, when in reality it's the other way around! The U.S. economy has morphed into crony capitalism where government decides who can produce how much of whatever (via taxes, subsidies, price floors, permits, etc.). These things shouldn't be decided by bureaucrats in Washington, but by people in the marketplace!

When government has this level of economic influence, corporations are incentivized to hire lobbyists and give generous "contributions" to members of congress to ensure that legislation will favor their industry. You want to keep corporate money out of politics? Take away the magnet!

Occupy protests have brought to light a problem that needs fixing, but yelling at buildings won't solve anything. It’s time we get serious about solving our dilemma. I've proposed a solution and am open to hearing others. Occupy, it's your turn.