Burka ban and liberalism
Where we stand on the issue may reflect the divide that political philosopher William Galston identifies between Reformation liberalism and Enlightenment liberalism. Toleration, he argues, is at the heart of Reformation liberalism and we should extend toleration even to illiberal practices. By contrast, autonomy is the guiding value of Enlightenment liberalism, which embraces a more interventionist state.
In this case, toleration seems the more prudent course. Yes, there is something troubling about the burka. And, yes, we should scrutinise its merits through civilised debate. However, a ban raises as many problems as it may solve, about the appropriate limits of state power and the wellbeing of women behind the veil.
This is one issue where caution rather than doctrine should dictate our response.
-Jake
Tea Partyers for Medicare
Inconsistency or philosophical conservatism?
The New York Times had a fascinating look yesterday at the demographic and ideological makeup on the Tea Party movement. Long discussed, but little studied, The New York Times and CBS commissioned a poll this month to get a detailed look at the profile and attitudes of Tea Party supporters.
The poll found that the 18 percent of Americans who associate with the Tea Party movement tend to be white, male, married, over 45 and on the “very conservative” end of the ideological spectrum. Tea Partyers express “fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, [ ] rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.”
But here’s the surprising stuff. While Tea Party supporters believe the goal of their movement is reduce the size of government and favor doing so even if it means cutting domestic programs, most happily partake in the three most expensive domestic programs: public education, medicare and social security. And they assert that these programs are “worth the cost to taxpayers.”
So what gives? Read more
Naked guy not guilty!!
Remember naked guy? A jury Wednesday found him not guilty. Let freedom (to be naked) ring.
-Marc
Taxes and tyranny
At the USA Today Jonah Goldberg discusses the relationship between taxes and liberty, and raises the question of a maximum tax level, above which no taxes can be laid down justly, no matter what their rationale. He writes:
The Tax Foundation calculates that Tax Freedom Day for 2010 is April 9, which means that by Friday, Americans will have spent nearly 100 days working just to pay their taxes. If Democrats have their way, Tax Freedom Day will keep getting later and later.
A 100% tax rate would be tyrannical not just because you have a right to own what you create, but because the government would necessarily decide what you can and can’t have.
Again, reasonable people can disagree with where the line between necessary taxation and injustice lies. But the line exists. Tax Freedom Day is going to come later and later, no matter what. Maybe we should figure out now where on the calendar we should mark down that line.
-Jake
Guest post: education, democracy and reform
To what end should we reform our public education system?
Education reform season is upon us once again, and not a moment too soon. America’s education statistics, or at least the meaningful ones, are overwhelmingly foreboding. For example, over one million students drop out of high school every year, and that number includes an approximately 50 percent dropout rate among urban schools.
This can only trouble you enough to be a cause for action if you believe that having an educated populace is a good for democratic societies (either in itself or insofar as it contributes to our economic competitiveness or political stability), but I will assume that the majority of us do.
Downward trends in education will probably rankle you further if you believe that it is somehow the responsibility of one’s government to provide this good. This belief is often supported by the thought that a well-educated populace is an indispensable part of a healthy democratic society. But is it? Read more
Conceptual partisanship
What’s the definition of freedom?
One reason for D.C.’s nasty partisanship is that the parties use the same words to talk about different things, especially when it comes to the concept of freedom. How can two people have a productive debate that involves the concept of freedom if they each hold a different definition of the term? They can’t.
Gerald MacCallum argues that one’s definition of freedom depends on how he fills in the concept’s triadic structure. Specifically, he argues that whatever freedom means, it means that some agent (X) is free from certain constraints or “preventing conditions” (Y) to do or become certain things (Z). I won’t focus on this latter category here. To generalize, the Republican Party believes freedom means freedom from state intervention. The X (relevant agents) is Americans and the Y (constraints) is Government Intervention. The ideal is of a person entering the unfettered marketplace and civil society, seizing control of his own life, and taking responsibility for any ensuing benefits or burdens. It is an ideal of an empowered, dignified individual.
