tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10890822048501709422024-03-18T20:48:17.024+11:00 Freedom and FlourishingWinton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comBlogger737125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-90879408448152355652024-03-18T12:37:00.000+11:002024-03-18T12:37:15.281+11:00Why should peacefulness be viewed as a characteristic of a good society?<p> </p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPVoxDqln3rcWICudssFTk-lAI0Nl0ZScvqqNeFUK7D8L4KmBmCOEuP_ZCrkVEPu8DZKzn_rUbFxGUZP3lqbHUNH9gBqEfCiuKs2SawljRaiyaCuqXVhY_MIFOO9ujda4UHNobJ-qDAlAkIj8EeWp_ieHnbjXAy4w22RJ2svSoBoCGjemVY7OndmtacQ/s721/image002.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="721" height="399" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPVoxDqln3rcWICudssFTk-lAI0Nl0ZScvqqNeFUK7D8L4KmBmCOEuP_ZCrkVEPu8DZKzn_rUbFxGUZP3lqbHUNH9gBqEfCiuKs2SawljRaiyaCuqXVhY_MIFOO9ujda4UHNobJ-qDAlAkIj8EeWp_ieHnbjXAy4w22RJ2svSoBoCGjemVY7OndmtacQ/w547-h399/image002.png" width="547" /></a></div><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In the most
popular post on my blog, written in 2009, I asked: <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2009/10/what-are-characteristics-of-good.html">What
are the characteristics of a good society?</a> I began the post by suggesting
that a good society would have good institutions – norms and laws that are good
for its members. I noted that in thinking about the characteristics of a good
society different people tend to emphasise different things that they consider
to be important e.g. egalitarianism, personal freedom, moral values and
spirituality. I then suggested that rather than just agreeing to differ, it
might be useful to try to identify some characteristics of a good society that
nearly everyone would agree to be important. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The three
characteristics I identified were: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">institutions that enable members to live
together in peace; </span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">institutions that provide members with opportunities to
flourish – to have more of the things that are good for humans to have; </span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">and institutions
that provide members with a degree of security against potential threats to
individual flourishing.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">No-one has
suggested to me that they disagree that good societies should have those three characteristics.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">However, I
have been wondering recently how I should respond if someone suggested that in
some societies a substantial proportion of the population hold attitudes that
place a relatively low priority on living together peacefully. For example, while
they may play lip service to peacefulness, people in some societies may not consider
that it is important for children to learn to have tolerance and respect for
others. The chart shown above suggests that the importance placed on that
particular child quality does indeed vary substantially throughout the world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On
reflection, I have decided that my view that peacefulness is a characteristic
of a good society does not actually depend on the degree of support for that
view in any society. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Why is
peacefulness important?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is appropriate
to begin with the proposition that a good society would have good institutions
– norms and laws that are good for its members. What that means is that a good
society has institutions that support the flourishing of its individual
members.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In my book, <i>Freedom,
Progress, and Human Flourishing, </i>I identified several basic goods that a flourishing
person could be expected to have: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wise and
well-informed self-direction</span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Health and
longevity</span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Positive
relationships</span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Living in
harmony with nature</span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Psychological
well-being.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The merits of
that list is a matter for ongoing reflection and discussion but I think it is helpful
in considering what characteristics a society needs to have if it is to support
the flourishing of individual members. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The contributions
of peacefulness are fairly obvious. Peaceful societies protect the rights of individuals
to self-direct, provided they do not interfere with the rights of others. They
contribute to health and longevity my minimizing violence. They provide a
context in which people can develop trusting relationships with others.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There isn’t any
explicit discussion of the concept of a good society in <i>Freedom, Progress, and
Human Flourishing </i>but the extensive discussion of progress in that book is
highly relevant. Progress is defined in the book as growth of opportunities for
human flourishing. On that basis, the good societies are those in which a great
deal of progress has occurred in the past. Progress can be ongoing because there
is always scope for good societies to become better.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Importance
of consensus about the desirability of peacefulness</span></i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Widespread
agreement about the importance of peacefulness to human flourishing provides
important support for institutions that enable the peaceful resolution of
disputes among people with different political objectives. A society has little
hope of becoming good, or remaining good, when an increasing number of people become
willing to resort to violence to impose their visions of a good society on
others.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-50521488235983168422024-03-12T16:38:00.000+11:002024-03-12T16:38:35.465+11:00Why am I still blogging?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIDsq9KkHpqaSd_YJQEPE5P7S79g1lCkLFFUbGz7naQIs3cxyL63aPDlShslCKmLpDeklV3Dmrq-IY1_cJcqqfVg081lNURsfqaG1r922xaLPk8470ot0algSh0jc_ahThjiR_JEoPsUifd5S63Mk6lhVHZVJY6n4L-AGPYHMug71Hz4-DniehDH-ezA/s348/Free%20to%20Flourish%20cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="301" data-original-width="348" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIDsq9KkHpqaSd_YJQEPE5P7S79g1lCkLFFUbGz7naQIs3cxyL63aPDlShslCKmLpDeklV3Dmrq-IY1_cJcqqfVg081lNURsfqaG1r922xaLPk8470ot0algSh0jc_ahThjiR_JEoPsUifd5S63Mk6lhVHZVJY6n4L-AGPYHMug71Hz4-DniehDH-ezA/w400-h346/Free%20to%20Flourish%20cover.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I began blogging about 16 years ago, when blogging was
somewhat fashionable. At that time, many blogs were like public diaries in
which people discussed daily events in their lives. I have the impression that blogs
of that kind have become less common, presumably because of competition from
social media such as Facebook.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I can’t recall ever having used this blog to discuss
daily events in my life and have rarely used it to discuss hot political issues.
At the outset, I decided that I didn’t want the blog to be about me. And I
thought it would be wise to focus on longer term issues, rather than to be unduly
distracted by the day-to-day antics of politicians. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One of the distinctive characteristics of the blog is
that the title of each article is a question. That seemed to me to be a good
way to stay on topic in exploring relationships between freedom and
flourishing. (I have previously discussed the question format <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2018/05/why-ask-questions.html">here</a>.)
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My reasons for blogging are still much the same as
they were when I began. In a post in 2011, entitled "<a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2011/02/what-is-my-purpose-in-blogging.html">What
is my purpose in blogging?</a>”, I wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“When people
have asked me this question in the past my answer has been that I am interested
in issues related to liberty and happiness. I read a lot of material related to
those issues; I write about the things I read because that helps to focus my
mind; and I publish what I write on my blog because my views might be of
interest to some other people.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My blog has evolved in various ways that have helped
sustain my enthusiasm for blogging. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Evolution of the blog<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">When I began blogging, my main objective was to
understand the links between freedom and life satisfaction that were evident in
survey data. Surveys show that people who say they have a lot of freedom also
tend to say they have high life satisfaction. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My objectives have become more focused as I have come
to understand more about the importance of self-direction to the flourishing of
individual humans. These days I am particularly interested in exploring the
implications of the idea that progress should be viewed as growth of
opportunities for individuals to flourish. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">From the outset, most of my blog posts have been prompted
by articles and books I have read. I sometimes review a whole book, but more
often select some ideas in it that I want to explore. A fairly recent example
of this approach is <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/07/where-is-soul-of-libertarianism.html">my
review</a> of </span><i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
Individualists</span></i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">, by Matt
Zwolinski and John Tomasi. My review focuses on the question: Where is the soul
of libertarianism? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I use that essay as
an example because I think it deserves more attention than it has received thus
far.)</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In my early years of blogging, I conducted a
substantial amount of quantitative research using survey data on life
satisfaction and personal freedom, along with more objective measures of economic
and personal freedom. I still retain some interest in quantitative analysis, and
am proud of a series of posts last year (<a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/06/can-cultural-values-explain.html">summarized
here</a>) on the question: Can cultural values explain authoritarianism?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">When I began blogging, I posted about once a week. These
days I tend to post about once every couple of weeks. When I began blogging, I
tried to keep posts as short as possible. More recently, my posts have tended
to be longer, but I frequently use sub-headings and conclusions to help readers
follow the line of argument. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Benefits of blogging<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The benefits I obtain from blogging don’t include
wealth or fame. If either wealth or fame was my motivation for blogging, I
would have given up many years ago. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The main benefit I obtain from blogging is the satisfaction
of learning about a topic by writing about it. There is also some satisfaction
in knowing that what I am writing is attracting some attention. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I don’t know how many people actually read the essays
on my blog, but there have been 1,197,600 views in total since I started the
blog. There were 24,768 views last month.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My most popular post is entitled: <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2009/10/what-are-characteristics-of-good.html">What
are the characteristics of a good society?</a> That post has had 56,600 views.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One of the important benefits I have obtained from
blogging is to establish contact with like-minded people in other parts of the
world who share my interest in liberty and ancient philosophy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Blogging has also helped me to develop my views
sufficiently to be able to write a couple of books. I wrote and published <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Free-Flourish-Winton-Bates-ebook/dp/B00AP0F9HO">Free
to Flourish</a> </i>on Kindle in 2012. <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663">Freedom,
Progress and Human Flourishing</a> </i>was published, by Hamilton Books, in
2021. I consider that writing the latter book has been one of the most significant
achievements of my life.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">To sum up, I am still blogging because blogging gives
me a lot of satisfaction. Blogging has helped me to deepen my understanding of the
importance of self-direction to human flourishing. Blogging has enabled me to
establish contact with like-minded people who share some of my interests. Blogging
also helped me to write <i>Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing</i>, which
I view as one of my most significant achievements. <o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-66608642303979267082024-02-29T20:45:00.001+11:002024-03-01T07:22:47.321+11:00Is ecological justice also a mirage?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA-cKhgFmQT_RQwl2uOzchRfX6SmOwXk0RPKRIJ7tzIVIyxjt6lot0IdcLVhQRY2CzNEzSoSWDu_Hl_Tz21jnmispHoEKFf7ZcY2ln5H9dFlyG2UvqFb1-tuKka5WRCFitbe-Lsdvd-XUtIozH4j9HV_rIBSgQBsq1TPuUMYf6hzCctlGlDf939ML4aw/s1316/roundabout.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1299" data-original-width="1316" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA-cKhgFmQT_RQwl2uOzchRfX6SmOwXk0RPKRIJ7tzIVIyxjt6lot0IdcLVhQRY2CzNEzSoSWDu_Hl_Tz21jnmispHoEKFf7ZcY2ln5H9dFlyG2UvqFb1-tuKka5WRCFitbe-Lsdvd-XUtIozH4j9HV_rIBSgQBsq1TPuUMYf6hzCctlGlDf939ML4aw/w400-h395/roundabout.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">David Schmidtz advocates “ecological justice” in his book,
<i><a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/living-together-david-schmidtz/1141740841">Living
Together</a>: Inventing Moral Science. </i>Although Schmidtz does not refer to
Friedrich Hayek in this book, his general line of argument is similar, in many
respects, to that developed by Hayek in <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Law-Legislation-Liberty-statement-principles/dp/0415522293">Law,
Legislation, and Liberty</a></i>. From Schmidtz’s </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-hayek/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">earlier writings</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">,
it clear that he is well aware of Hayek’s views. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzLcAewuqJSUgSy0SGuoOkxI3NKDm7njyl7rKI7_-I-By2CBu8FqCwps_88y4Uk2ggu0XzvVqlFXOAIOdVL7RsOwiO9Nhgd77WBH2up9CE-QX0CEE6wBgycLERIMr4DBW6YhRbCjYRtjh7PZcFYeqaXEZlqXWgCvc-Dd374f-wofWWtMBoCzAV-FqmnA/s466/Living%20Together.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="315" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzLcAewuqJSUgSy0SGuoOkxI3NKDm7njyl7rKI7_-I-By2CBu8FqCwps_88y4Uk2ggu0XzvVqlFXOAIOdVL7RsOwiO9Nhgd77WBH2up9CE-QX0CEE6wBgycLERIMr4DBW6YhRbCjYRtjh7PZcFYeqaXEZlqXWgCvc-Dd374f-wofWWtMBoCzAV-FqmnA/w135-h200/Living%20Together.jpg" width="135" /></a></div><br />I presume Schmidtz has good reasons for not comparing
his views to those of Hayek in this book. However, since Hayek argued that ‘social
justice’ is a mirage, I thought Hayek would not object to me asking whether
ecological justice could also be a mirage. <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In this essay, I provide a brief summary of Hayek’s
reasons for viewing social justice as a mirage before considering the basis for
Schmidtz’s concept of ecological justice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Why did Hayek view social justice as a mirage?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Hayek argued that it is “a dishonest insinuation” and
“intellectually disreputable” to make reference to social justice in an attempt
to bolster an argument “that one ought to agree to a demand of some special
interest which can give no reason for it”. Hayek implies that where there are good
reasons for assistance to the less fortunate, reference to social justice adds nothing
to the argument. (LLL, V2, p 97. See also p 87 for Hayek’s discussion of
reasons to support “protection against severe deprivation”.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Hayek also argued that “a society of free individuals”
… “lacks the fundamental precondition for the application of the concept of
justice to the manner in which material benefits are shared among its members,
namely that this is determined by a human will – or that the determination of
rewards by human will could produce a viable market order”. (LLL, V2, pp 96-7) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Elsewhere,
Hayek made the point that the size of the national cake and its distribution
are not separable issues:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“We must
face the truth that it is not the magnitude of a given aggregate product which
allows us to decide what to do with it, but rather the other way around: that a
process which tells us how to reward the several contributions to this product
is also the indispensable source of information for the individuals, telling
them where they can make the aggregate product as large as possible”</span>
(Conference paper published in Nishiyama and Leube, “The Essence of Hayek”, p
323).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hayek went
on to make the point that John Stuart Mill’s claim that “once the product is
there, mankind, individually or collectively, can do with it whatever it
pleases” is really “an incredible stupidity, showing a complete unawareness of the
crucial guide function of prices”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Interestingly,
David Schmidtz suggests that by pulling production and distribution apart, J. S.
Mill “unwittingly pulled one question into two half questions that in fractured
isolation had no proper answers and that would derail rather than facilitate
our study of the human condition”. (p 6) Following Mill, questions about
production were allocated to economists, while questions of distribution were the
province of philosophers: “those who work on justice”. (p 5)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What is ecological about justice?</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">David Schmidtz writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“We are social and political animals, and justice is a
human adaptation to an ecological niche.”</span> (p 220)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What does that mean? The common human characteristic
of negotiating what we expect from each other is one of the reasons why humans
are viewed as social and political animals. As people negotiate what to expect
from each other, they create social niches in which they hope to flourish. (p
25) Schmidtz suggests that to speak of justice is to speak of what we should be
able to expect from each other. (p 219) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Justice manages traffic</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. (p
220) People share an interest in avoiding collision, but otherwise have
destinations of their own:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The truth
for political animals is that since we began to settle in large communities,
being of one mind has not been an option. Being on the same page is not an
option. Even our diverse ideas about how to resolve conflict are a source of
conflict. And, disturbing though it may be for a theorist to admit it, theories
do not help. It is a political fact that we live among people who have theories
of their own, who do not find each other’s theories compelling, and who are
perfectly aware that there is no reason why they should.”</span> (p 221)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Schmidtz discusses
several other features of ecological justice. For example, norms of ecological
justice are an adaptive response to reality. Principles of justice are based on
an understanding of which institutional frameworks are enabling people to flourish
and which are not. Justice is somewhat testable: when the world tests our ideals
and finds them wanting, we need to rethink. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The author
ends up suggesting that the features of ecological justice that he has
discussed “do not define ecological justice, and do not exhaust it, but they
indicate whether a conception of justice is more or less ecological”. (p 226) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of seeking to define ecological
justice, perhaps it is more helpful to ask what is the question that ecological
justice seeks to answer. The title of Schmidtz’s book suggests that the
question has to do with how we can live together. In his introduction, he asks:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“What if
justice evolved as a real question about what people ought to be able to expect
of each other?”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Since we have reasons to believe that justice evolved in that way, perhaps the relevant question is: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #d0e0e3;">What rules
of just conduct should influence what people ought to be able to be able to
expect of each other, allowing for the possibility that individuals might
flourish in different ways? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(That
question borrows words from Friedrich Hayek, and Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas
Den Uyl, as well as David Schmidtz.)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">David Schmidtz’s concept of ecological justice is
certainly not a mirage. It has to do with the nature of humans as social and
political animals, and the nature of justice as a human adaptation to an
ecological niche. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Rather than seeking
to define ecological justice precisely, perhaps it is more helpful to ask what is
the question that ecological justice seeks to answer. My suggestion is:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">What rules
of just conduct should influence what people ought to be able to be able to
expect of each other, allowing for the possibility that individuals might
flourish in different ways? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-6842353767671415622024-02-15T15:26:00.002+11:002024-02-21T10:13:35.831+11:00What makes a narrative good?<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0_mQ6pjbx_VEeGnI8MR2Ysg6vjZQ8Ai7nApTCjLsPdjYpM5mKUyPH-D4R4kpLMchLNrJeE7stCkfycLKI7s8LFx903-uc8-6r0sanoSrgM64nJ1Brvgotc8ijA1NwpCxuhtd5I4yMrVI98R58aFIHqKoIxuIE7UjfmH16qkuPmA6ErYiP6dccudcQVw/s3399/Narrative%20cartoon.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3399" data-original-width="3014" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0_mQ6pjbx_VEeGnI8MR2Ysg6vjZQ8Ai7nApTCjLsPdjYpM5mKUyPH-D4R4kpLMchLNrJeE7stCkfycLKI7s8LFx903-uc8-6r0sanoSrgM64nJ1Brvgotc8ijA1NwpCxuhtd5I4yMrVI98R58aFIHqKoIxuIE7UjfmH16qkuPmA6ErYiP6dccudcQVw/w355-h400/Narrative%20cartoon.jpg" width="355" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I asked
myself the question posed above as I was reading <a name="_Hlk158388556"></a><a name="_Hlk158898617"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk158388556;">Mich</span></a></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk158898617;"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk158388556;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">èle Lamont’s </span></span></span><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk158388556;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">book</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Seeing-Others-Redefine-Worth-Divided/dp/0241454638"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Seeing Others</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, How to Redefine Worth in a Divided World.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> The passage quoted below seems central to Michèle Lamont’s book: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The hegemony of the
American dream manifests in the emphasis Americans put on neoliberal virtues of
material success, self-reliance, individualism, entrepreneurialism, and
competitiveness. These criteria of worth have gained more and more influence as
“models of ideal selves,” and encourage many to internalize blame for the
increasing precarity of their lives. This model can also lead people to seek
out a scapegoat group to blame.”</span> (p 31)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Those sentences seem
to suggest that neoliberalism encourages people to either internalize blame for
misfortune or to seek scapegoat groups to blame. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Internalizing blame<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The author doesn’t
explain why she believes neoliberalism can cause people to “internalize blame
for the increasing precarity of their lives”, but she lists several references
in the notes section which may support her claims. The one which seems likely
to be most relevant is an article by Glen Adams</span>, Sara Estrada-Villalta, Daniel
Sullivan, and Hazel Rose Markus<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <span lang="EN-US">entitled ‘</span></span><a href="https://web.stanford.edu/~hazelm/publications/2019%20Adams%20et%20al%20The%20psychology%20of%20neoliberalism.pdf"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Psychology of Neoliberalism and
the Neoliberalism of Psychology’</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, <i>Journal of Social Issues </i>75 (1), 2019.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Adams et al use the term ‘neoliberalism’ to refer to an
economic and political movement that came to prominence in the late 1970s,
advocating “deregulation of markets and free movement of capital with an
emphasis on fluidity and globalization”. Such usage of ‘neoliberalism’ to refer
to advocacy of free markets is now common, even though the term was once generally understood
to refer to advocacy of left-leaning policies, e.g. a ‘social market economy’, rather
than free markets. Like most advocates of free markets, I would prefer to be referred
to as a classical liberal or libertarian, but I can usually assume that I am among
good company when I am labelled as a neoliberal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The authors argue that neoliberalism encourages “an
entrepreneurial approach to self as an ongoing development project, an
imperative for individual growth and personal fulfillment, and an emphasis on
affect regulation”. I don’t object to that characterisation. It describes some
aspects of the approach to human flourishing in Part III my book, <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780761872665/Freedom-Progress-and-Human-Flourishing"><i>Freedom,
Progress, and Human Flourishing</i></a><i>. </i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, the authors suggest that neoliberalism also supports
psychological “responsibilization” - an ugly word for an ugly concept. The claim
they make is that neoliberals advocate that individuals should not only accept personal
responsibility for problems which it may be possible to ameliorate through
behaviour change (such as obesity and substance abuse) but also to accept
responsibility for misfortune more generally. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Neoliberals
argue that free markets tend to reward individual effort, but that doesn’t mean
that they believe that economic misfortune is always attributable to lack of
individual effort. In fact, one of the characteristics of neoliberalism is
