WeblogBahamas.com

Lessons in Freedom: A Precis on Humanism

by Tibor R. Machan

In modern times humanism has been associated with Karl Marx and one of his teachers, Ludwig Feuerbach.  The latter was an atheist who believed that it wasn't God who created man but the other way around.  Since, however, this left no one to command us to do the right thing, an alternative source of morality was proposed by Feuerbach, namely, humanism.

A humanist argues, not unlike Socrates did, that ethics or morality rests on an understanding of human nature.  What is right and wrong depend on what kind of beings we are.  Because of our free will, we, unlike other animals, are capable of doing violence to our own nature.  But we ought to choose to follow it, instead.

As it happens, Marx, who took quite a few of his ideas from Feuerbach, held a collectivist conception of human nature.  "The human essence," he said in his famous essay "On the Jewish Question," "is the true collectivity of man."

So the desire to find ethical guidance from an understanding of human nature came to the advocacy of an out and out collectivist morality.  If, as Marx held, we are specie-beings, so that our flourishing or development in life must be achieved together, in concert; if individuality is a myth and collectivity the norm, then humanistic ethics and politics will, accordingly, be collectivist.

The two most emphatic humanists of this kind were Karl Marx and Auguste Comte.  They both thought that only a secular understanding of human affairs made sense but they also embraced a conception of human nature that left little room for the fact of human individuality. As a result most humanists have been socialists, communists, or something close to these and have found capitalism anathema to human nature.

This is very unfortunate because although flourishing among others is a crucial attribute of human life, the essential individuality of human beings cannot be denied.  Even engaging in arguments testifies to this, let alone the incredible diversity evident throughout history and the globe, especially involving human creativity. Indeed, it is arguable that the most genuine humanism is individualism.

The issue of humanism is vita for several reasons.  Although fundamentalist religions will likely always be part of human life, there is also a growing awareness that ethics and morality, including our sense of justice, must gain a footing apart from theology or religion.  The reason is that faith is ineffable, ultimately.  It is too personal, too subjective, and thus it tends toward schism rather than harmony.  Whereas the humanist idea that an understanding of human nature, based on science and ordinary human reason, holds out promise.

Ethical ideals, if they are part of the human world, need to be ascertained in such a way that everyone who but consults his or her reason can grasp them.  Such a replacement of a more religious approach to ethics, now that the world has become so small, is a welcome idea.

However, if humanism remains wedded to collectivism, it will turn out to be a false and dangerous alternative to faith based ethics.

Tibor R. Machan holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Chapman University.  http://szatyor2693.wordpress.com/

The Moral Foundations of the Free Market Society: Liberty, Responsibility and Justice.

On Thursday, Friday and Saturday last week I was able to enjoy ten lectures by Dr. Richard Ebeling who was here for The Nassau Institute for their third annual, Spring Lecture Series.

"Thanks to The Templeton Foundations and the College of The Bahamas, The Nassau Institute was able to present Dr. Richard Ebeling with his Economics of Liberty, Spring Lecture Series, April 4, 5 & 6, 2013, in the auditorium at The Harry C. Moore Library, College of The Bahamas."

The first lecture in the series is entitled The Moral Foundations of the Free Market Society: Liberty, Responsibility and Justice can be found here… for your viewing pleasure.

The lecture, dealing with slavery, freedom and democracy is quite thought provoking, starts at the 7:48 minute mark.

Enjoy.

Lessons in Freedom: The Corruption of Individual Rights

Tibor R. Machan

Whenever a good idea surfaces, there will surely be many who will try to hitch their wagon to it filled with corrupt versions that aim to serve numerous purposes having little to do with the original good idea.  One example is the idea of individual natural human rights.

Some simply disagree with the idea, like Jeremy Bentham did, denouncing it in various terms (e.g., “nonsense upon stilts”). Others do not like going about it straightforwardly.  Instead they try to recast the idea to mean what it didn’t.  A good case in point is the idea of welfare rights.

The rights John Locke identified as belonging to every adult human being are prohibitions, aimed at spelling out a sphere of personal jurisdiction, a private domain, for us all, one within which the individual is sovereign, the ruler of the realm as it were.  For example one’s right to private property spells out the area of the world that one is free to use and roam with no need for anyone else’s permission; to enter this realm one must give one’s permission without which others must remain outside.  One’s right to one’s life is similar.  No one may interfere with one’s life without having gained permission, not even someone who means to do one no harm but only provide help (e.g., a physician).

