Hate speech?

Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier into an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary.

and

A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.

                                                                                -- Ernesto "Che" Guevara

Question: Is this hate speech? Is wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt hate speech?

Libertarianism

Libertarianism is subject to a great deal of criticism from both progressive and conservative sources. Much of this criticism is directed at an abstract conception of what libertarianism is assumed to be, and as a consequence results in a fair amount of strawman arguments that provide little benefit. If one identifies as libertarian, he can expect to be told what he believes, usually along the lines of open borders, eliminating the social safety net, legalizing drugs, allowing persons to own artillery pieces, etc. These perceptions are caricatures of what libertarians are supposed to believe, and provide little insight into why someone might consider himself to be a libertarian, or what he might actually believe and why.

It is a virtual certainty that the spectrum of beliefs and ideas held by libertarians is very wide, as are the processes by which different individuals come to embrace libertarian values. It is not the case that all libertarians begin with the premise that all people should be free to do want they want, have no social obligations other than those that they adopt voluntarily, and others should have to fend for themselves. For many people libertarianism is something that they adopt through reason, rather than something they default to because of insular attitudes.

One basis of libertarian thought begins with the observation that consequences are unavoidable, and in most cases, natural. There are certain natural consequences that obtain from actions and decisions, apart from any abstract concerns such as fairness, equality or compassion. Nature does have a significant influence on human affairs, at all times and in all places, and this cannot be undone by ideology, wishful thinking, or emotionally appealing doctrines that are the modern descendants of magic. There are many phenomena that are simply part of the real world, i.e. facts. Such phenomena include the concept that specific expertise produces, on average, more efficiency that generalized competence, or that a businessman who regularly defrauds his customers will develop an unfavorable reputation, or that infants must be cared for during the first years of their lives. Because of this, libertarian thought, at least a particular version of it, makes a distinction between design and prescription. Designers must necessarily consider the processes and natural phenomena by which actions produce reactions, stimuli produce responses, and decisions result in outcomes, often unintended, unexpected and unwelcome. Prescribers, on the other hand, simply decree that outcome occur, and try to will it into happening despite human nature, history or the natural influences that affect human affairs. Prescribers tend to view the relationships between wants and outcomes the same way young children do and, not giving significant regard to the natural forces that intervene between the two, must inevitably resort to the use of force.

Aversion to prescriptive solutions for human problems is not only a reaction to the prospect of force and coercion that such solutions imply, but also results from historical evidence that such attempts do not work. They leave the vast majority of people worse off. The rejection of the use of force as the basis of producing particular outcomes is inherently libertarian. The libertarian aspect is not necessarily the rejection of the intended outcome, but rejection of the ineffective, dehumanizing and ultimately destructive means of attaining it.

The rejection of the use of force does not itself make for a libertarian world-view. As mentioned above, the libertarian understands that natural phenomena influence outcomes. There are two ways to view these phenomena, pessimistically or optimistically. The pessimistic view is that nature is essentially degenerative, that left on their own things will only get worse. The optimistic view is that nature, whether one wishes to consider it divine natural law, or a cosmic accident, contains within it the essentials of human progress and ultimately human happiness. Human choices affect whether nature allows humans to thrive, or decline. A libertarian view is the optimistic one, and moreover it is the constellation of individual human choices that result in human flourishing. This helps explain the libertarian affinity for individualism. Each individual has unique talents, needs, biases and opportunities that permit him or her, with sufficient liberty, to not only see to their own happiness, but to contribute to the general welfare. A libertarian view is that people are generally good, that on average, they do care about others, and that it is individual liberty, rather than social homogenization, that allows individuals and their wider societies to flourish. Libertarians understand that societies cannot prescribe the works of Beethoven, or the insights of Newton, or the creativity of Shakespeare. These are all the results of individual attributes that have to be allowed to flourish. The libertarian understands that these attributes, and these remarkable people, are part of nature and are much more likely to produce human flourishing and human happiness if they are given the liberty to do so.

Many libertarians do not reject, as they are often accused of doing, social responsibility. They understand that people should be respected regardless if their circumstances, and should not have to suffer from neglect. Libertarians however recognize that dependency not only results from vulnerability, it also creates it. Libertarians recognize that, just as the circumstances of those in need vary significantly, so do the appropriate responses to those needs. For this reason, libertarians are disposed to the notion of subsidiarity, that social responsibilities should be fulfilled at the lowest level of social organization possible. Many libertarians do not believe that there is no social responsibility to those in need, but recognize that half-baked and well-meaning programs imposed by detached authority are prone to unintended consequences that do more harm than good. As with the good of society in general, the welfare of the needy is best served, even of imperfectly, where individual rights and liberty flourish.

Libertarians generally recognize that human circumstances are determined largely by interactions between people and their environment. As a result, circumstances vary, and will always vary between different regions and different groups of people. The best way to accommodate these differences is to allow enough liberty for people to adapt, to do what is most beneficial in response to discrete and particular circumstances, rather than some some grand vision imposed by remote functionaries.

Libertarians believe what they do, because those beliefs are largely consistent with the nature of the world, and the dignity of the people within it.

The Vulnerable

There is a common claim in contemporary social and policy advocacy, and that is that society must look after "the most vulnerable" among us. It is an attractive proposition, loaded with compassion, and pathos, as well as proclaiming the selfless virtue of the declarant. The vulnerable, of course are due consideration, and compassion and protection, so those that stand up for the vulnerable risk little by their advocacy. There is however one trait that vulnerable people share that creates a dilemma for their protectors: people who are dependent are vulnerable. If nothing else, dependent people people are vulnerable to the loss of whatever it is that they are dependent on. True advocacy for the vulnerable therefore requires a vigorous opposition to dependency. It is simply inconsistent that a person or group of people be presented as vulnerable, with a subsequent demand that this vulnerability be addressed by programs that never go away because the vulnerable are thereby made moreso by self-perpetuating dependence.

Expenses in health care

When healthcare policy makers contemplate what makes healthcare expensive, they may do well to ask a related but less obvious question: what makes healthcare policy so expensive? A healthcare system of course pays both for healthcare and the added policy costs. In assessing the costs of healthcare policy, a few simple observations come readily to mind:

1.) Ideology is expensive. Certain types of reformers think that the healthcare system must not only address the provision of healthcare services, it must also "send a message" or provide symbolic declaration of some cultural value or other. These ideological accessories cost money.

2.) Unrealistic expectations are expensive. It is a fallacy that a possible outcome is achievable, no matter how unlikely, if only sufficient resources are spent to attain them. Policies that view particular outcomes from the perspective of entitlements perpetuate this fallacy, and it wastes a lot of money.

3.) Sentiment is expensive. When outcomes are assessed against their ability to cause emotional distress, rather than the practical likelihood of achieving them, expenditure decisions become emotional, irrational, and profligate.

4.) Corruption is expensive. The vast amounts of money spent on healthcare engender innumerable opportunities for fraud, misuse, rent-seeking and graft. This only seems to become apparent after the fact, despite the fact that it is inherent in human nature.