recognition that social problems of poverty, unemployment etc. are often
attributable to foolish government economic policies that are opposed to economic freedom. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I don’t
know any neoliberal who would suggest that individuals should “internalize
blame” for any disruption of their lives associated with innovation and
competition. Neoliberals are more likely to suggest that people who lose jobs
or other remuneration because of the disruptive impact of innovation and
competition should view such setbacks as beyond their control. The potential
for such setbacks is a price that previous generations have willingly paid to
enable to enable their descendants to enjoy the benefits of economic growth. <a name="_Hlk158819057">Deirdre McCloskey </a>– a prominent classical liberal – has
coined the term, ‘bourgeois deal’, to refer to the willingness of people to
accept the potential for their lives to be disrupted by innovation and
competition in exchange for ongoing expansion of economic opportunities. (See </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bourgeois-Equality-Capital-Institutions-Enriched/dp/022633399"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Bourgeois Equality</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I doubt
that many psychologists would suggest that their clients should “internalize”
blame for all the bad things that happen to them. When psychologists suggest
that individuals should take responsibility for their lives, I am sure that the
vast majority would mean that individuals should focus on taking personal
responsibility for problems that are within their locus of control.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Who is
responsible for the scapegoat narrative?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It took me
some time to work out why Michèle Lamont believes that neoliberalism encourages
people to seek out scapegoat groups to blame for misfortune. Her reasoning evidently
has more to do with her belief that Donald Trump is a neoliberal than with the
beliefs of neoliberals. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On the page
following the passage quoted above, Lamont writes: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“From Ronald Reagan to
Donald Trump, neoliberalism has come to be understood as a precondition for a
successful society”. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I believe
that free markets help societies to become and remain successful, but it is hard
to understand how anyone could perceive Donald Trump to be an advocate of that
view. While in office, Trump administered the final blow to </span><a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/08/trumps-most-enduring-legacy-isnt-what-you-think/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">the “neoliberal consensus”</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> on international trade that
characterised the post-Cold War period, and he currently favors further
restrictions on international trade and international movement of labor. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Lamont’s
claim that neoliberalism encourages people to seek out scapegoat groups to
blame seems to rest on the behavior of Donald Trump. She observes that in 2015 former
president Trump advanced a false narrative in which immigrants from Mexico were
rapists and drug dealers. (pp 51-2). During the 2016 campaign Trump appealed to
“America’s forgotten workers” by recognizing their plight and “by blaming globalization
and immigration for it”. (p 70) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Lamont also
suggests that Trump provided “an empowering narrative” for the working class
“who are often perceived as “the losers of the system”. (p 165). Early in the
book, she notes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Instead of
depicting ‘everyday Americans’ as ‘deplorables’, as Hillary Clinton was
perceived to do in the 2016 presidential campaign, her opponent Donald Trump affirmed
their worth in his various electoral speeches, explaining their loss of social
status as a result of globalization and immigration.”</span> (p 8)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Lamont’s
narrative<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The title
of Lamont’s book, “seeing others”, refers to “acknowledging people’s existence
and positive worth, actively making them visible and valued, reducing their
marginalization, and openly integrating them into a group”. (p 6) She suggests
that having one’s sense of worth affirmed “is a universal need that is central to
our identity as human beings and our quality of life”. (p 7) She urges that we “bridge
boundaries with those who are different” via “ordinary universalism”, or “emphasizing
similarities over differences”. (p 144) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I don’t
object to those sentiments, and I doubt whether many other neoliberals would
either. It is certainly appropriate to recognize that ordinary universalism can
be “a vital counterweight” to “Nationalist populism, Islamophobia, and
xenophobia” which “are on the rise in many countries”. (p 146) As an advocate
of ordinary universalism, however, I think it is unfortunate that the author
was not sufficiently “inclusive” to recognize that anti-Semitism also belongs on
that list. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I also object
to the idea that “individualist approaches” to improving wellbeing “may harm
more than they help, since they pull people’s attention away from more
meaningful efforts”. (p 48) The author seems to be suggesting that excessive attention
is given to approaches that help individuals to improve their assessments of their
own worth. Instead, she urges:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“We need to
ask ourselves hard questions about how we decide who matters and what we can do
to create a more inclusive society.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It seems to me that people who are lacking
in regard for their own worth are unlikely to make a positive contribution to ensuring
that the worth of others is appropriately recognized.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Much of the
book is devoted to a discussion of how it is possible to change hearts and
minds in order to reduce stigmatization of marginalized groups, and thus build a
more inclusive society. That discussion is largely beyond the scope of this
essay.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In Chapter
7, however, the author discusses the result of a survey of the attitudes of Gen Z students
(aged 18 to 23). She seems a little perplexed that Gen Z tend to “embrace some
neoliberal ideals – hard work and success” but is pleased that they “combine
personal professional aspirations with the promotion of collective well-being”.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The author
claims that apart from “the wealthiest of the wealthy” every other group “finds
itself reeling from an onslaught of difficulties, disappointments, and
anxieties, grasping for dignity and stability”. (p 47) That is implausible
and seems at odds with her message about destigmatization of marginalized
groups. However, it fits well with another theme of Lamont’s narrative. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As already
mentioned, Lamont suggests that Trump provided “an empowering narrative” for
the working class. She suggests that the Democratic party should counter that with
“messages of solidarity and dignity”: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">Redirecting
working class anger toward the one percent is more likely to sustain fruitful
alliances than driving wedges between diverse categories of workers who have so
much in common.” (p 159)</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Is
Lamont’s narrative good?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It seems to
me that appropriate criteria to consider whether a narrative is good include whether
it encourages ethical behaviour and whether it is factually accurate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Regarding ethical
behaviour, Michèle Lamont seems to be seeking to “mobilize” good narratives when
she suggests: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“We
engineer our world together by mobilizing narratives that expand recognition of
who is worthy.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Leaving aside engineering, the
message she is attempting to convey seems to be that narratives have a role in
reinforcing the ethical intuition that we should respect other humans and behave
with integrity toward them, irrespective of gender, sexual preference, race, nationality, religion, wealth,
social status, political affiliations etc. I am not entirely convinced that she
would include ideological opponents among those who are “worthy”, but she does acknowledge
that “it is worth trying to understand even people we may strongly disagree
with”. (p 159). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On the
question of factual accuracy, Lamont’s narrative, which suggests that the workers
have reason to be angry with the wealthy one percent, seems to me to be just as
questionable as Donald Trump’s narrative which suggests that the workers have
reason to be angry about globalization and immigration. Neither of those
narratives promotes an accurate understanding of economic reality. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In this
essay I have examined Michèle Lamont’s narrative that neoliberalism encourages
people to either internalize blame for misfortune or to seek scapegoat groups
to blame. My conclusion is that her claim that neoliberalism encourages people
to internalize blame is baseless. Her claim about seeking to blame scapegoat
groups seems to be based on the false belief that Donald Trump is a neoliberal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Good narratives
should encourage ethical behaviour and be factually accurate. One of Lamont’s
objectives in this book seems to be to “mobilize” good narratives that reinforce
the ethical intuition that we should behave with integrity toward all other
humans. However, the factual accuracy of her narrative that workers have reason
to be angry with the wealthy one percent is highly questionable. If accepted by
governments that approach would encourage unethical redistributions of incomes
and further dampen incentives that are essential to the ongoing growth of widespread economic
opportunities. <o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-45917349956165231772024-01-31T11:06:00.000+11:002024-01-31T11:06:19.822+11:00Do you live in harmony with your daimon?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgANdS9xguPnGT2QlhOR4bUiWha4gV-MFO2LMgmtVWB7F4NsbG5A6t88htgiPZqQEeAeRtYCgmXQ5mhR0y_R8ETWfM6XGiZHjdRiogAGAhR8ropqNV69CQ3tieVcNCtFOxG83eZKfdlyTltx1vg0Um2AWcI8w9QTcKF-dfBVEeDXhKtn_Y6ApqlqljF6g/s955/Norton%20quote.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="639" data-original-width="955" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgANdS9xguPnGT2QlhOR4bUiWha4gV-MFO2LMgmtVWB7F4NsbG5A6t88htgiPZqQEeAeRtYCgmXQ5mhR0y_R8ETWfM6XGiZHjdRiogAGAhR8ropqNV69CQ3tieVcNCtFOxG83eZKfdlyTltx1vg0Um2AWcI8w9QTcKF-dfBVEeDXhKtn_Y6ApqlqljF6g/w400-h268/Norton%20quote.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some
readers will be wondering what the question means. What is this daimon? How
does it relate to eudaimonia? How can you identify your daimon?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Your
daimon<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In his book,
<i>Personal Destinies, </i>David L Norton explains that your daimon is your
innate potentiality – a unique “ideal of perfection”. Every person has this
innate potentiality as well as an empirical actuality. Self-actualization is
the process of discovering your daimon and living in harmony with it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Norton suggests that people begin to discover their daimon
during adolescence. He argues that autonomous self-awareness first occurs in
the form of one’s awareness of being <i>misidentified </i>by other
people. (That is clear in a passage quoted in the <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2024/01/what-is-wrong-with-sartres-view-of-self.html">preceding
essay</a> on this blog.) Adolescence is a period of exploration and experiment when
mistakes are inevitable. Exploration and experiment are part of the process by
which individuals may discover their daimon and obtain the maturity to choose
to live in harmony with it – to live an integral life. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Integrity is the consummate virtue. It is “living one’s own
truth”. An integral life follows from choosing “wholeheartedly” the self one
shall strive to become.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Eudaimonia</i> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have been accustomed to thinking of eudaimonia in terms of
the good life, or self-actualization. As indicated in the passage quoted above,
however, Norton draws attention to the distinct feeling of eudaimonia that
constitutes its intrinsic reward. He describes that feeling as “being where one
wants to be, doing what one wants to do”, as well as the feeling of being where
one must be, and wholeheartedly doing what one must do. (pp 216, 222). The
feeling of eudaimonia signals that the present activity of the individual is in
harmony with his daimon. (p 5).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By contrast, the dysdaimonic individual is impelled to two
different directions at the one time:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The dysdaimonic individual is perpetually distracted, being
only in a part of himself where you find him while part of himself is somewhere
else, his ‘here’ and ‘there’ being not continuous but contradictory.” </span>(p 221)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Norton suggests that eudaimonia is fully present whenever a
person is living in truth to himself or herself. Eudaimonia is as much present
for the individual who has just set foot upon his path, as for the accomplished
genius of self-actualization. I particularly like this sentence:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“It would make good sense to say that to set foot upon one’s
path is as good as arriving at the end, provided we recognize that a condition
of being on one’s path is to be engaged at walking”.</span> (p 239)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Norton’s book begins with a quotation from Carl Jung, who
speaks of the daimon as an “inner voice” that has determined the direction of
his life. Norton recognises that we may be apprehensive that “an ear turned
towards our inwardness will detect at most only meaningless murmurings”. Many people
who read the book will no doubt have a desire to listen to their daimon but might
still have some difficulty in hearing its voice, amid all the meaningless inner
murmurings that are seeking their attention. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>How can you identify your daimon?<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a philosopher, David Norton could not have gone much
further than he has in this book in helping readers to identify and follow their
personal daimons. Anyone wishing to proceed further might find some
contributions from positive psychology to be of assistance. In what follows, I briefly
mention some approaches that I think are helpful.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Two relevant approaches which I discussed briefly in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663"><i>Freedom,
Progress, and Human Flourishing</i></a><i> </i>involve identifying personal
values and character strengths. Stephen Hayes developed Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy (ACT) to help people to identify the personal values that
they want to guide them in important aspects of their lives. Russ Harris, a
therapist who has written extensively about ACT, has written a book, <i>The
Happiness Trap, </i>which I reviewed <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2015/12/how-can-we-avoid-happiness-trap.html">here</a>.
Harris’ book is highly relevant to some of the issues discussed by David Norton.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martin Seligman and Christopher Petersen identified 24
character strengths that they view as the routes by which virtues can be
achieved. People can obtain useful information about themselves by responding
to a <a href="https://www.viacharacter.org/account/register">questionnaire</a> at
the VIA Institute of Character, and having the responses fed back in summary
form.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At a more personal level, I should mention the help I have
obtained from the “inner game” books written by Tim Gallwey, a sports and
business coach. Gallwey’s books (described <a href="https://theinnergame.com/inner-game-books/">here</a>) are pertinent
because they deal with performance problems that arise when an individual
becomes confused by inner voices that conflict with his or her authentic inner
voice. Gallwey suggests many techniques to help people to maintain focused
attention on the task at hand, avoid self-doubt, and exercise free and
conscious choice when that is appropriate. People are helped to discover their
true identity as they master this “inner game”. My podcast episode, entitled “Tim
Gallwey, my inner game guru”, can be found <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/freedom-and-flourishing/id1588167230">here</a>.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Conclusions<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David Norton’s book, <i>Personal Destinies, </i>provides an
insightful account of the nature of eudaimonia. He explains it as a distinct
feeling as well as the condition of actualizing one’s innate potentiality. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have suggested some contributions from positive psychology
that I think are helpful in complementing the approach adopted in this book.<o:p></o:p></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-38883232435425350922024-01-23T15:54:00.000+11:002024-01-23T15:54:01.074+11:00What is wrong with Sartre's view of self-creation?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc384i-WBjeYYzI7XA2vaUE15lm55LXczeo1ZkoFI2vmcGHt9eFub9L0Zy6O3UlqK2X357e5mUJ0dgE1MeYFHbgkxoPGTAlmBtCpigPi6mgNl1iM_XAo0kInpsoAyB7hI92Ef08HaZNyBIfJFGpg_Kg79wv_A8jVB2O8Co9gbna3ZmCFSXTQSpCQykZw/s2795/Only%20my%20dog%20understands%20me.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2603" data-original-width="2795" height="373" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc384i-WBjeYYzI7XA2vaUE15lm55LXczeo1ZkoFI2vmcGHt9eFub9L0Zy6O3UlqK2X357e5mUJ0dgE1MeYFHbgkxoPGTAlmBtCpigPi6mgNl1iM_XAo0kInpsoAyB7hI92Ef08HaZNyBIfJFGpg_Kg79wv_A8jVB2O8Co9gbna3ZmCFSXTQSpCQykZw/w400-h373/Only%20my%20dog%20understands%20me.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I have read
a great deal of the fiction written by Jean Paul Sartre, but my knowledge of
his philosophical works is second-hand. I read <i>Nausea, The Age of Reason,
The Reprieve, </i>and<i> Iron in the Soul,</i> when I was in my 20’s.<i> </i>Those
novels still sit on my bookshelves along side novels by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
and Ayn Rand. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The only
Sartre novel that left a lasting impression on me is <i>Iron in the Soul. </i>I
have a vague recollection of the plot of Part One that novel. It ends with
Mathieu Delarue, an academic who became a soldier in the French army, taking
part in a futile military operation after France had been defeated by Germany during
World War II. The purpose of this military operation was apparently to use up
ammunition. Part One ends with Delarue declaring that he is free, even though
it seems that his life is about to end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">At the time
I read the book I would have been impressed that Delarue had found inner
freedom by doing something decisive, but I doubt that I contemplated whether he
had discovered himself or created himself.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is only
in the last decade or so that I have pondered whether personal development is
best described as a discovery process, or a creative process. David L Norton’s
book, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Destinies-Philosophy-Ethical-Individualism/dp/0691019754">Personal Destinies:</a> A philosophy of personal individualism </i>(1976)<i>
</i>has recently prompted me to think further on the topic. I will begin with a
general discussion of Norton’s view of personal destinies before considering
his view of Sartre’s position.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Is your
destiny in your genes?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While reading the first chapter of <i>Personal Destinies</i>,
I balked at Norton’s injunction to "accept your destiny". <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I accept the author's argument that self-actualization
requires a person to discover the daimon within, and to live in accordance with
it. I have no problem with injunctions to "know thyself",
"choose yourself", and to "become what you are". However,
being told to "accept your destiny" seems more challenging.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What does Norton mean?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Norton suggests that from the moment of birth, it is the
destiny of each individual to actualise their potential in a particular way. If
they live in accord with their destiny they become like the heroes of a Greek
tragedy, showing undeviating consistency of character as they meet their fate.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He is suggesting that individuals are destined to have a
unique personal character if they follow their daimon. He is not suggesting
that the individual’s fate is pre-determined.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why did I object? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My first objection was that accepting one's destiny seems
opposed to accepting personal responsibility for one's choices. Norton explains
that is not so. Individuals are free to choose to adhere to their destiny or to
deviate from it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think my second objection has more substance. I have seen
individuals change their character through their own actions. Genes play an
important role in determining our destinies, but they are not the only
determinant. Brain plasticity seems to enable people to change their destinies,
for good or ill. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I recommend David Eagleman’s book, <i>Livewired: the inside
story of the ever-changing brain</i>, to anyone who needs to be persuaded that
genes are not destiny. As <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2022/08/what-implications-does-livewired-brain.html">previously
discussed</a> on this blog, Eagleman, a neuroscientist, makes the point that
the human brain arrives in the world unfinished: “despite some genetic
pre-specification, nature’s approach to growing a brain relies on receiving a
vast set of experiences, such as social interaction, conversation, play,
exposure to the world, and the rest of the landscape of normal human affairs”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It may even be possible for adults who follow their daimons to
create more "potential" to actualize. If that is correct, it makes
sense to think of personal development as involving self-creation as well as
self-discovery. In the post <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2022/08/what-implications-does-livewired-brain.html">already
mentioned</a>, I referred to the approach offered by Gena Gorlin, a psychologist,
as an example of self-directed personal development. Gorlin <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-art-and-science-self-creation/202007/call-self-creation?fbclid=IwAR3yXXtgs0T6pwjqq_WgSEVfEXNyd-4gCZTXEB8QOIzt9hjbh34iIbDNnMY">has
referred</a> to her approach as a call to self-creation. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>What is the problem with Sartre’s view?<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sartre argues that humans are “condemned to be free”. Each
self constitutes itself as a “fundamental project” which is a product of free
choice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Norton explains that Sartre’s view of self-creation stems
from the idea that whatever may be given to consciousness can appear in
consciousness only as a meaning, and meanings are the product of consciousness itself.
A person is nothing until he or she (or ?) chooses an identity. Human reality
owes nothing to “inner nature”. There are no innate capabilities. “Talent is
nothing other than acquired ability deriving from activity that is engaged in
by choice.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Norton suggests that autonomous self-awareness first appears
in adolescence as a discovery rather than as a creation: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“In adolescence, autonomous self-awareness first occurs in
the form of one’s awareness of being <i>misidentified </i>by the other. … Throughout
childhood the individual has unquestioningly accepted adult identification of
himself, usually that of his parents. Now, however, it is in the parental identification
that the adolescent recognizes misidentification …. . Beneath this sense of misidentification
and responsible for it is the adolescent’s new-found awareness that <i>only he
can speak.</i> The moment is portentous and felt to be such. By its tone
of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“from this moment and forever-more,”
it signals a future very different from the past, it marks a disruption of the
personal continuum. At the same time misidentification by others cannot be
corrected because the new found “inner self” of the adolescent as yet has no
voice with which to speak to the world, it is but a murmur within, audible to
one person alone, and this helplessness projects itself as “fated to be misunderstood.”</span>
(p 111)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That passage brings back some memories of adolescence. And,
even now, that feeling of being “fated to be misunderstood” sometimes returns
to me. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An internet search suggests to me that developmental psychologists
commonly believe that autonomous self-awareness first occurs during adolescence
between the ages of 12 and 18 years. That stage of life often involves a great
deal of experimentation leading to self-discovery.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The attraction of Sartre’s view of self-creation is that it
appears to offer unlimited opportunities to individuals choose their identity. In
arguing that human freedom is freedom for self-discovery and self-adherence,
Norton suggests that Sartre’s advocacy of absolute freedom is actually a
capitulation to “the forces of alienation at work in contemporary life”:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The man who has no authentic feelings, and must on every
occasion manufacture his feelings, is no exemplar of freedom but rather the
self-alienated product of special conditions of life today.”</span> (p 116).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Sensible self-creation<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The main difference between Gena Gorlin’s approach to self-development
and that of Sartre is that Gorlin does not claim that it is necessary to <i>choose</i>
an identity before becoming a self-aware person. The existence of a person is presupposed in
the builder’s mindset that Gorlin <a href="https://builders.genagorlin.com/p/the-builders-mindset-a-way-out-of?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2">advocates</a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“A person chooses what she wants to build, and she holds herself
accountable for the work of building it.” </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Robert Kegan’s concepts of self-authorship and
self-transformation also seem to me to be sensible approaches to self-creation.
