Ayn Rand - Evil Altruist

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand has her hero, John Galt, declare:

"I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

In her well-known March, 1964, Playboy Interview Rand explains that this maxim "is a dramatized summation of the Objectivist ethics". She adds that Objectivist ethics "hold that man... must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself." Ayn Rand characterizes her Objectivist ethics as "rational egoism", and defends "The Virtue of Selfishness," the title of her 1964 book.

In contrast to the virtue of selfishness, Rand opposed the ethical system of Immanuel Kant which she claimed completely rejects self-interest and deprives it of any and all honor. Kant's rejection of self-interest, she maintains, is a rejection of all values and goals and, indeed, a rejection of human nature itself. In her view, Kant's ultimate motivation was to reinforce the morality of altruism, of self-sacrifice, of self-abnegation. Kant's vision, she maintains, was a morality that consists of total, abject, selflessness. She condemns Kant's philosophy as evil and accuses him of hating life, man, and reason.

One of Kant's ethical insights was the proposal of a test for our ethical maximums to understand whether or not they could be considered moral. Kant expressed this test as three interrelated imperatives that he characterized as categorical. The second formulation of the categorical imperative is known as the Humanity Formula:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end"

We know how Ayn Rand judged Kant. Let us now judge Ayn Rand through an application of Kant's categorical imperative. To live "for the sake of another man" would be to allow one's self to be treated by others only as means to an end, and to give up one's life as an end in and of itself. To "ask another man to live for mine" would be to treat humanity merely as a means to an end, and to deny to others the status of being an end in and of themselves. Thus when Ayn Rand holds "that man... must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself" she is simply providing us with a militant, assertive formulation of Kant's categorical imperative.

It turns out, then, that Ayn Rand is an evil, self-abnegating, altruistic Kantian who hates life, man, and reason!

In truth, Ayn Rand, like most of us, is willing to accept reasonable limitations on what might be the most rational means towards obtaining an end - she would not use means that would require her to treat others without respect for their humanity, and she would not pursue ends that could only be obtained by doing so. This respect is "other regarding", that is, altruistic, and rules out using any and all means towards any and all ends. One's ends do not (necessarily) justify the means, and we are required by morality to limit prudential means-ends rationality. Kant's insight, that when we act morally we are necessarily acting against the dictates of rational self-interest, holds, and even holds in Ayn Rand's estimation.

Ayn Rand's Playboy Interview, March 1964
Ayn Rand's View of Kant
Rational Egoism
Kant's Categorical Imperative (Wiki)
Kant's Categorical Imperative (Stanford)

Anarco Facisim: A Manafesto

Anarco Fascism: A Manifesto

In The Limits of Organizations (1974), Kenneth J. Arrow explores the range of social and economic possibilities that are encompassed by the two extremes of what was then called the New Left, the notion that somehow in an ideal society there would be no conflict between one's demands on oneself and one's responses to the demands of society, and the libertarian New Right, which would resolve the difficulties between individual and society by substituting for difficult moral and power relationships "the worship of the market," that is, the price allocation system.

In our lives as consumers the price allocation system gives at least the illusion, if not the absolute reality, of personal freedom and individual autonomy. We survey the goods and services available, and within the limitations of the market, decide what we want or do not want and pay the price. The price we pay allows us to ignore many of the demands and responsibilities of our relations with others. If what we want is an imposition on others, that imposition is included in the price and we may make our choice free of concern for or even knowledge of the particulars. We can become, at least in part, the atomic, fully autonomous individual.

However, in our productive life, far more often than not, we do have even this illusion. For very good reasons, both theoretical and practical, price allocation does not work comprehensively and fully, and "it cannot be made the the complete arbiter of social life." The need exists for explicitly coordinated, self conscious, collective action and the allocation of resources through non-market methods. Thus arises the many forms of social organization of which we are all part - the business enterprise being the example that comes most readily to mind but including institutions such as the university, church, political party, and ultimately, the state itself. And even the revolutionary movements that might arise in opposition to the state. "Organizations are a means of achieving the benefits of collective action in situations in which the price system fails." And given the prevalence of organizations...