5.) Ignorance is expensive. Is it more expensive for an airline to have its aircraft engines maintained by trained mechanics or by people who have a few ideas about how they think the engines should operate? The difficulty with healthcare policy is there is practically no one with the depth and breadth of knowledge to maintain and design global improvement for such a complex, intricate, and expansive system, yet this seems to be no impediment to policy makers who are self-sure that they know the one or two things to change to produce a system that is fair, inexpensive, innovative, high quality, accessible, compassionate, etc, etc.

Limited politics

It is a fundamental principle of controls engineering that the number of outputs for a particular system that can be controlled independently can be no greater than the number of inputs. For example, in an airplane, the speed and rate of descent can be controlled, within limits, with the combination of the elevator position and the throttle. If the only control input available to the pilot is the elevator position, he can still control the speed and rate of climb or descent, but cannot control them independently. This is easily understood mathematically: if the control inputs are considered unknowns, and the relationships between the inputs and various outputs can be expressed as mathematical equations, the number of the number of inputs determines the number of outputs that can be changed independently. If there are three inputs and four outputs, one of the outputs will be dependent on the values of the other three. We will have four equations in three unknowns. The value of that fourth output may be something undesirable; it may be detrimental, or wasteful or expensive. For example, in the case of an airplane, the fourth output may be speed, which may exceed teh design envelope of the aircraft, etc.

The key point from the foregoing is that the number of outcomes that can be independently controlled depends on the number of inputs. If a system, mechanical, economic, political or whatever has more possible outcomes than the number of inputs that can be controlled, those excess outputs cannot be controlled. They may be, in the general case, unintended consequences.

In the political realm, mediocre politicians and policy makers often resort to only 3 inputs: banning things, mandating things and spending money. T

he number of outcomes affected by particular political fixes nearly always exceeds the three inputs to whi politicians an policy makers resort, and these are almost always unintended consequences. Ban something, and black markets will arise, and invite corruption. It will lead people to seek substitutes for the banned item that may be more detrimental. Mandate something, and people will devise schemes to feign compliance, and engender corruption, will a consequent skepticism regarding respect for the law and civil authority. Spend money on a problem, and opportunists will devise schemes to harvest the allocated funds, rent seekers and special interests will siphon what they feel they are entitled to, and again, engender corruption and skepticism regarding the law and civil authority. If you have policy makers whose only response to a problem is banning, mandating and spending, there is a high likelihood that corruption will result somewhere along the way.

If policy makers cannot think of a single solution to a problem that does not involve banning, mandating or spending money on something, they should probably not be policy makers.

Hate Speech III

One of the prominent characteristics of the contemporary notion of hate speech is that it is established by proclamation. Something is not shown to be hate speech, or even argued to be hate speech; it is simply deemed to be such by a party to argument. This exposes one of the inherent weakness in the whole idea of hate speech: it has no standards, or even substance behind the allegation.

Because the assertion of "hate speech," unsupported by relevant argument, is substance-free, its deployment in discourse has the effect of shifting the subject from the issue at hand to the discussants. It is means of trying to prevail tactically, when substance will not carry a position. In effect, it is a form of abdication from the validity of one's position to an attack on the character of another.

The mere allegation of "hate speech," is meant to poison rather than persuade. It is a tactic that is deployed to cover a paucity of thought, and lack of both reason and conviction. If speech truly is hateful, it should give its opponent ample substantive grounds upon which to attack it, without ever mentioning the term "hate speech." The allegation of hate speech raises suspicion that the person making it has no valid argument, or is incapable of making one.

Hate Speech II

One of the consequences of the term"hate speech" being ambiguous and inexact is that it is used interchangeably with other types of speech. Two common examples are offensive speech and derogatory or disparaging speech.

Offensive speech is not necessarily hate speech for the simple fact that it is quite possible to be offensive without being hateful. It is possible, in fact to be offensive without knowing it, and towards people for whom one otherwise holds great affection. Offense is quite subjective and whether particular speech or particular words are offensive depends almost entirely on context. Any speech is potentially offensive to someone, and subjective offense should not deprive wider and less sensitive audiences of the benefits such speech may provide. Speech can be offensive for any number of reasons; it may be insulting, disrespectful, misleading, profane, ill-mannered, careless, or indiscreet. These do not necessarily diminish the value such speech may have, and are are not necessarily hateful. Persons who disagree on a subject are quite likely to find those competing views offensive. Speech that is part of rigorous debate, i.e. speech that is potentially most useful in addressing social. political, economic and philosophical problems is therefore prone to offensiveness, and is therefore the type of speech that should be most readily tolerated and protected. Offensive speech is necessarily free speech, and to the extent that speech is considered "hateful" because it is offensive, it too is free speech.

Derogatory or disparaging speech is often reflexively referred to as hate speed because the use of a disparaging term suggests animus. Thus, for example, a factually correct statement that a person belongs to a particular racial group may be taken as hate speech if the racial group is identified with a racial slur. Even in unambiguous cases however, the use of a slur is a species of offensive speech, not a separate category of speech that warrants special treatment because of its uniqueness. The use of a slurs is an inelegant and ill-mannered declaration regarding the attitude of the speaker, rather than a a concise way of disclosing an otherwise unappreciated and damaging fact about a group. To say "Elton John is a homosexual" is a rather rather straightforward, and presumably non-controversial statement of a widely known fact. To say "Elton John is a fag" discloses nothing new about the subject of the sentence but does reveal the attitude of the speaker. It is a shorthand way of saying "Elton John is a homosexual and I have negative attitudes toward homosexuals." The use of a slur is  the confession of the speaker regarding his own attitudes, and such confessions are the basis of free speech. To the extent that a slur expresses a hateful attitude toward a particular individual or group, it is nonetheless free speech.

There are other difficulties encountered when labeling speech as "hate" when it is based on that speech being disparaging or derogatory. In keeping with the notion of slurs, one realizes that slurs are a form of slang; the meaning is fluid and the derogatory nature can be hidden by clever speakers using double entendre, puns and other rhetorical devices. What constitutes a slur depends on context and in contemporary usage, the characteristics of the speaker. This is evident in the spectrum of racial and sexual slurs that are used in certain types of music. Some words, even if not considered obvious slurs are disfavored in common discourse, even though they were once regarded as proper language, such as the the term "colored."

Other derogatory speech is not obviously hateful, although its context makes clear the derogatory intent. One such example is the frequent references to George W. Bush as a "cowboy." The term Cowboy is not generally regarded as derogatory or offensive, and its use in reference to the 43rd President does not convey a sense of hatred toward cowboys or a particular loathing of the Mr. Bush. It does however express a derogatory opinion of certain policy and actions, without being "hate speech." Derogatory speech is not necessarily hate speech.

Hate Speech

Much of the discourse about the First Amendment concerns the notion of "hate speech." If fact, much of the discourse about discourse concerns hate speech, and so we have internet companies monitoring and censoring that has some perceived nexus with that term. We hear proclamations that "hate speech is not free speech," and other such gaseous notions without a firm concept of what is and is not "hate speech."