Most adults have socialized minds – they are faithful followers and team
players. Those with self-authoring minds are in the next largest group. They are
self-directed and can generate an internal belief system. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only a tiny percentage have self-transforming
minds, capable of stepping back from, and reflecting upon the limits of
personal ideology. I included some discussion of Rober Kegan’s concepts in <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663">Freedom,
Progress, and Human Flourishing</a>.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Conclusions<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David L Norton’s book, <i>Personal Destinies, </i>has
prompted me to think further on the topic of whether personal development is
best described as a discovery process or a creative process. Norton’s view that
personal destinies are determined at birth does not leave any room for
self-creation. The existence of brain plasticity suggests, however, that it may
make sense for psychologists to view personal development as having a creative
component.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Norton offers an illuminating account of what is wrong with
Sartre’s extreme view that it is necessary to choose an identity before being aware
of being a person. Norton seems to me to be correct in suggesting that
autonomous self-awareness occurs as a discovery process during adolescence. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sensible advocates of self-creation do not claim that it is
necessary to <i>choose </i>an identity before becoming aware of being an
individual person.<o:p></o:p></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-46720822380200480742024-01-14T16:25:00.002+11:002024-01-16T16:31:32.038+11:00How do democratic institutions survive in Papua New Guinea?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuGeix9-HO3Lv67VdxZty3vvQ7PBWJTKqEzAZoeu6tGnyUe9f95X7cePEfdb4wmzcPe7FV5RdaOE5oTNtakwhc6Chm3_wRtZ92HPaWqSHOp25rQNWjUB8QYmxULfmmkJh-_SINGONZ4sChRkIJN9cBDB4iZXxhGOjYs04nzYb2QKlTrbAJQ5XVZbwdwQ/s1542/PNG.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1309" data-original-width="1542" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuGeix9-HO3Lv67VdxZty3vvQ7PBWJTKqEzAZoeu6tGnyUe9f95X7cePEfdb4wmzcPe7FV5RdaOE5oTNtakwhc6Chm3_wRtZ92HPaWqSHOp25rQNWjUB8QYmxULfmmkJh-_SINGONZ4sChRkIJN9cBDB4iZXxhGOjYs04nzYb2QKlTrbAJQ5XVZbwdwQ/w400-h340/PNG.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /> <p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In countries
with endemic law and order and corruption problems, outbreaks of rioting and
looting often lead to military dictatorship, or some similarly authoritarian
style of government. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">However, I
don’t think many people expect the recent outbreak of rioting and looting in Port
Moresby and other major cities in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to result in
authoritarian government. In the 50 years since it gained independence from
Australia, PNG leaders have muddled through several major crises without resort
to authoritarianism. Local leaders, including military leaders, have generally displayed
little appetite for radical change. They have responded to major crises by
seeking to uphold the PNG constitution. Responses to the Sandline crisis of 1997
are a prime example. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
Sandline crisis<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In January
1997, the PNG government approved a contract to engage Sandline International –
a firm employing mercenary soldiers – to neutralize the Bougainville
Revolutionary Army (BRA). The aim of the exercise was to reopen the Panguna copper
mine which had been shut down in 1989 as a consequence of BRA activities seeking
Bougainville’s independence from PNG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">General
Jerry Singirok, the commander of the PNG defence force, did not believe that
the proposed Sandline operation would succeed, and was concerned that it might
result in mass civilian casualties. He also believed that the Sandline contract
was unconstitutional. He resolved to expel the mercenaries from PNG before they
were able to begin military activities on Bougainville. To achieve that
objective, Singirok and some trusted colleagues devised and implemented Operation
Rausim Kwik. The operation received overwhelming public support in PNG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyY74fxOhGAJeLZbUejGv5b4oLnq5AGW4eCEbpKeQ60dzHoyZOtyJdkMUuPxP6XITJTCH6sIQtVdqcumvD2bI8fiTnYGljaqlTZNLZdOcdo6w54nzG_0RLV1_ZTSH_W6AIP9hCOhzvNggYmgeNKFd7JEsO32GqpwTg1wuNjgnUAzIfYSG5LN7eONtC1g/s466/A%20matter%20of%20conscience.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="293" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyY74fxOhGAJeLZbUejGv5b4oLnq5AGW4eCEbpKeQ60dzHoyZOtyJdkMUuPxP6XITJTCH6sIQtVdqcumvD2bI8fiTnYGljaqlTZNLZdOcdo6w54nzG_0RLV1_ZTSH_W6AIP9hCOhzvNggYmgeNKFd7JEsO32GqpwTg1wuNjgnUAzIfYSG5LN7eONtC1g/w126-h200/A%20matter%20of%20conscience.jpg" width="126" /></a></div><br />I don’t
propose to present my view on whether Jerry Singirok did the right thing. I
encourage readers of this blog to make up their own minds after reading
Singirok’s recently published book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Matter-Conscience-Operation-Rausim-Kwik/dp/1543768806"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A Matter of Conscience</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">: Operation Rausim Kwik. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I enjoyed reading the book. It was
given to me for Christmas by one of my brothers, who lives in PNG. As well as
discussing the matters of conscience that Singirok had to consider, it provides
an exciting account of the planning and implementation of this secret military
operation.<o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My purpose in
the remainder of this essay is to sketch out how the Sandline contract and Rausim
Kwik were viewed in Australia, and to offer some additional thoughts about PNG
institutions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Australian
views of the Sandline crisis<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As I
remember, there was intense interest in the Sandline affair in Australia. News
stories about mercenaries and mutiny always attract attention but the Sandline
affair was of particular interest because of the proximity of PNG to Australia,
PNG’s history as an Australian colony, and the large number of Australians who
had lived and worked in PNG or had family living there. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As the
former colonial power, the Australian government didn’t want to interfere overtly
unless it became necessary for action to be taken to protect Australian
citizens. The official reaction of the government could be described as
hand-wringing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Prior to the
Sandline affair, Australian authorities had been trying to persuade their counterparts
in Port Moresby that peace on Bougainville could only be achieved via a
negotiated settlement. Support provided under the Defence Cooperation Program included
a requirement that the helicopters provided could not be used as “gunships”,
and other similar conditions. Sir Julius Chan, the PNG prime minister, claimed
that it was Australia’s reluctance to provide adequate support that had led his
government “to go to the private sector”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Australian
government did not send a strong message to the PNG government about its opposition to
employment of mercenaries in the region until after Jerry Singirok had taken
action to arrest the Sandline executives. At that point the Australian PM, John
Howard, sent three senior public servants to PNG to urge Sir Julius to cancel
the Sandline agreement and deport the mercenaries. The emissaries threatened
that Australia might not continue its aid program if the PNG government
continued in the proposed use of mercenaries to put down the rebellion on Bougainville.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In his
public address to the nation, Singirok reassured the public that he was not
conducting a military coup. Nevertheless, he insisted that the government
ministers involved should step aside pending a judicial inquiry into the hiring
of Sandline. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I think there
was as much concern in Australia about Singirok’s mutinous behaviour as about the
PNG government’s employment of mercenaries. The actions of the military commander
in preventing implementation of government policy seemed like a step in the
direction of military dictatorship. Singirok notes that the Australian High
Commissioner handed him a diplomatic note from Canberra stating among other
things:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“We
strongly believe that it is essential that the PNGDF obey the directives of the
PNG government and cease any illegal or unconstitutional activity.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">However, I doubt
that the Australian government’s hand-wringing had much influence in ensuring
that the Sandline crisis ended peacefully.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">PNG
institutions<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some
prominent PNG citizens helped to end the Sandline crisis by assisting negotiations
between Singirok and Sir Julius Chan. Singirok was dismissed as commander of
the PNG defence force, but his demands were met. The PM and two other ministers
stepped aside while an inquiry was held. Normal constitutional processes were resumed.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggk9CAnJxhUh2K8ffavgTvA-fvZgCHtbaCC03TJz5abafD3aTosw1AdE8A3OMag_akBQIlWIVDTrLX7vWvwt5nIQ8a6TzFxaQqbGze58i-TZAtsIj8Ie16u2C9fjfHIOithM86kZLbGB6xXFzq758gCa-ioUlslalg9mkqvrVFwDJO6qd4v3ufRDPZcQ/s466/The%20embarrassed%20colonialist_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="286" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggk9CAnJxhUh2K8ffavgTvA-fvZgCHtbaCC03TJz5abafD3aTosw1AdE8A3OMag_akBQIlWIVDTrLX7vWvwt5nIQ8a6TzFxaQqbGze58i-TZAtsIj8Ie16u2C9fjfHIOithM86kZLbGB6xXFzq758gCa-ioUlslalg9mkqvrVFwDJO6qd4v3ufRDPZcQ/w123-h200/The%20embarrassed%20colonialist_.jpg" width="123" /></a></div><br />Sean Dorney,
an Australian journalist with over four decades of experience in reporting on Papua
New Guinea, regards the professionalism of its defence force as one of PNG’s
strengths. In his book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Embarrassed-Colonialist-Penguin-Special-Specials/dp/0143573950"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Embarrassed Colonialist</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">published in 2016, he writes about the PNGDF
under the heading: “A Developing Country’s Military With No Ambition to Rule”. He
quotes General Toropo, who was then commander of the PNGDF, as saying that he
cannot see a military coup ever happening in PNG because the PNGDF regards
itself as a professional organisation and “has got beyond tribal and regional
differences”. Dorney notes that prior to independence, Australia made a
conscious effort to recruit soldiers from all around the country so that the
defence force would not be dominated by a group from any one province or
region.<o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Dorney has
a less favourable view of the police force. He notes that a police department
had not even been created until the decade before independence and suggests
that inexperienced and untrained staff were major problems at that time. He
notes that by international standards the size of the police force relative to
population is very low in PNG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
professionalism of the police force is obviously still a problem. The most
recent bout of rioting and looting occurred after police went on strike because
of a pay dispute. Hopefully, the increased foreign aid that Australia announced
last year to police training etc. will be of some help in improving the
professionalism of the PNG police force.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Improved
policing is an obvious response to a law-and-order problem, but it may not be
necessary to </span>invest vast amounts of public money in crime<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <span lang="EN-US">deterrence in order to </span></span>make
the transition from a high to low crime society<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span>In his book, <i>The Enlightened
Economy, </i>Joel Mokyr points out that firm government enforcement of
laws could not have played a major role in enabling Britain to achieve a low
crime society. In the 18<sup>th</sup> century, large parts of Britain were
virtual “lawless zones” and in others, legal practice often deviated
considerably from the letter of the law. Enforcement was largely a private
enterprise with the courts at best serving as an enforcer of last resort. There
was no professional police force. Daily law enforcement was in the hands of
amateurs and part-time parish constables. Justice had to rely to a large extent
on volunteers, local informers, vigilante groups and private associations
specializing in prosecution of felons. Private law enforcement remained of
substantial importance until well into the 19<sup>th</sup> Century (pages
376-379).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The incentive to engage in crime depends on the alternative economic
opportunities available to potential criminals as well as on the expected rewards
of crime. The more general issue of what has been holding back the growth of
economic opportunities in PNG, <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/05/what-is-holding-back-growth-of-economic.html">discussed
previously on this blog</a>, is relevant in this context. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Criminal activity has certainly been having an adverse
impact on the growth of economic opportunities, and lack of economic
opportunity has no doubt tempted more people to resort to crime. However, that
does not necessarily make the problem intractable. One possible solution is for
police to give highest priority to deterring the violence and theft that is
having a major adverse impact on the economic opportunities of poor people. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The survival of democratic institutions in PNG does not seem
to be seriously threatened by current levels of crime and corruption. There is
a risk, however, that crime and corruption will reach a stage where criminal
gangs directly threaten the survival of democratic institutions. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Conclusions<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Democratic institutions survive in Papua New Guinea because
local leaders have generally responded to major crises by seeking to uphold the
constitution. That was particularly evident in the Sandline crisis of 1997.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The PNG defence force has been aptly described as a
developing country’s military with no ambition to rule. The defence force regards
itself as a professional organisation that has “has got beyond tribal and
regional differences”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The professionalism of the PNG police force is more
questionable. A more professional police force could help ameliorate PNG’s
endemic law and order problems by giving highest priority to deterring the violence
and theft that is having a major adverse impact on the economic opportunities of
poor people.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The main risk to democratic institutions in PNG seems to me
to lie in the potential for crime and corruption to expand to a point where criminal
gangs take over the government.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><b>Postscript</b></i></p><p class="MsoNormal">1. Noric Dilanchian has provided the following comment:</p><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs" style="background-color: #f0f2f5; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">You've written a good article Winton.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s" style="background-color: #f0f2f5; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">As my only closely relevant background, in my last year in law school (1982) I helped a friend write her Law in Developing Societies course thesis about protests by indigenous people on Bougainville Island before <a style="color: #385898; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit;" tabindex="-1"></a>the first major conflict.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s" style="background-color: #f0f2f5; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">Our conclusion then was that massive mining pollution and industry behaviour, among other factors I cannot remember, were conducive for societal collapse. It then happened.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s" style="background-color: #f0f2f5; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">I was also reflecting on your thinking in light of three books I read late in 2023 on the 20th century history of Iran. There a central problem was that the royal rulers always sought exclusive rule-supporting control over the armed forces. That had very bad consequences. As for the police in cities, they performed the connected with elites thug role comparable to and evident in Sydney during and before Premier Robert Askin's administration (1965-1975).</div></div><p class="MsoNormal">2. Pat Green wrote:</p><p class="MsoNormal">If I could draw comics, I would draw a helicopter way up in the sky, and attached to it is a silhouette of PNG. Hanging up high on the rope is a bunch of politicians cutting the rope above their heads with a big tramontina that has "idependence" etched on it.</p><p class="MsoNormal">There is no future in the current system. </p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-69835832311800204112024-01-08T11:39:00.000+11:002024-01-08T11:39:59.265+11:00Was British colonial government as bad as modern critics would have us believe?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz1EhUrhVcYyCamSLqeEqYI-RmmFB60tdSt07L2kL6p-Ks1IIQW1aBc7vvyFb1ardRIuLKx3JZxwzOSoVBAZq3CMY5udJFq7M_Z6w44lAdpwW-VQJrj9kzURPPBcAqSFYfZTduQ0APklBOO4fv1LPlNOHgiyR79W0LqSUUVyWS9X8UQNQkI1iwOHr1KA/s820/Biggar%20quote.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="708" data-original-width="820" height="345" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz1EhUrhVcYyCamSLqeEqYI-RmmFB60tdSt07L2kL6p-Ks1IIQW1aBc7vvyFb1ardRIuLKx3JZxwzOSoVBAZq3CMY5udJFq7M_Z6w44lAdpwW-VQJrj9kzURPPBcAqSFYfZTduQ0APklBOO4fv1LPlNOHgiyR79W0LqSUUVyWS9X8UQNQkI1iwOHr1KA/w400-h345/Biggar%20quote.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nigel
Biggar acknowledges that British colonialism contained evils and injustices,
but he judges it to have been much better than its modern critics would have us
believe. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3dUll-HBQig2LkfA22a8UXl_lvpNojZXZozSUAa_14mI5thTiPkkMpC5dYXkvE7q-g6XZETNveY5uoGsL1dehHIbDWcntkJg9ZyPJaecTXyZm-okJ2b2PzFGLm4goLjcDnN0k6tGy1dGhmt59phaamLwspJj_D9KL0fDtU4HtJDxWcgnQf0n_DjczgQ/s466/Biggar%20Colonialism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="304" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3dUll-HBQig2LkfA22a8UXl_lvpNojZXZozSUAa_14mI5thTiPkkMpC5dYXkvE7q-g6XZETNveY5uoGsL1dehHIbDWcntkJg9ZyPJaecTXyZm-okJ2b2PzFGLm4goLjcDnN0k6tGy1dGhmt59phaamLwspJj_D9KL0fDtU4HtJDxWcgnQf0n_DjczgQ/w131-h200/Biggar%20Colonialism.jpg" width="131" /></a></div><br />Biggar directs
the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life at Oxford University.
His aim in writing his recently published book, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Colonialism-Moral-Reckoning-Nigel-Biggar/dp/0008511632" target="_blank">Colonialism: A MoralReckoning</a>, </i>was to provide a moral evaluation of British colonialism, rather
than a history of it.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As indicated in the passage quoted above,
Biggar argues that many of the modern critics of British colonialism have an
unscrupulous indifference to historical truth. He suggests that the controversy
over empire is really about the present, rather than about the past. The real
target of today’s anti-colonialists is “the Anglo-American liberal world order
that has prevailed since 1945”. They denigrate the historical record of “the
West” in order to corrode faith in it. He writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“What is at
stake is not merely the pedantic truth about yesterday, but the self-perception
and self-confidence of the British today, and the way they conduct themselves
in the world tomorrow.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Everyone
who has regard for human rights, rule of law, and democracy should encourage British
people to continue to be forthright in their advocacy of these ideals.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
focus of criticism<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Biggar documents
why modern critics of British colonialism are unfair in claiming that it was
characterised by racism. He highlights three main examples:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The critics
emphasize British links to the slave trade in the 17<sup>th</sup> and 18<sup>th</sup>
centuries, but overlook the leading role that the British government played in
ending slavery in the 19<sup>th</sup> century. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The critics<i>
</i>emphasize instances of appalling racial prejudice but ignore policies that
were driven by the conviction of the basic human equality of the members of all
races.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some
critics slanderously equate the actions of British colonial authorities with
those of the Nazis by claiming that they were engaged in genocide. They don’t
acknowledge the efforts of colonial authorities to protect native peoples from
harmful encounters with settlers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Benefits
of British colonialism<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Biggar also
documents many benefits of British colonialism. One of the points he makes is
that it “brought up three of the most prosperous and liberal states now on
earth – Canada, Australia, and New Zealand”. My friends in the United States can
take comfort from the fact that the American revolution served to educate the
British about the desirability of allowing those former colonies to govern
themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">More
generally, British colonialism promoted free trade, created peace in the
colonies, developed public infrastructure, made foreign investment attractive, disseminated
modern agricultural methods, disseminated medical knowledge, and “provided a
civil service and judiciary that was generally and extraordinarily incorrupt”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I will
focus here on the quality of the civil service and judiciary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Quality
of governance<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As a
classical liberal, I am inclined to the view that less governance is better
than more, and that governance imposed by foreigners is particularly obnoxious.
Could it have been possible for the quality of governance offered by the
British to have been better than the alternatives on offer during the colonial
periods?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That seems
likely to have been the case in many instances. Biggar notes that many local
rulers in India wanted the British to secure power to obtain advantage over
their rivals - they preferred British rule to indigenous alternatives including
ongoing local wars. It is not obvious that any real-world alternatives to
British colonialism in Australia and New Zealand (e.g. colonization by another European
power) would have provided greater protection to indigenous peoples. In the
absence of British colonialism in Africa, it is likely that the slave trade
would have persisted to a greater extent, aided by the expansion of militant Islam,
and internecine wars that were an ongoing source of slaves. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is not difficult
to understand why people working for British colonial administrations in the 19<sup>th</sup>
and 20<sup>th</sup> centuries developed a reputation for being largely incorruptible.
It is even possible for me – a person who subscribes to the private interest
theory of regulation - to understand that when organisations develop a culture that
is strongly opposed to corrupt behaviour, individual members tend to obtain a
great deal of satisfaction – a sense of mission - from upholding that culture.</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Biggar
notes:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Back in
the closing decade of the eighteenth century, Lord Cornwallis’ insistence that
officials in the East India Company should live on their salaries, give up
private trading and resist bribes ‘helped to create a civil service that became
widely regarded as incorruptible and just, one that even Indian nationalist
newspapers would later regard as ‘absolutely above suspicion’ and ‘the high
water mark of morality in the public service of the country’, and as beyond
being ‘bribed to do anything.” </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Biggar
devotes quite a few pages of his book to quoting subjects of colonial rule who were
full of praise for British colonial rulers. He also notes that in the 1950s
several million Chinese voted with their feet to leave the communist Chinese
mainland and live under British colonial rule in Hong Kong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The modern critics
of British colonialism have no reason to be concerned that it is about to make
a comeback. Their reason for seeking to denigrate it is to undermine the ongoing
efforts of people in Britain, and some of its former colonies, to promote the
ideals of a liberal world order. Nigel Biggar’s book makes an excellent
contribution to public discussion of the issues by pointing out that many of
the critics have an unscrupulous indifference to historical truth.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-81796531069148959552023-12-31T15:50:00.000+11:002023-12-31T15:50:50.354+11:00How would you describe your philosophy?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5qOXJdga19Ygubj8A4k9rzqM-4uT5pjcDWwarKoChWxODx34dnwYOKOMW7m0tg-qY3nfKivwoCxOSnC2qPJGy1tpBs48oztcDRrqDoiMyt5Pqk9ay4NkVzd6sU8_Qs2rE_9xSEiCOpgXlK2GcQPC2sZfYU7jffpSptlEIpwIGvH0YqDkIXuSXvCkaTg/s1737/Philosophy%20cartoon..jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1737" data-original-width="1565" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5qOXJdga19Ygubj8A4k9rzqM-4uT5pjcDWwarKoChWxODx34dnwYOKOMW7m0tg-qY3nfKivwoCxOSnC2qPJGy1tpBs48oztcDRrqDoiMyt5Pqk9ay4NkVzd6sU8_Qs2rE_9xSEiCOpgXlK2GcQPC2sZfYU7jffpSptlEIpwIGvH0YqDkIXuSXvCkaTg/w360-h400/Philosophy%20cartoon..jpg" width="360" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">I don’t think anyone has ever asked me the question posed
above. When I tell people that I am an economist, some of them ask about my
views on economics before regaling me with their opinions. When I tell people
that I am a blogger, they usually ask what I blog about before telling me what
I should blog about. I don’t claim to be a philosopher, so there has been no
reason for anyone to ask me to describe my philosophy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, a comment by Ed Younkins in the addendum to <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/12/why-am-i-thinking-about-selfishness.html">the
preceding post</a> on this blog prompted me to think about whether it would be
possible for me (as a casual reader of philosophy) to prepare a coherent
summary of my philosophical beliefs. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some readers might be interested in the process I used to
summarise my views. I asked ChatGPT to ask a series of questions to help me to
explore my philosophical beliefs. I responded to her questions by providing
copies of extracts from blog posts etc. that I had written, and asked her to
summarise my responses. The summary she produced was done competently, but I
did some further editing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I view the outcome as a work in progress. If anyone points
to holes in my reasoning, I will endeavour not to be excessively defensive in
my responses.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Summary<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am a Neo-Aristotelian classical liberal. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As will be apparent from what follows, I am strongly of the
opinion that it is appropriate to consider what kind of thing an individual
human is before engaging in philosophical reasoning related to any aspect of human
experience. That is why many of my beliefs are grounded in current scientific knowledge
(and speculation) about human evolution, neurology, and psychology.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems appropriate to begin with philosophy of mind
because awareness of our own awareness is the starting point for all
consciousness reasoning. I will then proceed to outline views on epistemology,
metaphysics, human nature, ethics, and political philosophy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Philosophy of Mind</i>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We cannot doubt that we think. When we are thinking, we may
be aware of the flow of inner thoughts and feelings and of our experience of
the world in which live. Our observations of other animals suggest that they
share with us some awareness of their surroundings. That awareness is a product
of evolution – it serves a purpose in helping animals to survive and reproduce.
Similarly, our awareness of our own awareness is just another step in the
evolutionary process – the purpose it serves is to help individual humans to
flourish within the cultures in which they live. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Main influence: Richard Campbell).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Epistemology</i>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Humans are born with a potential to acquire knowledge that
is particularly relevant to human flourishing. However, knowledge acquisition is
primarily experiential. Experiences during early childhood have a major impact
on brain development. As brains mature, neural maps become increasingly
solidified, but brains retain some plasticity throughout life. Brains learn by
evaluating feedback from actions taken – they adjust internal models when
predictions are incorrect. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Conscious reasoning plays a crucial role in determining what
knowledge adult humans acquire. It makes sense to use probabilistic reasoning
when considering alternative explanations for observed phenomena.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Practical wisdom (wise and well-informed self-direction) is
integral to individual flourishing. As well as being important in its own
right, it helps individuals to maintain good physical and psychological health,
good relations with other people, and to live in harmony with nature. (Influences:
Aristotle, David Eagleman, Michael Huemer).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Metaphysics</i>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Metaphysical realism: We exist as part of a real world.
Beings exist independently of our cognition of them. (Influences: Douglas
Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Human Nature</i>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Humans have inherent potentialities that are good. (Main
influence: Abraham Maslow).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Ethics</i>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our awareness that we need to make something of our lives
emerges before we can make conscious choices relating to our individual
flourishing. Ethical intuitions relating to traditional virtues – practical
wisdom, integrity, courage, temperance, justice – are a product of social
evolution and family upbringing. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ethical intuitions provide only a foundation for ethical
reasoning. Although everyone has a natural inclination to engage in activities
that contribute to their own flourishing, actualization of their individual potential
requires some understanding of that potential, and the application of practical
wisdom that is linked to that person’s dispositions and circumstances. Each
individual is responsible for developing his or her own character, and adopting
the good habits required to flourish more fully. (Influences: Robert Nozick, Aristotle,
Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Political Philosophy</i>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Individuals should be free to pursue their own ends provided
they do not encroach upon the rights of others. Recognition of individual
rights enables individuals to flourish in different ways without interfering unduly
with the flourishing of others.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The role of government is protection of individual rights. Performance
other roles should be contingent upon consent of the governed. (Influences:
Friedrich Hayek, James M Buchanan, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Notes<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The summary presented above focuses on some broad categories
of philosophical beliefs. I have left out some categories of beliefs (philosophy
of science and methodology of economics) because they are too specific to be
covered in this overview. <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2008/04/is-push-pin-as-good-as-poetry.html">One</a>
of the most popular posts on this blog is about aesthetics, but I have not read
widely on that topic. Some other important categories (e.g. religion) have been
left out because I prefer not to display my ignorance. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anyone interested in further explanation of my beliefs is
welcome to ask me. Many of the relevant topics are covered in my book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663"><i>Freedom,
Progress, and Human Flourishing</i></a><i>. </i>There are also relevant
articles on this blog that have been written since that book was published e.g.
a discussion of Richard Campbell’s views on the emergence of consciousness (<a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2021/04/how-can-we-comprehend-emergence-of.html">here</a>),
and David Eagleman’s views on neural mapping and plasticity (<a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2022/08/what-implications-does-livewired-brain.html">here</a>).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>References<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Philosophy of Mind<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Campbell, Richard, <i>The Metaphysics of Emergence</i>, Palgrave
Macmillan, 2015.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Epistemology<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Aristotle, <i>The Complete Works (Kindle Edition), </i>ATN
Classics, 2023.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eagleman, David, <i>Livewired: The Inside Story of the
Ever-Changing Brain</i>, Canongate Paperback,<b> </b>2021.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Huemer, Michael, <i>Understanding Knowledge, </i>2022.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Metaphysics<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Rasmussen,
Douglas B., and Den Uyl, Douglas J, <i>The <a name="_Hlk56601925">Realist Turn</a>,
</i>Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Human
Nature<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk42587773"></a><a name="_Hlk42587825"><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk42587773;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Maslow</span></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk42587773;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, Abraham</span></span><a name="_Hlk57129384"></a><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk57129384;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">,</span> <i>Toward a Psychology
of Being</i> (Chapter 14), D Van Nostrand</span>, 1962<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ethics<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nozick, Robert. <a name="_Hlk56602684"><i>Invariances</i></a><i>,
The Structure of the Objective World, </i>Harvard University Press, 2001. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Aristotle, <i>The
<a name="_Hlk57128253">Nichomachean Ethics </a></i><span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk57128253;"></span>(Translator: F.H. Peters) Online Library of Liberty,
1893<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Den Uyl,
Douglas J., and Douglas B Rasmussen, <i>The <a name="_Hlk57129817">Perfectionist
Turn</a>: From metanorms to metaethics, </i>Edinburgh University Press, 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Political
Philosophy<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk34993152"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Hayek, Friedrich</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. <i>The <a name="_Hlk56610920">Constitution of Liberty</a>, </i>The
University of Chicago Press, 1960.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Rasmussen,
Douglas B., and Den Uyl, Douglas J, <a name="_Hlk56601765"><i>Norms of Liberty</i></a>,
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-57253282916987024972023-12-18T11:09:00.002+11:002023-12-27T16:52:33.761+11:00Why am I thinking about selfishness during the season of goodwill?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdTrYFP2icdP3GcR4mqhigbRNfOsC20w1NcoY9UkeDJl8D8y0TuWaoBPp53CZb5OoVbPxrAQWq9BYf1RHIi5BAwTlOPM9r63lbfvfZCH15bS3yyyDOrdYpcqIGJE2PuOS8tUQ6voRoI5bxy1xNgBIFWMDwu9jwDNN_KcLDbIAF0A5UoXpcDrFel_W6Fg/s936/Rand%20quote.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="536" data-original-width="936" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdTrYFP2icdP3GcR4mqhigbRNfOsC20w1NcoY9UkeDJl8D8y0TuWaoBPp53CZb5OoVbPxrAQWq9BYf1RHIi5BAwTlOPM9r63lbfvfZCH15bS3yyyDOrdYpcqIGJE2PuOS8tUQ6voRoI5bxy1xNgBIFWMDwu9jwDNN_KcLDbIAF0A5UoXpcDrFel_W6Fg/w400-h229/Rand%20quote.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The reason
I am thinking about selfishness has to do with Ayn Rand. It has little to do
with her attitude toward Christmas, but I was pleasantly surprised to discover
the sentiment expressed in the quote above (written by Ayn Rand in the December
1976 entry in The Objectivist Calendar). I had previously wondered whether
Rand might have been one of those people who say “Bah Humbug!” at this time of
the year.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I have been
prompted to think about Rand’s view of selfishness by a discussion that has
been taking place on </span><a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/"><i><span lang="EN-US">The Savvy Street</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US">. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">Ed Younkins wrote an essay, </span><a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/objectivism-and-individualistic-perfectionism-a-comparison/"><span lang="EN-US">Objectivism and Individual
Perfectionism: A Comparison</span></a><span lang="EN-US">, which has induced Roger Bissell to write a two-part response.
