Dispassionate Precisionist

NDP Strategy Suggestion: Look West

2008-06-26T18:03:00.000-07:00

Western Canada has long had an affinity for progressive populism. The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 set off the labour movement within Canada and left a strong impression on Tommy Douglas, who would go on to lead the Saskatchewan Co-operative Commonwealth Federation to victory.

The Liberals, in many ways, soured their chances in the Parries. The National Energy Program was the first blow and made most of Alberta inaccessible to the Federal Liberals. Jean Chrétien’s tasteless sandbag photo ops, during the 1997 Red River Flood and the (horrendously ill-timed) election that same year ensured that never again would the Liberals possess 12 MPs in Manitoba.

The NDP could have capitalized on this Western discontent had they listened to Dave Barrett. Instead, they put all their eggs in the Eastern basket, especially trying to make inroads in Quebec. Focusing on Quebec has brought the NDP some gains, but only recently after gruelling and tedious work. I'm not saying that Quebec ought to be ignored, the NDP should target ridings that are Anglophone and multicultural, like many in Montreal, or ridings with many workers who are disaffected with the BQ and looking for a social democratic alternative. But an equal effort must be made to make inroads west of Ontario.

There are many left of centre who are west of Ontario. These western progressives are concentrated in western Canada's urban centres, like Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria. There are some family farmers who may also fit the bill of "western progressives", mainly organized in groups like the National Farmer's Union.

Since 1919 matters have undoubtedly changed. Due to the rising cost of farm equipment, agriculture has been a field mainly restricted to those with upper level incomes. The low income and middle income farmers that made up the base of Tommy Douglas and Ed Schreyer aren't as prominent today. Most rural ridings are a sea of Tory blue. Even urban ridings in cities like Edmonton that extend far out into the countryside yield Tory MPs.

The strategy I suggest to counter this, which might be a bit simplistic as I'm not a professional strategist, is to target urban westerners in such ridings on issues that resonate well with urban dwellers. Issues like poverty alleviation, social programs and the state of infrastructure in Canada’s cities. Then target farmers on issues like rising agricultural costs, the plight of family farms and preserving the Canadian wheat board (this is a polarizing move and will only give the NDP pro-Wheat Board farmers, hopefully it'll be enough). If such a two-pronged approach is tried in Western ridings that encompass both urban and rural elements, it will yield a few more seats for the NDP in the west.

Of course, the New Democrats shouldn't just market their policies towards western Canadians; they should consult westerners on policy matters. Have open town halls meetings where people west of Ontario can voice their opinions to New Democratic Party officials. Have membership drives west of Ontario and attend/speak at National Farmers Union rallies.

The New Democratic Party of Canada could get back into Saskatchewan, shut out the Liberals from Western Canada, and lock onto the Western progressive vote if they followed a strategy similar to my proposal.

Cherniak is Wrong

2007-07-08T20:59:00.000-07:00

Cherniak, a right-leaning Liberal, posted “The NDP is Sick”. His post was short on verifiable facts, riddled with anecdotes, and unlikely to convince anyone other than a diehard anti-Dipper that the NDP is a “useless party”. Ironically, his intention was to convince “reasonable NDP voters” that their vote would be of greater value if spent on the Liberal Party.

Cherniak focused on the NDP’s “insignificance” in Parliament and “extremists” in the Party. Specifically, Cherniak complained about the NDP celebrating for winning less than 10% of the seats in the House of Commons. To that I respond that getting almost 10% of the seats in the House of Commons is cause for celebration, because it’s an improvement from last election and in a minority government almost 10% is influential. In the 38th Parliament, the NDP represented just over 6% of the House of Commons yet made the Liberals conceded to their budget demands.

The “extremists” Cherniak talks about probably include overzealous anti-Globalization protesters, particularly those protesting at the Quebec Summit of the Americas. Violent protesters were a minority and many activists raised legitimate concerns about Globalization as it is currently conducted.