"Hate speech" is a nebulous term that has no legal validity. It has no validity because it is vague, and thus cannot serve as a practical discriminant between what is proper and what is not. The adjective "hate" carries a connotation of being undesirable, but whether this is true or not depends on context. Is it okay to hate genocide, or starvation, or cancer?  Or does the concept of hate speech only become operational when the object of it is an approved class? Consider the three statements:

John Wayne Gacy was a homosexual.

Alan Turing was a homosexual.

Rush Limbaugh is a homosexual.

Are any of these hate speech? Is the first one? And if it is, is the object of the hatred John Wayne Gacy or homosexuals? Is it hate speech in some contexts and not others? Is it hate speech if it's true?
Is it possible for the first statement to be hate speech but not the second? Is the third statement libelous if it is not true? Can something be hate speech if it is not libelous if untrue?

Are the statements:

I hate John Wayne Gacy

I hate Rush Limbaugh

hate speech? They have the word "hate" right there in them! Are these proscribed by "hate speech" principles? Current usage seems to suggest that hate speech only applies to groups, not individuals, and is concerned with potential animus toward those groups, rather than any factual observation about them.

The meaning of hate, and indeed the nature of hate, is not precise enough to be of legal significance. Hate is an emotion, and as with other emotions is subjective. The exact same thought may be motivated by hatred or be completely unrelated to it. The substance of a statement does not conclusively establish its motivation.

Socialism and risk

Some time ago I ran across a video of Ben Shapiro responding to questions by a professed socialist. The discussion involved a hypothetical pencil factory, and the socialist asserted that the workers should distribute the profits and “own the benefits of their labor.” Shapiro responded that they get the benefits of their labor in the form of wages. The socialist countered that there was a disparity in bargaining power, then made the crucial claim that “without labor, all you have is a factory full of wood, graphite, yellow paint and aluminum.”

This last point is very illuminating. It apparently did not occur to the socialist to ask the question “where did the materials to make pencils come from? Why are they in the factory in the first place?” Nor did he seem aware of the possibility of the workers opening their own pencil factory and becoming owners themselves. This helps illustrate several key points regarding capital, risk, property, government, compensation and what nobody.really refers to a “rents.”

1.) There was risk involved in starting the pencil factory. Whoever undertook to procure a factory, buy the raw materials and hire a work force took risks: that he might not be able to obtain the raw materials at a reasonable price; that someone would open a competing pencil factory across the street; that the demand for pencils might decrease; that his business might be regulated out of profitability, etc. The owner took these risks for the possibility of economic return. He put capital at risk, and if no one were willing to do so, there would be no need for the labor of the factory’s employees. Pension funds, venture capitalists, small business owners seek to profit from the same principle: there is value in reasonable risk-taking, without which there would be essentially no progress. Since progress is concerned with future conditions and the future is unavoidably uncertain, progress involves risk; no risk, no progress. Do not allow people to profit from assuming risk; no progress.

2.) The government plays a role in risk. It can provide incentives for incurring risk, such as allowing deductions for investment losses, or it can coerce people into taking risk, by for example taxing capital that is not invested. The government also plays a role in exacerbating risk (e.g. regime uncertainty) and mitigating it (e.g. protecting property rights.)

3.) The concept of property gives a good illustration of the interaction between capital, investment risk and government. Farmland can either be cultivated or left in its natural state. In order to make farmland productive, resources, including labor, must be expended on it with a degree of uncertainty that such resources will be lost. There will be uncertainty regarding weather, losses due to pests and disease, collapse in market prices, etc. One remote risk is that after the land has been fertilized, planted, irrigated, weeded etc. some one will move onto the land and harvest the crops for his own benefit. We are not usually concerned about this risk because the government protects property rights. The essence of property is the right to exclude others from it. If there were no such concept of property, the person who undertakes to cultivate, plant and tend the land would have considerably less incentive to do so; the concept of private property mitigates certain risks and therefore, as above tends to promote progress. Land owners, secure in their property interest have incentives to advance the capacity of their land to produce, and therefore to develop improved processes, the very essence of progress. The government by protecting property rights mitigates certain risks. The same applies to enforcement of contracts.

4.) Markets are effective mechanisms for matching risk taking with results of such risk taking. Individual market participants are much more efficient at matching economic opportunities with risk tolerances than are government functionaries.

5.) People may be compensated both for their labor, and for their adoption of risk. The notion that risk is an economic entity is illustrated by the existence of insurance, in which people are willing to pay to lessen their risk of particular perils. Appropriating the property of someone who acquires it through accepting risk has no greater legitimacy than appropriating the property of laborers. However, there is in fact wealth that is derived in excess of the risks incurred or labor expended. If the government agreed to make good the losses of a hedge fund, guaranteeing them risk-free investments, but that hedge fund was allowed to keep any profits it made, it might be reasonably argued that something was off-kilter. This is the classic unfairness of socializing risks and privatizing profits. A similar concept seems to affect people’s views of inheritance and windfall taxes, although in the case of the former, there is a philosophical issue regarding the right of decedents to provide for their heirs. In the abstract, at least, it seems to be non-controversial to “distribute” rents, i.e. that wealth that devolves upon a person with little or no labor, exchange for value, effort or risk. 

Can we prevent mass killings?

Highly publicized shootings in mosques, synagogues, high schools and work places have naturally led to questions of whether there is any way to end these events. The title of this essay was deliberately chosen. It intentionally was not titled "Can we end mass shootings?" The answer to that specific question is "probably not," since it is conceivable, and even likely that highly motivated and clever perpetrators would eventually be able to defeat any systems and strategies meant to deter them. this essay is also not limited to shootings, since there are other methods of mass killing, e.g. ramming with automobiles, arson, poison gas, stabbing, bombing, etc, that are logically of as much concern as killings perpetrated with a firearm. One particularly illustrative case is that of Eliot Rodger, who killed six people near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2014. Of the people whom he killed, he shot 3 and stabbed three to death. It makes no logical sense to parse the killings by the weapon used.

In addressing the question, it may helpful to divide the motives of shooters into two simple categories, those in which specific people were the planned targets, and those in which they were not. A mafia hit, for example would fall into the first category, as would a killing seeking revenge on a particular individual. These are occasionally mass casualty events, as when a former spouse kills his or her family. In general, those killings, multiple casualty or otherwise, that involve a specific target seem easier to understand, because there is at least a nexus between the victim and the perpetrators perceived grievance.

The second category, those killings that do not involve a specific target may themselves be subdivided into two classes: those in which the killings are the direct goal of the perpetrator's act, e.g. a bank robber killing strangers during his get-away, and those in which the killing of strangers is an end in itself. This latter category includes acts of terrorism and most school shootings, and the type that seems to cause the most popular angst. These seem to be, to degree irrational or capricious. The ultimate goal of such acts is not the neutralization of the victims, but the psychological response that the wider community will have to the killing. In essence, these mass killings are a malignant form of communication. What is intended to be communicated is the disdain, loathing, and grievance that the killer feels toward amorphous groups. Adam Lanza, the Newtown school shooter, was quite explicit that he loathed humanity in general.