Bissell’s responses have been published under the title: </span><a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/ayn-rands-philosophy-decoded-replies-to-recent-criticisms-of-the-objectivist-ethics/"><span lang="EN-US">Ayn Rand’s Philosophy Decoded:
Replies to Recent Criticisms of the Objectivist Ethics.</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> (Part 2 is </span><a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/ayn-rands-philosophy-decoded-replies-to-recent-criticisms-of-the-objectivist-ethics-2/"><span lang="EN-US">here</span></a><span lang="EN-US">.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Before I
discuss those contributions, it is relevant to mention my previous attempts to
understand Ayn Rand’s view of selfishness. Before you finish reading the essay
you will understand why that is relevant.
<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>My previous musings<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I was
brought up to believe that selfishness is a sin. In Australia, it is common for
parents tell children not to be selfish, for example, if they attempt to take
more than a fair share of a delicacy at mealtimes. What the parents mean is
that such opportunistic behavior shows no regard for others. People of goodwill
would not do such things. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Perhaps
that understanding of the meaning of selfishness was reinforced by Australia’s
“fair go” culture. Dictionary definitions of selfishness suggest, however, that
it is also common for selfishness to be viewed similarly in Britain and the
United States.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I can’t
remember when I first became aware that Ayn Rand viewed selfishness as a
virtue, and had written a book entitled <i>The Virtue of Selfishness. </i>During
the 1990s, I was certainly aware that most the small number of Australians who
were knew of Rand’s existence were of the opinion that she and her followers
were ethically challenged and encouraged narcissism. That view was later
expounded in a book by Anne Manne, which I commented upon </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2017/07/what-caused-narcissism-epidemic.html"><span lang="EN-US">here</span></a><span lang="EN-US">.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In a post
on this blog in 2009 I asked myself: </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2009/10/did-ayn-rand-regard-selfishness-as.html"><span lang="EN-US">Did Ayn Rand regard selfishness as a
virtue?</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> I knew she
did, but I pondered the question because the heroes of <i>Atlas Shrugged </i>did
not seem to me to be selfish. I noted that </span>Rand’s view that selfishness
is a virtue followed from a narrow definition of selfishness as “concern with
one’s own interests”, and speculated that Rand had used that definition to draw
attention to her opposition to the view that self-sacrifice is a virtue.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A few
months later, I wrote on the topic, </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2010/02/how-far-can-ayn-rands-ethical-egoism-be.html"><span lang="EN-US">How far can Ayn Rand’s ethical
egoism be defended?</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
That post was an attempt to summarize some of the views of participants in a
Cato </span>symposium on ‘What’s living and dead in Ayn Rand’s moral and
political thought’. One of the aspects I focused on was the question of whether
Rand, like Aristotle, viewed virtue – including regard for others - as a
constitutive part of the agent’s own interest, or as an instrumental strategy
for attaining that interest. Although the participants in the discussion were
all scholars familiar with Rand’s writings, they were unable to agree on that
point.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The other aspect I focused on was the question of whether it
was defensible for Rand to argue that what is objectively good and right for
one individual cannot conflict with what is objectively good and right for
another individual. <a name="_Hlk153649488">Most, but not all, of the
participants viewed that argument as indefensible</a>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Younkins’s contribution<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal">In his essay, Ed Younkins seeks to compare the ideas of Ayn
Rand with those of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl (the Dougs).
Younkins’s purpose is mainly descriptive and explanatory, but Roger Bissell has
seen his contribution to be critical of Rand. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The summary table published at the end of Younkins’s essay
is reproduced below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Younkins's Summary Table</b></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzyY9poJSCi5tYL0p8ZsSAc_M0PsrxjOlZ8tDgWwqexjZpSbym0VqW7B_nvunABY0bI3QdMAud2d0IQme9i6FT04E0XplHTjNUIe4BudSOZ-Siv1g0qzYnGG4NVFhJ8tXLFA5CtPsX5TLodIDkMV57djqL5hUQbW2lEL9niiDAl0oBC_fB_BO0kqPTLg/s640/Younkins%20comparison%20of%20O%20and%20IP.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzyY9poJSCi5tYL0p8ZsSAc_M0PsrxjOlZ8tDgWwqexjZpSbym0VqW7B_nvunABY0bI3QdMAud2d0IQme9i6FT04E0XplHTjNUIe4BudSOZ-Siv1g0qzYnGG4NVFhJ8tXLFA5CtPsX5TLodIDkMV57djqL5hUQbW2lEL9niiDAl0oBC_fB_BO0kqPTLg/w544-h640/Younkins%20comparison%20of%20O%20and%20IP.jpg" width="544" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>My focus here is entries relating Normative Morality, the Virtues,
and Conflicts of Interest. The discussion in the <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/12/did-ayn-rand-recognize-capacity-to.html">preceding
post</a> on this blog is relevant to “the Good and Value”.</div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Younkin’s summary table doesn’t mention Rand’s view of
selfishness explicitly, but it is lurking in the background in his discussion of
morality, the virtues and conflicts of interest.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Bissell’s response<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal">Roger Bissell doesn’t accept that Rand’s primary concern in
respect of normative morality was that the agent should always be the
beneficiary of his actions. He notes that in the introduction of <i>The Virtue
of Selfishness</i>, Rand states that ego vs altruism is <i>not </i>the
fundamental issue in ethics. He claims that “under all the ‘selfishness’ window
dressing”, Rand is “actually just another individualistic perfectionist”. Perhaps
Bissell is correct, but if so I am left wondering again, as in 2009, what
purpose Rand saw in the selfishness window dressing.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">With regard to the virtues, Bissell objects to the
implication that Rand did not regard them as constitutive of a person’s
flourishing. That difference of opinion takes me back to the Cato symposium
referred to earlier, where several scholars were unable to agree on that point.
My conclusion is that Rand’s views on that matter cannot have been stated
clearly and consistently.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Roger Bissell’s support of Rand’s view on conflicts on
interest also brings to mind the views expressed in the Cato symposium. I find
it difficult to understand why anyone who recognises the importance of property
rights would seek to defend the proposition that there can be no conflicts of
interest among rational and objective individuals. Nevertheless, Bissell makes
a heroic effort:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“To put it yet another way: whatever conflict two rational
people might have on the level of individual values is subordinate
to and outweighed by the common value they both have in
everyone’s doing their own personal best and letting specific outcomes be
determined within the framework of voluntary choice and peaceful interaction.
They want their specific individual values to be achieved, but not at any
cost—while they want their common higher rational values to be upheld, whatever
the cost.” </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps we could imagine two rational and objective
individuals with conflicting interests – for example, a farmer and a cowman living
on the American prairie in the 19<sup>th</sup> century – agreeing on rules
about property rights at an authentic constitutional convention, of the kind
suggested by James Buchanan and Gordon Tulloch. However, it should be noted
that the possibility of agreement has less to do with the personal qualities of
the participants than with the imagined institutional context in which participants
are uncertain about the impact that rules under consideration might have on their
interests, and those of their descendants.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The ability of rational and objective individuals to avoid
conflict are greatly enhanced by social, political, and legal orders that enable
individuals to pursue their own ends without interfering with each other. Friedrich
<span lang="EN-US">Hayek made the point clearly:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The
understanding that ‘good fences make good neighbors’, that is, that men can use
their knowledge in the pursuit of their own ends without colliding with each
other only if clear boundaries can be drawn between their respective domains of
free action, is the basis on which all known civilization has grown.”</span> (LLL,
Vol1, 107)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The
metanormative ethics expounded by the Dougs seems to me to be consistent with
that view. Recognition of individual rights provides a context in which
individuals can flourish in different ways without interfering with the
flourishing of others.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Concluding
comments<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal">Ed Younkins concluded his essay by noting that although Ayn
Rand differs from Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl “on how a number of
issues are expressed, they agree on the desirability of a free society and are
among the best-known proponents of capitalism from a neo-Aristotelian
perspective”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Roger Bissell concludes his response by suggesting that
Younkins’s “descriptions of Rand’s ideas are too often inaccurate and his
explanations too often flow from misunderstanding of those ideas”. I don’t know
enough about Rand’s philosophy to make an independent judgement of the veracity
of Bissell’s claims, but it is clear from contributions to the Cato symposium
that I have mentioned several times that Younkins’s views are shared by other
scholars who are familiar with Rand’s philosophical efforts. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">It seems to me that this difference of opinion over the
description of Rand’s ideas should be viewed in the context of ongoing
discussions between those who see Objectivism as a closed system and those who
see it as an open system. Those who see objectivism as a closed system accept
that people should not label themselves as Objectivists unless they agree with
all of Rand’s philosophy. Those who view objectivism as open system believe
that it can be enhanced by incorporating new ideas that are broadly compatible
with Rand’s ideas. (Younkins discusses the different views <a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/new-perspectives-on-ayn-rands-ideas/">here</a>).<o:p></o:p></p><p>
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I have the impression that those who see
objectivism as an open system have an interest in minimizing the difference
between Individualistic Perfectionism and Rand’s philosophy. As I see it, the
Individualistic Perfectionism developed by Rasmussen and Den Uyl has been
influenced by Rand, but deserves to be viewed as a coherent body of ideas that differs
somewhat from Objectivism</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">.</span></span></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><b><i>Addendum</i></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Ed Younkins has provided the following comment.</span></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">"It seems to me that the Dougs (Rasmussen and Den Uyl) want to create some distance between Individual Perfectionism (IP) and Objectivism (O). Roger Bissell, on the other hand, appears to be be acting as if IP does not exist as separate from O. He may be viewing the Dougs as open Objectivists (like he appears to be), but who are mistaken in their interpretation of some of what Rand is saying. Younkins, like Winton Bates, is not wedded to either O or IP. Both Younkins and Bates may be Rand influenced (as are the Dougs), but each of them develops his own unique and particular philosophical worldview or paradigm of freedom and flourishing (as do the Dougs). Of course, each of the 5 individuals mentioned (who are all friends) is promoting his own vision and version of a philosophy of human flourishing in a free society. This is how it should be."</span></p><div><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br />Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-7122335432466143822023-12-09T11:54:00.002+11:002023-12-31T09:26:03.205+11:00Did Ayn Rand recognize the capacity to exercise practical wisdom as a basic good?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEislyd8ymTCO1MSxsyaWy9F9GH91Js8_vVkVrdC9keXcDeQq1LduyqnSIWNww6srwXnwSSamVqP-4a-gSJHUYgqDC4UJbYZbUr2OF8qQer5MpDFhAJi5N1pq0bQ0cJf_S7z4XMhTEah5HPBzQcRxBx4y1pr6mZwaF6lj47t1-5pd2xyhZt-dz5iNqI9pw/s1050/John%20Galt%20quote.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="1050" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEislyd8ymTCO1MSxsyaWy9F9GH91Js8_vVkVrdC9keXcDeQq1LduyqnSIWNww6srwXnwSSamVqP-4a-gSJHUYgqDC4UJbYZbUr2OF8qQer5MpDFhAJi5N1pq0bQ0cJf_S7z4XMhTEah5HPBzQcRxBx4y1pr6mZwaF6lj47t1-5pd2xyhZt-dz5iNqI9pw/w400-h215/John%20Galt%20quote.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><br /> <span lang="EN-US">This
question is of interest to me for two reasons. First, I am a fan of Ayn Rand’s
novels. Second, in the first chapter of my book, </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663"><i><span lang="EN-US">Freedom, Progress, and Human
Flourishing</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US">,
</span></i><span lang="EN-US">I seek to identify
the basic goods that a flourishing human could be expected to have.</span><p></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My view
of basic goods<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The chapter identified
the basic goods as: wise and well-informed self-direction, health and
longevity, positive relationships, living in harmony with nature, and
psychological well-being. I suggested that the exercise of wise and
well-informed self-direction helps individuals to obtain other basic goods. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The chapter
also noted that Aristotle saw the exercise of reason as the function that
distinguishes humans from other animals and held that a good man’s purpose is
to reason well (and beautifully).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I argued
that individuals develop and realize their potential for wise and well-informed
self-direction largely by learning from experience. I therefore accepted implicitly
that it is good for adults to have a capacity to self-direct even if they make
choices that on mature reflection they might later regret.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Rand’s
view<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Until
recently, I was fairly sure that my view of what is good for humans was broadly
similar to that of Ayn Rand. Some of the things she wrote suggest that
impression was correct. For example, John Galt’s speech (quoted above) suggests
that it is good for humans to have the capacity to exercise practical wisdom. A
similar sentiment is expressed in the following passage in the chapter, ‘What
is Capitalism?’ in <i>Capitalism: The unknown ideal: <o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Man’s
essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Man’s mind is his basic means
of survival – his only means of gaining knowledge.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">However,
later in that essay, in endorsing “the <i>objective</i> theory” of the nature
of the good, Rand rejects the idea that good can be an attribute of things in
themselves:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The <i>objective
</i>theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of ‘things in
themselves’ nor of man’s emotional states, but an <i>evaluation </i>of the
facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of
value.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It seems to
me that Rand is suggesting that it would <i>not</i> be legitimate to say that
the capacity to exercise practical wisdom – which is a thing in itself - is a
good attribute for an individual to have, irrespective of how it is used. Rand
seems to be implying that having the capability is only good when it is used
to make evaluations according to a rational standard of value. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Grades
of actuality<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Douglas
Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl (the Dougs) seem to me to provide a less
ambiguous approach to considering the nature of the good in a recent article in
which they compare their Individualistic Perfectionism (IP) to Rand’s
Objectivist Ethics (OE). (‘</span><a href="https://reasonpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/rp43-2-rasmussendenuyl.pdf"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Three Forms of Neo-Aristotelian
Ethical Naturalism: A Comparison’</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, <i>Reason Papers </i>43, 2, 14-43, 2023.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Dougs
acknowledge that a person does not have a concept of moral good apart from the
self-directed use of their conceptual capacity. The human good is
individualized. It is good for a human being to engage in the act of
discovering human good.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">However, the
Dougs suggest that the process of discovering the human good can be thought of
in terms of grades of actuality:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“IP holds
with Aristotle that there is a distinction between grades of actuality when it
comes to living things. The first grade of actuality is the possession of a set
of capacities that are also potentialities for a living thing’s second grade of
actuality—that is, their actual use or deployment by a living thing. Included
among the set of potentialities of a human being that comprise its first grade
of actuality is the potential to exercise one’s conceptual capacity. This first
grade of actuality is a cognitive-independent reality. However, when one’s
conceptual capacity is exercised and used in a manner that actualizes the other
potentialities that require it, then a second grade of actuality is attained.
For example, one has the capacity to know one’s good and attain it (first grade
of actuality), but one needs to engage in knowing and attaining it in order to
be fully actualized (second grade of actuality).”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One’s
inner nature</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In 2008 I wrote
a blog post on the topic, ‘</span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2008/11/is-our-inner-nature-good.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Is our inner nature good?</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">’. The post consisted of a
discussion of the views of Abraham Maslow, Aristotle, J S Mill, David Hume, and
Jonathan Haidt and Fredrik Bjorklund. My outline of the views of Abraham Maslow
is reproduced below because it seems relevant to the current discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Abraham Maslow suggested that humans have an inner nature or
core which is good. According to Maslow this inner core is “potentiality, but
not final actualization”. He argued that in principle our inner core can easily
self-actualize, but this rarely happens in practice due to the many human
diminution forces including fear of self-actualization and the limiting belief
in society that human nature is evil (“Toward a Psychology of Being”, 1968,
chapter 14).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On reflection, I am not sure that the concept of an inner
nature makes much sense. However, the idea that all humans have good
potentiality is appealing. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusions<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In my view
it is good for adults to have a capacity to self-direct even if they make
choices, that on mature reflection, they might later regret. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am unsure
whether Ayn Rand would have agreed. At one point she seems to imply that a
capacity to exercise practical wisdom is only good when it is used to make
evaluations according to a rational standard of values. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Douglas
Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl offer a less ambiguous approach by recognizing
different grades of actuality. They suggest that the first grade of actuality
is cognitive-independent. On that basis, there is no reason to doubt that the
potential to exercise practical wisdom is good.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I like the
idea that all humans have good potentiality.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b><i>Postscript</i></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">My understanding of the quoted passage by Doug Rasmussen and Doug Den Uyl is as follows:</p><p class="MsoNormal">Though we must use our minds and act in the appropriate manner to self-actualize, that is, to attain our second grade of actuality, it does not follow from this that what is being actualized is merely a potentiality. Rather, it is a cognitive-independent actuality that also has potentialities. The distinction between actuality and potentiality in the case of living things does not require a dichotomy. It is not 'either-or'. Aristotle is subtle.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, though attaining one's second grade of actuality requires both cognition and practical actions to exist, this does not make human good simply an evaluation (which Rand claims). To hold that an objective view of human good is an evaluation is a further non sequitur. Consider this analogy: Phar Lap was a thoroughbred racehorse, as such he would not have existed without much human thought and effort, and in terms of the function of racehorses he was very good. But the reality of his goodness did not consist in our evaluation of him as good but in how well he fulfilled his function. The same is so for human beings, mutatis mutandis. Humans attaining their second-grade of actuality does require cognitive effort and choice, but this does make the goodness thereby expressed merely an evaluation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Further
Reading<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I was
prompted to write this contribution by my reading of two recent essays on </span><a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Savvy Street</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ed
Younkins, </span><a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/objectivism-and-individualistic-perfectionism-a-comparison/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Objectivism and Individual
Perfectionism: A Comparison</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">; and <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Roger
Bissell, </span><a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/ayn-rands-philosophy-decoded-replies-to-recent-criticisms-of-the-objectivist-ethics/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ayn Rand’s Philosophy Decoded:
Replies to Recent Criticisms of the Objectivist Ethics.</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Roger Bissell has <a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/part-3-of-ayn-rands-philosophy-decoded-replies-to-recent-criticisms-of-the-objectivist-ethics/">also responded</a> to this essay.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I encourage
anyone wishing to obtain a better understanding of the issues to read those
articles as well as the article by the Dougs referred to above.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-91788617424104500992023-11-26T20:29:00.000+11:002023-11-26T20:29:32.713+11:00Does stakeholder capitalism contribute to human flourishing?<p> </p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBSKF5jGgowgqLky0iLL02axbnU0i6ikgpuvMjWFHmGj9RnPfX3u2jmuEL_L04yZQ5sMqXFpDsLywNYXCQF3KWzha46Meq6OcRMymqdYe41Q9o8d85plOYdTkquKKrkKjWwELhTDc6WowI7sTpQuKbtwv59kdsrlOFQqqZxaVXM-ky7nsbEkbSEBC3XA/s1087/Hayek%20quote.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="620" data-original-width="1087" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBSKF5jGgowgqLky0iLL02axbnU0i6ikgpuvMjWFHmGj9RnPfX3u2jmuEL_L04yZQ5sMqXFpDsLywNYXCQF3KWzha46Meq6OcRMymqdYe41Q9o8d85plOYdTkquKKrkKjWwELhTDc6WowI7sTpQuKbtwv59kdsrlOFQqqZxaVXM-ky7nsbEkbSEBC3XA/w400-h229/Hayek%20quote.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />Many people
reading this are likely to view the use of stakeholder terminology by business
leaders as little more than a public relations tool. That is certainly how I
have viewed it in the past. If you are a business owner, or executive, who wants
to encourage employees, suppliers, customers, and community members to feel
loyalty to your business, it makes sense to acknowledge that they may also have
a stake in seeing it prosper. And it does no harm to remind governments of
their stake in the prosperity of your business via its contributions to tax
revenue.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">However, I
have recently come to associate stakeholder terminology with stakeholder
capitalism. That ideology has close links to the concept of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and the increased tendency of businesses to seek rewards
from governments for pursuit of environmental and social goals (ESG). Reading
about stakeholder capitalism has added to my </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2022/09/what-happened-to-creative-capitalism.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">previously</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> expressed concerns that such
interactions between business and governments are leading liberal democracies
more deeply into a corporatist quagmire.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Stakeholder
capitalism<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2xO6KzwuBOs6ZHECAyenFpff4o4J5fNyTQLnMg9ERnD37IcdObmxXugAmMEjF2o4X1jAXzEktTSEBJUlEdzrMVz-7sV19co-zWi6IlQTKMmptXBEy7e6nat5hA_Ibui79u8zTXLypMJB0fwb9ooE0S71GqetXpvhVn7BXbq9yiml7q5XsKmB5IJOU0Q/s466/The%20Great%20Reset%20and%20the%20Struggle%20for%20Liberty_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="302" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2xO6KzwuBOs6ZHECAyenFpff4o4J5fNyTQLnMg9ERnD37IcdObmxXugAmMEjF2o4X1jAXzEktTSEBJUlEdzrMVz-7sV19co-zWi6IlQTKMmptXBEy7e6nat5hA_Ibui79u8zTXLypMJB0fwb9ooE0S71GqetXpvhVn7BXbq9yiml7q5XsKmB5IJOU0Q/w129-h200/The%20Great%20Reset%20and%20the%20Struggle%20for%20Liberty_.jpg" width="129" /></a></div><br />Michael
Rectenwald’s book, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Great-Reset-Struggle-Liberty-Unraveling/dp/1943003750">The
Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty</a>, </i>has persuaded me that in
advocating stakeholder capitalism, Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World
Economic Forum (WEF), has in mind a corpus of ideas and policies that are
fundamentally opposed to free markets and classical liberalism. Moreover, the
WEF may have sufficient influence among powerful elites to eliminate the already
dwindling influence that classical liberalism has been having on public policy.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Rectenwald’s
book was written in response to a book by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret
entitled <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/COVID-19-Great-Reset-Klaus-Schwab-ebook/dp/B08CRZ9VZB">Covid-19:
The Great Reset</a>, </i>which was published in 2020. Rectenwald draws
attention to the open espousal of policies opposed to free markets in that
book. Schwab and Malleret welcomed the possibility that governments might take
advantage of the pandemic “to permanently increase their role”, and eliminate
classical liberalism, which they refer to as neoliberalism. They write: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“COVID-19
is likely to sound the death knell of neoliberalism, a corpus of ideas and
policies that can loosely be defined as favouring competition over solidarity,
creative destruction over government intervention and economic growth over
social welfare. For a number of years, the neoliberal doctrine has been on the
wane, with many commentators, business leaders and policy-makers increasingly
denouncing its “market fetishism”, but COVID-19 brought the coup de grâce.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">They go on
to predict:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Shareholder
value will become a secondary consideration, bringing to the fore the primacy
of stakeholder capitalism.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Klaus
Schwab has been advocating stakeholder capitalism for over 50 years, and has
been influential in having that concept endorsed at international meetings of
powerful people from business and government. The first Davos Manifesto, signed
in 1973 states:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The
purpose of professional management is to serve clients, shareholders, workers
and employees, as well as societies, and to harmonize the different interests
of the stakeholders.” </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The 2020
Davos Manifesto is titled: “The Universal Purpose of a Company in the Fourth
Industrial Revolution”. It includes similar sentiments to the 1973 Manifesto,
but goes on to state, among other things: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“B. A
company is more than an economic unit generating wealth. It fulfils human and
societal objectives as part of the broader social system. Performance must be
measured not only on the return to shareholders, but also on how it achieves
its environmental, social and good governance objectives. Executive
remuneration should reflect stakeholder responsibility.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some CEOs
would welcome a long muddled list of performance objectives because it offers
them the opportunity to “do their own thing” and provide ready-made excuses for