The point of such rights is to recognize that every adult person is in charge of his or her life and property and others must not intrude.  Why is this important?  Because people make significant decisions about how they will live and if others intrude, these decision become distorted.  Basic rights carve out the region of the world where the individual is in charge!

This is of course an irritant to all those who would just as soon have other people available to be used, bothered, nudged, and so forth.  The tyrant is fended off by individual rights, as is the meddlesome legislator and regulator.  So instead of accepting this, such folks are bent upon recrafting the idea of individual rights.  Welfare rights are like that.  If one has a basic right to welfare, it means others must become involuntary servants to one’s objectives and may not tend to their own affairs in peace. The idea of basic individual rights establishes peace among people.  They must deal with one another by consenting to the various projects one might support.  One may not be conscripted and robbed.  And this is inconvenient, of course, to people who don’t want to bother about gaining the consent of those whose support they seek.  Instead of convincing them of the merits of their projects, they can skip this troublesome step and just tax and draft and otherwise make people serve them whether or not they want to.

People of course often should help others but that must be done voluntarily.  There is no merit to such help if it coerced! To avoid the perception that one’s support is coerced, the idea of welfare rights is fabricated!  This needs to be resisted good and hard!

We are delighted to present Lessons in Freedom, essays by Dr. Tibor Machan, for your pleasure.

Dr. Machan holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University's Argyros School of B&E.

Visit his web site here...

One Little Country facing Many Giant ‘Evils’: IMMORALITY & HYPOCRISY

Our Unending Battle with Immorality

By S3S

 “It is evident that both law and morality serve to channel our behavior. Law accomplishes this primarily through the threat of sanctions if we disobey legal rules. Morality too involves incentives: bad acts may result in guilt and disapprobation, and good acts may result in virtuous feelings and praise.” (Shavell, 2002:1)[1]

The Law versus the Moral

The Bahamas faces an unending battle with immorality and hypocrisy, two labels that shoud make any country uncomfortable.  Small in size and stature, we face ‘giant’ challenges of which steady degradation of our morals, in all its varied forms, is but another.  In my view, the challenge is rooted in an over-appreciation for one of the sets of standards that govern society (the law), offset by a severe under appreciation for the other more important set of standards that overrides all others in society (the moral) – at its most basic, meaning what is right – at its more advanced, the “rules of conduct that are associated with certain distinctive psychological and social attributes” (Shavell, 2002:4).  We possess much love and admiration for the ‘law’; we esteem lawyers, celebrate the profession and if offered the chance, opt to join the profession ourselves, rather than enriching society by becoming learned in other areas.  Unfortunately, this level of admiration and respect does not extend to ‘the moral’ and arguably, the overarching and therefore, superior tender to the law!  Of course, what is legal is not necessarily moral, though the latter has the much higher authority and a much wider remit. 

Not only do we not possess a penchant for ‘the moral’, we flaunt our lack of respect for what is right.  There is nothing more morally perverse than a society saying it believes in something that is right but then behaves contrarily or to put it another way, refuses to practise what it preaches.  Common examples of deviant moral behaviour occur at the national (government), societal and most disturbingly, at the level of the family, the core ‘moral’ unit of society. 

Declined Morals in the Public Sector

In the public sphere, monies are misappropriated from public corporations and in response, governments initiate ‘toothless’ investigations with apathy, which normally translates into nobody being identified, much less punished, for the wrongdoing.  Public officials accept bribes as if a normal part of operations and public servants are in service of the public to see what they can get from it.  Corruption in public office erodes trust in our elected officials and frustrates our development ambitions because we become distracted with the acts of impropriety.  Take the recent announcement of the depleted Confiscated Assets Fund (CAF), which reportedly held more than $20m in 2008, but now holds less than $185,000 (The Nassau Guardian Online[1]); or the previous report of missing millions from the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation; what happened to these funds and why is there no public accounting or indeed, accountability?

Defending the Free Market. Father Robert Sirico on The World Show

Rev. Siricio, of the Acton Institute for the study of religion and liberty in a wide ranging interview about the benefits of capitalism.

Read his book, Defending the Free Market to find out more.

"As for the idea that the welfare state is an expression of Christian charity, he (Fr. Sirico) counters that although Jesus identified with and loved the poor, nowhere in the scriptures does he call on government to do anything. Charity, furthermore, is a voluntary sacrifice that comes from the heart..."

Coffee for the less fortunate

A friend posted this on her Facebook page recently and I think it's a great idea.