The observation that the more vexing type of mass killing is a form of communication is useful, because often it is not the first time that the perpetrators have attempted to communicate their psychological motives. They leave social media trails, videos, manifestos, etc. They undergo psychiatric treatment, and describe fantasies that others may find disturbing. In other words, they raise red flags. The question thus becomes, are these red flags specific enough to identify and intervene before killers shoot, burn, bomb, etc. innocent strangers.

Many of the pre-event communications of killers such as Eliot Rodger, and the Columbine killers, contain similar characteristics, the most obvious being an explicit hatred of people that the killer does not even know. When we consider the capabilities of artificial intelligence, which at base is simple a sophisticated and objective method of finding patterns, it seems plausible that we can in fact identify traits associated with psychopaths and mass killers. Algorithms target advertising based on social media entries, create implicit psychological profiles of consumers, citizens, potential voters etc., and do so with reasonable effectiveness. The question then arises whether such technologies could be used to examine a person's writings, psychological history, family history, discipline history, social profile, etc., to assess the risk of that person becoming a mass killer.

Even if it were practical to use personal data to assemble risk profiles for individuals, (and given the similarities between the pre-killing communications of known mass killers, it seems that there would be a reasonable degree of sensitivity if not specificity), the uncomfortable issue of profiling arises. What we would be doing in effect is profiling people to assess their risk of committing mass murder. This creates social, political, moral and ethical issues. Even if we could identify potential killers before they act, there may be a heavy price in doing so. It would seem, at least to a first approximation that we can prevent some mass killings by identifying potential killers before they act, but are afraid to let the profiling genie out of the bottle. Thus we focus on guns, and religion and violent video games, etc. There is a price we are reluctant to pay, so we console ourselves with cosmetic, but ineffective alternatives.

Demonization

A post below expresses the observation that identity politics is behind most of history's great atrocities. The Holocaust, Trail of Tears, Cambodian Killing Fields, Armenian Genocide, Holodomor, Rwandan Genocide, etc. had their genesis in the notion that it was legitimate to demonize certain groups and therefore kill them. It is discouraging therefore, in the aftermath of a mass shooting, to find political opportunists advocating the demonization of others; the NRA, civil libertarians, Republicans, firearm owners etc. It is puzzling how the irony of the argument seems to evade its proponents, that demonization of others is consistent with the logic and motives of the shooters. It takes a measure of hatred to kill strangers for indiosyncratic grievances and it likewise takes a measure of hatred to demonize strangers because of their beliefs and political views.

It should be obvious that the way to address a crime in a grieving community is not to further divide that community and feed us-versus-them antagonism. Appeals to hatred are not effective means of conciliation, nor of understanding tragedy.

To be certain, when one confronts a political opponent in a restaurant, the confrontation is directed at demonizing the person, not any ideas they may have or interests they support; one does not publish the addresses of ideas in hopes that mobs will harass them, nor try to get ideas fired from their jobs These are personal affronts directed toward persons, not ideas. These tactics are tactics of demonization and the lineage of this tactic is an unhappy, and frankly evil one. Demonization must be recognized for what it is: targeted hatred. It should be called out and deligitimized as a political tactic.

Prediction

In 20 years it will be generally accepted that the business models of Google and Facebook were unethical from the outset.

Stability and Dissent

Some facts about the world we live in are so obvious that we do not notice them, and consequently do not contemplate their implications. One such fact is that all stable systems have process that oppose change; i.e. that tend to return the systems to states of equilibrium when perturbed. This is true of all types of systems: economic, chemical, social, biological, physical, etc. Stable systems remain so even of the point of equilibrium changes, because the restorative process remain effective. One consequence of this fact is that systems for which the restoring effect is eliminated tend to become unstable, and an area where this is particularly dangerous is in political systems.

Regimes, typically of authoritarian or dictatorial inclination, that suppress any form of opposition or dissent become unstable and eventually fail. This is readily observed in history, which gives examples of the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, the Third Reich, etc. Political dissent is a mechanism that tends to restore perturbations in political systems, and thus act to stabilize them. This does not mean that political methods of persuasion cannot be used to change the points of equilibrium, for example from more conservative to more progressive and vice versa, but to assert that the system will tend to excess and instability in the absence of an effective method of dissent. Dissenting views, even if highly unfavored in particular eras are likely to contain elements of wisdom that are crucial to long term survival of effective polities.

A similar concept applies not only to political systems but to individual ideologues. The hard-liners,, the Pol-Pots, and Robespierres, and Che Guevaras and Trotskys are the ones who come to bad ends, easily being outmaneuvered by more pragmatic rivals. Fanatacism does not lend itself well to stability, and the inability to accommodate dissent is a regularly fatal flaw in political movements.

Skepticism and scientific validity

An Australian scientist recently may the following comments regarding the crisis in scientific publishing:

Financial and career incentives keep researchers on a treadmill, churning out papers.
We cannot know how many of the 1.6 million or so papers now added every year to the Web of Science database are flawed as a consequence...

What this quote highlights is the skewing of scientific research and, not trivially, scientific conclusions by funding opportunities, access to publication and career considerations unrelated to the underlying science. This phenomenon is observed across all scientific fields including medical research, climate science, biological sciences etc. The undesired consequences of this include popular adoption of shabby science and political lobbies for preferred narratives.

The recent past provides many examples of sloppy and non-rigorous science that resulted in significant consequences and which proved to be ultimately wrong. Silicone breast implants were associated with development of lupus, causing the bankruptcy of Dow Corning, and subsequently the scientific link was disproven. Similarly, the McMartin preschool case involved the pseudoscience of "recovered memories" that resulted in criminal convictions that were based on bogus and unscrupulous "science."

What can be said about the flawed science mentioned above is that it's adoption occurs in the setting of insufficient scientific rigor. Specifically, claims are presented as scientific without being subjected to rigorous skepticism and challenge. This is especially obvious with regard to climate science. The state of the science right now is analogous to defenses of the geocentric universe model. Proponents of that erroneous belief, backed by ecclesiastical authorities, began proposing all manner of implausible tweaks to the theory in order to maintain the underlying thesis. Global warming advocates, when confronted with new data that does not conform to previous theory are now proposing patches and sub theories much like geocentric universe proponents proposed the theory of epicycles. The discipline of climate science suffers significantly from a mis-allocation of financial and political resources to only one side of the debate, and totally nonscientific treatment of dissenting views. Simply stated, the current state of climate science life lacks sufficient rigor to be considered valid.

This is not to say that global warming proponents cannot be correct. Is to point out that the basis for their claims is not scientific. The nonsense regarding "scientific consensus" is not legitimate. The "scientific consensus" was previously that beta blockers were contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure. This consensus was proven wrong. One can only wonder the current state of our understanding if skeptics of the then accepted consensus had been subjected to the same bullying, deplatforming and professional sanctions currently encountered by climate change skeptics.

Activism and seriousness.