poor performance. Others would prefer to see governments pursue social and
environmental objectives by more efficient mechanisms, and to have their own
performance judged according to more tangible benefits to shareholders. How
does the WEF propose to encourage compliance with its Manifesto?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
WEF’s ESG Index<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The WEF
published a report in 2020 setting out metrics for measuring company
performance with regard to ESG goals. The title of the report is<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="https://www.weforum.org/stakeholdercapitalism/"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism: Towards
Common Metrics and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value Creation.</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A mechanism
for grading companies in terms of their environmental, social, and governance
practices and plans might be thought to offer useful information to investors
and consumers who concerned about the environmental and social impacts of their
decisions. However, Rectenwald points out that it also has potential
implications for interactions between business and government:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Woke
planners wield the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Index to reward
the in-group and to squeeze non-woke players out of business.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ideological
reach<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In a recent
Newsweek article, Jon Schweppe asks, </span><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/why-did-corporations-go-woke-its-not-about-free-market-opinion-1820373"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Why did corporations go ‘woke’?</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> His response, in brief, is that
“this is part ideology, part price of admittance to an elite club, and part
protection racket – doing everything one can to avoid upsetting the mob”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Rectenwald’s
book suggests to me that the WEF should come to mind following any mention of
“ideology” and “an elite club” in this context. The corporate partners of the
WEF include over 1000 of the world's largest business organisations. The annual
meeting of the WEF in Davos is an invitation-only event but is widely reported
in the media. Many notable political leaders, journalists etc. have been
members of the Forum of Young Global Leaders, which is reserved for people
under 40 years of age who show promise of global leadership. In addition, the
WEF’s Global Shapers movement, a training camp for young change-makers (under
30 years old) has over 10, 000 active members. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Implications<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Rectenwald
points out that because ESG is “an impressionistic, qualitative, metric” it
exposes business leaders and companies to the whims of woke arbiters. He cites
the recent experience of Elon Musk who has been unfairly besmirched because he
may have benefited from an emerald mine owned by his father in South Africa
during the apartheid era. He sums up:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“In today’s
political economy, satisfying shareholders, employees, and customers to earn
profits has become less important for corporations than ingratiating the woke
cartel and the governments that support it.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Rectenwald’s
book goes on to discuss possible implications for individual liberty of potential
innovations such as an individual carbon footprint tracker, but in this essay I
want to stick with the implications of stakeholder capitalism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Hayek
quote at the beginning of the essay suggests another important implication of
stakeholder capitalism. The quoted passage is from <i>Law, Legislation, and
Liberty </i>(v3, p 82). The context of the quote is a paragraph in which Hayek
is responding to the idea that large corporations should be required to
consider the public or social interest. He suggests that “as long as the large
corporation has the one overriding duty of administering the resources under
its control as trustee for its shareholders its hands are largely tied; and it
will have no arbitrary power to benefit this or that particular interest”. The
paragraph ends by suggesting that obliging large corporations to consider the
public interest gives them uncontrollable power that “would inevitably be made
the subject of increasing public control”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is
also reason for concern that obliging corporate managers to adhere to ESG will
make them less accountable for productivity performance of enterprises because
it will be difficult for company boards to assess the veracity of claims that
performance has been adversely affected by ESG. Wokeness can be expected to
provide a cover for inefficiency. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I
acknowledge that stakeholder capitalism may have some positive implications for
human flourishing, that should be offset against the negative implications
discussed above. For example, in my book <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663">Freedom, Progress, and HumanFlourishing</a>, </i>I note that<i> </i>the difficulty that governments have been
experiencing in agreeing upon concerted international action to combat climate
change was ameliorated by the actions of business organisations in planning for
a carbon free future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nevertheless,
as I also argue in that book, there is more reason to be concerned about the
implications of declining productivity growth than about climate change. By
further reducing productivity growth, stakeholder capitalism seems likely to
cause a great deal of economic misery. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Unfortunately,
major economic crises will probably need to be endured before political leaders
inspired by classical liberalism emerge once again to implement the public
policy reforms that are needed to restore free markets.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-9154205185606182692023-11-20T00:20:00.000+11:002023-11-20T00:20:03.111+11:00Do clinical delusions have anything in common with a mythology mindset?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_eTbcxRsG8Gzmy3srvMUjxwBcwgnfOvrDUzQ6JyYuiVR7yIJ0cn_GFP54sxG3xMndLle52e-qON-zX7FZ-OAbDnPMXBwUvNh7Jof0IEyci7RmcyM6xMXwcjgKmoYprg8Nsb8-nl8i983fmH8D9w5J8dInXfKe-wOOm74UXRYXx5gQ9YeNMuZ2dSBVtw/s3836/London%20eye.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1674" data-original-width="3836" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_eTbcxRsG8Gzmy3srvMUjxwBcwgnfOvrDUzQ6JyYuiVR7yIJ0cn_GFP54sxG3xMndLle52e-qON-zX7FZ-OAbDnPMXBwUvNh7Jof0IEyci7RmcyM6xMXwcjgKmoYprg8Nsb8-nl8i983fmH8D9w5J8dInXfKe-wOOm74UXRYXx5gQ9YeNMuZ2dSBVtw/w400-h175/London%20eye.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/09/whats-wrong-with-people.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">my discussion</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> of Steven Pinker’s book, <i>Rationality,
</i>I referred to his observation that people tend to have a reality mindset in
the world of immediate experience and a mythology mindset when discussing
issues in the public sphere. Although that is an accurate observation about a
general tendency, delusions are also fairly common in the world of immediate
experience. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
delusions that most of us experience are fairly harmless. For example, it may
not do you much harm to believe that you are happier than average, even if you
aren’t. That common delusion may help to explain why so many people walk around
with smiles on their faces. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For some
unfortunate people, however, the world of immediate experience includes
delusional beliefs that are symptomatic of mental ill-health. These are
referred to as clinical delusions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF2DmhiV4aqI7Xqraq31nNsvg4-9D86lrDlHpf5gJoT3N2f89UbejGyuJC_3jKOooTXu6yB6Fwv1QBzWfpiALtR3oR7zH5iGVTXQw65O8F3I5RhCNuwiFgRjyY6afsTU_PbPVWollO6GLr20BjWqbrj2RtUFaZ7nkJ0s9GEcBv-C-Wdn8RAEZlvzAAMg/s939/Why%20delusions%20matter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="939" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF2DmhiV4aqI7Xqraq31nNsvg4-9D86lrDlHpf5gJoT3N2f89UbejGyuJC_3jKOooTXu6yB6Fwv1QBzWfpiALtR3oR7zH5iGVTXQw65O8F3I5RhCNuwiFgRjyY6afsTU_PbPVWollO6GLr20BjWqbrj2RtUFaZ7nkJ0s9GEcBv-C-Wdn8RAEZlvzAAMg/w127-h200/Why%20delusions%20matter.jpg" width="127" /></a></div><br />The
question I ask above has been prompted by my reading of Lisa Bortolotti’s
recent book, <i>Why Delusions Matter. </i><a name="_Hlk150778085">Lisa
Bortolotti </a>is a philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of the
cognitive sciences, including issues relating to mental illness. She observes
that there is a strong overlap between clinical and non-clinical delusional
beliefs. The non-clinical delusional beliefs that she discusses include beliefs
that Pinker would associate with a mythology mindset.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A
conversation context<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Bortolotti notes
that in any discussion between two people, you have a speaker and an
interpreter swapping roles as the conversation proceeds. The speaker says
something and the interpreter listens, making inferences about the speaker’s
beliefs, desires, feelings, hopes and intentions on the basis of the speaker’s
words, facial expression, tone of voice, previous behaviour and so on. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Interpretation
becomes challenging when the interpreter suspects that the speaker may be
delusional. The interpreter rarely has the information needed to assess that
the speaker’s beliefs are false, so falsity cannot be a necessary condition for
attribution of delusionality. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Three
elements are often involved when the interpreter judges the speaker to be
delusional:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Implausibility:
The interpreter finds the speaker’s beliefs to be implausible. </span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Unshakeability:
Speakers do not give up their beliefs in the face of counterarguments and
counterevidence.</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Identity:
The beliefs seem important to the image that speakers have of themselves.</span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Clinical
delusions<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Bortolotti
offers what she describes as an “agency-in-context” model to explain clinical
delusions. She explains:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“The
adoption and maintenance of delusional beliefs are due to many factors
combining aspects of who you are and what your story is (your genes, reasoning
biases, personality, lack of scientific literacy, etc.) and aspects of how
epistemic practices operate in the society where you live.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
epistemic practices she refers to include what we learn at school about
knowledge acquisition, and the stigma that makes it difficult for people with
delusional beliefs to participate fully in public life. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is no
doubt that persecutory delusions are harmful to the speaker and others. They
undermine the ability of speakers to respond appropriately to events, and often
erode their relationships with others. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">However,
Lisa Bortolotti suggests that it is important for interpreters to understand
that most delusions offer some benefits for speakers. Delusions “let speakers
see the world as they want the world to be; make speakers feel important and
interesting; or give meaning to speakers’ lives, configuring exciting missions
for them to accomplish”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Interpreters
also need to understand that the underlying problems of speakers don’t
disappear when they obtain insight about their delusions. They may become
depressed when they approach reality without the filter of their delusional
beliefs. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is
not much to be gained by attempting to reason with people whose beliefs are
unshakeable. <a name="_Hlk151298992">Bortolotti </a>suggests that it is
probably more <i>productive</i> for the interpreter and speaker to share
stories rather than exchanging reasons for beliefs. Exchanging stories can show
how delusional beliefs emerged as reactions to situations that were difficult
to manage. While sharing stories, interpreters have opportunities “to practice
curiosity and empathy in finding out more” about underlying problems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conspiracy
delusions<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">From an
interpreter’s viewpoint, a speaker’s beliefs about the existence of
conspiracies often have similar characteristics to clinical delusions. They are
implausible, unshakeable, and closely tied to the speaker’s self-image. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk151300782"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Bortolotti</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
emphasizes that those who hold conspiracy delusions often claim to have special
knowledge of events – they claim to be experts, or to know who the real experts
are. Identifying as a member of a group is often also important. Non-members
often refer to members of such groups in a derogatory way e.g. QAnon supporters
and anti-vaxxers. However, people are often attracted to conspiracy delusions
promoted by like-minded people whom they trust. The act of sharing a delusional
story can be a signal of commitment to a particular group. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Comments<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Lisa Bortolotti’s
book has improved my understanding of delusions in a couple of different ways.
First, it has given me a better appreciation that delusions offer some benefits
to the people who hold them, and those benefits help to explain the
unshakeability of delusional beliefs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Second,
viewing delusions within the context of a conversation between a speaker and an
interpreter is helpful in drawing attention to the value judgements involved in
assessing whether the speaker’s beliefs are delusional. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My main
criticism of the book is that the author seems to me to be biased in favour of
“the official version” of events, even though she acknowledges that contrary
beliefs are sometimes vindicated. The most obvious example bias is her apparent
reluctance to give credence to the possibility that Covid19 may have originated in a lab in Wuhan. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am
pleased that my reading of the book did <i>not</i> leave me with the impression
that the author believes that it is delusional to have an unshakeable belief in
the importance of the search for truth. In emphasizing that value judgements
are involved in assessing whether beliefs are delusional, Lisa Bortolotti seems
to me to be providing readers with a better understanding of the meaning
attached to the concept of delusion in clinical and non-clinical settings,
rather than casting doubt on the existence of reality. <o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-85700087782637791242023-09-30T12:03:00.002+10:002023-10-18T21:18:39.120+11:00What's wrong with people?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9Kdg04F9JowUl7KLq8DSM1s5aNvNnQRyHnx_QQUXdW6fZDmyYhOBvIf9-Im_b2v1WRqYUG6bP02fnXIuALQSuQHqvwLtehZjgZ2AKwqlV598LGcM6482xJ8Ojq9fgoWQiaKyLdxU3xQMHOpdRBVEgi9-2HdXZvDS-vknxv-SGFtwQ8upQ6iUxBwRgOQ/s2798/Myth%20hope%20and%20reality.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2798" data-original-width="2162" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9Kdg04F9JowUl7KLq8DSM1s5aNvNnQRyHnx_QQUXdW6fZDmyYhOBvIf9-Im_b2v1WRqYUG6bP02fnXIuALQSuQHqvwLtehZjgZ2AKwqlV598LGcM6482xJ8Ojq9fgoWQiaKyLdxU3xQMHOpdRBVEgi9-2HdXZvDS-vknxv-SGFtwQ8upQ6iUxBwRgOQ/w309-h400/Myth%20hope%20and%20reality.jpg" width="309" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This question is posed in the title of Chapter 10 of
Steven Pinker’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rationality-What-Seems-Scarce-Matters/dp/0525561994">book</a>,
<i>Rationality: What it is, Why it Seems Scarce, Why it Matters.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6qQUZpz26zLn9iWjPhSMrJ8ikZQ75EBPVMNiDFzS9A-SeMr8KtjLNy0-R7rClYBQdAH3PZgWa9QW7KvmAREYCyjYX1xRV68afAOoETklhaGSN0WiLT4AgxIYXR1mRh68JdpJGcQHyjy_mYv4_vl4QvGDfWhTeGjVc8COAsigwUJj-HGNIgnDjkGB1Hw/s466/rationality.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="309" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6qQUZpz26zLn9iWjPhSMrJ8ikZQ75EBPVMNiDFzS9A-SeMr8KtjLNy0-R7rClYBQdAH3PZgWa9QW7KvmAREYCyjYX1xRV68afAOoETklhaGSN0WiLT4AgxIYXR1mRh68JdpJGcQHyjy_mYv4_vl4QvGDfWhTeGjVc8COAsigwUJj-HGNIgnDjkGB1Hw/w133-h200/rationality.jpg" width="133" /></a></div><br />I enjoyed reading the previous 9 chapters but didn’t
learn much from them. Those chapters were a painless way to refresh my memory
about definitions of rationality, rules of logic, probability, Bayesian
reasoning, rational choice, statistical decision theory, game theory,
correlation, and regression analysis. <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I particularly liked the approach Pinker took in
discussing the research of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky which documents
many ways in which people are prone to fall short of normative benchmarks of
rationality. Pinker makes the point:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">When people’s judgments deviate from a normative model, as they so often
do, we have a puzzle to solve. Sometimes the disparity reveals a genuine
irrationality: the human brain cannot cope with the complexity of a problem, or
it is saddled with a bug that cussedly drives it to the wrong answer time and
again. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">But in many
cases there is a method to people’s madness.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">A prime
example is loss aversion: <span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Our existence depends on a precarious bubble of
improbabilities with pain and death just a misstep away”</span>. In <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663">Freedom
Progress and Human Flourishing</a>, </i>I argued similarly that loss aversion
helped our ancestors to survive.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Pinker
doesn’t seek to blame the propensity of humans to make logical and statistical
fallacies for the prevalence of irrationality in the public sphere. He is not
inclined to blame social media either, although he recognises its potential to
accelerate the spread of florid fantasies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The
mythology mindset</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Pinker argues that reasoning is largely tailored to winning arguments. People
don’t like getting on to a train of reasoning if they don’t like where it takes
them. That is less of a problem for small groups of people (families, research
teams, businesses) who have a common interest in finding the truth than it is
in the public sphere.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">People tend to have a reality mindset when they are
dealing with issues that affect their well-being directly – the world of their
immediate experience – but are more inclined to adopt a mythology mindset when
they are dealing with issues in the public sphere. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">When economists discuss such matters, they may refer
to the observation of Joseph Schumpeter that the typical citizen drops to a
lower level of mental performance when discussion turns to politics. They
reference the concept of rational ignorance attributed to Anthony Downs and
Gordon Tulloch. They may also refer to Brian Caplan’s concept of rational
irrationality. (For example, see <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663">Freedom,
Progress, and Human Flourishing</a>, </i>pp 114-115).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Pinker doesn’t refer to those economists’ perspectives
but offers interesting insights about factors that might lead people to adopt mythology
mindsets. In summary, as a consequence of myside bias, attitudes to the
findings of scientific studies often have less to do with scientific literacy
than with political affiliation. The opposing “sides” are sometimes akin to “religious
sects, which are held together by faith in their moral superiority and contempt
for opposing sects”. Within those sects the function of beliefs is to bind the
group together and give it moral purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What can we do?</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Pinker’s suggestions for combatting irrationality in
the public sphere are summed up by his subheading “Re-affirming Rationality”.
He advocates openness to evidence, noting the findings of a survey suggesting
that most internet users claim to be open to evidence. He suggests that we
valorize the norm of rationality by “smiling or frowning on rational and
irrational habits”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Pinker identifies institutions that specialize in
creating and sharing knowledge as playing a major role in influencing the
beliefs that people hold. Since “no-one can know everything”, we all rely on
academia, public and private research units, and the news media for a great deal
of the knowledge which forms the basis of our beliefs. Unfortunately, these institutions
are often not trustworthy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In the case of the universities, Pinker suggests that the
problem stems from “a suffocating left-wing monoculture, with its punishment of
students and professors who question dogmas on gender, race, culture, genetics,
colonialism, and sexual identity and orientation”. News and opinion sites have
been “played by disingenuous politicians and contribute to post-truth miasmas”.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is easy to agree with Pinker that it would be wonderful
if universities and the news media could become paragons of viewpoint diversity
and critical thinking. However, movement toward that goal will require large
numbers of individuals to enlist for a ‘long march’ to re-establish norms of
rationality in institutions that specialize in creating and sharing knowledge. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-70913341103592742492023-09-12T21:47:00.001+10:002023-09-12T22:02:12.492+10:00Where have the supporters of capitalism gone?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFwpSOvUlwDXp9TDU070A_GB_GEV9Xf37NdqPDP8qRbu8VA733Z-4W-Lc1UpDq8br7FIKh4Cl_bxh1dDGz3RmJ0tip6Fiqu5nW3wh1K_jPvWsX6RtKr1Opej00X7etVQCGeCWjsfz2gdCfx6VNndQR1oQDdiGyY1G5cMrSyoBrBUqjz6YNJ5XepHyuiw/s562/Nicholson%20trade%20wars.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="562" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFwpSOvUlwDXp9TDU070A_GB_GEV9Xf37NdqPDP8qRbu8VA733Z-4W-Lc1UpDq8br7FIKh4Cl_bxh1dDGz3RmJ0tip6Fiqu5nW3wh1K_jPvWsX6RtKr1Opej00X7etVQCGeCWjsfz2gdCfx6VNndQR1oQDdiGyY1G5cMrSyoBrBUqjz6YNJ5XepHyuiw/w400-h285/Nicholson%20trade%20wars.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">Cartoon by
Peter Nicholson from “</span><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/"><span style="line-height: 107%;">The Australian</span></a><span style="line-height: 107%;">” newspaper: </span><a href="https://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/"><span style="line-height: 107%;">www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au</span></a></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Some
erstwhile supporters of capitalism probably don’t realize that they have gone
missing. They still support private ownership of property and businesses, and may
claim to see merit in the profit motive. However, they overlook that capitalism
also involves “prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are
determined mainly by competition in a free market”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The quoted
words are from the Merriam-Webster definition of capitalism. Use of a definition
from an American dictionary seems appropriate because the supporters of
capitalism who have gone missing seem to me to be mainly Americans. That is unfortunate
because Americans were once the world’s strongest supporters of capitalism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">In Australia,
most of the people I hear talking about capitalism seem to use it as a term of
disparagement. The people who support capitalism talk about free enterprise and
economic freedom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">I have the
impression that it is fairly common outside of America for supporters of
capitalism to avoid using the word because it is commonly viewed as a term of
disparagement. That may stem from the word’s origins. When I was growing up,
someone told me that Karl Marx had invented the word. That is not correct. Marx
rarely used the word. He preferred to describe capitalism as “the capitalist
mode of production”. Nevertheless, even in America the term was apparently
considered to be a socialist expression until well into the 20<sup>th</sup>
century.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">In the
latter half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, the strongest supporters of capitalism
had no qualms about using the word. Milton Friedman used the word in the title
of a book, <i>Capitalism and Freedom. </i>Friedman made it clear that he was
writing about “competitive capitalism – the organisation of the bulk of
economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market”. Ayn
Rand used the word in the title of a book, <i>Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. </i>She
defined capitalism as “a social system based on the recognition of individual
rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOeGnaFa82NSuHtgOCnCkz7DSMnpFRxprjDH1IcnqGPzsdWAGZsbSkjgmUZaJ2Xjsui97pdqPBCuV6J8UsPLawvcNS5b2yTy3f8umwgDI2lZWRNqCkECqHB94WcY1pA19QZIDsjSO3S2FfXXcd2PKsdIt-UARyfyjcZemRsciKfom03BJW6ppfFuvSZA/s500/Capitalist%20manifesto.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="347" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOeGnaFa82NSuHtgOCnCkz7DSMnpFRxprjDH1IcnqGPzsdWAGZsbSkjgmUZaJ2Xjsui97pdqPBCuV6J8UsPLawvcNS5b2yTy3f8umwgDI2lZWRNqCkECqHB94WcY1pA19QZIDsjSO3S2FfXXcd2PKsdIt-UARyfyjcZemRsciKfom03BJW6ppfFuvSZA/w99-h143/Capitalist%20manifesto.jpg" width="99" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br />Where have
America’s supporters of capitalism gone? Johan Norberg prompted me to think
about that question as I was reading his latest book, </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Capitalist-Manifesto-Global-Market-World-ebook/dp/B0BQD25CWP"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The Capitalist Manifesto</span></i></a><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">: Why the Global Free Market Will
Save the World. </span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">This
book is a follow-up to <i>In Defence of Global Capitalism</i>, which Norberg
wrote about 20 years ago. Globalization has now become a dirty word to many
erstwhile supporters of capitalism, but Norberg remains a strong defender of global
capitalism.<o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Who
opposes the free market?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">One of the
most interesting contributions of Norberg’s new book is his account of the
changing opposition to the ideal of a global free market. Norberg wrote <i>In
Defence of Global Capitalism </i>to counter the arguments of left-wing
activists who mistakenly believed that free trade, foreign investment, and
multinational corporations were making the world’s poor even poorer. George
Monbiot, Oxfam, Bono etc. eventually began to see some merit in free trade, but
opposition then migrated to economic nationalists on the conservative side of
the political spectrum. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Norberg suggests
that the opponents of globalization share an underlying misconception that it
is a zero-sum game – someone’s gain is another one’s loss:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The
worldview is the same, the roles are just reversed – twenty years ago free
trade was considered bad because we exploited them, now it is considered bad
because they exploit us.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Norberg
seems to assume that most readers will already understand why free trade is a
positive-sum game – beneficial to both importers and exporters. He uses
colourful illustrations to reinforce the point:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Free trade
allows the farmer to grow a new mobile phone in his wheat field, the textile
worker can sew a new motorbike and the author can (if lucky) write a holiday
trip to Tuscany.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The author
argues that free enterprise is primarily about “opening the dams of human
creativity – to let everyone participate and test their ideas and see if they
work”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The
opposition of economic nationalists to free trade is associated with the
narrative that during the early years of the 21<sup>st</sup> century, cheap
imports from China caused deindustrialization and wage stagnation in the United
States. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Norberg’s most important
contribution seems to me to be in challenging that narrative. He makes the
point that the loss of jobs in manufacturing is attributable largely to
automation rather than import competition. He suggests that the slow-down in
wages growth in the US dates from the mid-1970s, reflecting a necessary
correction of cost levels because wages had previous been growing faster than
productivity. The Rust Belt apparently lost more jobs in the decades before
globalization reached the US, than it has in recent decades. The share of
manufacturing jobs in the US declined more rapidly prior to 2001, when China
was admitted to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), than it has in the decades
since then. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Fear of China</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Economic
nationalists suggest that the involvement of China in international supply
chains has been particularly problematic because of the theft of technology.
