Much discussion takes place on the clash between Islam and the West. This clash takes place on many fronts: between American soldiers and the Iraqi insurgents, between European Muslims and the larger culture, and during terror attacks against Western targets. The occasional terror attack is bloody enough, but atomic warfare could take such violence to an entirely new plane. With the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons, the threat of Islamic fundamentalism is a significant threat. Accordingly, much publicity has been given to regimes such as that of the fanatical Iranian President Ahmadinejad and strongman Saddam Hussein. Yet when discussing the threat posed by Islamic or Middle Eastern regimes, it is important to assess accurately the strength and capabilities of such unfriendly regimes. Media sources have a vested interest in sensationalism and exaggeration. Proper foreign policy requires sober analysis.
Any regime with nuclear weapons will pose a threat if it gives those weapons to terror groups. At the same time, countries which are small in size and economic production will almost inevitably lose any war which followed a nuclear terror attack on the West. Caution concerning the Muslim world is prudent; a distorted sense of their power is not.
When assessing the threat posed by Muslim regimes, a useful starting point is the economy. One method for assessing the size of an economy is purchasing power parity. Economic strength assessed by GDP fails to take into account currency fluctuations; purchasing power parity (PPP) gives perhaps a more accurate view. After all, exchange rates rise and fall, but in time of war, it is the machinery of production which a nation calls on to feed and arm itself. And based on such a measure, one thing is immediately evident. The majority of our enemy states don't have anywhere near the economic capacity of the major Western nations. According to the CIA Factbook, the PPP of Iran is 570 billion dollars American. The PPP of Syria is 71 billion. Egypt comes in at 304 billion. The United States meanwhile is at 12 .3 trillion dollars. Adding these three major Middle Eastern states together, the U.S. economy is 13 times larger in size. And in some ways, this comparison understates the difference in economic force. The U.S. economy is not only much larger; it is also much more innovative and adaptive. In the time of a World War Three between the U.S. and a group of Islamic regimes, it would be much harder for an impoversihed Egyptian to shift his farm into war production than it would be for an American firm to transition from stereo equipment to radar devices.During a comparatively limited conflict like the Iraq War, it is possible for insurgents to do damage. However, the fear that Islam will overtake and destroy the Western world involves a scenario of total war. And as economic figures demonstrate, there is a massive differential in basic economic strength between the West and its rivals.
The media loves to display conflict and controversy. However, the frequent comparisons between men like Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler should be made with caution. Hitler led an economic and industrial superpower. Germany was a world leader in science and technology. The rhetoric of the pundits aside, the dictators of backwaters like Egypt and Syria bear little in common with a dictator reigning over a powerhouse like mid-century Germany. Radical Islam is a danger. Caution and preparation will reduce the chances of future tragedy. However poor analogies and ignorance will not serve our best interests. Our interventions overseas must be based on reason, not fear.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Imagining Less Government
Most people cannot imagine living without government any more than they can imagine living without oxygen. In medieval times, the serfs had trouble conceiving of life without a powerful Church; they had trouble envisioning self-rule rather than rule by lords. Modern Canadians are not so different. We take a massive state for granted. We not only endure big government; we demand it. We expect politicians to provide us with a whole range of services; we look to government in times of crisis and conflict. Whether the problem is SARS or university tuition, 9/11 or street crime, the media and the electorate have learned to look to government for answers. We demand action and intervention. We punish politicians when a situation goes wrong.
Whether Canadians cast ballots for the Tories, the Liberals or the NDP, Canadians cast ballots for the status quo. An entire infrastructure of lobbyists, big unions and patronage appointees exist to keep the machinery of state funneling money to established interests. Furthermore, as occurs so often in human culture, traditions becomes expectations. Past social patterns become not only habit; they become sacrament. Even if charity is a better deliverer of aid than bureaucrats, a politician who cuts services is condemned as heartless. Even if past involvements overseas have resulted in hostility and dysfunction, a politician who refuses to fund a new war is viewed as weak on Communism or terror.
Human society in many ways follows laws of elementary physics. The size of the state is dependent on physical inertia. There is resistance to change in human society as much as there is resistance to change in a boulder at rest. And conversely, just as a body in motion will stay in motion, our expectations of government are driven forward by their own momentum. Government may solve one social problem by creating another, but the voter and the special interest will most likely seek yet a third action or program to remedy the distortions created by the first two.
However, as a student of history might observe, the patterns in a human society can change. A unitary Church is often replaced by freedom of religion; long-time dictatorships have given way to democracy. So too a libertarian society can replace a Canada of centralization and control. There is nothing inevitable about having government take up half of our society. There is no reason why so much of our income has to be taken from us in taxes. Like 19th Century peasants or women, we have been raised to be passive. But we retain the means to freedom.