Mandatory public philosophy courses in high school?
The Washington Post’s “Answer Sheet” local schools blog has an interesting post on a Maryland school teacher who disciplined a student for not standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The teacher had her escorted by school police officers to the Assistant Principal’s office who demanded the girl apologize for “defiance.” Of course, nobody can require others to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The school district’s own code specifies as such: “You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate.” But the teacher and assistant principle, like, apparently, most Americans, do not clearly understand the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.
A 2009 poll by the First Amendment Center found that only 55% of Americans could identify free speech as a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. Now a portion of the remaining 45% of the country might know that free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, but not know that the First Amendment does so. But it raises an interesting question: should our schools teach more civics? Or, on the other hand, is there something problematic with aggressively promoting a set of ideals during an individual’s most formative years. Instead of American civics, should we encourage our children to think critically and creatively about government, politics and philosophy? Maybe a “public philosophy” course required in high schools? 
-Marc
Involuntary risk
Morality in a recessionary world
It used to be that the American retirement system relied on a so-called three-legged stool of assets: Social Security, a pension, and private savings. Changes in our economy over the last 50 or so years have cut away at two of the legs.
Our personal savings rate dropped to the low single digits for much of the 00s and most Americans don’t have access to a good pension (much less a career-track job). That’s why so many of those forty and older are suddenly scared to death about their retirement. With the precipitous decline in markets, few have truly adequate savings to bridge the gap between their 401k (if they have one) and Social Security.
Corporations have struggled, too. Those that invested their pension funds bullishly now have billions in liabilities they can hardly afford to cover. That’s why so many are reinvesting more conservatively. State and local governments, however, are doing just the opposite:
But states and other bodies of government are seeking higher returns for their pension funds, to make up for ground lost in the last couple of years and to pay all the benefits promised to present and future retirees. Higher returns come with more risk.
“In effect, they’re going to Las Vegas,” said Frederick E. Rowe, a Dallas investor and the former chairman of the Texas Pension Review Board, which oversees public plans in that state. “Double up to catch up.”
State and local governments employ about 14.8 million people. These employees tend to belong to strong unions that often negotiate for health and retirement benefits comparatively better to those found in the private sector (when they are offered at all).
But a good pension contribution plan isn’t much help when the bottom falls out. Because employees can’t control the investment portfolio, state and local workers are forced to take on an inordinate amount of risk–one that we now recognize can be crippling.
What’s the solution? Giving employees some measure of control over the pension mix seems like a coordination disaster, and there is no guarantee that a majority vote would prevail in favor of a more conservative mix.
That said, giving workers a choice about what risks they incur lessens the apparent moral harm when stock market swoons wipe them out. But many have argued that the current recession shows exactly why we need to give individuals less, not more, choice over how they save for retirement. It’s too easy to underestimate far-off risks, even when so much is at stake.
A more sensible approach would be to enact more stringent regulations about retirement investment–both for public and private funds.
It seems like we’re relearning the lessons that led to the creation of Social Security during the New Deal. It’s not good to be poor when you’re old, and it’s worth forcing people to insulate themselves from that risk. Liberty reaches its its limits when the capacity for informed choice is similarly limited.
-Sam
If video games lead to violence, should government regulate them?
The Washington Post‘s health blog, The Check Up, writes about a study published this month in Psychological Bulletin demonstrating a link between playing violent video games and violent thinking, attitudes and behavior. There has long been a debate about the regulation of sex and violence on TV and in video games. Does this study support the case for banning or regulating video games? Can any amount of empirical evidence justify government intrusion in personal choices?
-Marc
Should luge be cancelled?
Accounting for risk in sports.
The tragic death of young Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili during a practice on the eve of the 2010 Olympics has not only cast a dark pall over this year’s Winter Olympiad, it has also raised questions about a notoriously dangerous sport. While debates will rage on over whether host-nation Canada afforded foreign lugers ample practice time, or whether exposed steel beams ought to have been covered, the deeper question is how and to what extent we allow athletes to risk their bodies.
Share us