Norberg points out that China has been by no means unique in that respect. The
US itself apparently once had a policy of smuggling inventions and bribing
European artisans to reveal their secrets. There is evidence that the Chinese
government has a relatively good track record in following WTO rulings relating
to disputes about intellectual property and government subsidies. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Norberg
acknowledges the potential for Chinese investment in digital and physical
infrastructure to pose a security threat because the Chinese government views Chinese
companies as its agents. He points out that this does not mean that the US and
its allies were wrong to encourage China to open up to the outside world. He
suggests that if China had not opened up, it is much more likely that the
Chinese people would have generally perceived Westerners as irreconcilable
opponents. He fears that use of trade barriers to isolate China could
strengthen the most reactionary and nationalist forces in China.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Leviathan’s
helpers<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Where have the
capitalists gone? Many business owners and executives now seem to spend less
time on conventional entrepreneurial activities than on seeking to ingratiate
themselves with politicians and bureaucrats who are engaged in active
industrial policy. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The chapter
in <i>The Capitalist Manifesto </i>entitled “Picking Losers” should be of
particular interest to Jim Chalmers, Australia’s Treasurer. In his article in <i>The
Monthly</i> (</span><a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/author/jim-chalmers"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Feb 2023</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">) Chalmers wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="background-color: #ead1dc;">“As the
influential economist Mariana Mazzucato has explored in her work, markets built
in partnership through the efforts of business, labour and government are still
the best mechanism we have to efficiently and effectively direct resources.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Johan
Norberg has quite a lot to say about Mariana Mazzucato’s naïve views. I will
not attempt to provide a summary here because it might spoil the fun for
readers. However, I particularly liked this sentence:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Governments are bad at picking winners, but
losers are good at picking governments.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">That
observation seems particularly relevant to Australia at present. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Concluding
remarks<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">In focusing
on reasons why support for capitalism has declined, I have failed to mention
many of the virtues of capitalism discussed in <i>The Capitalist Manifesto. </i>For
example, I was particularly interested in what Johan Norberg had to say about
the relationship between capitalism and various aspects of happiness, in his
chapter on “the meaning of life”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">I began by
noting that many supporters of capitalism are reluctant to use the word because
socialists have historically used it as a term of disparagement. I commend
Johan Norberg for writing a capitalist manifesto. In doing that he is following
in the footsteps of great advocates of economic freedom who had no qualms in
talking about the virtues of capitalism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">In this
book, Norberg has provided an interesting account of how many erstwhile
supporters of capitalism have come to oppose global free markets. The most
important contribution of the book, in my view, is the challenge it offers to
the narrative that cheap imports from China have caused deindustrialization and
wage stagnation in the United States.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-39863566382348392802023-08-14T12:09:00.002+10:002023-08-14T12:09:31.886+10:00Why were Australian Aborigines still hunter-gatherers in 1788?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3orUCutM56VbCjPHYDZbmAgFvoo4U9EzmMwkSe0oPbhd0KnY_v-wWkIhuOnap7yP2nB7oZoerjnhHlXvM6zjU0XwzwOu9ogSL12a2sWFNyUBtM65yxP4AgXVmeCP0IaAKpgseXnKCjfjxK9SCsxuQvSIV2MyX4fvpkb-q2ZKV-pg0IJ-whSw60Q2duA/s1973/Lycett%20painting.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1255" data-original-width="1973" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3orUCutM56VbCjPHYDZbmAgFvoo4U9EzmMwkSe0oPbhd0KnY_v-wWkIhuOnap7yP2nB7oZoerjnhHlXvM6zjU0XwzwOu9ogSL12a2sWFNyUBtM65yxP4AgXVmeCP0IaAKpgseXnKCjfjxK9SCsxuQvSIV2MyX4fvpkb-q2ZKV-pg0IJ-whSw60Q2duA/w400-h255/Lycett%20painting.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>Some
readers may think this question is based on a false premise. So I will begin by
considering the claim that Australian Aborigines were farmers rather than hunter-gatherers
before 1788 when Britain established a penal colony in New South Wales.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">The Dark
Emu debate<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> In 2014, Bruce Pascoe published the book
entitled </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Dark-Emu-New-Bruce-Pascoe-ebook/dp/B07DWLW3RV"><i><span lang="EN-US">Dark Emu</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US">in which he argued that, </span>in contrast to
what most Australians believed, <span lang="EN-US">Aboriginal
people were engaged in farming</span> at the time British rule was </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhG-31Ar9dl7IEleXAy_4MKx747kIyiwx6J-kbN-d0kWUNPNE1HTEVVnifl2RP2Y6zeAXCm04Bektxqx-PtMeZQk0SlFxARgxWa9GOqj5aQKFIUYczg7-U_yfbcMKop5STMAjjqoo55DH7n3UGi66_hH5pW1COFgE_LvNvBRDH491T-flGxKOSKL4SQg/s499/Farmers%20of%20hunter%20gqatherers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="333" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhG-31Ar9dl7IEleXAy_4MKx747kIyiwx6J-kbN-d0kWUNPNE1HTEVVnifl2RP2Y6zeAXCm04Bektxqx-PtMeZQk0SlFxARgxWa9GOqj5aQKFIUYczg7-U_yfbcMKop5STMAjjqoo55DH7n3UGi66_hH5pW1COFgE_LvNvBRDH491T-flGxKOSKL4SQg/w134-h200/Farmers%20of%20hunter%20gqatherers.jpg" width="134" /></a></div><br />established<span lang="EN-US">. Unfortunately, Pascoe’s view
remains influential despite having been debunked by Peter Sutton and Keryn
Walshe in their book, </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Farmers-Hunter-gatherers-Dark-Emu-Debate/dp/0522877850"><i><span lang="EN-US">Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers?</span></i></a><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US">which was
published in 2021. <o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sutton and Walshe
acknowledge that the 1788 economy was somewhere between simple hunter-gathering
and agriculture. They argue: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Referring to
certain regionally specific Aboriginal economic practices as ‘incipient
agriculture’, as ‘proto-agriculture’ or as being at ‘an early stage in the
development of agriculture’ is to suggest an unfulfilled developmental journey.
We seek here to avoid this deficit model of the Old People, which is why we
prefer the term ‘hunter-gatherers-plus’. It describes people accurately without
attempting to place them in some supposed one-directional evolutionary scheme.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sutton and Walshe
suggest that the hunting and gathering economy in pre-colonial Australia was as
complex as gardening or farming. Even though it did not require deliberate
planting of crops, it required fine-grained knowledge of hundreds of species
and their habitats, annual cycles, names and generic classifications; of
methods for processing them and for preparing them as food, as tools, as bodily
decoration, and as ritual paraphernalia.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As documented by Sutton
and Walshe, the hunting and gathering lifestyles of Australian Aboriginals does
not conflict greatly with what I remember being taught about at school over 50
years ago. I think the main deficiency in the impression I gained was excessive
emphasis of the role of British pioneers in clearing wilderness, and
insufficient attention to the role of Aborigines in using slow-burning fires to
make the landscape more suitable for kangaroos and other grazing animals. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXXQCjMH9XYAk2M12aClLYClJewilv4FJT3kBzVvtDCf40M_UuIGdm4hIzVaTsV6Mz8eDGOQbSF0GTHhXVC_7VSIHfH46H7p8WWW9MNatr6vAO33NfQ5ImoJiKBiYJTOOWp-rc0qYemJmgHvuHr6ypHS1iXmgHvZo6DOEqITFaFD883006cfm6ClLgRA/s499/Biggest%20estate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="346" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXXQCjMH9XYAk2M12aClLYClJewilv4FJT3kBzVvtDCf40M_UuIGdm4hIzVaTsV6Mz8eDGOQbSF0GTHhXVC_7VSIHfH46H7p8WWW9MNatr6vAO33NfQ5ImoJiKBiYJTOOWp-rc0qYemJmgHvuHr6ypHS1iXmgHvZo6DOEqITFaFD883006cfm6ClLgRA/w139-h200/Biggest%20estate.jpg" width="139" /></a></div><br />Bill Gammage’s
book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Biggest-Estate-Earth-Aborigines-Australia/dp/174331132X"><i>The Biggest Estate on Earth</i></a> (2012) made it abundantly obvious that
European pastoralists did not need to make huge improvements to the land to
make it suitable for grazing of sheep and cattle. Gammage compiled numerous
descriptions of the landscape written by explorers and settlers and his book contains
many landscape paintings made at the time of invasion/settlement.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The painting by <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/joseph-lycett-convict-forger-early-colonial-artist/6737276">Joseph Lycett</a> at the top of this article shows people and
scenery in about 1820, somewhere near Newcastle (possibly Eleebana on Lake
Macquarie, close to where I currently live). Lycett was a convict who had been
convicted of forgery. The local authorities made good use of his skills by
encouraging him to paint what he saw.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">What prevented Aborigines from farming?<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span>Sutton
and Walshe make it clear that Aborigines were botanically knowledgeable. It was
not lack of knowledge that prevented Aborigines from farming: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Knowing—as the Old People did full well—that plants grew
from seeds and tubers, ignorance played no role in this rejection of farming.
It was cultural resistance, and loyalty to their own ways.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sutton and Walshe
note that Aborigines in northern Australia adopted some of the cultural
practices of Torres Strait people but did not adopt their horticultural
practices. They also note that British settlers “tediously and
repeatedly” claimed that many of the Aborigines they encountered were “averse
to hoeing, weeding and planting”. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Aboriginal aversion to farming seems to have been
associated with religion. They saw the
practical aspects of obtaining food as “inseparable from their commitment to a
spiritual understanding of the origin of species, to conservative values in
relation to change, and to a cosmology in which economics had to be in
conformity to ancestral authority”. <a name="_Hlk142904643">In their way of
thinking, the combination of “spiritual propagation” and practical resource
management made farming unnecessary.<o:p></o:p></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sutton and Walshe explain the concept of “spiritual
propagation” as including speaking to the spirits of ancestors and other
rituals at species-related sites, maintaining a rich system of totems for
various species, and handling food resources with reverence. They provide
examples of the ways in which spiritual maintenance and practical resource
management combined to characterise “the classical Aboriginal economy” in
different parts of the country. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My response to the question posed at the outset is that Australian
<a name="_Hlk142905048">Aborigines were still hunter-gatherers in 1788 because they
did not have strong incentives to adopt different lifestyles. By today’s
standards their pre-1788 societies were not idyllic, but a stable equilibrium seems
to have evolved in which change-resistant cultural practices had become
embedded. <o:p></o:p></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is only a partial answer to the question of why
Australian Aborigines did not become farmers. At some stage in the past, people not
far away had also been hunter-gatherers before adopting farming practices. They
must have faced different incentives. Perhaps their cultures evolved to become
less hierarchical, providing greater scope for innovative individuals to try
new ways of doing things. Perhaps they had an incentive to begin farming
because population pressures were a greater problem for them. If so, that raises
further questions. For example: Was climate change a greater problem in the
regions in which they lived? Was their mobility restricted in some way to make a
hunting and gathering lifestyle impossible to sustain?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Conclusion<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Prior to the
establishment of a British colony in Australia in 1788, the lifestyles of Australian
Aborigines can best be described as complex hunter-gathering. Their lifestyles
required at least as much botanical knowledge as does simple gardening or farming.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Lack of botanical
knowledge certainly does not explain why Aborigines did not become farmers. <span lang="EN-US">Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe
suggest that Aborigines had an aversion to farming that stemmed from their
religious beliefs. As Aborigines saw it</span>, the combination of spiritual propagation of species and practical
resource management made gardening or farming unnecessary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p>Aborigines were still hunter-gatherers in 1788 because they
did not have strong incentives to adopt different lifestyles. A stable
equilibrium seems to have evolved in which change-resistant cultural practices had
become embedded. However, that leaves open the question of why people living nearby on Torres Strait islands had stronger incentives to adopt gardening practices. </p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-89950984568931604422023-07-24T11:12:00.002+10:002023-08-30T09:51:06.088+10:00Where is the soul of libertarianism?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdCHbTWYxKXsATzFY-_DZL3Wa9Nxi3hYCk6eYJ7ywI7twckyEw-LXzF-ZMdqmuRHPRJbubBRZ2Dh4UArUrkN9uQIGHYaVEJRAY6PRauU0DEShamETvp93d77y_cwPy_LSrGLxOvc_EFajdEp0k5hf8dqhQfm0suf5Z3BdEHXDJWP1pzqEgAw7jkBU9rQ/s1197/Humboldt%20quote.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="574" data-original-width="1197" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdCHbTWYxKXsATzFY-_DZL3Wa9Nxi3hYCk6eYJ7ywI7twckyEw-LXzF-ZMdqmuRHPRJbubBRZ2Dh4UArUrkN9uQIGHYaVEJRAY6PRauU0DEShamETvp93d77y_cwPy_LSrGLxOvc_EFajdEp0k5hf8dqhQfm0suf5Z3BdEHXDJWP1pzqEgAw7jkBU9rQ/w581-h306/Humboldt%20quote.png" width="581" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Matt
Zwolinski and John Tomasi have contributed an excellent history of libertarian
ideas in their recently published book, <i>The Individualists.</i> The question
I pose for myself is related to the subtitle of the book: “<i>Radicals,
Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism</i>”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The reason <a name="_Hlk143076440">Zwolinski and Tomasi </a>refer to individualists rather
than to libertarians in the main title is presumably because they believe that
a commitment to “individualism is at the core of libertarianism”. They also
note that many of the most intellectually active friends of liberty in Britain
were known as individualists before the term libertarian caught on.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Synopsis<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ4ApXAIStl_u762iy4nnY8vpcgrI3dkX9dxs_74_T49kOjh1HLtKl7S-bWYTV7BIzkX2ysNZrls_sIRjy8G-gWf27v7IdBVbOQsDqDquE3_ngC3I039gMCHXa77NMJJhswjdr0-R1s995YSRvtxntbhgaISsAopJQHYYI1mE4ic0SV3U6tF2pREDjtQ/s499/The%20Individualists.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="329" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ4ApXAIStl_u762iy4nnY8vpcgrI3dkX9dxs_74_T49kOjh1HLtKl7S-bWYTV7BIzkX2ysNZrls_sIRjy8G-gWf27v7IdBVbOQsDqDquE3_ngC3I039gMCHXa77NMJJhswjdr0-R1s995YSRvtxntbhgaISsAopJQHYYI1mE4ic0SV3U6tF2pREDjtQ/w132-h200/The%20Individualists.jpg" width="132" /></a></div><span lang="EN-US">The authors
spend some time discussing who is, or isn’t, a libertarian. They note that “libertarian”
has been used in both a strict sense, to refer specifically to those who see liberty
as a moral absolute, and in a broad sense, to include classical liberals who
view liberty as a strong presumption. The book discusses the views of
contemporary classical liberals, such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman,
as well as those of “strict libertarians”, but doesn’t devote much attention to
historical classical liberalism.<o:p></o:p></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_Hlk141003242"><span lang="EN-US">Zwolinski and Tomasi </span></a>identify six markers which form the core
of a libertarian world view: private property, skepticism of authority, free
markets, spontaneous order, individualism, and negative liberty. They observe
that while libertarians don’t necessarily view those principles as absolutes,
they typically see them “as a tightly integrated system of thought, with each
commitment being supported by, and lending support to, the others”. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">After providing a historical overview, the book discusses
the history of radical and reactionary libertarian ideas relating to private
property, libertarian anarchism, big business and free markets, poverty and
spontaneous order, racial justice and individualism, and global justice and
noninterventionism. Much of this information was familiar but I was surprised about
how much was new to me. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Zwolinski
and Tomasi’s final chapter focuses largely on the battle between bleeding heart
libertarians, left libertarians and paleolibertarians for control of the
libertarian party in the United States. The authors conclude that
libertarianism is “intrinsically a diverse ideology”, and that “the struggle
between libertarianism’s progressive and conservative tendencies, a struggle
for the soul of libertarianism, is likely to go on”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">That may be
an appropriate way to end a history of ideas directed to an audience composed
largely of people who live in the USA. As a person who doesn’t fit into that
category, however, I am concerned that describing differences of opinion as “a struggle
for the soul of libertarianism” may generate more heat than light. As I see it,
libertarians should be encouraged to acknowledge good ideas whether they are
espoused by conservative or progressive libertarians. I would have preferred to
see the book end by acknowledging that libertarians are engaged in an ongoing
struggle against authoritarianism as people on opposing sides of the culture
wars seek to enlist the coercive powers of the state to pursue their interests.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">More
fundamentally, the struggle the authors describe - about which set of political
prescriptions will come to be most closely identified with the ideology – seems
to me to be conducted without much reference to the soul, or essence, of libertarianism.
The book left me wanting to promote the view that the soul, or essence, of
libertarianism stems from the nature of human flourishing. Zwolinski and Tomasi
may have good reasons for not exploring that idea more fully in their book, but
it seems to me to be an idea that deserves to be given more attention.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">The soul
of libertarianism<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In my view,
<a name="_Hlk141086735">the passage from </a><a name="_Hlk143075000">Wilhelm von Humboldt </a>quoted at the beginning of this review comes
close to capturing the soul of libertarianism. Liberty is the best
principle for the coexistence of humans because it offers conditions most favourable
to self-directed individual flourishing. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Humboldt’s
contributions influenced John Stuart Mill in writing <i>On Liberty. </i>They
were also acknowledged by Friedrich Hayek in the conclusion of the chapter of <i>The
Constitution of Liberty </i>discussing education and research:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“And we
cannot think of better words to conclude than those of Wilhelm von Humboldt
which a hundred years ago John Stuart Mill put in front of his essay <i>On
Liberty: </i>‘The grand, the leading principle, towards which every argument
unfolded in these pages directly converges, is the absolute and essential
importance of human development in its richest diversity’.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Readers who
are eager to know more about Humboldt will find an </span><a href="https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/culture-liberty-wilhelm-von-humboldt"><span lang="EN-US">online article</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> by <a name="_Hlk143076107">George H
Smith published on libertarianism.org to be of interest. <o:p></o:p></a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The discussion of egoism in <i>The
Individualists</i> is relevant to considering the link between liberty and
individual flourishing. Zwolinski and Tomasi note that in the 19<sup>th</sup>
century American libertarians, such as Benjamin Tucker, were influenced by Max
Stirner, a German theorist, who held that the only standard or right was the
ability to transform one’s will into action. That view is in stark contrast to
the ethical egoism advocated by Ayn Rand and her followers during the 20<sup>th</sup>
century. Rand denied that might makes right and argued that egoism is
compatible with recognition of universal natural rights.</span><b><o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The link
between liberty and individual flourishing is recognized today in the writings
of some classical liberal and libertarian authors. Doug Rasmussen and Doug Den
Uyl deserve special mention because they have developed related ideas
rigorously in their trilogy of books: <i>Norms of Liberty, The Perfectionist
Turn, and The Realist Turn.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Readers
looking for a non-technical introduction to these ideas may find relevant
discussion in various places including </span><a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/rasmussen-and-den-uyls-trilogy-of-freedom-and-flourishing/"><span lang="EN-US">an article</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> by Ed Younkins on The Savvy Street,
and in my book, <i>Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing. </i>Rasmussen and Den Uyl have provided a
summary of their views in Chapter 2 of <i>The Realist Turn</i>. A quote from
the conclusion of that chapter will convey the essence of their understanding
of the role of liberty in the context of human flourishing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">“In essence, natural rights represent a realization of
certain normative requirements that are inherent in the individualized nature
of human flourishing within a social context. In particular, when thinking
about rights, we are concerned with the conditions that must be secured for the
individualized nature of flourishing to function. Although liberty is the key
term in this context, we regard it not as the central concept for flourishing
generally, but only with regard to setting the social context for flourishing.
And although we reject constructivism as a foundational principle, we recognize
the role of social constructs within the constraints provided by a framework of
natural rights. As such, our theory is not about the whole of political and
social life, but about the political/legal structure within which such life
should and must be allowed to function if flourishing is our standard.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>Conclusions<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal">My reading of <i><span lang="EN-US">The Individualists </span></i><span lang="EN-US">by Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi has prompted me to present a view
about the soul of libertarianism. Zwolinski and Tomasi end their excellent
history of libertarian ideas by suggesting that progressive and conservative
factions within libertarianism will continue to struggle over the soul of
libertarianism. I put the view that the soul, or essence, of libertarianism
stems from the nature of human flourishing. Wilhelm von Humboldt came close to
capturing the soul of libertarianism 230 years ago when he suggested: “</span>The
highest ideal … of the co-existence of human beings seems to me to consist in
a union in which each strives to develop himself from his own innermost
nature, and for his own sake”. <span lang="EN-US">The
link between liberty and individual flourishing has been recognized by many
libertarians and classical liberals, and is rigorously explained in the writings
of Doug Rasmussen and Doug Den Uyl.</span><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">References<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Bates,
Winton, <i>Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing, </i>Hamilton Books, 2021.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Den Uyl,
Douglas J., and Douglas B Rasmussen, <a name="_Hlk143078546"><i>The </i></a><a name="_Hlk57129817"><i>Perfectionist
Turn</i></a><i>: From metanorms to metaethics, </i>Edinburgh University
Press, 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Rasmussen,
Douglas B., and Den Uyl, Douglas J, <a name="_Hlk56601765"><i>Norms of Liberty</i></a>,
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Rasmussen,
Douglas B., and Den Uyl, Douglas J, <i>The <a name="_Hlk56601925">Realist Turn</a>,
</i>Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Smith, George
H., ‘The Culture of Liberty: Wilhelm von Humboldt’, </span>libertarianism.org,
2013.<b><o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Younkins,
Edward W., ‘</span>Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s Trilogy of Freedom and Flourishing’,
<i>The Savvy Street, </i>2021.<b><o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-89422035968916043222023-06-27T15:44:00.001+10:002023-08-06T12:12:24.993+10:00Can Cultural Values Explain Authoritarianism?<p> An<span style="font-size: medium;"> article on this topic has now been published on <a href="https://www.thesavvystreet.com/can-cultural-values-explain-authoritarianism/" target="_blank">The Savvy Street</a>. The article draws on material published in recent posts on this blog.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Comments on the article are most welcome. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The conclusions are reproduced below.</span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>Conclusions</b><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In this article I have adopted an international
perspective to consider the extent to which cultural values explain
authoritarianism. The analysis has been conducted in terms of ideological maps
which position governments by reference to the levels of personal freedom and
economic freedom in the countries they control.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The article introduces the concept of international ideological
mapping by first considering how individuals might assess their own ideological
positions. I argue that the positioning of a person on a political compass,
incorporating both economic and personal freedom, is more informative about
attitudes to liberty than attempts to position them on a single
dimension. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Human Freedom Index provides data on economic
freedom and personal freedom for a large number of countries. That data can be
viewed as an ideological map of the world because it reflects the prevailing
ideologies of governments throughout the world. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ideological maps show high correlation between
economic freedom and personal freedom. The liberal democracies have relatively
high levels of both economic and personal freedom. Authoritarian governments
have relatively low levels of both personal and economic freedom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">I argue that
the question of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">whether cultural values can explain authoritarianism
is worth exploring because survey data shows that people in some countries with
relatively low levels of economic and personal freedom (e.g. China and Russia) claim
to have more confidence in their respective governments than do people in some
countries with relatively high levels of personal and economic freedom (e.g.
the U.S. and Australia). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Data from the World Values Survey was used to test the
extent to which levels of personal and economic freedom could be explained by cultural
values. Christian Welzel’s index of emancipative values was used to explain
levels of personal freedom. and an index of facilitating values was constructed
to explain levels of economic freedom. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The existence of emancipative values and values facilitating
economic freedom does help to explain why some countries have higher personal
and economic freedom than others. In general, the high freedom levels of the
high-income liberal democracies are fairly well explained in terms of
facilitating and emancipative values.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">However, the ideologies of many other governments
cannot be adequately explained in terms of the values held by the people they
govern. The </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">freedom
ratings of most of the countries with low personal and economic freedom are
substantially lower than predicted by emancipative and facilitating values.
