Philosophy 101

Venezuela is slated to vote on profound constitutional reforms in December, among them abolition of presidential term limits.

In addition to abolishing presidential term limits, President Chavez is also proposing to bypass legal controls on the executive during a state of emergency, bring in a maximum six-hour working day, cut the voting age from 18 to 16, and increase presidential control over the central bank.

Could it be that the six-hour work day and lowering of voting age are incentives to get voters to approve the more egregious reforms that will increase presidential power? Of course, they only look good on the surface. Making it illegal for anyone to work more than six hours will surely have a negative effect on the economy. What if I am poor and I need to work more than six hours to make a living? What if I like my work and want to work longer than six hours? Passion is often what drives achievement, production and innovation. Government spending on welfare programs will have to be increased, which means higher taxes. Higher taxes means people have less money to spend and to invest into the economy.

With respect to the voting age, I am inclined to think that 16-year olds will be less able to make informed choices. This is not to imply that older people necessarily make better choices, but one could argue that the younger and more impressionable your voter pool is, the easier you it will be to sell them questionable measures. I suppose we will see whether Venezuelans realize the extent to which these constitutional reforms will move them toward a dictatorship when the outcome of the referendum vote is in. This should remind you of something. One need only look at history to see how many dictatorships arose from the democratic process.

Who knew? Well, most free market economists argue that. The Cato Institute’s Daniel Griswold has published a new study confirming this cherished belief:

Contrary to public perceptions:

* Trade has had no discernible, negative effect on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy. Our economy today is at full employment, with 16.5 million more people working than a decade ago.

* Trade accounts for only about 3 percent of dislocated workers.Technology and other domestic factors displace far more workers than does trade.

* Average real compensation per hour paid to American workers, which includes benefits as well as wages, has increased by 22 percent in the past decade.

* Median household income in the United States is 6 percent higher in real dollars than it was a decade ago at a comparable point in the previous business cycle. Middle-class households have been moving up the income ladder, not down.

* The net loss of 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing. Two-thirds of the net new jobs created since 1997 are in sectors where workers earn more than in manufacturing.

* The median net worth of U.S. households jumped by almost one-third between 1995 and 2004, from $70,800 to $93,100.

Ex World Champion Chess master Garry Kasparov has decided to run for President in Russia in March of 2008. He is heading a coalition called “The Other Russia”, which is pushing for more substantial democratic change to Russia. An editorial of Kasparov in the WSJ shows his judgment of Putin:

Mr. Putin’s government is unique in history. This Kremlin is part oligarchy, with a small, tightly connected gang of wealthy rulers. It is partly a feudal system, broken down into semi-autonomous fiefdoms in which payments are collected from the serfs, who have no rights. Over this there is a democratic coat of paint, just thick enough to gain entry into the G-8 and keep the oligarchy’s money safe in Western banks. But if you really wish to understand the Putin regime in depth, I can recommend some reading. No Karl Marx or Adam Smith. Nothing by Montesquieu or Machiavelli, although the author you are looking for is of Italian descent. But skip Mussolini’s “The Doctrine of Fascism,” for now, and the entire political science section. Instead, go directly to the fiction department and take home everything you can find by Mario Puzo. If you are in a real hurry to become an expert on the Russian government, you may prefer the DVD section, where you can find Mr. Puzo’s works on film. “The Godfather” trilogy is a good place to start…

Also, a nice excerpt from an interview with Bill Maher is available over at Reason.TV.

Kasparov recently published a book called “How Life Imitates Chess”. In it he describes how chess can help in analyzing one’s decision-making processes. That reminds me of Ayn Rand’s letter to chess champion Boris Spassky, in which she wrote:

…Oh yes, Comrade, chess is an escape - an escape from reality. It is an “out,” a kind of “make-work” for a man of higher than average intelligence who was afraid to live, but could not leave his mind unemployed and devoted it to a placebo - thus surrendering to others the living world he had rejected as too hard to understand. …You, the chess professionals, are taken as exponents of the most precious of human skills: intellectual power - yet that power deserts you beyond the confines of the sixty-four squares of a chessboard, leaving you confused, anxious, and helplessly unfocused. Because, you see, the chessboard is not a training ground, but a substitute for reality. (Philosophy: Who needs it, pp. 54-57)

Ah, the irony! In that letter Rand proclaims her support for Spassky’s opponent Bobby Fischer, since the game between Spassky and Fischer was seen as an ideological match between Russia and America. And now, a Russian chess champion is working politically to achieve a free society in Russia.