Contemporary public discourse is remarkable for one paradoxical type of participant. This is the grimly unserious ideologue, the fairweather fanatic. Many of the most vocal activists are notable both for their unseriousness and their unawareness of it. This is easily seen, for example, with regard to "climate change." Whatever one may think of the issues or merits of a particular claim one cannot help but notice how unserious climate change activists are. If they were serious, they would support actual science pertaining to the subject. Instead they promote and refer to scientific-sounding claims that are not scientific. Actual science would not seek to censor conflicting views from scientific publications. This is not serious science. Claims of warming based on climate modeling would be self-conscious about "correction factors," and "data smoothing." There would be no reference to "consensus" as a surrogate for scientific rigor. Such conduct is not serious. Activists who do believe that the Earth faces CO2-caused climate catastrophe within the next couple of decades would not be finicky about the use of nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuels. Climate change celebrities would not jet around to media events to demonstrate how dedicated they are to the cause. This is not serious.

This same lack of seriousness is also observed in discourse regarding "toxic masculinity," "white privilege," and "cultural appropriation." None of these things are subjects that lend themselves to thoughtful discussion, and none of them are starting points for people who are serious about their views. These terms are tactical rather than descriptive. They are meant to convey information regarding the character of groups of people rather than characteristics of actual phenomena. They are introduced into public discourse not as perspectives by which to facilitate discussion, but rather are hostile devices by which to foreclose it. People who claim to feel unsafe because of the opinions of another are not serious. People who imply that words are violence are not serious. They think they are, but they are not. Equating disagreement with "hate" is not serious, nor is implying that someone is hateful by characterizing honest opinions as a phobia. The people who think that anything that hurts their feelings, or conflicts with their world-view is racist, or fill-in-the-blank phobic are unserious.

This lack of seriousness is, in essence, playacting. The modern activist thinks that there is a casting call for the eco-warrior, provided it is does not involve too much effort or inconvenience. There is an assumption that someone is needed to play the roles of the early civil rights activists who contended with actual violence, but who now may do so by merely re-tweeting a hash tag.

Comfort, affluence, and complacency makes it easy to "speak truth to power" provided that nearly everyone agrees with you. It makes it easy to pretend to be brave and virtuous about changing the world, when what it really does is to allow people to play-act roles in romantic, and historic dramas while being, at heart, unserious.

Identity politics, atrocities and humanity

The assortment of atrocities, genocide, and man-made human misery of the last 150 years has an astonishingly consistent origin. It is not difficult to come up with a  partial list of such occurrences, such as the Taiping rebellion, the Trail of Tears, both the Atlantic and Indian Ocean slave trades, the Armenian genocide, the Holodomor, the rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, the Rwandan genocide, and the Khmer Rouge killing fields. What each of these has in common is that they can trace their origins to the destructive results of identity politics. Even in situations where it is convenient to blame war and the resulting human disasters on religious belief, it is not the belief itself that matters, but the use of it to identify discrete, conflicting groups that is crucial.

It is easy to separate human beings into identifiable groups based upon racial traits, religious beliefs, political affiliations, cultural practices etc. and use these resulting groups to define the targets of mankind's more primitive and destructive instincts. This phenomenon is the result of a very basic and unjustified inversion of priorities. Simply stated, the great number of wars, persecutions, atrocities and genocide result from attitudes that we attach to subdivisions of humanity rather than to humanity itself. It seems to be rather curious that a person's dignity and basic rights do not arise from the fact of being human, but rather from being a particular type of human. There would seem to be little compelling argument in favor of the proposition that an individual person's significance, right to existence and pursuit of meaning is not assumed by the mere fact of being human, or even what that person does or does not do, but rather is a consequence of the groups to which such person is perceived to belong. Human life would seem to be much simpler, less prone to conflict and the horrors to which human ingenuity may subject it if that's simple inversion of priorities were corrected, i.e. that the fact of being human takes precedence over any subsequent categorization into discrete groups, and were to be given precedence in determining how humans treat each other.

It does not seem to be a prerequisite that humans love each other as humans in order to avoid the undeniable atrocities related to identity politics. What is determinative, and apparently not innate, is that individual human beings assume that other human beings are entitled to respect, without reference to how people identify themselves or others. Love is an emotion with its own objects and influences. Respect is more a matter of volition; we can choose how we treat each other. It would seem to be more intuitive to respect the humanity of a transgendered person, or someone with particular religious beliefs, or background without first trying to determine if such respect is either required or prohibited by taxonomy. This would seem to be especially obvious in light of the fact that whatever groups one may belong to is frequently a matter of chance. Furthermore, the number of ways that humanity may be divided is practically endless. An individual person may be a member of any number of groups that are simultaneously favored, disfavored, privileged and despised. It is difficult to imagine how such a circumstance will not result in chaos and eventual resort to violence.

It may have been reasonable in the past, when resources were scarce, and starvation, privation and poverty were the natural state of mankind, that conflict would be inevitable, and that categorizing potential rivals into easily identifiable groups had some merit. There may have been a distinct advantage belonging to a particular team. It would now seem however that humankind has reached the point that it is reasonable to question the underlying assumptions. Is there any point to discriminating between one's own group and the other when the only perceived benefit is the exercise of power or persecution? Or is it the case that humanity has advanced to the point where being part of one group in existential struggle against others is a vestigial delusion and unnecessary? Has humanity progressed to the point where the mere fact of being human is something extraordinary and to be cherished?

The problems of capitalism

The problems of capitalism arise from the same source as those of socialism: the excessive concentration of control of capital. In the case of socialism, this controlled is exercised by the government and necessarily degenerates into unhealthy reliance on ban's, mandates, and the use of force. In the case of capitalism, capital is controlled by private individuals and corporations, and when capital is excessively concentrated, those entities can engage in conduct that negates the benefits of capitalism. Specifically, they can engage in anticompetitive behavior, counteracting one of the optimizing mechanisms by which capitalism produces progress, as well as manipulating markets and thus abnormally skewing the value of commodities.

As stated previously, capitalism is on the whole much better for human progress and is socialism, which inevitably becomes tyrannical and oppressive. It is also excessively prone to corruption. This latter characteristic is also a weakness of capitalism, as it is the control of capital itself that provides the corrupting influence. Capitalism also is subject to an instability in that the concentration of control of capital facilitates even greater concentration. The best defense against this is increased access to capital in smaller, more focused entities that can exploit weaknesses that inevitably arise from the concentration of capital. This is consistent with the concept of subsidiarity as described by Distributists. T go to sleephe difficulty encountered with subsidiary arises from matters of implementation and will be discussed subsequently.

Abstractions, abortion and struggle

It is interesting to note how  progressive ideas are based upon abstractions. From micro aggressions, to cultural appropriation, equality, inclusion, etc., much progressive discourse involves concepts that are poorly defined, infused with unresolvable subjectivity, and that change from time to time and context to context. Occasionally however this penchant for abstractions wanders into realms where the abstractions conflict with actual experience and with reality. One such area is abortion.