"This story will warm you better than a coffee in a cold winter day!

"We enter a little coffeehouse with a friend of mine and give our order. While we're aproaching our table two people come in and they go to the counter:

"'Five coffees, please. Two of them for us and three suspended'

"They pay for their order, take the two and leave. I ask my friend:

"'What are those 'suspended' coffees ?'

"'Wait for it and you will see'

"Some more people enter. Two girls ask for one coffee each, pay and go. The next order was for seven coffees and it was made by three lawyers - three for them and four 'suspended'. While I still wonder what's the deal with those 'suspended' coffees I enjoy the sunny weather and the beautiful view towards the square in front of the café. Suddenly a man dressed in shabby clothes who looks like a beggar comes in through the door and kindly asks, 'Do you have a suspended coffee?'

"It's simple - people pay in advance for a coffee meant for someone who can not afford a warm beverage. The tradition with the suspended coffees started in Naples, but it has spread all over the world and in some places you can order not only a suspended coffee, but also a sandwich or a whole meal.

"Wouldn't it be wonderful to have such cafés or even grocery stores in every town where the less fortunate will find hope and support?

"If you own a business why don't you offer it to your clients...I am sure many of them will like it."

Apparently this story began in January 2011 with a blog post entitled “Caffe’ sospeso”. Coffee as a form of dignified charity" Read it here…

Seems this is far better than wasteful Government programmes?

Don't forget the Greek Festival again today

If you missed it yesterday, you still have an opportunity today.

Greek food, Greek Beer, Greek Band, Lectures, Kids Corner and more...

A fabulous time.

One of my favourite parts is listening to Pericles Maillis lecture on Greek History (here and abroad) and the classics.

Here's Mr. Maillis delivering a lecture yesterday in the beautful Greek Church.

Read on for more details.

Lessons in Freedom: Democracy & Gay Marriages

by Tibor R. Machan

Frankly I have no horse in this race, nothing personal in any case.  For my money you may marry your grandmother or cat, if all parties consent.

Marriages ought to be a matter of contract and not based on any myth or superstition.  Folks should not be interfered with if they want to form a family union, however it is configured, so long as it isn’t some kind of criminal gang.

What I do find odd is for the White House to butt in here, requesting that the U. S. Supreme Court invalidate various state statutes to conform to the doctrine of the ruling party or the president.  In the case of President Obama, an avowed champion of democracy in numerous areas -- whereby as far as he is concerned, majority rule may violate individual property or contractual rights (so that, for example, he supports imposing all kinds of burdens such as various taxes) on everyone because the majority agrees -- the demand that the court uphold the ban on gay marriages would appear to be perfectly acceptable to him if the majority in a state, such as California, so decides. But, alas, democracy must yield when Obama so wishes.

Democrats, be they lower or upper case types, often do not get it: if you believe that what the majority agrees to should be the law, you have no cause for complaint when insidious measures get passed in various elections in various jurisdictions.  Majority rule means just that, rule by the will of the majority.  If you think there are exceptions -- as even the U. S. Supreme Court has said there are and as most sane people would agree -- you need to show why.  The best case for them would provide support from the political doctrine of natural individual human rights.  So that if everyone has a right to speak his or her mind, no majority would be authorized to shut us up no matter how outrageous our ideas happen to be. And there are other equally well established individual rights that no majority ought to be authorized to breach.  So, yes, whom one chooses to marry if all parties agree (remember polygamy!) may not be subject to interference by a majority or its representatives.  Don’t like it but live with it, if you have any respect for the right to individual liberty!

But then do not impose on people measures, laws, regulations, etc., they find morally or otherwise objectionable unless these amount to protecting individual rights!  But it doesn’t seem to me at all that Mr. Obama and his ideological cohorts have any firm commitment to such individual rights, only to some select ones that happen to suit their pragmatic frame of mind.  In other words, they are essentially committed to a fascistic type of “legal” order wherein those who happen to sit atop the government get to tell everyone else what goes.

And they used to fancy the US a free country! Go figure.

We are delighted to present Lessons in Freedom, essays by Dr. Tibor Machan, for your pleasure.

Dr. Machan holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University's Argyros School of B&E.

Visit his web site here...

Erin Greene is right

 

Erin Green. Photo Nassau Guardian

You read that correctly. Gay and lesbian people deserve equal treatment under the law.

 

Ms. Greene, human rights activist, appeared before the Constitutional Commission on Wednesday and made several important statements as carried in the press.

