Knowledge & Egoism

Almost every able minded person in the western hemisphere has at least an intuitive understanding of the Socratic paradox that wisdom is knowing that we know nothing. In my own studies, I confront this piece of wisdom all the time. Whenever I learn something new, I sense another bit of knowledge that is still unattainable on the other side of a locked door. The answer to one question always seems to lead to a series of other questions. Understanding this allows us to stay humble and maintain perspective. However, there is a darker more dangerous side to the belief that threatens our liberty if we take the paradox too far. In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand argues that this kind of thinking causes people to distrust their own judgment and turn their lives over to other people. When people lose faith in their ability to reason, they become easy prey for the State.

In the US, modern moderates seem to exemplify the belief that they know they know nothing. Most moderates I know are well-educated professionals, who are good at what they do. However, their education has not allowed them to develop enough of an ego to liberate them. They only sense their limitations and are not confident enough to reason beyond their area of expertise. On matters of politics and public policy, they shut off their critical reasoning skills and create illogical axioms such as “when deciding between two extremes the truth lies somewhere in the middle.” This axiom is dangerous because it allows others to frame the debate. For example, Democrats argue for 38% income tax for the upper income bracket, while Republicans want 34%. For moderates, Democrats and Republicans represent the two extremes, so without thinking about the issue moderates decide that 36% tax is best. They would never stop to reconsider that all income tax is harmful, because the idea is outside the framed extremes. Never mind that at one time, the very idea of income tax was itself considered extreme and what is extreme yesterday is moderate today and then extreme again tomorrow. Axioms cannot replace an individual’s ability to reason.

Another mistake moderates make is assuming that other people know more about the issues. They know they know nothing but assume others possess more insight. Without an ego, they stop making decisions, their minds go blank, and they shut down all their decision-making skills. They are willing to turn their lives and public policy over to public officials, saying, “I trust that the politicians in charge are more qualified to make these decisions, so they know what they are doing.” The fallacy of this logical is that the politicians are also human with the same limitations as everyone else. They are no smarter than anyone else is and do not have any special insight. If we are wise because we know, we know nothing, than so are they. If politicians truly believe they know more, than Socratic wisdom should suggest that they are unwise. The truth is, every individual has the ability to reason and use judgment. While their knowledge is limited, it is not more limited than other people’s knowledge.

We are wise if we understand our limits, but trust our abilities. Charles Barkley often says that when he played basketball, he always felt he was the best player on the court, because that type of thinking drove his success. His ego turned him into a proactive player who determined the outcome of the game. The same is true for life and politics. If we do not have confidence in our own ability to reason, we will become slaves. To successfully remain free we must be proactive thinkers with egos that drive our need to run our own lives. Who are we to think differently from everyone else? What makes us so sure we are right? We are individuals who are sure of our abilities to reason and act independently. Nothing is more foolish than blindly turning our world over to the State, so trust that we know enough to determine the outcome of our existence.

What We Mean by Individualism

What We Mean by Individualism by Adam Martin- Mises Institute
The other sense in which Austro-libertarians are individualists is in the moral sense. It is man that has a nature, not mankind; thus, for any natural law ethic man must be the measuring stick. Institutions can be in accord or discord with this nature; the libertarian ethical claim is that any institution characterized by coercive action is unnatural with regards to man. In like manner, Austro-libertarians judge all institutions by way of individual man.

Put another way, only man is a moral agent. Only the individual can choose, and to that extent any coherent notion of moral evil must be traced back to the choice of an individual man. Since man is the morally relevant unit, all legitimate moral claims, including those about the value of subsidiary institutions, must be phrased so as to be individually meaningful. If not by looking to the individual, how does one determine in the first place that home and hearth is superior to hammer and sickle?

Moral individualism is not the same thing as egoism; even if one believes in absolute altruism towards one's fellows, those fellows must be recognized in their value as individuals rather than as an amorphous social blob. The precondition for treating another person as a person is to recognize his individual worth. The deadly flaw of collectivism is to replace concern for man with concern for mankind, which is nothing but a pattern resulting from the actions of individual man. This shift of focus can only come at the expense of the welfare of individual men.

It is always in this light that the value of subsidiary institutions should be understood. Voluntary associations are important not for their own sake, but because they fulfill man's nature. True partnership and community can only come about between distinct individuals. When we fight for our families, we must not fight for family in the abstract but for the flesh and blood people that we know and love. The efforts of those in the conservative movement to pit the community against the individual as opposing values is thus theoretically baseless; in an attempt to emphasize man's social nature they forget that such a nature must inhere in a man.

This is precisely why we must judge every government and law by basic moral principles. In the end, individuals create government action, so through government action individuals affect only the lives of other individuals.

Ditka tackles ban on smoking

ChicagoSports.com - Ditka tackles ban on smoking:
'Don't impose the will of the few on the lives of the many,' said Ditka, who drew a strong reaction from the audience when he used an expletive to describe the proposed smoking ban.

Go Ditka, Go! I always knew Da Coach was a great American.