Cherniak proceeds to claim that extremist NDP voters “…support some "right" of suicide bombers to kill innocent Israelis” without any reference. This is likely a strawman, Dippers and left-wing Canadians are concerned about human rights violations by Israel in the occupied territories and see where Palestinians are coming from. Nobody in the NDP that I’m aware of, however, supports terrorism as a means for Palestinians to gain independence or human rights and if Cherniak could provide a link or source that would be appreciated.

Cherniak is also up in arms about the NDP taking “…just enough anti-Conservative votes to ensure that the Conservatives would win in January.” It is interesting that Cherniak thinks of voters in terms of negatives (voting against someone) rather than positives (e.g. left-wing voters).

Cherniak should take a lesson from recent political history and realize that had the Liberals been reelected it would be little different. For 12 years the Liberals were in power and at an all-time high in terms of inactiveness. Aside from Paul Martin's budget cuts which went way beyond the amount necessary to balance the budget and led to the sorry state of healthcare this country is in. Heck, Stephen Harper hasn’t done nearly as bad as Jean Chrétien & infighting Co. This is because of a minority situation and strong left-wing opposition.

Cherniak did a follow-up to his first post, “The NDP is Sick - Part II” where he tries to give his previous rant an intellectual foundation. Cherniak begins his argument with the reasonable premise that politics is all about compromise. But he then presents a false dilemma, that the NDP voter must either be an uncompromising ideologue or hope that the party moves to the centre to replace the Liberal Party like the U.K. Labour Party did to the U.K. Liberal Party.

But Dippers don’t have to be Third-Way centrists. A New Democrat can support compromise up to a point, but not far beyond that point. In reality the New Democratic Party is the only vehicle to get left-wing policy implemented in Canada. The Liberals, if given a majority, are inactive or corrupt. In a minority they lean left or right depending on where the biggest threat is. It took a strong CCF opposition to pressure Mackenzie King into starting Canada’s social safety net, it took a strong CCF opposition to pressure the Liberals to introduce healthcare, and it took a strong NDP opposition to pressure Paul Martin into funding social programs with 2005 budget. Third-Way centrism, rightfully so, was abandoned when it lost the NDP seats.

Changing policy isn’t the only way the NDP can become mainstream. The political spectrum could shift by the mobilization of groups with previously low voter turnouts, such as the youth or the homeless. Electoral reform could also shift the political spectrum, by giving the nationally dispersed NDP vote more force.

Bev Desjarlais was voted out by the Churchill NDP riding association as the NDP candidate for Churchill and Buzz Hargrove had his NDP membership suspended for telling people to vote Liberal. This annoys Cherniak, who used the two events as example of rigidity in NDP ideology. But Bev Desjarlais voted against a core NDP policy and the riding members should be able to do as they see fit. Hargrove violated the NDP constitution knowingly and such acts shouldn’t go undisciplined.

From reading Cherniak’s two-part rant it’s clear he wants a two-party system in Canada. He tries to show that the futility of voting NDP but isn’t convincing. Underneath all his rationalizing “The NDP is Sick” parts I & II are nothing more than prejudiced rants.

My thoughts on Pakistan

2007-07-05T21:44:00.000-07:00

News about developing countries gives one appreciation for the stability exhibited in an industrialized liberal democracy like Canada. Take, for instance, Pakistan where students want to impose Sharia law on the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, the strongest opposition to Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan is that of Musharraf’s illegitimate government, which refuses to resort back to liberal democracy.

I say “illegitimate” because Musharraf’s government power doesn’t derive from the people’s consent, i.e. democratic process. He came to power through a coup, a bloodless coup but an anti-constitutional act nonetheless.

One wonders if democratization would result in a secular and tolerant Pakistan, or would it just descend into a Islamist illiberal democracy. While Islamic fundamentalism dominates northern Pakistan, liberalization in the cities makes me optimistic enough to say Pakistan would head into a more liberal direction if the government was democratized.

