HT: Mark Horne

One of the speakers, John Gerassi, talked about Imperialism and Revolution in America. In speaking about a leftist revolution in America, he said:

And where is the revolutionary programme of the US? Where is that programme that says that we must nationalize General Motors, and explains what we will do with General Motors

(The Dialectics of Liberation, Penguin Books, 1968, p.92-93)

Here you are. That was 1967, this is 2009.  May I introduce Government Motors.

“Although the Reformation manifested itself in various ways in different areas of Europe, it shared a number of common denominators. The feudal nobility and the Roman Catholic church hierarchy suffered a loss of power and prestige, which benefited the bourgeois middle class and the monarchs of Europe’s emerging nation states. Regions such as The Netherlands, which were formerly under Spanish or German domination, gained independence, and even in areas where Catholicism prevailed, religious independence gelled through the wide dissemination of Christian literature and Bible translations in the vernacular instead of Latin. Education was stimulated through the establishment of numerous schools and became accessible to the new new middle classes. This, in turn, cultivated a spirit of individualism and critical thinking.

This spirit of individualism which Protestantism fostered was to have long-ranging effects on Western culture. It was a catalyst in the development of democratic forms of governments which further undermined the medieval political and ecclesiastical hierarchies. This opened the door to the elimination of religious restrictions on trade and banking, removing a large obstacle to the development of modern capitalism.”

from The Fall of Christendom and the Rise of the Church by Peter Pikkert, p200-2001

Introduction

The Institute for Liberal Studies (a non-partisan liberty-minded organization promoting economics, philosophy, history and policy from a classical liberal perspective) put on a Social Policy Seminar this weekend at the University of Windsor. I attended their Windsor Liberty Seminar last year and it was fantastic (here’s my report on it).

These events provide a much needed balance to much of the intellectual and political climate of this area.

There were less people than last time around and I can’t say the topics/speakers quite blew me away to the extent they did last year. However, it was very well worth attending and the directors involved (Matt Bufton and Janet Neilson) really did a fantastic job in putting on this event.

Dan Rothschild’s Talk

Dan Rothschild spoke on the recovery after Hurricane Katrina. Dan is the associate director of the Mercatus Center’s Global Prosperity Initiative.  In my opinion, this was the best presentation and also had the best discussion period as well.   He presented a compelling treatment of the situation from a classical liberal perspective, and it sure didn’t hurt that he dealt with a situation that is still very fresh in our memories. Dan presented his organization’s approach, which is really quite interesting. They have been conducting economics through field work, something which economists don’t normally do. They are covering the “political economy of every day life”.

Dan’s talk was very conceptual, and brought up a lot of good “frameworks” to understand what is going on, and also to help understand the classical liberal way of understanding disaster response.  He had a very ‘economic’ talk, but really brought it down to a conceptual/philosophical/political level which is very understandible to non-economists.

Dan brought an interesting aspect of the situation when he highlighted the difference between facts and interpretation, illustrating this with the example of “looting” (which is an interpretation of “theft”).  He stressed how that while the difference between facts and interpretation is not always cut and dry, it is an important distinction, because interpretations turn into the histories we write. And he also showed how interpretations which arise from the facts create mental models which subsequently reinforce the way we make subsequent interpretations. Dan also introduced a number of  important concepts such  “rules of the game” and also a three-legged stool (political, social, and economic) as representing the resilience of society.

Dan granted that the classical liberal response to disasters is imperfect, since there really is no silver bullet to emergencies. He presented it as having three I’s:  Innovation, Information, and Incentives.

He talked about the Incentives operative in each actor in a disaster situation. For the politicians, the incentive is to get re-elected. So, the idea is consequently not so much doing the right thing, but rather being seen as doing the right thing. This was illustrated by the fact that George W. Bush was criticized for not appearing on the scene, while really his mere appearance on the scene would really not help the people there in any concrete way.  For the residents, the main incentive is normalcy, to have things return to normal. For entrepreneurs, they want to resume business as normal. A main part of the talk of incentives was how bad policies mute incentives.

He then talked about Information, and how price conveys information and sends meaningful signals.   He presented two basic models of how this works, either bottom-up (which encounters the challenge of nobody wanting to be the first to convey information after a disaster) or top-down (via government planning–where the government substitutes economic information with political information by putting up the details up to a vote). He then talked about the critical aspect of Innovation, which comes about by innovation + incentives

Connected to Dan’s talk were some great discussions of what place planning has, the problems with centralization, and what the government’s involvement in disaster planning/response should be.  He really did a fine job of bringing out audience participation, both in asking questions and responding to questions.

David Beito’s Talk

David Beito is the author of a soon to be published autobiography of T.R.M. Howard, a doctor and black civil rights activist. David is a professor of history at the University of Alabama. He described how he became interested in and was led to write about this fascinating and yet generaly ignored early civil rights activist.

David spoke about Howard’s life, his roots being born in poverty and his involvement in the 7th Day Adventist movement, and his eventual involvement in various fraternal societies in Mississippi.