The proposal to ban smoking in public places is not a public health issue, it is property rights issue. Restaurants and bars are not public places. Restaurants and bars are private places that are open to the public at specific times and under specific conditions. Under the proposed ban, if I buy a building and open a restaurant, I would not be allowed to smoke in my own building. Next, they will outlaw smoking in our homes. Let restaurant and bar owners decide their target market for themselves. Government interference with their marketing efforts threatens the livelihoods of everyone involved in the industry.

Non-smokers should stop complaining to the government about smoke in restaurants and bars because they are missing a great opportunity. If there are thousands of non-smokers alienated by smoky places, then they should open a smoke free bar, sit back, and watch the money role in.

Terrorism Comes With Empire

Terrorism Comes With Empire by Jacob G. Hornberger
Question: Why didn’t the terrorists strike Switzerland instead of England? After all, the two countries share the same “freedom and values,” don’t they?

Answer: The Swiss government didn’t attack Iraq. It doesn’t meddle in the Middle East. It didn’t participate in the brutal sanctions against the Iraqi people. It doesn’t maintain an empire of overseas bases. It doesn’t go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. The Swiss government minds its own business…

For those who want lives of freedom, normality, peace, prosperity, and harmony, there is but one solution: Dismantle the empire; bring the troops home and discharge them into the private sector; stop meddling in the affairs of other nations; stop trying to dominate and control the world; stop going abroad in search of monsters to destroy; stop trying to be the world’s policeman.

The Corruption of the Jedi

The Corruption of the Jedi by Adam Young- Mises Institute
The Empire rose not just through the treachery and deceit of the Sith, after all treachery and deceit are the ways of the Dark Side, but through the treachery and deceit of the Jedi, who betrayed their Code and deceived themselves that in this extraordinary case, the ends do justify the means…

As George Lucas put it: ‘Power corrupts, and when you’re in charge, you start doing things that you think are right, but they’re actually not’…

The hidden lesson of Episode III is that the Dark Side triumphs in societies when Good adopts its methods. When those who claim to be the guardians of good against the threat of evil adopt the methods of evil, what distinguishes them from evil? How are they any different?

In the end, truth and justice are sacrificed to ambition. If good and evil uses identical methods and the justifications of expediency, they become mere factions instead of opposites, allied together in a common war against liberty. May this serve as a warning to all who see in emergency circumstances a reason to betray principles and adopt the methods of the Dark Side. In the name of doing good, one only becomes part of the problem, no matter how many excuses seem to be readily at hand.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am a big geek and it was only a matter of time before I posted about Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. However, this post is relevant to what I usually discuss here in the Great Oak Forest. It is about trying to achieve good through evil methods.

Adam Young points out that in Revenge of the Sith, the Jedi failed when they adopted the methods of the Sith. He argues that the Jedi tried to take matters in their own hands disregarding due process and justice. They thought they were acting in the best interest of society, but they became despots.

Adam Young is correct in everything he says except that the Jedi became despots much earlier. The Jedi betrayed their code and sealed their fate at the end of Episode II: Attack of the Clones, when they agreed to fight against the Separatists as generals for the “Grand Army of the Republic.” What did they hope to accomplish by forcing people to remain members of a republic they hoped to leave? A Jedi victory in war could only produce tyranny and resentment.

Anakin Skywalker suffers the physical and psychological scares of the Jedi’s betrayal. He came of age while fighting a war, so he saw things nobody should ever see. Anakin had to rationalize his and the Jedi’s actions by concluding that the Republic was not merely a means to an end that includes liberty and justice. Instead, Anakin concluded that the Republic was an end in itself. No wonder he eventually sided with Palpatine, who advocated the idea of a unified republic at any cost. When Anakin became Darth Vader, he was convinced that he was acting in the best interests of society.

Can we accomplish good by committing evil? No, evil will always produce more evil. Evil warps our priorities and judgment. Evil methods harm the innocent people we are trying to help. When they do not show appreciation for our actions, we become defensive. As a result, we create more resentment and anger, which leads to more conflict and evil. Every problem we solve with evil methods produces more problems.

Can we gain liberty through violence? No, violence leads to more violence and misery. Look at our own history, how one war has led to another and to another. World War I led us to World War II, which led us to the Cold War and now to fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq. Remember, we once supported, supplied, and trained Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, because they were our allies against the USSR. Which of our allies today will be our enemies tomorrow?

Can we achieve social justice by stealing property from one group of individuals through taxes and eminent domain, and redistributing it to another? No, the theft and redistribution of property creates an adversarial relationship between different people. Some people develop a sense of entitlement and class envy, so instead of trying to improve their situation they wallow in self-pity and bitterness. Others resent losing their hard earned money and view less fortunate people as a drag on society. They devise stricter social controls that will “cure” the poor of their “vices.” The two groups no longer view each other as neighbors; instead, they blame each other for the loss of liberty and dignity. At the same time, people in power fight over their piece of the pie and dish out other people’s money to their friends. One evil policy leads directly to another.

The Lost Liberty Hotel

Freestar Media, LLC
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land…

Ok, this is completely wrong, and I am not encouraging anyone to support it. However, I am human so it brought a smile to my face.