On another note, flooding has left 1.3 million Pakistanis homeless. I suspect there will be some grievances over the little aid getting to those affected, though floods have hit Pakistan on a large scale before.

Those are my loosely connected thoughts on Pakistan.

Retroactively, Happy Canada Day

2007-07-04T16:21:00.000-07:00

Yes, yes I’m late. I didn’t announce Happy Canada Day on July 1. I was out of town, away from my computer during Canada Day. Since I’m late I might as well add something of substance to this announcement.

Canada was founded 140 years ago. Immigration was encouraged and the underground railway had brought many seeking freedom to Canada. Canada was not, however, an equalitarian country.

Wealthy British men had the most rights and women couldn’t even vote. The government was officially racist and adopted a naively assimilationist attitude towards First Nations people.

Gradually, however, Canada became one of the most multicultural, tolerant, and progressive nations. This was a gradual, cumulative change, though the Canadian Multiculturalism Act accelerated this.

Multiculturalism is officially confined only by human rights in Canada, as it should be. There are still some grievances for past actions and the government needs to accommodate First Nations more for past injustices. There are also still some discriminatory ceremonial institutions, like the Monarchy.

The social safety net has expanded, not doubt in large part because of CCF/NDP efforts.
A lot has changed, for the better. There is still a lot to do. But Canada is better than it was before. It’s more tolerant, democratic, and pluralistic.

That is why I say Happy Canada Day and am proud to live within the borders of Canada.

The Struggle for Proportional Representation

2007-07-04T11:20:00.000-07:00

Electing Members of Parliament in Canada is pretty simple. The country is divided into 308 districts. Political parties select candidates to run in each district or independents decided to run. Elections are held in each district and the candidate with the most votes, that is the candidate who surpasses the person with the second most votes, wins and becomes the Member of Parliament for that district. This fairly simple system is the first past the post system and it causes fear-based voting.

If you watch reruns of This Hour Has Twenty-Two Minutes you’ll notice jokes with the punch line “voting NDP is throwing your vote away”. Smaller parties, like the NDP, get the shaft under our system, where winners take all. The composition of the House of Commons does not represent the national support for the NDP. In the 39th Federal Canadian Election the NDP received 17.48 % of the overall national vote while getting only 9.42 % * of the seats in the House of Commons.

The regionally popular Bloc Quebecois, however, with 10.48% of the national vote received 16.56% of the seats. ** They have more seats than the nationally more popular NDP!

Our system doesn’t even ensure regional (district) views are properly represented. Just look at the Churchill district. The Liberal candidate, Tina Keeper, with a minority 40.68% of the district vote won. There were unique circumstances, for sure. The NDP Churchill Riding Association held an election, where Niki Ashton was voted in and Bev Desjarlais voted out. Desjarlais ran as an independent and split the traditional NDP vote. But MPs have been elected with 35% of the district vote, as in Welland.

Electors fear letting the worst candidate in, so they usually vote against rather than for someone. Fear of letting the Conservatives in is why so many electors vote for the Liberals instead of the NDP.

A popular set of alternatives is Proportional Representation and according to Fair Vote Canada:

“The core principle [of Proportional Representation] is to treat all voters equally – to make every vote count. When votes are treated equally, then election results are proportional. Parties get the seats they deserve – no more, no less.”

Understandably, the NDP is pushing for Proportional Representation. NDP Member of Parliament, Catherine Bell, introduced a motion which would get a committee to look into electoral reform. The committee would consider consulting the public on the matter. The motion didn’t include any specific alternative, but it laid out necessary groundwork for future reform. The motion did not pass.

Bell hasn’t given up. She’s now using a petition to get direct citizen support for electoral reform.

As demonstrated above, our system has flaws so reform is desirable. The system of Proportional Representation I’d most like to see here in Canada is the single transferable vote, because it allows for regional considerations but fairly represent parties in the House of Commons.

*The New Democratic Party filled 29 seats in the House of Commons. There are 308 seats in total. 29 divided by 308 equals 0.0942 (to the ten thousandth precision). 0.0942 multiplied by 100 equals the percentage of seats the NDP received, 9.42%.