The market mechanism is responsible for a great deal of the social progress we have witnessed in the last two hundred years. We live longer, safer, and healthier because of the social and technological innovations brought about by capitalism. Although social scientists and historians typically give credit to heroic protagonists and social movements, a more honest assessment would suggest that it is usually capitalism which produces innovations, and civil society and the state which apply these innovations to enact change. In the case of governments, the state can redistribute the market's resources; the state can parrot, copy or hold back. But rarely can the state innovate in the way in which charities and companies do.
We do know that the Communist Bloc collapsed miserably because its state enveloped the entire economy and society. The massive state crowded out the market, and thus destroyed the mechanism responsible for progress and prosperity. Likewise much of the Western world hobbles along a little more successfully than the Communists, arguably held back to a proportional degree by a large and error-prone state. Societies with somewhat less state control than the norm, such as Ireland, Singapore or the United States, are typically the most innovative and productive nations on Earth. And given the insights coming to us from economic research, there is reason to believe that voyaging further away from Communism and statism will produce even greater vitality.
Perhaps our state-enveloped country is much like an ancient tribe. We remain constrained by tradition and fear, when we would benefit from embracing change.
Whether Canadians cast ballots for the Tories, the Liberals or the NDP, Canadians cast ballots for the status quo. An entire infrastructure of lobbyists, big unions and patronage appointees exist to keep the machinery of state funneling money to established interests. Furthermore, as occurs so often in human culture, traditions becomes expectations. Past social patterns become not only habit; they become sacrament. Even if charity is a better deliverer of aid than bureaucrats, a politician who cuts services is condemned as heartless. Even if past involvements overseas have resulted in hostility and dysfunction, a politician who refuses to fund a new war is viewed as weak on Communism or terror.
Human society in many ways follows laws of elementary physics. The size of the state is dependent on physical inertia. There is resistance to change in human society as much as there is resistance to change in a boulder at rest. And conversely, just as a body in motion will stay in motion, our expectations of government are driven forward by their own momentum. Government may solve one social problem by creating another, but the voter and the special interest will most likely seek yet a third action or program to remedy the distortions created by the first two.
However, as a student of history might observe, the patterns in a human society can change. A unitary Church is often replaced by freedom of religion; long-time dictatorships have given way to democracy. So too a libertarian society can replace a Canada of centralization and control. There is nothing inevitable about having government take up half of our society. There is no reason why so much of our income has to be taken from us in taxes. Like 19th Century peasants or women, we have been raised to be passive. But we retain the means to freedom.
The market mechanism is responsible for a great deal of the social progress we have witnessed in the last two hundred years. We live longer, safer, and healthier because of the social and technological innovations brought about by capitalism. Although social scientists and historians typically give credit to heroic protagonists and social movements, a more honest assessment would suggest that it is usually capitalism which produces innovations, and civil society and the state which apply these innovations to enact change. In the case of governments, the state can redistribute the market's resources; the state can parrot, copy or hold back. But rarely can the state innovate in the way in which charities and companies do.
We do know that the Communist Bloc collapsed miserably because its state enveloped the entire economy and society. The massive state crowded out the market, and thus destroyed the mechanism responsible for progress and prosperity. Likewise much of the Western world hobbles along a little more successfully than the Communists, arguably held back to a proportional degree by a large and error-prone state. Societies with somewhat less state control than the norm, such as Ireland, Singapore or the United States, are typically the most innovative and productive nations on Earth. And given the insights coming to us from economic research, there is reason to believe that voyaging further away from Communism and statism will produce even greater vitality.
Perhaps our state-enveloped country is much like an ancient tribe. We remain constrained by tradition and fear, when we would benefit from embracing change.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Understanding The Human Animal
Human behavior can at times seem deeply puzzling. Very few people welcome death, and yet our world is full of war. Our minds can process huge amounts of information, and yet we remain loyal to questionable religions and relationships. Ever greater sums of money fail to satisfy, and yet wealthy people risk jail time to accumulate more.
As a young man, very little of this made sense. I did not understand how the Holocaust could occur. I could not comprehend why politicians lied, or how oppressive dogmas retained followers. In recent years I discovered a possible explanation for much of human behavior. And that explanation is the scientific theory known as evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology posits that our species is governed by similar forces as the animals from which we evolved. Animals are governed by instincts which allow them to survive in an ever-challenging state of nature. Centuries of natural selection have resulted in organisms finely tuned to survival, reproduction, and group interaction.