The idea of abortion is much easier to accept when the conceptus is microscopic and has not yet developed outward characteristics of a human being. The description of an embryo as a "clump of cells" makes the idea that it is a human life seem itself like an abstraction. However, this perspective becomes less reasonable as an embryo develops into a fetus, with a heartbeat and developing organs, fingers and a face. At some point, it becomes necessary to identify what allows discrimination between a fetus and other vulnerable humans worthy of protection and dignity, such as Jewish babies carried in their mother's arms to the gas chambers at Treblinka. Upon what basis do we distinguish the death of one as a private matter, and the death of the other is a crime against humanity? A more fundamental question would be why do we bother considering crimes against humanity at all?

The regard for human life is a characteristic of civilized societies. It is the basis of human dignity and the fundamental principle by which such things as genocide, inhumane treatment, torture, and rape are condemned. The regard for human life and human dignity is not merely a convention or cultural fad. There ares element of instinct, and natural human decency that predispose humans to be repulsed by atrocity. Even the Nazis realized the necessity of hiding their crimes. There is a reason why most humans have well-defined traits of empathy and sympathy. It is part if human nature to be disturbed by the suffering of another, even a stranger. It seems intuitive that there is some point in the development of a being that will naturally become a young  human, at which is worthy of the empathy and consideration of others. While some people have argued that the determining factor is the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the mother's womb, others draw the line when the baby draws its first breath, and others have proposed that it is the point at which the fetus can feel pain. There is no universally accepted discriminant that settles the point. There is however no reasonable argument that no such point exists.

It is instructive to note that other forms of suffering evoke human feelings of empathy and cause distress to those who witness them. One circumstance that seems quite potent in eliciting empathy and sympathy is the idea of a creature, whether an animal or human, struggling to survive. Struggle resonates emotionally with healthy humans. The idea of something fighting for its life is very effective at dispelling indifference to suffering. It does seems reasonable to feel for a fetus, a developing human, from the point that it is able to struggle in an attempt to live, even though its chances of survival are very small, and even though it struggles against powers that are trying to destroy it. This is the point when abortion has departed the realm of abstraction and begins to weigh on the conscience of decent people. There is no other way to describe the destruction of something struggling to survive as anything other than violence. Struggle is not an abstraction. Reality will not tolerate antiseptic and obfuscating language of "medical procedures," and "reproductive freedom." These latter phrases are used to try and perpetuate the idea that what started as an abstract argument regarding the humanity of an embryo should continue to be treated as such even though the beating heart and unmistakably human form belies that argument. This is why ultrasound images of the fetus can dissuade mothers contemplating abortion from that decision.

It should be an uncomfortable fact that an argument for aborting a fetus just before delivery, where it is capable of struggling against the violence that will end its life, could apply to allowing newborns to die, or allowing children to be euthanized if they become disabled by accident or disease. True believers will make such arguments invoking language such as "burdens," and "hardship." Such language is uncomfortable and disquieting because there is no intellectually honest way of distinguishing it from the notion of "leben unwerten leben," or life unworthy of life, a precept of Nazi inhumanity.

It is conceded that both sides of the abortion debate have good-faith beliefs in their positions. There are however extremists on both sides, and in the case of some pro-abortion activists they have become overly exuberant in trying to expand the boundaries of their interests. One would expect that extremists can be found who have no qualms about infanticide, just as there are extremists that have no qualms about genocide. Empathy and decency are not equally distributed among human beings. One can in good faith acknowledge the pro-choice perspective, even if one disagrees with it, and argue vehemently that a society that permits babies to be killed just before or as the are being born, has gone too far. We will always have Kermit Gosnells, and those who support them, just as we will always have inhumane, obsessive and psychopathic people. We are under no obligation to accord them a presumption of good faith.

Traitism

The availability of home genetic testing kits has made it possible for large numbers of people to explore their ethnic and racial backgrounds. These tests sometimes yield surprising results, and people find that their genetic backgrounds differ from their assumed family histories and beliefs about their heritage. For example, someone who's name, family lore, and known histories are Italian are surprised to learn that their genetic origin is only 20 or 30% "Italian." While such findings may result in subjective surprise, the phenomenon itself is not unexpected. Over the centuries, persons whose remote family origins were from such places as Gaul, central or eastern Europe, northern Africa, Greece or the Middle East may have had occasion to live in Italy. While someone whose family has Italian roots that go back tens of generations understandably considers himself to be of Italian origin, that period of time is insufficient to Italicize genes that originated elsewhere. One would not expect a person who traces both parental lineages to early settlers of Alabama to be genetically Alabamian.

If one accords the theory of evolution, and origin of species credibility, one may suspect that very few people belong to a formal race at all. It may be recalled that Darwin's opus "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" had a subtitle, and this was "The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." Putting aside for the moment that the concept of a "favored race" is disquieting in contemporary discourse, the theory remains that race arises in populations that interact in a geographically defined area with a relatively stable environment over many generations. If a person is able to trace both parental lineages to such an area and environment over hundreds of generations it is reasonable to ascribe a defined "race" to that person. If, however, in such history an ancestor had origins that did not fill these conditions the concept of race makes less sense. The notion of "mixed race" would seem to be of little utility since there are virtually innumerable ways that such mixing may occur. This would seem to create problems for modern racial issues since only full siblings might be expected to have the same racial background. If all of a person's ancestors save one, through 50 generations, came from the same region of Scotland, it matters if that single exception occurred 22 as opposed to 20 generations ago, at least in terms of the fundamental idea of race.

The foregoing is significant only to the extent that one attaches significance to strict details of race, what race means and where race comes from. This however is not apparent from contemporary discussions of race. When people discuss matters of race, to distinguish the experiences of what our only colloquially referred to as races, what is actually of importance are racial traits. Barack Obama, whose mother was white, or at least appeared white, noted that if he was trying to hail a cab, he was black. This notion gets amplified when issues that are nominally racial are infused with the notion of "lived experience." If someone has significant outward racial traits, suggesting for example that they are from a far Eastern race, and their life experiences are culturally and ethnically Japanese, it may seem quite natural for them to adopt racial interests that are associated with the Japanese, even though their genetic background may include a significant amount of Swedish or German DNA. The person's subjective experience is Japanese; however what is perceived by others are traits. When we discuss treating people differently based on race, we are discussing no more than treating them differently based on racial traits. Let's call it traitism and realize that racial traits vary even among persons considered to be of the same race.

It may seem that this is a merely academic or semantic discussion, however it does have some bearing on the way racial issues are treated in contemporary discourse. For example, when certain academicians talk about racial disparities in intelligence, personality and behavior, these discussions would appear to make unjustified assumptions about how inherently isolated races are. Attempts to correlate traits with racial characteristics would seem to be exceedingly difficult given that a person of one racial background can produce fertile offspring by mating with someone from a different racial background. The genetic variation introduced by sexual reproduction makes one wonder why someone would try to detect variances in populations that are not clearly defined.

This also has implications for the epithet of "racism" since the concept of race is too malleable for serious people to use as a basis of discrimination. As mentioned, racial traits are therefore used as a surrogate, but even these traits very significantly, even among siblings. The upshot of this is that solemn conversations about race, racial disparities, and other significant issues produce diminishing returns. If one were to treat someone who has one quarter African ancestry the same as someone who has 100% African ancestry, the matter of African ancestry would seem to be rather irrelevant. This is in fact most likely the case, as the concept of human dignity and basic humanity does not require, nor even accommodate, considerations of either race or racial traits. The more that people of different racial backgrounds or with different racial traits interact and produce offspring, the more ridiculous discussion of "race" become. The lazy epithets of "racism" or "racist" would become anachronisms if people would attend first to respecting and recognizing the humanity of the people they encounter in their everyday lives regardless of race, rather than indulging in abstract doctrines and identity politics grievances.