Empirically, and by economic, if not logical, necessity, Arrow maintains that these organizations are authoritarian in nature: "Among the most wide-spread characteristics of organizations is the prevalence of authoritative allocation. Virtually universally, in organizations of any size, decisions are made by some individuals and carried out by others. The fields in which an authority is valid may be limited; and the recipient of orders at one level may have his own field of authority. But within these limits, the giving and taking of orders, having someone tell someone else what to do, is an essential part of the mechanism by which organizations function."

Because of the prevalent authoritarian nature of organizations, all economic agreements are not the same. Employment agreements are qualitatively different from those that involve the exchange of commodities:

Indeed, as Herbert Simon has emphasized, an employment contract is precisely a contract on the part of the employee to accept authority. It differs therefore from a contract to purchase a commodity; what is bought and sold is not a definite objective thing but rather a personal relation. Within the scope of the contract, the relation between employer and employee is no longer a market relation but an authority relation. Of course, the scope of this authority will usually be limited by the terms of the contract, and, more fundamentally, it is limited by the freedom with which an employee can leave the job. But since there is normally some cost to the exercise of this freedom, the scope of this authority is not trivial.

This distinction, however, is lost on the right-wing, libertarian worshipper of the market. The idea that human relationships should be humane relationships is not acknowledged. An exemplar of this blindness is "Mr. Libertarian", Walter Block. He asks us, in Defending the Undefendable, to "consider as an example the case in which a (male) boss harasses a (female) secretary in an objectionable but noncoercive manner.... Just as a compensating differential must be paid to hire employees to work in damp basements, so it must be paid to female workers in offices where they are subject to sexual harassment." Since the secretary is (presumably) being compensated for being humiliated, humiliating her is just fine. In an obscure libertarian journal he explains that such humiliation "is part of a package deal: the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job and especially when she agrees to keep the job."

Those who are harassed, demeaned and taken advantage in the authoritarian environment of the workplace are supposed to have "agreed" to this treatment by the fact that they "agree" to keep their job. Despite the fact that those who might be treated in this way are exactly those who would have the most difficulty in leaving, doing so does present a market limit on the extent to which an employer may abuse his employees. But leaving a job imposes a cost to the employee. Why should an employee have to bear this cost in order to obtain humane treatment on the job? This goes beyond "blaming the victim" all the way to "punishing the victim," adding a further injury to one who has already been injured.

But for the right-wing libertarian ideologue, this is not enough! Being forced to leave a job due to inhumane treatment does indeed constitute an injury - an injury to the "employer" who, after all, has paid a premium to enjoy demeaning others! We thus arrive at the anarcho-fascist conception of "voluntary slavery":

Here’s the situation. My child is gravely ill. Only an operation can save his life. But, this medical care costs $100 million, and I am a poor man (we assume away the possibility of government health care that will swoop in and ruin our example). Seemingly, my only option is to witness the passing away of my beloved child. But wait! Rafe Mair, richer than Bill Gates, has for a long time wanted me to be his slave. He’d like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him. He values this opportunity way more than the medical costs necessary to save my child’s life. So, we strike a deal. Rafe gives me the $100 million, which I immediately turn over to the hospital. Then, I go to Mair’s plantation, and become his slave.

Why is this so objectionable? Rafe and I both gain from this deal. I value my child’s life more than my own freedom; way more. Mair values my servitude more than the costs of buying me into servitude; again, way more, let us suppose. If voluntary slavery is legal, we can consummate this financial arrangement, to our mutual gain. If not, not, to the great loss of both of us. Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me. Then, without this financial arrangement, I would have to witness the death of my child, probably the most devastating thing that can ever happen to a parent.

The most authoritarian organization amongst the many that exist is probably the military. John Locke, the great enlightenment liberal, in his second treatise of government (section 139), observed that even though "...the preservation of the army, and in it of the whole common-wealth, requires an absolute obedience to the command of every superior officer, and it is justly death to disobey..." nonetheless "the serjeant, that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach, where he is almost sure to perish, can [not] command that soldier to give him one penny of his money..."