**The Bloc Quebecois filled 51 seats in the House of Commons. 51 divided by 308 equals 0.1656 (to the ten thousandth precision). Multiplied by 100 this equals the percent of seats of the House of Commons they filled, which is 16.56%.

Divine Induction

2007-06-19T17:23:00.000-07:00

Note: My blog post is sandwiched between the i53 Network’s original video and You Tube Member Websnarf’s (not connected to me) response video. Websnarf’s response was included because I realized it touched on some ideas I presented in this post and is a more easy to follow response then my pedantic blog post.

Kelly Tripplehorn, through the i53 Network (which he founded), is offering a $1000 challenge to anyone who can justify inductive inference without god. Tripplehorn describes induction in the simplified, classical fashion of moving from specific cases to general rules. He proceeds to say that non-theists cannot justify induction, citing the Problem of Induction which, despite centuries of debate, lacks an uncontroversial and universally accepted solution.

Induction assumes the uniformity of nature, and saying induction is justified because it “worked in the past” (in classic pragmatic style) is begging the question.

So, to solve the problem Tripplehorn cites the bible, where god says he made the world with order (uniformity). He then offers $1000 to anyone who can solve this challenge without invoking god and goes on to make the (outlandish) suggestion that atheists should be kicked out of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences because they can’t justify induction.

To be precise, Tripplehorn says that anyone who gets their solution added into the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy will get the $1000. This challenge is absurd, not the least bit because the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy doesn’t accept ideas simply because they’re “true”. Your solution to the problem of induction could be the best, end all debate, solution there is, but until it’s discussed in academic circles and philosophy journals, it won’t be added to the Encyclopedia.

Tripplehorn should also know that the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy article on induction doesn’t reference his divine solution to the problem, never mind accepting it as the end all solution to the problem or the only possible way to make sense of induction. Aside from the section on Creationism, religion isn’t referenced at all in the article.

Its absence is for good reason, too. The divine solution to the problem of induction is really just an extension of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, an outgrowth of Presuppositional Apologetics. Claiming god designed the universe uniformly, to explain induction, explains little and confuses the matter more.

Tripplehorn’s divine explanation adds an extra entity, a no-no for anyone who cares for the principle of parsimony. This is why academic philosophers have avoided using god; it doesn’t clarify or add to our understanding of induction and is a typical sky-hook.

A sky-hook is any explanation which confuses matters, by trying to explain something with a mysterious unobservable entity.

To give you an example (hat tip to PZ Myers), let us imagine a particle called “Regulon”. It’s an infinitesimally small, sub-quantum particle. It ensures all higher-level particles and forces behave uniformly. Any unprejudiced thinker would realize that I’ve pulled a fast one on you and added a mysterious entity to our ontology. This is similar to what Tripplehorn is doing, shifting the mystery from induction to god.

If Tripplehorn’s dystopian dream of excluding atheists from the National Academy of Sciences was actualized, the academy would lose some of its best members and scientific progress would be inhibited.

Tripplehorn, if anything, has done a real disservice. As websnarf pointed out, Tripplehorn’s challenge is contrary to the Encylopedia’s educational mission and it’s practically impossible to get a new idea into the Encylopedia. Nevertheless, I’ll try, as an ontological naturalist, to add some insight into this problem: if the universe wasn’t uniform, it wouldn’t contain beings capable of wondering why it was uniform (and hence, why induction works).

The Value of Brand Upon the Brain!

2007-06-19T14:31:00.000-07:00

Film Experimentalists deserve our thanks whether or not their experiments turned out well. If their experiments proved successful, they’ve showed us how arbitrary the conventions of film-making are. If their experiments are unsuccessful, they have given us reason not to try a similar unorthodox experiment in the future. It is for the latter reason that Guy Maddin deserves thanks, for his “Brand Upon the Brain!” experiment.