Suppression of liberty in those countries is </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">a product of
the ideologies of the governments rather than the cultural values of the
peoples.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The analysis also shows that a substantial number of
countries with relatively high personal and economic freedom are performing
better in that regard than can readily be explained on the basis of prevailing
values. One possible explanation is that market-friendly economic reforms tend
to separate economic power from political power, enabling greater political
freedom to emerge before it is fully supported by emancipative values.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-87506757099482211592023-06-13T21:35:00.005+10:002023-06-20T16:24:44.624+10:00What determines how much liberty people enjoy in different countries?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8AtMaa4w4fs8fEAawM712OQrC0wX1SwG-B_bs7ID6ohuecQM35tVIwdK7MLdsuUwfnrbUTB__TgspLtW6fImdiIKEm7WdAOZG78rEYVY5ZDVLBLvD-rTajjrhCo3SA9JRlA-c7h1SLWB_XzfmDVPbhiqDuDTTEval93Pg_-nxuZmtuHF1jI6ewrKBGA/s636/image004.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="538" data-original-width="636" height="542" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8AtMaa4w4fs8fEAawM712OQrC0wX1SwG-B_bs7ID6ohuecQM35tVIwdK7MLdsuUwfnrbUTB__TgspLtW6fImdiIKEm7WdAOZG78rEYVY5ZDVLBLvD-rTajjrhCo3SA9JRlA-c7h1SLWB_XzfmDVPbhiqDuDTTEval93Pg_-nxuZmtuHF1jI6ewrKBGA/w640-h542/image004.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /> An obvious
answer to the question posed above is that governments determine how much
liberty people enjoy. But that response may be too glib. Some argue that much restriction of liberty reflects
prevailing values of people who see individual autonomy and personal choice as
a threat to collective interests of groups and nations.<p></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">When I
began the research which led to this article, I sought to explore the extent to
which international differences in personal and economic freedom can be
explained by deep-seated cultural values. My conclusion is that there is a
large residual variation which is attributable to ideologies of governments
that support or oppose free markets and personal liberty.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This
conclusion is illustrated in the graph shown above. However, you will need more
information about how the graph was constructed before you can get the picture.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US">The graph
shows the levels of economic and personal freedom for 85 countries using the </span><a href="https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/human-freedom-index-2022"><span lang="EN-US">Fraser Institute’s latest data</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> (for 2020). There are 165
jurisdictions covered by the Fraser indexes, but relevant data on values from the
latest round (2017-22) of the </span><a href="https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp"><span lang="EN-US">World Values Survey</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> (WVS) was only available for 85.</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The vertical axis of the graph is in reverse
order – low values of personal freedom at the top, high values at the bottom. The reason stems from use of personal political compass data which is constructed
in that way in </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/02/how-authoritarian-are-american.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">an earlier article</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> on this blog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></li><li>The horizontal and vertical axes are positioned at the median
levels of economic and personal freedom for the 165 jurisdictions covered by
the Fraser indexes. <span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
countries not covered by the WVS tend to have lower freedom ratings than those
which are covered. The median ratings for the 85 countries represented in the
graph is 7.2 for economic freedom and 7.6 for personal freedom. </span></li><li>I have only labelled data points that have freedom ratings
that are substantially different from predictions based on deep-seated cultural
values. The methods used to obtain predicted values for personal and economic
freedom were explained in preceding articles on this blog (<a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/05/to-what-extent-do-international.html">here</a>
and <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/06/to-what-extent-do-international.html">here</a>).
If you live in a high-income liberal democracy, that country is likely to be
represented by one of the unlabelled points in the south-east quadrant - with
relatively high levels of economic and personal freedom.</li><li>The colour of the labelled points<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <span lang="EN-US">depends on whether freedom is greater than or less
than predicted on the basis of values – green if greater than predicted, red if
less than predicted. The size of the labelled points is larger if both personal
and economic freedom are greater than or less than predicted.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> It is apparent from the </o:p></span>graph that it is difficult to explain why countries have low personal and
economic freedom ratings simply by reference to prevailing values in those
countries. Most of the countries in that category have freedom ratings that are
lower than predicted on the basis of values. The political ideologies followed
by the governments of those countries provide an obvious explanation for their suppression
of liberty.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The graph
also shows that a substantial number of countries with relatively high personal
and economic freedom are performing better in that regard than can readily be
explained on the basis of prevailing values. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">More
detailed information for the countries which have freedom ratings substantially
different from predicted levels is shown in the graph below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibX9Nih1t1VmsqRM-M7-XuyzFWZXxK_-r5K-rU3jtFwcM3U3JAQ50S-QzOUX9GQnJmPwUPJhEX8DyHOWrfPHeIjl_MZ4hYCUt__2WnOulgZHn5w72O1RlxdCeIlF21UGl8h2f1Qu2XXELKd7Di4-f7sKZVFlVzaCY7A6lconqZivDkjkSDeyCLZN4/s713/image002.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="713" data-original-width="512" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibX9Nih1t1VmsqRM-M7-XuyzFWZXxK_-r5K-rU3jtFwcM3U3JAQ50S-QzOUX9GQnJmPwUPJhEX8DyHOWrfPHeIjl_MZ4hYCUt__2WnOulgZHn5w72O1RlxdCeIlF21UGl8h2f1Qu2XXELKd7Di4-f7sKZVFlVzaCY7A6lconqZivDkjkSDeyCLZN4/w461-h640/image002.png" width="461" /></a></div><br /><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Of the 34
countries with freedom ratings that are substantially different from predicted
levels, Argentina is the only one to have one category of freedom greater than
expected and the other category of freedom less than expected. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Questions
to ponder<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Are relatively high levels of human freedom less secure
in countries in which freedom is greater than prevailing values seem to support?</i>
If a high proportion of the population feels that existing policy regimes are not
aligned with their personal values, these regimes could be expected to be
fragile, other things being equal. However, much depends on those “other things”.
The growth of economic opportunities could be expected to be greater in the
presence of relatively high levels of economic freedom. That could be expected
to foster values that support economic freedom. The growth of economic
opportunities also tends to encourage development of emancipative values which
support personal freedom.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Are relatively low levels of human freedom less likely to
persist where prevailing values support greater freedom?</i> Again, policy
regimes giving rise to such outcomes could be expected to be fragile, other
things being equal. Unfortunately, however, the “other things” often include
use of coercion to suppress opposition to existing policy regimes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US">Postscript: 16 June, 2023<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I have now
made an effort to explore whether some of the above speculations have empirical support. This involved repeating the exercise of obtaining predictions of personal freedom - using WVS data from
the 2010-14 to obtain predictions of personal freedom for 2012. It was
possible to obtain matching data for only 53 countries. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal">There is
some evidence that personal freedom is less secure in countries in which
freedom is greater than prevailing values seem to support. Of the 6 countries
in which personal freedom was much greater than predicted in 2012, only one had
higher personal freedom in 2020, another had unchanged personal freedom and the other 4 had
lower personal freedom.</p><p class="MsoNormal">
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The exercise
provided no support for the proposition that relatively low levels of personal
freedom are less likely to persist when prevailing values support greater
freedom. Of the 6 countries in which personal freedom was much less than
predicted, none had higher personal freedom in 2020, and 2 experienced a
further decline in personal freedom. Unfortunately, over this period none of the repressive regimes were displaced or became more responsive to prevailing values of the people.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-36919761239807763412023-06-07T20:15:00.003+10:002023-06-07T20:15:51.754+10:00To what extent do international differences in economic freedom reflect people's values?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1iusVBU6BS2HogppArsVR4YxADvQFWZEV4ekBuagt8Feaf_Y64-dD92GiVjHMmZZsfm0v0efu2MgCnOd2-Y4DG9x_0DNp-PTFNj_ru4KAzBf7Qkuh9vzQZeh6Rm9kjP4cMB-5WSO0x9onGq9osJkFbApDjz17sEGo4VBbl6kpkWYWRClj24hs4gc/s641/image002.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="641" height="460" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1iusVBU6BS2HogppArsVR4YxADvQFWZEV4ekBuagt8Feaf_Y64-dD92GiVjHMmZZsfm0v0efu2MgCnOd2-Y4DG9x_0DNp-PTFNj_ru4KAzBf7Qkuh9vzQZeh6Rm9kjP4cMB-5WSO0x9onGq9osJkFbApDjz17sEGo4VBbl6kpkWYWRClj24hs4gc/w640-h460/image002.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is a
companion piece to </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2023/05/to-what-extent-do-international.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">the preceding post</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> in which I considered the extent to
which international differences in personal freedom reflect people’s values.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The extent
to which international differences in economic freedom reflect different values
is of interest because it has bearing on the extent of popular support likely
to be given to policy proposals involving expansion or restriction of economic
freedom. If people feel that existing economic policy regimes are aligned with
their personal values, they are less likely to support radical change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
accompanying graph suggests the existence of a positive relationship between an
index of facilitating values and economic freedom. As suggested in the label of
the horizontal axis, the index of facilitating values reflects the priority
that people in different countries place on autonomy, and the extent of
interpersonal trust in different countries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Indexes<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I am not
aware of any other index of values facilitating economic freedom similar to the
one I constructed in preparing the graph, even though there has been a
substantial amount of previous research undertaken on cultural values
supporting economic growth and institutional change. (Nicholas Moellman and
Danko Tarabar have referred to some relevant literature in their article,
‘Economic Freedom Reform: does culture matter?’, <i>Journal of Institutional
Economics </i>(2022), 18, 139-157.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
priority people place on autonomy seems likely to be important in facilitating
economic freedom because respect for individual autonomy implies respect for
individuals engaged in commerce, particularly innovators. Trust of strangers seems
likely to be important in facilitating economic freedom because it reduces the tribal
instinct to seek to use the powers of the state to advance the interests of
group members at the expense of other groups.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I have used
Christian Welzel’s autonomy index to measure autonomy. This index uses three
items in the World Values Survey (WVS) which ask respondents their views about
desirable child qualities. Autonomy is considered to be valued more highly by
those who independence and imagination as desirable child qualities but do not
consider obedience as such a quality. (See: Christian Welzel, <i>Freedom
Rising, </i>2013). I used an updated version of the index based on the latest
round of the WVS (2017-2022).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Welzel’s generalized
trust index was used to measure interpersonal trust. This index gives higher
weight to trust of strangers than to trust of family. I reconstructed the index
for the latest round of the WVS by combining items covering close trust (trust
of family, neighbours, and people you know personally), unspecified trust
(whether most people can be trusted) and remote trust (trust of people you meet
for the first time, people of another religion and people of another
nationality). Unspecified trust was given double the weight of close trust, and
remote trust was given three times the weight of close trust. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In
constructing the facilitating values index, autonomy was allocated 75% of the
weight and generalized trust was allocated 25%. Those weights were chosen on the
basis of regression analysis using the autonomy and generalized trust indexes
as explanatory variables to explain economic freedom. (Researchers seeking
further information about the methodology used in constructing this index are
welcome to contact me.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Fraser Institute’s </span><a href="https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2022"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">economic freedom</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> index<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>incorporates
a large number of indicators relating to size of government, legal systems and
property rights, sound money, freedom of international trade and regulation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Discussion<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My focus is
on the outlier data points in the accompanying graph, and particularly on those
countries which have substantially lower or higher economic freedom than might
be predicted on the basis of values facilitating economic freedom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One of the
first things readers may notice in the graph is that values facilitating
economic freedom are shown to be higher in China than in the U.S. and
Australia. That may seem surprising if Geert Hofstede’s </span><a href="https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=australia%2Cchina%2Cunited+states"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">analysis</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, or your knowledge of cultural heritage, has
led you to expect Chinese people to be much less individualistic than Westerners.
If you need to be persuaded that many Chinese people have an individualistic
perception of human flourishing, you might like to read </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2021/10/would-chinese-people-accept-that-human.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">an article</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> I wrote on that topic in 2021.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">While you
are thinking about China, you might like to compare economic freedom in that
country with that in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The most obvious reason
why the latter jurisdictions have greater economic freedom is because they have
adopted market-friendly ideologies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Similarly, adoption
of market-friendly ideologies explains why Albania has substantially greater
economic freedom than Iran and Libya, and why Chile has greater economic
freedom than Argentina and Venezuela.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
existence of values facilitating economic freedom helps to explain why some
countries have higher economic freedom than others. However, it seems that a
substantial part of international differences in economic freedom can be
explained more directly in terms of prevailing government ideologies which
either support or oppose free markets.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-2180425306354786202023-05-31T11:44:00.001+10:002023-05-31T12:00:47.050+10:00To what extent do international differences in personal freedom reflect people's values?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk5fy3siTDD-ILH_RQpnuW07nYiWvKa_yud4etWg2UVCNcj2PUHSDw2obBPkh6d4FpHc_utSxqeUs294_jLFDFwfN1_1JJHGyiSfisclJsOkUdixJAqKuA7YM5vYJREktcuxh-yGMauscX9aa3WbGNfu0ofIQ0A8JiH1F5Ft9sz82pUrlv6vt_rkw/s641/image002.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="547" data-original-width="641" height="492" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk5fy3siTDD-ILH_RQpnuW07nYiWvKa_yud4etWg2UVCNcj2PUHSDw2obBPkh6d4FpHc_utSxqeUs294_jLFDFwfN1_1JJHGyiSfisclJsOkUdixJAqKuA7YM5vYJREktcuxh-yGMauscX9aa3WbGNfu0ofIQ0A8JiH1F5Ft9sz82pUrlv6vt_rkw/w577-h492/image002.png" width="577" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
accompanying graph shows that personal freedom tends to be greatest in
countries where people hold the most emancipative values (on average). However,
it also suggests that in some countries personal freedom is much less, or much
more, than might be expected on the basis of the values commonly held by the people. For
example, there is less personal freedom in Belarus than might be expected,
whereas there is more personal freedom in Armenia and Georgia than might be
expected.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Before going further, I need to explain what emancipative
values and personal freedom actually measure. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The concept of emancipate values was developed by Christian
Welzel to measure the beliefs that people hold about such matters as the
importance of personal autonomy, respect for the choices people make in their
personal lives, having a say in community decisions, and equality of opportunity.
Welzel’s research, using data from the <a href="https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp">World Values Survey</a>, suggests
that larger numbers of people have tended to adopt emancipative values in an
increasing number of societies as economic development has proceeded. The
strengthening of emancipative values is explained by growth of action resources
(wealth, intellectual skills, and opportunities to connect with others) rather
than civic entitlements such as voting rights. As emancipative values have
strengthened, more people have come to recognize the value of civic
entitlements and have used their growing material resources, intellectual
skills, and opportunities to connect with others, to take collective action to
achieve such entitlements. The process has been ongoing, with people showing greater
concern for promoting more widespread opportunities—including greater
opportunities for women, ethnic minorities and the disabled—as material living
standards have risen and emancipative values have strengthened. (There is more
information about Welzel’s research on emancipative values <a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2014/04/is-story-of-human-flourishing-all-about.html">here</a>.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The personal freedom component of the Fraser Institute’s
<a href="https://www.cato.org/books/human-freedom-index-2022">Human Freedom Index</a>
incorporates indicators of rule of law, security and safety, freedom of
movement, freedom of religion, freedom of association and civil society,
freedom of expression and information, and relationship freedom. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As already noted, international differences in
personal freedom don’t always reflect people’s values. The reason why that is
so is fairly obvious when one looks at the country labels I have shown on the
outliers in the graph. What is it that Armenia, Cyprus, and Taiwan have that Egypt,
Iran, China, Belarus and Vietnam do not have? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Representative
government. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Two cheers for democracy!<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-73370740886248979962023-05-25T10:57:00.000+10:002023-05-25T10:57:06.168+10:00Do people now have greater economic freedom in Sweden than in the U.S. and Australia?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9VX9Q7-EXWir7g9v3bnaP7Wl2HgFNqN2aJsZ5WL4zSbLisx_fRUyASEswdMEQFCrkhw8fvj9DhNdkBeAXltj0tgSISLzFS3OuJ3W4rUK3KvKxwr4Du_KtqIkAcwkYePc2tV9AYs-Ast788Ui1P4o9LkHs10fKyGDk5RmpC4qsr36jHovYsHlNOY4/s602/image002.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="410" data-original-width="602" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9VX9Q7-EXWir7g9v3bnaP7Wl2HgFNqN2aJsZ5WL4zSbLisx_fRUyASEswdMEQFCrkhw8fvj9DhNdkBeAXltj0tgSISLzFS3OuJ3W4rUK3KvKxwr4Du_KtqIkAcwkYePc2tV9AYs-Ast788Ui1P4o9LkHs10fKyGDk5RmpC4qsr36jHovYsHlNOY4/w400-h272/image002.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">When I think of Sweden, what comes to mind is a big
government welfare state, with higher priority being given to economic security
than to economic freedom. I was therefore surprised when I saw the </span><a href="https://www.heritage.org/index/about"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Heritage Foundation data</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
reproduced in the accompanying graph, which shows that economic freedom in
Sweden is now higher in the United States and Australia. I expect that many readers
would be similarly surprised.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The substantial decline which the graph shows for
economic freedom in the U.S. and Australia since 2020 is presumably associated
with government policies restricting freedom during the Covid19 pandemic.
However, economic freedom in Sweden has apparently maintained an upward trend
during that period.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In order to come to grips with this new information I
thought it might be helpful to consider alternative economic freedom estimates
and to take a look at the components of the Heritage Foundation’s economic
freedom estimates. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Comparison of Heritage and Fraser estimates</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some of those
who feel uncomfortable with the idea that people may now have more economic
freedom in Sweden than in the U. S. and Australia might obtain some solace from
the fact that the latest </span><a href="https://www.cato.org/economic-freedom-world/2022"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">economic
freedom estimates of the Fraser Institute</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> has Sweden
(in 33<sup>rd</sup> place) ranked far behind both Australia (6<sup>th</sup>)
and the U.S.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(7<sup>th</sup>). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some of the differences between the Heritage
and Fraser estimates may be attributable to timing. The Heritage estimates for
2023 are based as far as possible on data for June 30, 2022, whereas the latest
available Fraser estimates are for 2020. However, there are also differences in
the aspects of economic freedom covered by the indexes. For example, the
Heritage estimates incorporate Fiscal Health (deficits and debt) which is an
aspect of economic management not incorporated in the Fraser estimates. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I was not surprised to see Sweden ranked first in the </span><a href="https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2022"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Fraser
Institute’s index of personal freedom</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, well ahead
of Australia (17<sup>th</sup>) and the U.S. (33<sup>rd</sup>). The Human Freedom
index (which combines economic freedom and personal freedom) has Sweden ranked 6<sup>th</sup>,
ahead of Australia (11<sup>th</sup>) and the U.S. (23<sup>rd</sup>).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Comparison of scores on various aspects of
economic freedom<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRoi2BrYV1qEUjPcQiLmlmYsogzjLFq-0r2XYV9rIo5TgucHrKnU21CTaQPW0S5keAk914QAtHb-5RWFpXa3oS9nMBmrAThfArP9_Km1LkfvXl53LDglfnD-BvY7bjZu8XniVTDA_99k0Tf3mbBsbGFPt9F8RNiVvLZuIZTtzb6qbsT080o4qSNog/s577/image002.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="535" data-original-width="577" height="371" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRoi2BrYV1qEUjPcQiLmlmYsogzjLFq-0r2XYV9rIo5TgucHrKnU21CTaQPW0S5keAk914QAtHb-5RWFpXa3oS9nMBmrAThfArP9_Km1LkfvXl53LDglfnD-BvY7bjZu8XniVTDA_99k0Tf3mbBsbGFPt9F8RNiVvLZuIZTtzb6qbsT080o4qSNog/w400-h371/image002.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />The comparison of scores on the accompanying graph
indicate that aspects in which Sweden performs relatively well, by comparison
with Australia and the U.S. are fiscal health and government integrity. As
might be expected from Sweden’s welfare state reputation, the aspects on which
Sweden performs relatively poorly include tax burden and government spending.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The answer to the question I posed at the outset
depends on which economic freedom index one looks at. The Heritage Foundation’s
index clearly has people enjoying greater economic freedom in Sweden than in
the U.S. and Australia, but that finding is not confirmed by the Fraser
Institute’s index. Whatever Sweden’s current ranking relative to the U.S. and
Australia, it is worth pondering how Sweden has managed to maintain relatively
high levels of economic and personal freedom, despite having a large welfare
state. At this stage, there is not much evidence that Sweden is in grave danger
of sliding down the slippery slope to serfdom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-32531747419504055902023-05-16T11:07:00.002+10:002023-05-20T12:25:31.547+10:00What is holding back the growth of economic opportunities in PNG?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGHJo-Sc4HPN3IWGp5DRMsSB7Nt-_3lB5UOZTO4MBF1-sgu-ZEbl_nXnDwoave2qhn73cZSIPTRNjQGztZu1aBU3HJXenKv2G7eSddktMN6nZeWKFxwzXhUoHLxwL6C51R8jz0vbxiMBk2rFXqNr3WxVvLXo8lO0wdRdNr3PW1GouaYGU-ROdCcpQ/s320/Map%20of%20PNG.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="320" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGHJo-Sc4HPN3IWGp5DRMsSB7Nt-_3lB5UOZTO4MBF1-sgu-ZEbl_nXnDwoave2qhn73cZSIPTRNjQGztZu1aBU3HJXenKv2G7eSddktMN6nZeWKFxwzXhUoHLxwL6C51R8jz0vbxiMBk2rFXqNr3WxVvLXo8lO0wdRdNr3PW1GouaYGU-ROdCcpQ/w400-h220/Map%20of%20PNG.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Why should
you care about the economic opportunities available to the people of Papua New
Guinea? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps some readers didn’t even
know the location of Papua New Guinea (PNG) before looking at the accompanying
map. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is a
lot to be said for the view that the people of PNG should be left to solve
their own problems for themselves. However, one of the problems the people of
PNG need to solve is how to reduce their dependence on foreign aid. Another
problem they need to solve is how to cope with living in a part of the world in
which China and the United States are increasingly competing for influence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Joe Biden,
the president of the United States is </span><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-visit-papua-new-guinea-presidential-first-after-g7-2023-05-09/"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">to visit Port Moresby</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, the capital of PNG, on<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>May 22 for discussions with Pacific Island
Forum members, while on his way to Sydney for a Quad meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My personal
interest in the economic opportunities available to people in PNG stems from
having worked there as a consultant on economic policy, having visited as a
tourist on several occasions, and not least, from having relatives who live
there. I maintain an interest in economic and social development in PNG and have
written about it on this blog in the past (</span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2014/07/what-are-implications-for-png-of.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">here</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2015/03/when-you-buy-coffee-and-chocolate-do.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">here</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2015/03/is-papua-new-guinea-safe-place-for.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">here</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">, and </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2017/07/where-does-money-come-from-to-pay-for.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">here</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In this
article I suggest that opportunities for human flourishing in PNG are less
promising than recent macroeconomic indicators might suggest. After considering
some macro-economic indicators, I briefly discuss population statistics, corruption
and profligacy, the law and order problem, poor opportunities for young people,
and lack of economic freedom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Macro-economic
indicators<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The World Bank’s <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/03/29/as-papua-new-guinea-returns-to-economic-growth-world-bank-highlights-economic-case-for-action-on-gender-equality">latest
Economic Update</a> paints a fairly rosy picture, with economic growth of 4.5 percent
for 2022. Government revenue from mining and petroleum taxes surged (reflecting
the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on natural gas prices). The
increased revenue led to a reduction in the fiscal deficit. The magnitude of
public debt remains a problem, with interest payments exceeding public spending
on both health and education.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Inflation at around 6 percent per annum is not unduly high
by comparison with other countries, but rising food prices have made life
increasingly difficult for many people in urban areas. Foreign exchange
rationing, associated with pegging of the Kina against the USD, has been a
hindrance to business. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Population
statistics<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I mention
population statistics mainly because </span><a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/png-needs-census-not-more-population-estimates"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">questions that have recently been
raised</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> about the
reliability of official estimates of the population illustrate the existence of
deep-seated problems in public administration. The official estimate of
population for 2022 is between 9 and 11 million. However, a leaked UN report
has suggested that the population could be as high as 17 million. In this
instance, the official estimate seems more likely to be correct. However, the
last credible census took place 20 years ago, so no-one really knows the size
of the PNG population.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is widely
accepted that the population of PNG has been growing rapidly and that the
majority of people are relatively young, probably under 25 years old.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Corruption and profligacy<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Corruption is still a major problem in PNG, although there seems
to have been some reduction over the last decade. Of the 180 countries included
in the <a href="https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/index/png">Corruption
Perceptions Index</a>, only 50 were rated as more corrupt than PNG in 2022.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Profligacy in spending of public money by some government
ministers is legendary. For example, in 2018, when PNG hosted the APEC summit,
Justin Tkatchenko attracted controversy by purchasing 40 custom-made Maserati
luxury cars. He claimed that they would sell like hot cakes after the event.