Obviously Locke would not be impressed by the anarcho-fascist doctrine of "voluntary slavery". One might even suspect him of being something of a humanist.

http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/trgov10.txt

The Nature of Authentic Freedom

In posts to these pages, when I refer to freedom, I generally refer to authentic freedom. I do so to distinguish my conception of freedom from the libertarian conception that would be naturally assumed in this context. Recently I was asked to explain my conception of freedom.

Humans are social animal. Our survival depends on cooperation with one another to overcome the scarcity we face in the natural world. We are an intelligent species, and we are found in intelligently collaborative groups. The terms and conditions of this collaboration form the basis of our collective life and the background for our individual life. These terms and conditions, at the most basic level, form our political culture, our "system of justice."

It is within the context of a system of justice that we speak of freedom. Freedom is our notion of the boundary between the individual and the collective, the balance of rights and duties that ensures to the individual the good of humane dignity and self-respect in the face of the necessity to cooperate with others. Freedom protects the individual from the claims of the collective and requires the collective to work for the individual, and not against him. Freedom ensures to the individual a life worth living.

In this formulation I do not make reference to force, aggression, or coercion. What is important is preservation of human dignity and self respect from degradation by the collective arrangements we must enter into. Collective arrangements may be inhumane whatever form they may take: the family, a corporation, a school, or the state. Authentic freedom is concerned with the proper balance between the individual and the individual's obligations and duties in society as a whole. Whether a relationship may be involuntary (family or state) or voluntary (employment or place of worship) in nature, human dignity, self respect, and a life worth living must be preserved.

In The Law of Peoples, John Rawls defines the characteristic principles of liberal conceptions of justice.* A system of justice may reasonably be characterized as liberal if...

• First, it enumerates basic rights and liberties of the kind familiar from a constitutional regime;
  
  
• Second, it assigns these rights, liberties, and opportunities a special priority, especially with respect to the claims of the general good and values of a prefectionistic nature; and
  
  
• Third, it assures for all citizens the requisite primary goods to enable them to make intelligent and effective use of their freedoms.

The third characteristic is important to ensuring that freedom is authentic. Rawls explains* that the guarantee of constitutional liberties alone constitutes a mere formalism. Alone, without the additional guarantee of the proper basic, all-purpose goods, the constitutional protection of a bill of rights constitutes an impoverishment of liberalism, and indeed, not a liberalism at all. It is, rather, libertarianism. The guarantee of, for instance, a basic education to all, distinguishes a liberal from a libertarian conception of justice. This guarantee is essential to ensuring that our freedoms produce a social life that provides us not only with survival, but with a life worth living.

---

* Section 1.2, page 14.
* Section 5.3, page 49.

Obama Nation !!!!

The other day I received an invitation "from President Obama" to attend his health care rally at the University of Maryland. As a skeptical person, who more often than not supports a cause by undermining its detractors, I don't feel comfortable about the idea of being part of a big cheer leading effort, let alone a big PRESIDENTIAL cheer leading effort. That's way too establishment for me.

I've been to rallies and demonstrations before, and listened to politicos that have shown up to give the event some legitimacy (imagine Ted Kennedy speaking Spanish... what a trip!) but they have always been AGAINST something the government was doing, not FOR something the government wanted to do. I've never seen or heard a President live before, let alone listen to a complete presidential speech. I did shake hands with George H W Bush once, but he wasn't even vice president at the time, and it was the only way I could get past him and make my train on time.

So this would be a first for me. I support universal health care, so what the heck, try something new. I clicked "RSVP" and put in for some vacation. Yes, unlike a lot of political activists, I have a regular, full time, demanding, 9-to-5 job.

-------------------------------------

It took a long time to drive to the rally, a long time to park, and I ended up a long way from the end of a VERY long line to get in. I was hoping to get some "face time" with the opposition, and as I surveyed the scene over several acres of parked cars I could the Gadsden flag flying off in the distance! Thar she blows! Tea-baggers on the horizon!