The undesirable consequences of Twitter

Damage to a brain structure known as the amygdala can result in a spectrum of social disabilities. Conditions such as Asperger's syndrome and autism, as well as less common conditions such as Kluber-Bucy syndrome are thought to involve some degree of damage or abnormality in the amygdala. One such condition is known as social-emotional  anagnosia. This is defined as the inability to perceive facial expressions, body language and voice intonations. Since these are part of normal communication and social interaction, the person with social-emotional anagnosia has a disability with regard to these functions.

The important thing to note is that inability to perceive facial expressions, body language and voice intonations results in a disability or impairment when verbal communication is limited. One may read a book magazine article, in which careful exposition by the author adequately compensates for the lack of non-verbal communication. What follows the word "however" often serves to mitigate any confusion that may have been caused by what preceded it.

If we take limited access to verbal clarification and combine it with an inability to convey non-verbal communication, we would expect to have impaired social functioning. Yet, this is in effect what we have with Twitter. This combined with the remoteness of a keyword an Internet connection from its intended audience, and one has a platform that is skewed toward boorishness, inanity, and pseudo-courageous provocation. The format of twitter makes it easier to express the less admirable aspects of one's personality then it does those that are more praiseworthy. It is easier to express destructive and hateful views, because those require less sophisticated diction, then it is to convey more constructive and worthwhile thoughts. This is particularly so when Twitter is used as a political platform. Ironically, although Twitter is ill-suited to conveying subtleties in the emotions of the writer, it is quite good at provoking base emotional responses in its audience. This is of very little benefit in rational political discourse.

The problems of socialism

A CRITIQUE OF THE CONTEMPORARY VIEW OF SOCIALISM

The contemporary resurgence of socialist language in political discourse is curious given the unpleasant history of that doctrine. There are likely many reasons for this resurgence, some being characteristics of the ideology itself and others being characteristics of the population that adopts it. The former includes pleasant sounding aspirations such as equality and justice, and the latter consists of such things as confusion and ignorance regarding socialism's past. One would think that a working knowledge of the socialist histories of the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic, the Khmer Rouge, the Communist People's Republic of China or the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would create obstacles to adoption of socialist theories. It is likely that there is a significant measure of ignorance regarding the body count, general misery and economic failure associated with 20th century socialist regimes. However, ignorance in itself is not persuasive. Proponents of socialism promote their doctrine by defining the atrocities away from other elements of socialist beliefs. Nazi aggression and genocide, the Holodomor, the gulags, the Killing Fields, and the Cultural Revolution are either not acknowledged or presented as historical accidents coinciding with socialist practice.

It is not unfair to say that history has not been kind to socialism and vice versa. It is not hyperbole to note that the results of socialist government have been simply evil. It is also reasonable, and in fact necessary, to conclude that many of the failures of socialism were due to inherent weaknesses in its doctrines and philosophies. Stated simply, the history of socialism as a large scale governing principle is one of misery and failure. There must be something other than the objective historical record and semantic skill in describing what socialism is and is not that accounts for its ability to insinuate itself into current political thought.

The theory of Socialism has much to recommend it if one is willing to neglect its practical effects. The ideal of Socialism seems to address a problem that needs addressing, i.e. the observable inequitable distribution of resources and wealth within a society. Socialism, with its de-emphasis of competition appears to promote a more cohesive and agreeable community. It also has an intuitive appeal in that it presents as an extrapolation of the types of behaviors that are necessary to succeed in a society and which are taught in early childhood: sharing, concern for others, and empathy for the struggling and disadvantaged. In a related manner there are many socialist institutions that appear to function well within non-socialist societies. There are also practical appeals that, theoretically at least, endorse a socialist approach. For example, using the authority and access to force that is conferred upon government provides a shortcut to constructing a social safety net. Finally, there is a defect in capitalism, against which socialism is frequently counter posed, and that is described in Chesterton's observation that "too much capitalism results in too few capitalists." Capitalism creates a problem of concentration of wealth as a by-product of economic growth, a problem that socialism pretends to solve.

When these appeals are made to a audience that is largely comfortable, and in fact complacent given the relative affluence and lack of existential threats, it is easy to indulge uncritical acceptance of them if for no other reason than the self flattery that results from the adoption of nice-sounding, and theoretically virtuous ideas. Until the unpleasant realities that intruded upon earlier socialist experiments arise, socialism can remain fashionable. Socialism will always appear more attractive as an idea than it becomes in reality. This is not a defect of either socialism or its proponents; it simply reflects the truth that ideas may promise more than does experience, and that one is naturally prone to aspire to more than what the world will ultimately deliver. Anyone who cannot imagine a utopia, even with no prospect of ever achieving it, does not have much of an imagination. Thus the appeal of the socialist ideal is compelling even though it is false.

Some of the appeal of socialism is due to its proponents selectively disavowing socialism's past failures while also adopting successes that are not socialist. It is common to hear that the mass deaths that accompanied the socialist enterprises of the 20th century and the ongoing economic catastrophe that is Venezuela were not part of socialism per se but rather an artifact of circumstance. In a similar way it is claimed that public financing of endeavors such as roads, schools and public services are species of socialism when they are in fact methods of allocating the benefits of private enterprise to public purposes. Medicare for example is not socialized medicine, as it is a method of financing health care that is provided by a variety of public, private, charitable, for-profit and nonprofit entities. Robust public enterprises, such as are seen in Scandinavian countries, are presented as triumphs of socialism even though the economic systems that produce the ability to fund them are market-based and reliant on protection of property rights. 

The inevitable confusion that results from these loose definitions of what is and is not socialism makes socialism appear more appealing that it otherwise would be. The disclaiming of responsibility for socialism's more spectacular human and economic catastrophes, as well as its claimed association with enterprises that are simply good public policy, but not socialism, do not function to hone socialism into a useful doctrine; rather they obscure the inherent defects of the ideology.

The observable fact that socialism in general, as opposed to isolated examples of socialist institutions within larger non-socialist ones, is unable to produce the socialist ideal is due to fundamental defects rather than poor execution. The benefits of ideal socialism are often highlighted against the real-world drawbacks of capitalism, thus offering socialism as a preferred alternative. In practice, capitalism does what capitalism is intended to better than socialism does what it is intended to do. There are certainly some things that capitalism leaves undone but these deficiencies are not endorsements of socialism.