I have come across the fascinating argument that the Bush presidency is influenced by Machiavellian ideas, particularly Machiavelli’s emphasis on a strong and energetic executive power. Harvey Mansfield, a leading scholar of Machiavelli, has defended Bush’s increased use of the executive power. Here are some questions I thought of reading his piece.

To counter enemies, a republic must have and use force adequate to a greater threat than comes from criminals, who may be quite patriotic if not public-spirited, and have nothing against the law when applied to others besides themselves. But enemies, being extra-legal, need to be faced with extra-legal force. …A strong executive is one that is not confined to executing the laws but has extra-legal powers such as commanding the military, making treaties (and carrying on foreign policy), and pardoning the convicted, not to mention a veto of legislation.

If I am not mistaken by my reading of the Constitution, these are not extra-legal powers but specifically granted. How is Mansfield using “extra-legal” here?
Further:

In Machiavelli’s terms, ordinary power needs to be supplemented or corrected by the extraordinary power of a prince, using wise discretion….We need both the rule of law and the power to escape it–and that twofold need is just what the Constitution provides for.

Well, if the Constitution provides those “extralegal” powers, how are they not within the rule of law? That is, if the Constitution provides a way to circumvent it, does it not allow that circumvention? And, if the constitution does allow for emergency or extraordinary powers given to the executive in times of emergency, is that not a better way than simply to give the executive discretionary use of power when necessary? By employing the check of those extraordinary powers through Congress for example, do we not ensure that those powers are used judiciously instead of abused? Discretion seems to be a naive policy given history’s track record of abuses of power even within republican regimes.
And:

The Framers made a strong executive in order to have both power and security, and they took note of emergency occasions when more power gives more security.

This may be so, but does that justify the current increase in executive power (i.e. enemy combatants, Patriot Act)? Part of the problem is that the nature of the security threat is very different from that faced by republics in the past. The war against terrorism is is no ordinary war; it is more like a prolonged state of disease which we cannot cure but only alleviate. How should that affect executive prerogative? Permanent expansion of executive power on the basis of such a war seems more dangerous than the six months dictatorial rule the Roman republic had at some point in time.
Finally:

We note that President Bush’s critics do not want him to stop surveillance; they just want him to do it legally–as if legality could guarantee success and morality could make our enemies give up.

I don’t think that the arguments against the President’s surveillance use is that legality would ensure success. The point is rather that when someone acts within the realm of legality, he is acting on a power specifically granted to him. We grant powers because we think they are necessary powers to have in order to govern well.
Here are some more links on this topic:
Future of Freedom Foundation
darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com
Economist

Apparently, J.K. Rowling intended one of her characters of the Harry Potter Series, the great old wizard Albus Dumbledore, to be gay. Admittedly, I did not pick up on that at all reading the books. So, why would younger readers do so? Consequently, what good would such a message do if many readers do not see it? Of course, gay rights advocates call this a great revelation and a step toward greater acceptance of homosexuality by society. Well, maybe, maybe not.

Race, gender and gay rights activists continuously want to draw special attention to their plight. And the problem is that those who demand equal treatment regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation, are often so focused on it that any inclusion of race, gender or sexuality in public works is hailed as a victory and any offense they take is characterized by them as a racist, misogynist or homophobic attack. It seems to me that making a fuss about what does and what does not advance acceptance of homosexuality only adds fuel to homosexuality’s extraordinary (and contentious) issue status instead of what it probably really is: a normal biological occurrence. As such it is not to be used as a basis of discrimination or special status. No further comment is necessary.

So, who cares whether Dumbledore is gay or not. It does not add to or detract from my reading experience of the Harry Potter series.