As I navigated my way through the ocean of parked cars, I saw a small group of folks with tee shirts that looked like they said "You Lie!". They had a large trash bag that was stuffed full of these shirts. More signs of the great white whale! I now suspect they were in full retreat. They certainly couldn't have SOLD those shirts at this rally, and, as it turned out, if they gave them away they would have been stomped on and trashed. Best to beat it.

The "tea baggers" turned out to be a disappointment. About half a dozen folks, mostly younger, hanging around a Gadsden flag with a few posters as thousands of people streamed by ignoring them. Off on the side, with a sign and flag of his own, not part of the group, was an older fellow. They weren't chanting or shouting slogans or anything. I flashed the peace sign to the younger ones and yelled "Peace Brother!" and a few of them looked up and smiled lamely.

I gave the older guy the peace sign and shouted "Peace Brother!" and he came alive. This fat, bald, red-faced guy was old enough to be my brother, but, truth be told, I'm pretty well preserved. I work out every day. I have a full head of hair. And I dye it. So, I'm pretty sure he thought he was dealing with some young college kid. I wish!

He started yelling "V for Victory, V for Victory" over and over. I came back: "Social Justice is Victory! Victory is Peace! Peace Brother!" Now, the term "Social Justice" is one that I am VERY uncomfortable with. As I said, my natural tendency is to be a skeptic. In fact, that might have been the first time I ever used the term in conversation let alone in public. But given the context - two old farts yelling at each other in front of thousands at a political rally - nuanced dialogue and careful conceptual differentiation just doesn't cut it.

I would have hung around and "dialogued" with the opposition, but they were pretty pitiful and I wanted to make sure I got in, so I went with the flow. Further down the line there was one more cluster of opponents with signs that said "Hands Off My Health Care". I yelled "Hands off your Medicare, right?" and but got no response. I followed up with "Medicare for Everyone!". I think that puzzled them. Some of these "tea baggers" are a bit confused. They think Medicare is part of the "free market".

You would expect, at an event like this, to encounter a few lone nuts wandering around. One lady, sporting an St. Obama shirt of some sort, asked me where we could get the little American flags some of the people in line were carrying. I told her I thought we wouldn't be able to get in carrying a flag, since they told us no posters, signs, etc. She said they would let HER in with a flag, because SHE was SPECIAL. I asked if the security guards had been told she was SPECIAL, and she started to go on about how SPECIAL she was. That's when I realized she was "SPECIAL", in a "SPECIAL" sort of way. I pointed to the VIP entrance off in the distance and told her that was the SPECIAL entrance for SPECIAL people, and she should head over there to get in. It wasn't right for her to have to stand in line, being so SPECIAL and all. I moved on, so I don't know if she followed up on the suggestion.

Along the way there were quite a few other "protesters", but as I found out they were not AGAINST health care REFORM, they were FOR health care REVOLUTION. It was not at all clear, from outward appearances, where they stood. One kid had a sign that said "Health Care Unfair to Students". Thinking he was against government supported health care, and wanting to make a point, I told him "Young man, wear your seat belt" and he said "I do". I then added "And buy your health insurance". He came back: "I will, when there is a public option!" Touche! I gave him the thumbs up.

The oddest "opponents" were a group of girls (all right, young women) wearing tee shirts that said "I little boys" running up and down the line, asking people to sign a petition concerning abortion. I assumed they were anti-abortion activists, so I started stopping them to give them the rap about social justice being the most effective way of limiting abortions. One of them told me they agreed and were pro-choice! I told her to make sure she made that clear because it wasn't obvious and a lot of people would think otherwise. She went off chanting "Pro Choice! Pro Health Care!".

I don't know what was up with the "I little boys" tee shirts. And I'm not googling that to find out! I don't want the FBI targeting me for a sting operation!

I finally got to the entrance and went through security. This was REAL security. Everything in your pockets out on the table and guards fooled around with every cell phone and camera to make sure they were real. Every purse was carefully pawed through, not just a polite peek. And after walking through the metal detector, everyone was subjected to a personal wanding, whether the walk-through went off or not. I was in, and had only a little bit longer to get to my seat.