David focused quite a bit on fraternal societies as both important contextual information regarding Howard’s life, and also as a topic of interest due to their provision of material aid OUTSIDE of the welfare state. An underpinning concept of David’s talk, was how the tradition of mutual aid (outside of the welfare state) really paved the way for the civil rights movement.

Howard  became the first chief surgeon at the Taborian hospital (a hospital founded by a fraternal organization). in Mount Bayou.  Eventually, he became increasingly dissatisfied with this hospital, and founded a hospital across the street (Friendship Clinic). While some would think this would hurt the Taborian hospital, it actually seems like this move may have benefited both establishments.

Besides his involvement with the hospitals, Howard was a really motivated entrepreneur, leading him to start many ventures. A major emphasis of David’s talk was how entrepreneurship played a key role in the civil rights movement in Mississippi.  He commented on how the role of the Black Church is often over-emphasized (though it was very prominent in Alabama) and the role of entrepreneurship in black civil rights is often neglected or disregarded.

Howard was unique in many ways. He combined diplomatic skills and ability to charm even his enemies, with a marked militancy.  Since he was marked out by the Klu Klux Klan he often travelled armed to the teeth. Incidentally, David commented on how early gun controls were mainly targeted towards blacks, and Howard had to frequently pay fines for carrying weapons. He led a successful campaign to boycott gas stations that didn’t provide washrooms for blacks and he also gathered together impressive rallies of 10,000 in small towns of perhaps 1,000 inhabitants.  He was well known for his advocacy in the Emma Till murder case and also his confrontation with the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover.

David also covered many of Howard eccentricities, the way he was rather ostentatious for a member of a minority group and how he was a game hunter, and how he confronted some of the earliest endangered species acts. And as any good biographer does, David outlined how Howard’s legacy was by no means without considerable controversy. Of particular controversy is how Howard performed illegal abortions (often for white woman) in his clinics, causing many people in the black civil rights movement to distance themselves from him.

John Murray’s Talk

The last talk was by John Murray, who is a professor of economics in Toledo (no.. he’s not John Murray the reformed theologian risen from the dead!).  He spoke of comparing health insurance models from an economic perspective, as opposed to the way it has been presented in historical literature.

John started by sharing how the conventional wisdom is that the American system is broken and the other systems have worked. However, he proposed that instead of taking that approach, we should understand why the American system is unique and why it developed the way it did. He talked about the difference between “Sickness Insurance” and “Health Insurance”, and how these terminologies have become political.

I must say that I had the hardest time following John’s presentation, as relevant and important as the topic is, just because it was steeped in a more academic economic approach. He made a very detailed historico-economic comparison of systems implemented in France, Germany, Britian and other European countries and contrasted them with the trends in the U.S., specifically focusing on “Mutual Benefit Funds”.

John explained “Mutual Benefit Funds” as  small private associations that are alternatives to dependence on the State.  He showed how this concept is NOT unique to the U.S., and how it has also been implemented in the form of “micro insurance” in West Africa.

John put forward the issue of whether the insurance was compulsary or voluntary as the key question and also the main focal point of his comparative studies. He also drew attention to te issue of who pay sfor it? Whether the workers, which can involve direct or indirect payment, or whether te employer, or the State (which of course trickles down to the workers indirectly). He also spoke of some “non-member” payments systems. Which included deriving the funds by putting on various forms of “entertainment” as well as a “honorary member” model. The “Honorary Member” model involved a sort of civic minded bourguise which contributed into the funds while opting out of benefits. This system became problematic, because even though these honorary members opted out of benefits, they did have “expectations” in return.

John talked about the role of “informal asymmetries”, such as “moral hazard” (the change of behavior because a person is covered by insurance) and “adverse selection (how people who need insurance are more likely to sign up for it–voluntary funds tend to attract older, sicker workers). He also talked quite a bit about how compulsary funds resulted in increasing paid absences, while voluntary funds resulted in declining paid absences.

According to historical literature, the U.S. turned out different than other systems because either: 1. Various actors (doctors, employers, insurance companies) opposed government health care. 2. It was known that there was too much corruption in government for them to handle such a large fund. 3. Too much democracy was present, and the whole progression of health insurance was held up by the process of democracy. John then made a number of comments on these, and showed ow each assumption is not really satisfactory.

John brought out an interesting point when he highlighted how the progressives who were pushing reforms had a very negative view of the working class. He also showed how the mutual health funds were actually popular, and the progressives reforms were normally opposed by the majority of the working class, there was never really wide-spread working class interest in government insurance.  He also made the point that while the progressive’s vision of health insurance may have delivered slightly more benefits, it was also far more costly than the American system of mutal health funds, requiring far more to be deducted off paychecks.  Ultimately, the mutal health fund system was a more efficient use of the workers money, which is really the best explanation of why the American system turned out the way it did.

I don’t know how well I covered this particular talk since it sort of lost me at a few points, but I think I’ve covered some of the main themes in a descent amount of detail. I must confess I got sort of tired during this topic, though I know the economic-history buffs in the room were just drooling!