The fundamental and unremediable flaw of socialism is that it lacks an optimizing mechanism. The complementary flaw in capitalism is that it's optimizing mechanisms work too well. Capitalism contains two such mechanisms that are largely responsible for the human progress and improved quality of life experienced by humankind over the preceding three centuries. These are the market and competition. The market is the mechanism by which matters of value are communicated among members of a society such that the total value of items in that market are increased by the transactions that occur there. One party to a transaction gives up something that is of less value to him for something that he values more and the other party to the transaction does likewise. The market is indispensable to people improving their lives because the value of a particular item is subjective and varies among different persons. Markets allow people to obtain those things which are most valuable to them, as opposed to acquiring those which an authority tells them should be valuable to them.

Competition can be understood by comparing it with collaboration or cooperation. These latter processes are most useful when allocating limited resources, for which hoarding would be disadvantageous to the larger society. Competition is an optimizing mechanism for processes. It is the method that nature has chosen to achieve optimization in evolution. It is also the process by which one identifies the most and least promising methods for accomplishing a particular end. It is the process that allows one to determine what is best with respect to objective criteria, rather than sentiment, ephemeral emotion or fashion. Furthermore while cooperation and collaboration may initially provide a rational basis of allocation of limited resources, competition may produce a process that most efficiently uses those same resources.

Socialism lacks the objective processes of optimization and improving efficiency. Instead, it seeks to determine relative merit and improve processes by planning and resort to "experts." This creates an endless regression of shortcomings in that there is no optimizing mechanism for planning or choosing experts. More particularly, there is no optimizing mechanism for choosing who should be given control of the process, and those who attain such positions often do so because of abilities largely irrelevant to the claims of the socialist ideal. Particular attention should be paid to selection of leadership. Human history has not yet identified the optimal mechanism for choosing leaders. Large institutions with ancient and successful histories, such as the Catholic Church have taken approaches that were not universally successful. Democracy has some laudable attributes and some drawbacks as a method for conferring power and authority. Native American Indian tribes, hereditary monarchies, Mafia families, and various other sorts of organizations have used different and often changing methods for selecting leaders. The lack of emergence of an optimal method for selecting leaders is not surprising. If a person attains the position of leader to which he has long aspired, such as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or Mao Zedong, he would not be friendly to optimizing processes that may depose him as not being the optimal leader. In this circumstance these leaders attention must be allocated to remaining the leader and to accomplishing whatever agenda the leader may prefer at any given time. It should not escape notice that many of the socialist regimes that were associated with mass death and economic calamity had leaders whose terms were limited only by their deaths or forceful removal following war.

The success of socialism depends on leadership whose selection is, in reality, not based on their ability to bring about the ideals of socialism. Those who successfully obtain leadership do so largely on their ability to exploit political weaknesses and understand inefficient and insular bureaucratic machinery, rather than their ability to improve the overall quality of life of others. The inherent dependence of socialism on bureaucracy is another weakness of the doctrine. Bureaucracies have interests beyond their stated purpose. The longer they exist, the more self perpetuating they become for their own sake. They become risk averse, complacent, inefficient and possessed of interests that do not coincide with a larger society. This has the tendency to stifle innovation. In a similar manner it neglects the fact that innovation and progress often involve significant risk-taking and does not compensate people for the assumption of risk. Socialism in fact does the opposite, encouraging risk avoidance.

One of the most pernicious and profound defects of socialism is that incentives within a socialist system are incompatible with human nature. The fundamental point was expressed by Schopenhauer's observation that a man can do what he wants but cannot want what he wants. A person is motivated by those things that he inherently values. and he expends his time and resources in the manner that is most meaningful to him. This applies to truly selfish interests as well as to public minded ones, such as charitable giving and service in the military during time of national emergency. These are things that arise from the interplay of socializing instincts, self-interest, personality, spiritual beliefs and how each interacts with the community around him. They are not taught, and cannot be instilled on command. The socialist cannot tell a man what is important to him and expect it to be so. This is why black markets arise in planned economies and why socialist enterprises of any scale, such as the Israeli kibbutzim and Plymouth Plantation were forced to reform their economic models.

The socialist enterprise relies on appeals to what the socialist thinks that the people should want rather than what they actually do want. Since these appeals predictably do not work, the socialist authority necessarily must resort to threats of and use of government force. Force, and all of the negative consequences that it inspires is inherent to a system that is so much at odds with individual values and human nature. This, probably more than anything else is what explains the atrocities associated with socialism in the 20th century.

The above observations apply to socialism as an over-arching political and economic system. The historical record indicates that large scale socialism does not work. This is not to deny that there are some communities within market-capitalist societies that function quite well on socialist principles. In addition, some societies that have market-based economies have socialist institutions that function reasonably well as part of their social welfare systems. The choice between capitalism and socialism is often presented as a false dichotomy, that a society must be either one or the other. This is contrary to both experience and common sense. There are alternatives that seek to incorporate the practical benefits of capitalism with the ideal aspirations of socialism, such as Distributism advocated by Dorothy Day and Hillaire Belloc. While the goal of Distributism had much in common with socialism, e.g. redistributing the resources of a society in an equitable manner, it recognized the importance of private property.

Capitalism and socialism may be ideologically opposed but in practice they have a great deal in common. Economic prosperity is produced by capital. In the capitalist model the capital is held by private citizens and the socialist model is held by the government, but it is nonetheless capital. In the capitalist model there is a disparity in the wealth accumulated by those who provide value and those who do not, and in the socialist model there is a disparity in the wealth accumulated by those who rule and those who do not. In both cases wealth accrues to those who control the capital.

One of the claims of socialism's proponents is that it produces more "equality" than does capitalism. This is likely true, however it is not at all certain that this equality results from improving the bad as opposed to degrading the good. One institution that may fairly be described as socialist in the United States is the public education system. Yet one cannot reasonably claim that the outcomes of this system are even arguably equal. There are vast discrepancies in the outcomes of wealthy suburban school districts compared to their impoverished inner-city counterparts. Even within the same socialized school building the outcomes vary markedly. This is not a shortcoming that is unique to socialism. It is an inescapable fact of human life. If one were to go to an explicitly socialist country one would also observe discrepancies and outcomes between various identifiable groups, such as the children of government leaders and the children of less prominent status. This is true not only of education but of a great many other things that are presumed to derive equality by adopting some socialist characteristics. There is no society on earth that has a single tiered education system. There is no society on earth that has a single tiered health care system or justice system. This does not result from any inherent, fixable flaw in a political or economic doctrine, is a natural consequence of the fact that hierarchies are inherent and immutable. This is simply a practical observation of Orwell's aphorism that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

The resurgent approval of socialism does not result from improvements in the doctrine of socialism over that which has such an unhappy history. It does have something to do with disregard of that history. Just as it is easier to assume that an iconic image of Che Guevara represents revolutionary heroism than it is to do the minimal investigation necessary to see that he was a psychotic killer, it is easier to be seduced by the platitudes of socialism than it is to inquire into its reality. Socialism is most appealing where it is least understood. Socialism, for all of its appeal to virtue, and even given its occasional successes in limited environments, cannot be scaled up to a workable governing principle. It has its place, but it is a small one. One does not need to believe capitalist propaganda to realize this, or dismiss the claims of socialism's defenders outright to arrive at this conclusion. One needs only investigate the historical difference between what the socialists promised and the misery that they actually delivered.