Maddin’s film justifies the convention of films having a plot, because the alternative (one absurd non-sequitur after another) is just plain annoying. Maddin gives us reason to stay clear of flashing visual imagery at film audience, because if it doesn’t send them into sensory overload it’ll annoy the hell out of them.

But I stop short of the film critics in my congratulations. The film itself shouldn’t be praised, for the final product was terrible. I suppose the almost unanimous praise of the film by critics really demonstrates that critics are suckers for an experimental film, no matter how bad it is.

NDP Membership

2007-06-09T14:17:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the New Democratic Youth of Canada, I’ll soon be a member of the NDP. I support the NDP for reasons already specified and becoming a member will better help me promote NDP policies and campaigns.

Secularist Public Speech

2007-06-09T12:08:00.000-07:00

Lori Lipman Brown is the nontheistic lobbyist for the Secular Coalition for America. In 2006, she delivered this speech.

She strikes me as an effective, reasonable, and modest public speaker and made some good points. It’s a worthwhile speech to watch.

Teaching the Bible in School

2007-06-06T19:00:00.000-07:00

Times Columnist David Van Bieman presents his case for teaching the (Judeo-Christian) Bible in Schools. While I differ from Bieman on some points (like his “faith in our country” pun, which confuses trust with presupposed belief), I would agree with Bible studies being offered as an elective in high schools or as part of a social studies course (depending on the schedule or course structure of a given school), given that the instructors are cautious not to voice their religious views in the class.

The course should be secular, describing textual examination of the bible, and its role in literary history. I’d also suggest some comparative study be done, particularly with the Qu’ran and the Mystery Religions of the Roman Empire.

Uncontroversial facts would about what the Bible (i.e. its contents) would be taught, instead of controversial beliefs (i.e. whether its contents are true). This course would be analogous to how they teach Greek Mythology. Instructors describe and assign questions about the myths, but don’t indicate that they’re true.

If you are a US Citizen, you ought to be concerned about the First Amendment and how Bible Study in school relates to this. If you are a decent citizen anywhere, you should be concerned whether Bible study in school is consistent with political secularism. As long as it is taught in the manner I described, it is.

Strict monitoring of Bible Study and comparative religion is needed to make sure proselytizing doesn’t occur. The potential for such courses to be abused have been made evident, especially in Texas where even clergy are used to teach such courses. I say keep the clergy out, they present a conflict of interest when dealing with religiously neutral courses on the Bible. Also, train the teachers on how to instruct a Bible course neutrally.

Despite the potential for abuse, Bible courses would serve well to give students some background and insight in literary and cultural matters, since the bible has influenced Western Culture. After reading the Bible they may even begin to think more critically about their religion.

Do Science and Religion Overlap?

2007-05-27T13:53:00.000-07:00

The late agnostic and paleontologist, Steven Jay Gould, postulated the Nonoverlapping Magisteria or simply “NOMA” to explain the relationship between science and religion.

Religion and science, from an epistemic standpoint, are in conflict. Scientists, individually and as a community, make observations. From those observations they postulate hypotheses to explain the observations and predict future observations. The more correct predictions, the more weight a hypothesis gains. After some time, it becomes a theory. A single observation can refute a theory, so even the most solid science is tentative and self-correcting. This is a simplification of the way science works. Philosophers of science have toiled with other concepts unnecessary to delve into here.

Religion assumes a set of highly specific, sometimes contradictory, dogmas. Most often the religious dogmas are “justified” either by appealing to personal feelings or presupposed scripture.

This is where NOMA comes in. It says that science deals with the world of “facts” while religion deals with “values” (assuming the fact-value distinction). So, science takes on its usual role and religion takes on a role similar to ethics. The problem is that religion does overlap, quite a bit, with scientific matters.

Genesis One describes an origin of the world that is mutually exclusive with the well-established scientific theories of geology and biology. Unless there’s a radical paradigm shift in science (which I doubt), there’s no way these two ideas can be reconciled.