In terms of describing human behavior, evolutionary psychologists ask what human behaviors tend to be common to all or most cultures, and what survival value such behaviors had in the evolutionary past. Thus, for instance, after discovering that men in every culture surveyed prefer young, curved female bodies, the evolutionary scientist notes that women with such bodies are typically the most fertile and produce the healthiest children. Human males developed a universal attraction to such bodies because men with such attractions generated the best and the most offspring. Whereas a man with genes geared towards elderly or crippled women would produce very few, if any, children to pass on such genes.
Selection pressures can also explain the human desire for ever more material goods. In the very harsh circumstances of the past, those families who accumulated ever greater resources were the families most likely to survive drought and pass on their genes. Likewise, men with the genetic lust for political power were also the men who ended up with the most control of the resources necessary to feed and protect one's offspring.
Even the apparent senselessness of orthodox religion or war begins to make sense now. Cultures whose genes prepared them for war were more likely to protect and expand their territory, whereas tribes with pacifist programming would soon be wiped off the map. Similarly individuals in a society who conformed to the dominant religion and culture would get along better and be more likely to mate than the lone rebel who fought against those around her.
So, when asking why war exists, or why Angelina Jolie is preferred to Rosie, it is useful to look at humans as animals, with motivations driven less by formal logic than by the logic of genetic survival.
As a young man, very little of this made sense. I did not understand how the Holocaust could occur. I could not comprehend why politicians lied, or how oppressive dogmas retained followers. In recent years I discovered a possible explanation for much of human behavior. And that explanation is the scientific theory known as evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology posits that our species is governed by similar forces as the animals from which we evolved. Animals are governed by instincts which allow them to survive in an ever-challenging state of nature. Centuries of natural selection have resulted in organisms finely tuned to survival, reproduction, and group interaction.
In terms of describing human behavior, evolutionary psychologists ask what human behaviors tend to be common to all or most cultures, and what survival value such behaviors had in the evolutionary past. Thus, for instance, after discovering that men in every culture surveyed prefer young, curved female bodies, the evolutionary scientist notes that women with such bodies are typically the most fertile and produce the healthiest children. Human males developed a universal attraction to such bodies because men with such attractions generated the best and the most offspring. Whereas a man with genes geared towards elderly or crippled women would produce very few, if any, children to pass on such genes.
Selection pressures can also explain the human desire for ever more material goods. In the very harsh circumstances of the past, those families who accumulated ever greater resources were the families most likely to survive drought and pass on their genes. Likewise, men with the genetic lust for political power were also the men who ended up with the most control of the resources necessary to feed and protect one's offspring.
Even the apparent senselessness of orthodox religion or war begins to make sense now. Cultures whose genes prepared them for war were more likely to protect and expand their territory, whereas tribes with pacifist programming would soon be wiped off the map. Similarly individuals in a society who conformed to the dominant religion and culture would get along better and be more likely to mate than the lone rebel who fought against those around her.
So, when asking why war exists, or why Angelina Jolie is preferred to Rosie, it is useful to look at humans as animals, with motivations driven less by formal logic than by the logic of genetic survival.
The Science Of Satisfaction
We are animals who seem to want ever more. Or at least I am. Comparing myself to others, I find room for improvement. Phenomenal homes are displayed on my television screen. Walking through the book store, stunning beauties look out from magazine covers. Later I pass a smiling couple holding hands, and I bemoan my being single. Yet I have also sensed that there are limits to the ability of the external to bring contentment. My eyes may sing one tune, but my logic centres play another. With divorce and depression common amongst my peers, I have asked whether media images and personal longings bear any relation to reality.
Fortunately there is now a good deal of scientific evidence emerging on the relationship between factors like beauty, money, and happiness. And it turns out that the ancient philosophers were correct. Once you have enough, you won't be happier with more.
Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman has done excellent research on the links, or lack thereof, between external situations and internal well-being. His team had hundreds of people in Ohio and Texas fill out daily journals noting their activities and their levels of happiness. He also asked them for a series of social and economic questions. What he has found was two fold. First of all, despite all the gloom we may see on the nightly news, most people in North America live in relative satisfaction. Second, most of the ways we seek to increase that satisfaction appear to have no effect on mood.
Although as a culture we make great efforts to achieve scholarships and big salaries and better bodies, the effect of such commodities on happiness is, for all intents and purposes, absolutely zero.
In Kahneman's Ohio study, for example, the correlations between happiness over the course of the day and certain measures were as follows.