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. More recently, the same minister again
attracted criticism for taking an overly large contingent of people with him,
at public expense, to the coronation of King Charles III. It was his
intemperate response, labelling critics as “primitive animals”, which eventually
led to his <a href="https://asiapacificreport.nz/2023/05/13/pngs-foreign-minister-justin-tkatchenko-steps-aside-over-video-row/">resignation</a>
from the position of Foreign Minister.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>The law-and-order problem<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There has been a law-and-order problem is PNG for many
years. In 2015 I wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“It is unsafe for tourists to walk around most parts of Port
Moresby alone except within the boundaries of major hotels, modern shopping
malls and other locations where security is provided. The same applies to local
residents. Tourists are more fortunate than most of the locals because they can
afford to be transported safely from one secure area to another.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is particularly unsafe for women and girls to be in
public places. A recent article on <a href="https://devpolicy.org/trepidations-of-a-female-student-in-port-moresby-20230412/">DEVPOLICYBLOG</a>
by Sharon Banuk, a university student, describes the nature of the problem that
she has faced in staying safe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">PNG is ranked second, behind Venezuela, as the country with
the highest <a href="https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2023">number
of reported crimes</a> per 100,000 people. The ranking of PNG seems to have remained
the same since 2017, having risen from 16<sup>th</sup> place in 2015. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Poor economic opportunities for young people<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhITAd-9VjxczLMsFTBw40eZKooffAFGxQ20CMUKEREYi5OagMyDZApHac8k4ujk2r6N8C3sNgCenuUR1inItGzIGB4Tzksv_ptxtvyPxIpY_3GR8LsqDnyUVJSv4CBYsMToY3Ktq6l1Nsq763_vPGfKuumcJG7R6958R1MstN1wsHNZ4338W803Ig/s320/People%20seeking%20a%20hotel%20job%20in%20PNG.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="164" data-original-width="320" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhITAd-9VjxczLMsFTBw40eZKooffAFGxQ20CMUKEREYi5OagMyDZApHac8k4ujk2r6N8C3sNgCenuUR1inItGzIGB4Tzksv_ptxtvyPxIpY_3GR8LsqDnyUVJSv4CBYsMToY3Ktq6l1Nsq763_vPGfKuumcJG7R6958R1MstN1wsHNZ4338W803Ig/s1600/People%20seeking%20a%20hotel%20job%20in%20PNG.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The law-and-order problem has been linked to the increasing
problem of youth unemployment in <a href="https://pngnri.org/images/Blogs/PPBLOG_No20.pdf">an article</a> by Ms.
Julian Melpa for the National Research Institute. A <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-28/youth-unemployment-crisis-png-amid-booming-youth-population/101573706">recent
study</a> found 68 per cent of people aged between 14 to 35 in Port Moresby
were unemployed. Even people with tertiary qualifications often find it
difficult to obtain employment. <o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />The difficulty of finding employment is illustrated the
accompanying photo of job seekers, published with <a href="https://www.thenational.com.pg/jobs-badly-needed/">a report in <i>The
National</i></a><i> </i>newspaper on Feb 6, 2023. The crowd were competing for
a few advertised vacancies at a hotel in Port Moresby.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Lack of economic freedom</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">International agencies tend to label the main deficiencies in economic freedom in countries like PNG as governance problems. That
labelling may make their advice more palatable to politicians who have
ideological hangups about free markets but it obscures the adverse impact of
lack of economic freedom on incentives to invest, innovate and create greater
opportunities for human flourishing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Only 36 of the 176 countries included in the <a href="https://www.heritage.org/index/country/papuanewguinea">Heritage
Foundation’s</a> index of economic freedom have a lower ranking than PNG. A
similar picture emerges from the <a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2022-09/efw-2022-chapter-1.pdf">Fraser
Institute’s</a> economic freedom ratings. Only 43 of the 165 countries included
in the Fraser index have a lower economic freedom rating than PNG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">PNG has particularly low ratings for rule of law (covering
property rights, judicial effectiveness, and government integrity) business
freedom, and investment freedom.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">PNG governments have obviously been having major problems in
performing the core functions of government in protecting natural rights of
individuals to be safe and have opportunities to flourish. Governments face a
formidable challenge in protecting economic freedom in PNG, with most of the population
living in village communities and having little contact with the market economy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, similar challenges face governments in some other countries.
Some African countries which face similar challenges now seem to be performing
better than PNG in facilitating growth of economic opportunities. <span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><b><i>Postscript</i></b><p></p><div>Readers who are interested in a more comprehensive picture of the well-being of people in PNG should visit the<a href="https://docs.prosperity.com/2816/7689/1416/Papua_New_Guinea_2023_Picountryprofile.pdf" target="_blank"> relevant country site</a> of The Legatum Prosperity Index. For the purpose of the Legatum index, prosperity is defined broadly as occurring "when all people have the opportunity to thrive by fulfilling their unique potential and playing their part in strengthening their communities and nations".</div><div><br /></div><div>My article mentions a visit to PNG by Joe Biden, which was scheduled for May 22. Unfortunately, this visit will not occur as planned because he has given higher priority to political negotiations over the U.S. government debt ceiling. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-79864362316403239942023-05-02T14:17:00.000+10:002023-05-02T14:17:05.974+10:00Is Vipassana meditation consistent with self-acceptance?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCg464G08akL9DVTW_N-Zb0JT2roNs38UqeJrZC56R8N-OUJtHr7SFKJ3WX7-o7mtxSCCXXcxnmk8VUuFX8YhJPmoz6EBX4cJ_3UMsgpLGLY6FicJ-iO7qab1CD4FB2CP1PwSavGJtvDcqM1URMI2PfXk3qctgxm_ijB7UZ4tF9bJaJWoFUsJrT58/s1063/Aristotle%20quote.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="584" data-original-width="1063" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCg464G08akL9DVTW_N-Zb0JT2roNs38UqeJrZC56R8N-OUJtHr7SFKJ3WX7-o7mtxSCCXXcxnmk8VUuFX8YhJPmoz6EBX4cJ_3UMsgpLGLY6FicJ-iO7qab1CD4FB2CP1PwSavGJtvDcqM1URMI2PfXk3qctgxm_ijB7UZ4tF9bJaJWoFUsJrT58/w553-h304/Aristotle%20quote.png" width="553" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Vipassana
is an ancient form of meditation based on practice of equanimity in observation
of physical sensations and thoughts. As people who practice Vipassana observe
sensations arise and pass away, they experience a lessening of both aversion of
unpleasant sensations, and of craving for pleasant sensations. The Vipassana tradition has been kept alive
since the time of the Buddha, and popularized over the last 50 years by S. N.
Goenka, who died in 2013. The practice is taught in 10 day residential courses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">People who hold
views that are incompatible with the Buddhist principle of anatta, or no self, are not excluded from attending Vipassana courses. I have practiced Vipassana
meditation, with varying consistency, for about 25 years, and associate the
practice with self-acceptance rather than loss of a sense of self. Moments of
self-forgetfulness, accompanying feelings of goodwill towards other beings,
could be described as quieting the ego rather than abandoning it. It seems to
me that Scott Barry Kaufman may be on the right track in his suggestion that
“those with the quietest ego defenses often have the strongest sense of self”.
(See <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Transcend-Self-Actualization-Scott-Barry-Kaufman/dp/0143131206">Transcend</a>,</i>
p 204-5).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">However, when
<a name="_Hlk133844319">Goenkaji</a> was asked why he only spoke of the ego in
negative terms, he </span><a href="https://www.vridhamma.org/node/926"><span lang="EN-US">replied</span></a><span lang="EN-US">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“Now it seems to you that there must be an 'I' who feels,
but after beginning to practice Vipassana, you will reach the stage where the
ego dissolves. Then your question will disappear! </span><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">For conventional purposes, yes, we cannot run away from
using words like 'I' or 'mine' etc. But clinging to them, taking them as real
in an ultimate sense will only bring suffering.”</span><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">That raises
interesting issues. In this article I will briefly discuss the concept of
no-self, illustrate similarity between the practice of Vipassana and a
psychologist’s approach to self-acceptance, consider how Vipassana meditation
might be viewed from an Aristotelian perspective, and end with some
observations about the nature of the inner game involved in acquiring equanimity
and practical wisdom. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">The
No-self idea<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In their book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Classical-Indian-Philosophy-history-philosophy/dp/0198851766"><i>Classical
Indian Philosophy</i></a><i>, </i>Peter Adamson and Jonardon Ganeri note that
the Buddha sought to differentiate his view from those who say that we are
identical to our bodies and from those who say we have souls that lack
connection to anything else. They write:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“To express his own view, the Buddha offered similes: a
person is not like the thread running through a necklace of pearls, but like
the flowing of a river or the flickering of a candle flame.”</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The river
metaphor captures the idea that to grasp on to feelings, perceptions, or mental
fabrications of the self is as futile as it would be for a person to try to
avoid being swept down a swiftly flowing river by grasping on to grasses etc.
growing on the banks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I am
attracted to a different river metaphor which reconciles my observation that impermanence
is pervasive with my inability to doubt my own existence, and perception of my “self”
as having continuity (at least while I remain alive). I have written </span><a href="https://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2021/04/how-can-we-comprehend-emergence-of.html"><span lang="EN-US">previously</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> about Richard </span>Campbell’s
suggestion, in his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Metaphysics-Emergence-R-Campbell/dp/134950565X"><i>The
Metaphysics of Emergence</i></a><i>,</i> that Plato may have misrepresented
Heraclitus in claiming he said, “You cannot step into the same river twice”.
Heraclites may have been trying to convey the insight that the river stays the
same even though it consists of changing waters. Campbell suggests that rivers
exemplify “that the continued existence of things depends on their continually
changing”. <span lang="EN-US">It makes sense to understand
consciousness as a flow, and to perceive ourselves as complex processing
systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">Self-acceptance<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In
explaining Vipassana meditation, Goenkaji emphasized that attempts to escape
from misery by diverting the mind to another object did not provide lasting
benefits. He </span><a href="https://www.vridhamma.org/discourses/experience-reality"><span lang="EN-US">explained</span></a><span lang="EN-US">:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“The object of meditation should not be an imaginary object,
it should be reality—reality as it is. One has to work with whatever reality
has manifested itself now, whatever one experiences within the framework of one's
own body.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems to me that the Vipassana approach of observing
thoughts and sensations with equanimity has much in common with the approach to
self-acceptance recommended by the psychologist, Nathaniel Branden, in <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Six-Pillars-Self-Esteem-Nathaniel-Branden/dp/0553095293">The
Six Pillars of Self-Esteem</a>:<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">“At the most fundamental level, I accept myself. I accept
the reality of my thoughts, even when I cannot endorse them and would not
choose to act on them; I do not deny or disown them. I can accept my feelings
and emotions without necessarily liking, approving of, or being controlled by
them; I do not deny or disown them.”</span> (p 163)<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">An
Aristotelian perspective <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It is clear
from the passage quoted at the beginning of this article that Aristotle thought
it inconceivable that a person could doubt his or her own existence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">However, Vipassana’s
emphasis on equanimity as a desirable frame of mind has much in common with
Aristotle’s view of temperance as a virtue. An equanimous person could be
expected to be temperate in emotional expression – to be able to avoid
excessive anger, fear etc. The techniques involved are also similar in respect
of the emphasis placed on practice of the relevant frame of mind and associated
behaviors.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As I see
it, one possible difference between an equanimous person and a temperate person
is that the latter would be less inclined to accept that there should be no
craving. In accordance with Aristotle’s teaching, a temperate person could
exercise his practical wisdom to crave the things he ought, to the extent he
ought, as he ought, and when he ought. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Nevertheless,
I have not found the practice of Vipassana meditation to be an obstacle to exercising
practical wisdom to pursue personal goals enthusiastically. When I meditate
conscientiously early in the morning that tends to promote clarity of thinking
which serves me well later in the day. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">The
inner game<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">How is it
that a person who lacks peace of mind (equanimity) can learn to observe
troubling sensations and thoughts with equanimity? How can it be possible to
adopt a frame of mind which requires the exercise of a quality that you
perceive yourself to lack? It seems to me that the people who do such things
must be drawing on inner resources that they didn’t fully realize that they
had.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Tim
Gallwey, the inner game guru, has helped many people to draw upon resources
that they didn’t realize they had. Gallwey is recognized as a pioneer of sports
psychology, and is the author of books applying inner game concepts to a range
of activities including tennis, golf, work, and stress management. The aim of
the inner game is to improve the internal dialogue that people carry around
with them. For example, if an individual’s internal dialogue is infected by
self-doubt, they can improve their performance in sport by observing what
happens when they trust their unconscious minds to coordinate their muscles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The general
pattern of the inner game is to recognize that performance is being adversely
affected by mental interference associated with false beliefs about one’s self –
the lack of a desired quality – and then to observe what happens when that
quality is expressed. People improve their performance as they discover
qualities, or inner resources, that they didn’t know they had. (Readers who want to know more about Tim
Gallwey’s inner game approach may be interested to listen to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/tim-gallwey-my-inner-game-guru/id1588167230?i=1000604429987">a
podcast</a> I have prepared.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The point that needs to be emphasized is that if we assert that we are <i>inherently</i>
lacking in desired qualities (wisdom, temperance, integrity, courage,
self-trust etc.) we are fooling ourselves. We all have potential to demonstrate
qualities that we perceive to be lacking by asking ourselves what we would be
thinking or doing if we believed that we possessed those qualities to a greater
extent than at present. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>So, I ask
myself: <i>If I was a wiser person, what would I be thinking right now?</i> I
am thinking that it would be wise to end this now and leave readers to
contemplate their answers to that question. </p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-12173970919150815922023-04-10T20:46:00.001+10:002023-04-11T07:13:40.368+10:00Can cottage industries exist in a machine age?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHLSeVw8_jgkICIdTKc8yY2M5r-LOBOq9hsnOdbjINGsajvf0JhejBRIX3fX5koVxrwHiLMWT5j50ejzkuLs9AigsAlL6xzm0Pz64M8i0r-xvTrfxRExQv6GxWCxtw1Aw-vsaYu0MK84G4ASEBXwb4IJ0n7r21bREitra1bPLvK0s3RFaDsuFGJWs/s4099/hand%20weaving%20carpet%20Agra.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3647" data-original-width="4099" height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHLSeVw8_jgkICIdTKc8yY2M5r-LOBOq9hsnOdbjINGsajvf0JhejBRIX3fX5koVxrwHiLMWT5j50ejzkuLs9AigsAlL6xzm0Pz64M8i0r-xvTrfxRExQv6GxWCxtw1Aw-vsaYu0MK84G4ASEBXwb4IJ0n7r21bREitra1bPLvK0s3RFaDsuFGJWs/w400-h356/hand%20weaving%20carpet%20Agra.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /> J C
Kumarappa posed that question his book, <i>Economy of Permanence,</i> which was
first published in 1945. He argued that in the final analysis “values and
valuation” would determine the direction to be taken. He viewed the choice
between cottage industry and large-scale production as an ethical choice as to
which type of economy would be preferable. He associated cottage industry with “permanence
and non-violence”, and large-scale production with “transience and violence”.<p></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3k1I56jfpQMO8juA0oIvlwZjjJM5mDiFtv_RKsAaMFm1zj9n_eVb2-ihYxCTUhGnk6zCgocosLfdYtgdYWk2_Zp2-Q1Fz3ov5YSqEO9MpGsi8OGhafwavhuDUQ5d_uxzOdLCG3SqWN8G4q_taxZE96My2WmSXnaObbgqq2NuIYwh2g26zteCYq-0/s226/kumarappa.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="226" data-original-width="150" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3k1I56jfpQMO8juA0oIvlwZjjJM5mDiFtv_RKsAaMFm1zj9n_eVb2-ihYxCTUhGnk6zCgocosLfdYtgdYWk2_Zp2-Q1Fz3ov5YSqEO9MpGsi8OGhafwavhuDUQ5d_uxzOdLCG3SqWN8G4q_taxZE96My2WmSXnaObbgqq2NuIYwh2g26zteCYq-0/w133-h200/kumarappa.jpg" width="133" /></a></div><br />Kumarappa has
been described as an ecological economist. He was a follower of Mahatma Gandhi,
who wrote a foreword to his book.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some of
Kumarappa’s views seem to have been largely a product of the context in which
he lived, but others resonate more broadly. Similar views have been taken up by
many affluent consumers in high-income countries. In what follows, I will
discuss first why Kumarappa associated large-scale production with violence
before considering why he associated it with transience.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Violence<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Kumarappa
recognizes the potential for specialization and market transactions to be mutually
beneficial for the people involved. On that basis, readers might expect him to
view wealth accumulation via specialization, trade, and market competition to
be a peaceful process. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">However,
Kumarappa argues that large-scale production prompted industrialized countries
to hold other countries in political subjection to obtain materials. He also
suggests that large-scale production “is the root cause of wars”. He claims that
machines must make full use of productive capacity, rather meet market demand.
That results in surplus production. Wars are started to capture markets. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I see
several problems with that line of reasoning, but I will only focus on the most
obvious one here. Kumarappa seems to assume that manufacturers have control of
armies that can be used to ensure access to raw materials and markets. That
seems to me to be a strange assumption to make, but I can understand why an Indian
economist might see things differently in the light of the history of British
colonial rule. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Transience<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Kumarappa
argues that an economy based on large-scale production is built on the “quicksands”
of “profit, price, purchasing power, and foreign trade”. He suggests that material
standards of value and personal feelings of consumers cannot have “any degree
of permanence” because people change and are perishable. For permanence to be
achieved, the standard of value must be objective and controlled by ideals that
have enduring qualities. He claims that civilization had endured in China and
India because it was based on altruistic and objective values.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The value that Kumarappa places on permanence may require
explanation because Hinduism, the dominant religion in India, shares with
Buddhism the doctrine that everything is in a constant state of change.
Kumarappa was a Christian, but I don’t think that explains as much as his
reverence for what he describes as “the secret of nature’s permanency”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was referring to ecological factors which “function
in close cooperation to maintain the continuity of life”. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kumarappa was particularly concerned about the impact that
the products of large-scale production were having on traditional village life.
He argues:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“We are often led away by low money prices ignoring the
great gashes in our economic and social organisation made by such short-sighted
choice of ours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>… Money value blinds the
vision to a long range social view, so that the wielder of the axe fells the
branch on which he is standing”. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kumarappa argues that moral values are attached to every
article sold in the market. We should not ignore such values and say “business
is business”. Accordingly, anyone who enters into a commercial transaction has
a grave responsibility to ensure that she does not become party to
circumstances that she would not consciously support. He believed that the
consumer is only able to bring her scale of values into play when goods are
made locally.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Different views of progress<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kumarappa had a very different view of economic growth than
is presented in my book, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Progress-Flourishing-Winton-Russell/dp/0761872663">Freedom,
Progress, and Human Flourishing</a></i>. It may be worthwhile to try to
pinpoint the reasons for this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t think Kumarappa would have any problems with my
definition of progress as the growth of opportunities to obtain the basic goods
of a flourishing human. He would probably agree, more or less, with my list of
the basic goods – wise and well-informed self-direction, health and longevity,
positive relationships with others, living in harmony with nature, and
psychological well-being. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kumarappa would probably begin to object at the point where
I assert that economic growth counts as progress to the extent that people
aspire to have the goods that it offers. He might suggest that people who aspire
to have those goods are mistaken because they could flourish to a greater
extent by maintaining a simple lifestyle. The more powerful argument he would
offer is the one presented above - that the products of new technology are
disruptive to existing economic and social organisation. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would respond by referring to what Deirdre McCloskey has
referred to as the bourgeois deal. People in industrialised countries have been
willing to accept the possibility that the introduction of new technologies
might disrupt their lives because they have good reasons to expect that they,
and future generations, are likely to benefit from the expansion of
opportunities that it provides.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If that line of argument had been presented to <span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">J C Kumarappa in 1945 I imagine he
would have viewed it as “pie in the sky”. I am less sure that he would hold the
same view today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Cottage
industry <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I don’t know
much about the economic health of cottage industry in Inda today, but it does continue
to exist. The photo shown at the top of this article was taken at Kalra’s
Cottage Industry in Agra, when I visited there last year. (By the way, the
service offered was excellent. The hand-knotted floor rug I purchased was delivered
to my home in Australia without any problems, and in perfect condition.) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">My point is
that as their material standard of living rises, many people are willing to pay
more for high quality products of cottage industries than for mass produced
items. Many people also become increasingly concerned about such things as the levels
of remuneration of workers who produce the products that they buy and potential
environmental damage of production methods. People tend to pay greater
attention to such concerns when they feel that they can more readily afford to
do so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com0