Concluding Remarks

Now that I’ve given the wraps on the topics, I’d like to mention that I got another signed book by a great Canadian philosopher, Jan Narveson:  “Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice”.  He’s a retired professor of philosophy from the University of Waterloo, and apparently he’s Canada’s most published philosopher.  Another highlight was the short chat a friend and I was able to have with him. It sort of got cut off by a presentation, and unfortunately we never got to continue it!

The seminar cost $20, which includes cofee/tea and a pretty good lunch! These events are well worth attending, if you can show up next time they put it on! It will be sure to challenge and inform you. Even if you don’t agree with everything, you will find that these events have topics that are well-thought-out with very intelligent speakers. And the organizers really want to get the attendees involved with break-out sessions and what not as well, giving you a chance to chime in.

Non-Christian thinkers have also recognized the importance of the Garden of Eden. Individually, they have assessed it in different ways, some ridiculing it and others outlining its importance and yet reinterpreting it allegorically. In effect both of these poles entail rejecting its meaning as defined by Christianity.  But one way or the other, these thinkers have rightly understood how crucial the Garden and The Fall are in the Christian understanding of history.

First, I wish to refer to what Arthur Schopenhauer has to say about it. He simultaneously gives it credit as being a uniquely important part of the Old Testament, and yet  simultaneously frames it allegorically:

Accordingly, the sole thing that reconciles me to the Old Testament is the story of the Fall. In my eyes, it is the only metaphysical truth in that book, even though it appears in the form of an allegory. There seems to me no better explanation of our existence than that it is the result of some false step, some sin of which we are paying the penalty.

(The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; Studies in Pessimism, )

Next, I will refer to Alan Watts (for an explanation as to why I am venturing into studying some of his thought, please read this post), who is far more overtly flippant and careless with interpreting the story.

This is, of course, what happened to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and perhaps it was an unripe apple that made Eve ill. It is not usually understood that she was a little girl and Adam a little boy, because they are always portrayed as mature adults, but they were obviously a couple of kids scrounging around Big Daddy’s garden. Having thoroughly satisfied themselves on gooseberries, raw peas, and green apples, they hid between the tomato parts and began to examine each other’s private parts. But just then Big Daddy came along and said, “God damn it, get the hell out of here, you little bastards!”

(In My Own Way: An Autobiography, Alan Watts, 1972, p22)

As you can see, Schopenhauer’s approach avoids the vulgarity and flippancy of that of Watts. And Watts makes a number of inferences that are pretty far out there, probably mainly tounge-in-cheek..I don’t think he’s that ignorant of the details of the Garden Narrative.

However, when it comes down to it, the truth is that both are playing fast and loose with God’s revelation, and ultimately picking out parts that they want.  Just because Schopenhauer frames his terms in a less confrontational manner, does he mean he is ultimately treating God’s revelation with any more reverence than Watts.  In fact, while Watts may seem rather sacriligous, it appears that if anything, Watts for all his unbelief better understood the theological impact of the garden narrative than Schopenhauer.  He understood it could not be simply explained away by making it allegorical.

Schopenhauer thought he could affirm The Fall’s importance (while relegating the rest of Old Testament revelation to uselessness) by relegating it to the allegorical. Alan Watts seemed to better understand the interconnectedness, and rather takes a skewed interpretation of the narrative, which is ultimately wrong but retains the seriousness of it. In a footnote, Watts also explains his vulgar language in describing the narrative with the following statement:

The vulgar language is, as always, soundly grounded in theology. In the Catholic and Christian scheme of things we are sons of God by adoption and grace, not by nature, since God has only one Son, rendering the rest of us bastards essentially damned and in hell.

(In My Own Way: An Autobiography, Alan Watts, 1972, p22)

So, while both Schopenhauer and Watts present The Fall framed in a context of unbelief, the “less overt” unbelief (of Schopenhauer)  is in some limited ways less insidious than the “more overt” unbelief (Watts).  Schopenhauer couches his unbelief in feigned respect for the narrative and appeals to allegory, while Watts is more direct and clear in his unbelief.  And it appears to me that this signals that Watts is actually the one who better understands (but of course, rejects) the real meaning of The Fall. I would say that the unbelief of Schopenhauer has done more damage, simply because it is couched in language that by nature appeals more to the Christian church and people with Christian language.  In Alan Watts’ assesment, there is a stark contrast between belief unbelief, but in Schopenhauer there is a dangerous ambivalence which mirrors the way the modernists of “liberal Christianity” have similarily done much damage by making their unbelief “more palpable”.

(Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, 1996 (first published in 1946), Laissez Faire Books, p176)

Like every other tax, inflation acts to determine the individual and business policies we are all forced to follow. It discourages all prudence and thrift. It encourages squandering, gambling, reckless waste of all kinds. It often makes it more profitable to speculate than to produce. It tears apart the whole fabric of stable economic relationships. Its inexcusable injustices drives men toward desperate remedies. It plants the seeds of fascism and communism. It leads men to demand totalitarian controls. It ends invariably in bitter disillusion and collapse.

(Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, 1996 (first published in 1946), Laissez Faire Books, p161)