----------------------------------------------------------
More waiting! I don't go to sports events so the Comcast Center basket ball stadium was a new experience for me. I was seated high up, in front of, but a long way from, the Presidential podium, looking out over court where the tables were for the print journalists, and the bridge for the photographers were set up just behind the space for the "special people" who stood right in front of the podium and dais. These were the labor union activists and others who were being rewarded for their effort and could be counted on to show enthusiastic support. They were probably also the least security risk. In the news photos, it is the top of they who occupy the foreground.

While we were waiting for the stadium to fill up, a brass and percussion band provided a back-beat and the crowd played "stadium games" like "the wave". There was a four way giant screen suspend just above our heads in the center and a "sky cam" was projected scenes from the audience so we could point at ourselves, cheer ourselves, and generally create a spectacle for ourselves. This is democracy: entertainment of the people, by the people, for the people. believe me, it shall not perish from the earth.

One little boy in the audience had a terminal case of ADHD, with the emphasis on the H. He was standing in his seat doing a perpetual motion dance and cheering. The camera could always put him on and get a big cheer from the audience. They started to feature other kids in perpetual motion mode, but he was the champ. He never stopped, and he wasn't doing it because of the camera.

Aside from "the wave" and pointing and waving at ourselves when we showed up on the big screen, the audience was pretty passive. Some more or less organized sections (all wearing the same tee-shirts, or friends sitting in a row) tried to get some chanting going, but most of their slogans were not all that catchy and petered out after a bit. Everyone seemed to be patriotic and on message - the slogans were either about health care for all or general "USA! USA!" stuff. Nothing that could be construed as out of the main stream. Nothing like the "anti" rallies I've been to in the past!

Every once in a while the audience would be fooled into thinking the rally was going to start and everyone jumped to their feet in anticipation of Obama. Finally the rally did start and first up was the "invocation," which has become an Obama tradition. Personally, I find this annoying and inappropriate at a partisan political rally, but the young couple next to me found it to be an opportunity to put their heads on each others shoulders and wrap their arms around each other, so it seems to serve a purpose even I can understand!

We all thought this would get things rolling, but no, more waiting... I won't belabor the point any longer, but they could have done a much better job of keeping the ball rolling after getting started. The long wait to get in is understandable, considering the security precautions necessary, and presidential logistics must be pretty demanding, but the long waits for the next speaker didn't allow for a smooth maximal acceleration of irrational exuberance. It was more of a roller coaster than a ski run.

Next up was Commerce Secretary Gary Locke who did a serviceable job as a "warm up act" to the main event. His speech was appropriately inspiring and appropriately wonkish. He quoted from Ted Kennedy's death-bed letter to frame the issue in moral terms, then moved on to the "bread and butter" rational for "health insurance reform." (Have you noticed that the issue is no longer referred to as "health care" reform, but is now "health insurance" reform? And all along I thought we were going for universal health care! Those crafty politicians!)

After Locke (too long after Locke!) came Rachel Peck, a University of Maryland student who was diagnosed in her first year of college with thyroid cancer. She did a very good job, but obviously had never addressed a crowd of thousands before! Her personal story was not quite on point for the reform effort as a whole, not being as tragic and not having been treated in as obviously an unjust manner as some of the cases that have been publicized, but it was very instructive for the young college crowd since (as Obama would latter acknowledge) this concern is not as high on many of their personal priority lists as some other issues may be. On the whole, however, this crowd didn't need convincing. Over and over again they exhibited a very sophisticated, well informed, ideological commitment to radical reform. As those of my generation might have said when we were younger, they had their shit together.

Ms. Peck finished up with "It is for people like me, people like you, and millions across the United States that we have to address health care reform now" and segued smoothly into "Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States" and Obama finally entered the arena doing the "Presidential entrance" of working the crowd as he moved toward the stage, shaking hands, slapping backs, pausing for pictures. If there were any babies to be kissed, I'm sure he would have done so. In fact, when he made the stage he gave Rachel a hug-n-kiss, but it definitely was one of those socially acceptable euro-greetings. Needless to say, the crowd went wild, cheering, applauding and generally hooting and hollering. Almost deafening.