NOMA advocates (more than likely, Christians) may take the Modernist interpretation of the Bible and say that, except for a crucial few stories, most of it is just God’s metaphorical way of giving us moral truths. Such hermeneutics are unhistorical.

None of the gospels ever hinted that the bible was meant to be taken figuratively, nor do any records indicate that the early churchmen took this view. It was thyears after e Bible was written that this ad hoc way of reconciling the Bible and science (or its predecessor, Natural Philosophy) came about, thanks to Saint Augustine.

NOMA is offers little insight into the relationship between science and religion, not to mention that it’s unoriginal. Obviously made to reconcile religion and science, it carries little force to those not already sold on the premise. It wasn’t Gould’s greatest idea.

I’m Supporting Doer

2007-05-14T19:33:00.000-07:00

A week away from the election, and I’ve only commented once on it! Being a Manitoba blogger I really ought to give more commentary.

In his two terms as Premier, Doer’s made some progress. The MTS Centre, with a reduced seating capacity of 15,000, was added while he’s been Premier. The renovated “Millennium Library”, added under Doer’s watch, has stimulated a fair bit of intellectual culture in Winnipeg.

The 2004 employment rate in Manitoba was optimal. Doer’s kept the NDP’s connection to organized labour in tacked, something every Dipper should do (pace Bob Rae). Manitoba Hydro didn’t go down the toilet of privatization under his watch.

Doer’s won my support for the simple reason he’s running on tuition rebates. These 60% tuition rebates will be awarded to graduates who stay in the province. This’ll inhibit youth leaving the province, something Manitoba toils with.

The fact Doer plans to expand on the arts, downtown, and library is just icing to the cake.

State Secularism

2007-05-12T21:55:00.000-07:00

Government decisions should look at the worldly effects of policies, coupled with evaluating them based on secular, consensus-based ethics. Specific government offices shouldn’t issue statements supporting a single religion. This view is state secularism.

This doesn’t say that specific politicians can’t act on ethical precepts which originated from their own religion. It merely says that the text of Private Members Bills (or any other government document, for that matter) should be entirely secular.

Key to an understanding of secularism is the difference between our private lives and public functions. Any Canadian Citizen ought to and (usually) does have the right to voice his or her ideas outside their job. Citizens can engage in any religious activity or meet in any religious institution outside of their job. These are acceptable instances of religious involvement in our private lives.

Senators, parliamentarians, and political organizers, however, shouldn’t provoke religious fervour while doing their jobs (public functions). Provoking such fervour can only cause division and instability, especially in a religiously pluralistic nation like Canada. This may very well be the reason for our de facto secularism.

Canada needs to revise its legal documents, especially the Preamble to the Constitution, to establish de jure secularism. Such secularism would inhibit any politician basing public policy on religion.

Now, enter the NDP Faith and Social Justice Caucus. It’s been pointed out, by liberal Muslim and social democrat Tarek Fatah, that this caucus could be a doorway for those who oppose the NDP’s unifying policy of social progressivism. Coupled with the fact that such a caucus is inherently divisive and based on a very personal matter, Fatah presents good reason to avoid such a caucus.

Religion is a highly private and personal matter and should stay that way.

Storytelling and Advertisement

2007-05-12T20:31:00.000-07:00

CBC Radio One hosted O'Reilly and the Age of Persuasion, by Terry O’Reilly (not the more notable Bill O’Reilly). Basically, Terry O’Reilly talks about how storytelling, in addition to being entertaining as fiction, can also convey information.

He explores a bit of the history of advertising, noting how early advertisements were bland price listings. He explores the (in the United Kingdom) famous J.R. Hartley ad. O’Reilly finishes by predicting that storytelling will become an ever increasing part of the advertising world, replacing gimmicks.

Storytelling is being applied in literature, with the new genre of “Creative Nonfiction”. There’s some weak evidence to support O’Reilly’s prediction. It’s true in this case, at least (the ads very moronic, I known).