Household Income .06
Married .03
Education .02
Employed .01
Body Mass Index -.06
A correlation of 0.10 would mean that one factor (eg. income) can explain about 1% of the difference in people's levels of happiness. The correlations above are all below 0.10. The implication is that having a life partner, being wealthy or low-income, well-proportioned or obese, can explain only a fraction of 1% of a person's actual happiness.
So whatever our goals, it is valuable to remember that while desire may be in our nature, it may not be in our self-interest.
http://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/125krueger.pdf
Fortunately there is now a good deal of scientific evidence emerging on the relationship between factors like beauty, money, and happiness. And it turns out that the ancient philosophers were correct. Once you have enough, you won't be happier with more.
Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman has done excellent research on the links, or lack thereof, between external situations and internal well-being. His team had hundreds of people in Ohio and Texas fill out daily journals noting their activities and their levels of happiness. He also asked them for a series of social and economic questions. What he has found was two fold. First of all, despite all the gloom we may see on the nightly news, most people in North America live in relative satisfaction. Second, most of the ways we seek to increase that satisfaction appear to have no effect on mood.
Although as a culture we make great efforts to achieve scholarships and big salaries and better bodies, the effect of such commodities on happiness is, for all intents and purposes, absolutely zero.
In Kahneman's Ohio study, for example, the correlations between happiness over the course of the day and certain measures were as follows.
Household Income .06
Married .03
Education .02
Employed .01
Body Mass Index -.06
A correlation of 0.10 would mean that one factor (eg. income) can explain about 1% of the difference in people's levels of happiness. The correlations above are all below 0.10. The implication is that having a life partner, being wealthy or low-income, well-proportioned or obese, can explain only a fraction of 1% of a person's actual happiness.
So whatever our goals, it is valuable to remember that while desire may be in our nature, it may not be in our self-interest.
http://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/125krueger.pdf
Right Livelihood
My quest in recent years has included the search for a philosophy of society. I am looking for an approach to political issues which accommodates my personal goals and values, and is consistent with the creation of a good society. At the current time, the label which best fits is conservative libertarian. A libertarian in my view is someone who values freedom as central to social organization, and the state as subordinate to the conscience and choices of the individual. It is libertarianism offered not as an excuse for greedy self-fulfillment, but rather out of a genuine belief that the individual mind is the best implementer of action.
A modern society is vast in both population and social complexity. People in a modern society vary in their religions, their economic situations, and in their personal priorities. Those who embrace government-centered approaches to politics appear to believe that a diverse, advanced society can be best orchestrated by a distant state, accountable to the populace once every four or five years. I advocate instead for a market-based system, where service providers are constantly interacting with and having to accommodate public preference.
The conservative portion of my current political philosophy incorporates my overall approach to social and defense issues. As a libertarian, I do not believe in the state forcing others to live by a rigid code, be that code religious or ideological, left-wing or right. However, as an individual, I tend to agree more with traditional or pragmatic approaches to matters of family policy and foreign affairs. My conservative approach to such issues is motivated by a cautious cynicism about human nature, and an open-mindedness to positions deemed politically incorrect.
Religious belief seems little more than myth and superstition, so my views are not determined by an adherence to theology. Nor am I uncritical of the military-industrial complex, and the corrupting effects of corporate power. Still, when viewing issues like war or Third World poverty, I less often see instances of an empire versus the oppressed, and more often find self-interest and self-delusion spread well around.
In the intolerant climate of modern liberalism, my words will be chosen carefully. Yet I expect this blog will give both reader and writer some new insights into the political world.
A modern society is vast in both population and social complexity. People in a modern society vary in their religions, their economic situations, and in their personal priorities. Those who embrace government-centered approaches to politics appear to believe that a diverse, advanced society can be best orchestrated by a distant state, accountable to the populace once every four or five years. I advocate instead for a market-based system, where service providers are constantly interacting with and having to accommodate public preference.
The conservative portion of my current political philosophy incorporates my overall approach to social and defense issues. As a libertarian, I do not believe in the state forcing others to live by a rigid code, be that code religious or ideological, left-wing or right. However, as an individual, I tend to agree more with traditional or pragmatic approaches to matters of family policy and foreign affairs. My conservative approach to such issues is motivated by a cautious cynicism about human nature, and an open-mindedness to positions deemed politically incorrect.
Religious belief seems little more than myth and superstition, so my views are not determined by an adherence to theology. Nor am I uncritical of the military-industrial complex, and the corrupting effects of corporate power. Still, when viewing issues like war or Third World poverty, I less often see instances of an empire versus the oppressed, and more often find self-interest and self-delusion spread well around.
In the intolerant climate of modern liberalism, my words will be chosen carefully. Yet I expect this blog will give both reader and writer some new insights into the political world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