I don't know how Presidents in general present themselves, since I've never witnessed one first hand before, but Obama was a very good at entertaining, engaging, and inspiring the audience. But he also projects something of an ironic awareness of the situation that ensnares those of us who consider ourselves to be a bit more sophisticated and detached than the normal demos. As he began speaking and the crowd quited down, they remained standing. So he interrupted himself and told us we could sit down now. At one point there was a "Free Bird" moment when the crowd happened to be quite and a lone voice rang out "We Love You Obama" and he came back "I love you back" in a matter-of-fact way.

Obama started out with a topic of primary interest to college students in general, although, as I mentioned, with this crowd he need not have bothered. He told us the House would pass a bill that very day to eliminate the "private sector middlemen" in student loans, that it would create a tremendous savings (80 billion, if I remember news reports correctly) and that when he signs the bill (it has to get through the Senate) it would put that savings into more assistance for students. AND the bill would simplify the financial aid paperwork needed to get that assistance. Now, as a parent who has just gone through the hellish experience of applying for federal financial aid (which you have to do whether you need it or not) that alone assured my vote in 2012!!!

As it turned out, this was a bit more than pandering to the college crowd. It tied in with the health care, er EXCUSE ME, health INSURANCE, reform debate in that it served as an example of how, if government IS going to do something, it need not do it through private intermediaries to do it right. Sometimes private intermediaries are just a waste and a sop to special interests. Obama also countered the notion that the "public option" is a Trojan horse designed to put private insurance companies out of business. He reminded us that private and public universities (like the University of Maryland, BIG CHEER) exist side-by-side and give the American people more choice without doing each other harm. So there you have it folks - sometimes the "public option" does put an end to the private intermediaries, and that's good, and sometimes it coexists peacefully with them, and that's good too! Take your pick. We'll do both! (I told you I'm a skeptic.)

The crowd BOOOO'ed a couple of times. Once when Obama mentioned the forces of resistance to change. BOOOO! And when he mentioned that the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Max Baucus, put out its own bill. Max Baucus? BOOOO! This has been sited in the press as an example of how well informed, dedicated, and committed these kids are. Policy wonks with an attitude!

In my experience, the speakers at rallies like this usually fit into specific categories. There is the "legitimizing politician" who has elective responsibility and stature; there are the more ideologically committed speakers that have no elective office and are therefore free to give vent to the audience's more extreme conceptions; and there is usually also a "master of ceremonies" who serves to introduce the speakers, keep the enthusiasm up by leading chants, cheers and call-and-response slogans. Call him the "rabble-rouser", but often he has to calm the audience down also and remind them of the ground rules for civic behavior. Things CAN get out of hand. Locke's performance fit the role of "legitimizing politician", Obama was his own "rabble-rouser".

And at one point he did get the chance to calm things down. Just as he started to relate several personalized stories of health care injustices, someone started heckling. The audience around this fellow started to yell back. In the cavernous auditorium it was hard to hear what was going on and where. When I located the altercation, someone was standing and yelling out, while another was facing him and appeared to be berating him. Obama heard the disturbance and responded "What's going on, guys? We're doing okay. Relax. Everybody is all right. We're doing fine."

The heckler was lead out by event security. I got the impression from the way he walked out with them that he had done this before and knew the routine. It turned out that he was a member of Randal Terry's cult and was yelling "baby killer". The incident was not widely reported in the press, I only found out about it from a self-serving press release put out by him.

But Obama was at his best ROUSING not DOUSING. This was the best part of his performance. He told his "Fired UP! Ready to GO!" story and made some references that college kids could relate to. In the end he had us all on our feet yelling FIRED UP! READY TO GO! FIRED UP! READY TO GO! And then it was over.

Outside, someone had hung a large, crudely written banner on the side of the parking garage saying, in effect, that as good a job as Obama was doing, Canada has always had and always will have a better health care system than ours. As we streamed out of the auditorium towards our cars, kids were congregating under this sign, taking pictures of it, some with their cell phones to send off to friends. Yep, real policy wonks. But FIRED UP! and READY to GO!