Nevertheless, I’d have to say that these new “storytelling ads” will be coupled with the annoying gimmicks and disinformation most ads already contain. This is better propaganda, for sure.

Encylopedia of Life

2007-05-11T20:06:00.000-07:00

The “Encylopedia of Life” project has begun. It’s a pretty interesting concept, and if achieved, I think could very well prove to be the Periodic Table of Biology.

This ingenious plan is to store online profiles of every named species (currently 1.8 million) on a single database. It’ll be a wiki-style online encyclopaedia. Sustaining the encyclopaedia will cost lots of money, for sure, and will require lots of cooperation between biologists across the globe. The enormous effort is, nevertheless, worth it.

The internet can be a (near) universally accessible tool for biologists. If information on every known species is kept and updated based on new discoveries, you can very well bet that taxonomy will become manageable once and for all.

This situation can be thought of analogous to chemistry in the late nineteenth century. The periodic table of elements summarized all the known facts of a given element, with this simple, organized tool the science of chemistry was manageable and knowledge of chemistry flowed nicely into the public and high school curriculums.

Imagine how useful and fun such an encylopedia could be if integrated into high school biology.

Ethical Government isn’t necessarily a Theocracy

2007-05-11T19:01:00.000-07:00

Luke Landtroop, over at his weblog “Confederate Hobbit”, makes the claim all “true” governments are theocracies (ruled by god) or at least teleocracies (the only definition I could find is a government “dedicated to achieving a certain propositional end”, so I’ll ignore the phrase).

Landtroop starts off by noting that “theocracy” is commonly defined as a government ruled by clerics claiming to have authority granted to them from the divine. Landtroop claims this is undesirable. Landtroop proceeds to argue that if we look at theocracy’s “real” meaning, ruled by god, we’ll find out that all “true” governments are theocracies.

From the start, I see an epistemic problem. How do we distinguish between a government ruled by those claiming to have authority from the divine and government which is actually ruled by the divine?

Landtroop then goes on to say that government is based on the assumption of right and wrong, the right should be helped and the wrong punished.

From that, Landtroop goes on to make a bunch of unnecessary assumptions concerning ethical conventionalism (the claim ethics is the result of human convention). For one thing, he claims that “if men believe this, they wouldn't bother erecting government at all because it would have no legitimate claim to authority.”

How Landtroop deduces that I don’t know. From “there’s no absolute morality” it doesn’t follow that “men [I’d prefer the term ‘people’] wouldn’t bother erecting government because they have not legitimate claim to authority”. Many people “bother to erect governments” without a “legitimate claim to authority”.

Many people can establish liberal representative democracies based on their arational compassionate impulses, with no need for some platonic source of authority. The government, of course, can also derive its authority or power from the will of the consented. Contractualism or the ‘protectionist theory of the state’, as Popper calls it, explains where the “legitimate authority” of the state comes from without reference to the divine.

Landtroop, no doubt because of his own lack of imagination, adds that “revelation” or “ something which does not revolt against man's natural sense of what is right and good, but will extend and refine it” is needed for moral authority.

Tied in with Landtroop’s word play is the assumption a “transcendent” morality is needed to give the state authority and that “transcendent” morality can’t come from the human condition, because the human condition could only support an “arbitrary morality”.

Landtroop seems to think that this “transcendent” or ever-lasting morality can only come from god as divine command theory says. Landtroop doesn’t seem to realize many non-naturalist ethical theories posit some sort of platonic realm, where “transcendent morals” exist. One can be an atheist and ethical non-naturalist, hence defeating Landtroop’s claim that government with “legitimate”, “transcendent”, or “true” authority must be theocratic.

It seems that Landtroop’s whole argument rests on his own lack of imagination.

Work Hours

2007-05-11T17:34:00.000-07:00

Bertrand Russell, in his title essay In Praise of Idleness, claims that work (defined as “moving around bits of matter at or near earth’s surface”) if far too often idolized. Russell argues (he was writing in 1935, but this still applies) that machines have enabled us to work less and keep up a decent standard of living. Instead, according to Russell, machines have been used to make us overwork.