“The state has an obligation to me to ensure that as a citizen I have equitable access to the benefits that it offers…"

“I think that the state has an obligation to its citizens that is different than the church’s obligation to its parishioners…."

Read the articles in The Nassau Guardian here… and The Tribune here…

Ms. Greene deserves credit for so ably making her points.

Unfortunately it is the State that imposes laws outside the framework of the Constitution that remain unchallenged in the Courts.

In addition, as the Nassau Institute noted back in 2004, "The Constitution is limited to fundamental principles that define the relationship of the governing body to that of the governed reflecting a commitment to a free society."

"Accordingly, all the additions and changes might be unrealistic but as the review is taking place, it would be a shame not to attempt to find a way to keep the state in check at the same time as it has been proven over and over again that the omnipotent state can do substantial damage to a country and her citizen's."

"A free society certainly needs permanent means for restricting the powers of government no matter what the particular objective of the moment might be. The foundational principle of the Constitution is to protect the individual against all arbitrary coercion. Any recommendations for change to the existing document must be tested against this principle."

In other words, a Constitution is to protect the rights of the individual while restricting the power of the government.

In the final, will gay and lesbian people and women in general ever receive equal treatment under the law?

We shall see how meaningful this exercise is at the end of the day.

By the way, you might be interested in reading F.A. Hayek's, The Constituion of Liberty (pdf) here...

H. L. Mencken, Wittiest Defender of Liberty

This essay by Jim Powell was first published here… by The Freeman September 1, 1995. Please support them here…

During the first half of the twentieth century, H. L. Mencken was the most outspoken defender of liberty in America. He spent thousands of dollars challenging restrictions on freedom of the press. He boldly denounced President Woodrow Wilson for whipping up patriotic fervor to enter World War I, which cost his job as a newspaper columnist. Mencken denounced Franklin Delano Roosevelt for amassing dangerous political power and for maneuvering to enter World War II, and he again lost his newspaper job. Moreover, the President ridiculed him by name.

“The government I live under has been my enemy all my active life,” Mencken declared. “When it has not been engaged in silencing me it has been engaged in robbing me. So far as I can recall I have never had any contact with it that was not an outrage on my dignity and an attack on my security.”

Though intensely controversial, Mencken earned respect as America’s foremost newspaperman and literary critic. He produced an estimated ten million words: some 30 books, contributions to 20 more books and thousands of newspaper columns. He wrote some 100,000 letters, or between 60 and 125 per working day. He hunted-and-pecked every word with his two forefingers—for years, he used a little Corona typewriter about the size of a cigar box.

Mencken had interesting things to say about politics, literature, food, health, religion, sports, and much more. No one knew more about our American language. Influential pundits of the past like Walter Lippmann are long forgotten, but people still read Mencken’s work. During the past decade, publishers have issued almost a dozen books about him or by him. Biographer William Nolte reports that Mencken ranks among the most frequently quoted American authors.

Certainly Mencken was among the wittiest. For example: “Puritanism—the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. . . . Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. . . . The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flophouses and disturbing the peace.”

Mencken stood about five feet, eight inches tall and weighed around 175 pounds. He parted his slick brown hair in the middle. He liked to chew on a cigar. He dressed with a pair of suspenders and a rumpled suit. According to one chronicler, Mencken at his best looked “like a plumber got up for church.”

Publisher Alfred Knopf had this to say about Mencken, a close friend for more than 40 years: “His public side was visible to everyone: tough, cynical, amusing, and exasperating by turns. The private man was something else again: sentimental, generous, and unwavering—sometimes almost blind—in his devotion to people of whom he felt fond . . . the most charming manners conceivable, manners I was to discover he always displayed in talking with women . . . he spent a fantastic amount of his time getting friends to and from doctors’ waiting rooms and hospitals, comforting them and keeping them company there.”

Mencken inspired friends of freedom. He helped cheer up stylish individualist author Albert Jay Nock, a frequent contributor to Mencken’s magazine the American Mercury, during Nock’s declining years. Mencken’s stalwart individualism awed young Ayn Rand who, in 1934, called him “one whom I admire as the greatest representative of a philosophy to which I want to dedicate my whole life.”

Henry Louis Mencken was born September 12, 1880, in Baltimore. His father, August Mencken, owned a cigar factory. His mother, Anna Abhau Mencken, like her husband, was a child of German immigrants. In 1883, the family moved to a three-story, red brick row house at 1524 Hollins Street. Here, except during his five-year marriage, Mencken lived for the rest of his life.