------------------------------------------------------

The American people have, long ago, decided that we are not going to turn our backs on each other and let each other die in the streets. We have taken very overt steps to make sure this does not happen. We have Social Security. We have Medicare. And if you need medical attention and show up at the emergency room, you will be treated whether it is an emergency or a runny nose. But emergency room care is not the most efficient or the most effective way to run a health care system. Our health care system is not doing what it should do, what it can do, and is costing us way too much. Americans pay more, and live shorter lives than those who have rationalized their health care system. IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE!

Scarcity and Justice

I would like to offer some thoughts on the notion that property rights are ways to mitigate and resolve conflicts that are presented to us by the unsharable nature of physical objects. I have also read that it is the scarcity of such physical objects that require us to treat them as private property.

I think scarcity is the salient aspect. If land were a much more abundant resource, it would not matter that we could not both occupy the same space at the same time; one or the other of us could just go elsewhere and be happy. Water, which comes close to being as abundant as air, is, under a wide variety of circumstances, so plentiful as to barely require a notion of property to avoid conflict. And then, of course, there is air, which, absent a pollution hazard, isn't given any consideration at all.

When scarcity has been mentioned in relation to property rights, it has often been spoken of in the way I did just now: if a specific resource is "scarce", then property rights are useful in regulating its disposition, but if plentiful, it would be unfair or inappropriate or unnecessary to do so. Since prerecorded music seems to be plentiful, it is unfair to expect it to be restricted by intellectual property rights.

One serious concern that is not addressed by this analysis is the necessity of human effort and cooperation. Most of our possessions are not "found objects", they are produced through our intelligent effort. Nor are they produced by us acting alone as individuals. Without the cooperative effort of others we would have virtually nothing. In fact, as social animals, it is very likely that we could not survive at all, let alone survive in comfort, without the help and cooperation of others. Defining, respecting, and reinforcing our relationships with others is necessary for our survival and well being, and is the basic fact that creates the necessity for justice. It is from the necessity for justice that our conceptions of property arise.

Rawls, I believe, stated this best: The need for justice arises from our need to cooperate under conditions of moderate scarcity. If there is an abundance of resources and our every need is indeed fulfilled by found objects with minimal and individual effort, then mutual cooperation is unnecessary and justice is not needed. If resources are so constrained that no amount of cooperation can possibly alleviate our suffering, we must live a zero-sum life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Justice would be impossible. Only under conditions of moderate scarcity, where we need to cooperate and we benefit substantially by doing so, is a conception of justice both necessary and possible.

Note that this scarcity is a general and pervasive condition that demands a general and pervasive conception of justice. An artist (or other producer) cannot, ultimately, live well without our cooperation just as we cannot, ultimately, live well without hers. When we deprive a composer or recording artist of her just compensation, we are NOT depriving her of her music. We are depriving her of the means to obtain the food, clothing and shelter that she needs. Not to mention the Porsche that she covets.

And why should she, of all producers, be so deprived? What did she do to deserve this disrespect that seems directed to her particular productive capabilities? She is doing something for us, just as any other producer is, and she deserves something in return, just as any other productive person does.

She may even deserve a Porsche.

All P is IP

Some time ago I read, I think on "slash dot", the assertion that "intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms; that anything that is "intellectual" in nature cannot be construed as "property", which has to have some sort of tangible, physical existence. Apparently, for this writer, this was an intuitive truth that required no justification or explanation.

I had to smile at this and shake my head. To me, this view seems very superficial and even childish, as if something that can not be seen can not exist.

The truth is quite the opposite. There is no real distinction between what we term "intellectual" property and property in general. In fact, intellectual property is more prototypical of property than is much of what we consider "tangible" or "real" property. Intellectual property is the essence of property. All P is IP.

What is it that distinguishes something that is "mine" from something that is "yours"? It is the way that you and I behave with respect to it, and the expectations that we have for each other's behavior. If the bicycle on the sidewalk belongs to me, it is OK for me to get on it and ride away. If you take the same action without going through the ritual of "getting permission" first, it isn't OK and you can expect a very different response from me than if the bicycle were yours.

This difference in expected and permissible behaviors, while it centers around an object, is actually about our behavior with respect to one another. Respecting each other's property is basically a way of respecting each other, of according to each the dignity and respect due a fellow human being and treating each other the way we would expect to be treated. It is not all about an object. It is all about our relationship.

With "real" property - real estate - this is even more apparent. When I, the owner, approach my land, I step right onto it and proceed on my way. When others approach, I expect them to walk in a different direction, around my land, even if that isn't the most direct path to where they are going. In this case, our behavioral expectations concern what amounts to be no more than an imaginary "line in the sand". We may make this line apparent through the use of a fence or other marker, but more often we simply register a set of measurements, nothing more than an intellectual description, with a public official. These measurements are what turns a region of land into "my property".

Lines in the sand may be even more abstract. We speak, rightly, of ownership of the airwaves - the right to broadcast signals having certain electromagnetic characteristics within a specific geographic region. A radio frequency is created through a regulatory declaration, it is auctioned off, and thereafter may be bought and sold. Not "as if" it were property: it is property. And like all propriety, it is based on behavioral norms regarding what it is proper or improper to do, in this case based on a technical description of electromagnetic waves.

What has been termed "intellectual" property is simply another expectation regarding the behavior of others; in this case, with respect to a design or innovation that we have created and, perhaps, properly registered with a public official. We expect our creative efforts, to some extent or another, to be respected by others as a matter of right. Just as we expect others to refrain from riding off on our bicycle, to refrain from walking over our land or to refrain from interfering with our radio broadcast, we expect them to refrain from copying our creative efforts without our permission. This is no more, and no less, than any other property right.

All rights, privileges and immunities - including property rights - are based on behavioral norms and expectations. They are social constructs regarding our relationship to each other. They all reflect what we believe to be the proper way to treat one another, what we consider to be due respect in accordance with human dignity. All P is IP.

Listen to the Differentia, Not the Genus

All blues tunes sound the same. The same cord progression. The same beat. The songs all have the same theme. You've heard one, you've heard them all. Can't tell 'em apart.

Unless you are a blues aficionado. Then each and every one is unique, and has a different story to tell. The same goes, I am told, for Vivaldi's concertos.

If they all sound the same, maybe you aren't listening hard enough. When you listen carefully, when you differentiate, you hear start to hear and maybe even appreciate the nuances and the value of each individual piece. You begin to appreciate the blues. Or Vivaldi.

I characterize "easy listening" as listening to the genus and not the differentia. Listen harder, and you transcend the genus and listen to the differentia.

Aristotle first identified (or, perhaps invented) the practice of conceptualizing our world through a hierarchy of ideas based on the generalities that a group or type posses in common - the genus - and the differences between the members of the group - the differentia. Characteristics that differentiate members within a genus may be common to more than one member, and therefore form a sub-species, a new genus, that may be further differentiated all the way down to the individual.

When we perceive some grouping to be "all the same" we are paying attention to the genus. When we perceive the individuating characteristics we are paying attention to the differentia. And it is often the differentia that is of interest and value. It is the differentia that makes the difference.

There is now some evidence that this might be true in a more general and important way than mere music appreciation. It has long been known that most of us harbor subconscious stereotypes, or implicit bias, about people of other races. It is also true that most of us have an easier time recognizing individuals of our own race than those of other races. Research reported in Scientific American Mind has linked this "other-race effect" to implicit racial bias. By learning to individuate the faces of African-Americans, Caucasians were found to diminish their level of implicit bias. The principle author of the study, Sophie Lebrecht, does not claim that the "other-race effect" is the cause of implicit bias, but maintains that it impedes us from overcoming preconceived notions. By overcoming the "other-race effect" we can "start to break down these stereotypes.

When we stop listening to the genus, and pay attention to the diferentia, it makes a difference!


The full study is available on line: Lebrecht S, Pierce LJ, Tarr MJ, Tanaka JW (2009) Perceptual Other-Race Training Reduces Implicit Racial Bias. PLoS ONE 4(1): e4215. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004215