Howard Woodhouse, a coordinator for the University of Saskatchewan, gives a new introduction to the book In Praise of Idleness (which contains the essay of the same name). Woodhouse modifies Russell’s definition of work to “moving bits of information around at or near Earth’s surface” to capture the essence of Russell’s argument and apply it to the present day. Woodhouse reiterates Russell’s claim, saying that new information technology was supposed to give use more leisure time, but instead has been used to aid overworking by monitoring our work hours closely.

Rabble columnist Jerry West has written a mean-spirited article against business and government officials who’re against a $10 minimum wage and corporate taxes for extending public services. West makes some good points nonetheless.

West makes note of the increasing gap between rich and poor, as well as how we’ve been working longer as the gap’s increased. Technology, it turns out, didn’t give us more leisure time as those of the 1950s predicted.

While I don’t support Russell’s Utopian prospect of a four-hour work day, I do believe a 35 hour work week is practicable.

France initiated a 35 hour work week. The effect on the economy, I’d say, is negligible. At first, unemployment fell and the economy grow, latter things returned to normal.

The benefit of leisure and family time are the main reasons we should peruse a 35-hour work week, not because of any specific economic goals. Staffing essential public services, like hospitals, must be planned before hand of course, to avoid a fiasco like the one in France.

Working single parents would benefit most, but all of us could use a little more leisure to peruse our interests. Coupled with a public education that encouraged scholarly pursuits for their own shake (as Russell suggested in 1935), a 35 hour work week would result in an enlightened public.

Return of the Jets?

2007-05-08T19:44:00.000-07:00

As we all know, it’s election time in Manitoba. The usual smear ads from all parties are out. As is an election promise: to bring back the Winnipeg Jets.

The Winnipeg Jets were sold to Phoenix in 1996. Winnipeg’s population just couldn’t sustain an NHL team. At the time, the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba was unwilling to fund the Jets. Now, Progressive Conservative leader Hugh McFadyen wants the Jets back to “keep young people in the province”.

NDP Premier Gary Doer also plans to bring back the Jets if elected.

Despite being a diehard dipper, both federally and provincially, I’d say only the Liberals are willing to go against the popularity of this plan and examine it rationally.

The New MTS Centre is ill-equipped to house an NHL franchise. It’s smaller than the original stadium, with only 15,000 seats.

Bringing back a sports team doesn’t seem to be the best way to keep the youth in the province. Investing more in the University of Winnipeg and the University of Manitoba, for a time, would bring in more young people. Also, having medical students sign a contract where their tuition would be subsidized if they stayed in the province as a doctor would solve both Manitoba’s doctor shortage and keep the youth (that are medical students) in the province.

All and all, this is needlessly investing time in an impracticable but emotionally appealing idea.

Internationalism

2007-05-05T21:33:00.000-07:00

Bertrand Russell, in the book In Praise of Idleness, advocates the creation of a Federal World Government contrasted with the “irrational cult of the nation”*. Such a view is obviously utopian, yet holds some validity.

If one adopts a humanitarian perspective, supports universal human rights, then one must accept the necessity of international institutions. Karl Popper, in The Open Society, posits a view more moderate than Russell’s. It’s practicable, according to Popper, to create international institutions whose purpose is thwarting crime on a world scale.

Such practices are already in the making. The UN, imperfect as it may be, has undoubtedly prevented many disasters via its role as a mediator.

It’s desirable, in terms of stability, to give the UN more authority. Many wars are caused by bad negotiations, which would be inhibited by a neutral mediator like the UN.

Assuming the UN is structured adeptly for protecting human rights, granting it more authority in rights related matters is wise. The UN could embargo violators of human rights, or, if the nation becomes too aggressive, even form multilateral forces to take it out.

It is well known pollution, child labour, or social injustice results from unregulated free trade. Protectionism, denying full foreign market benefits to third world producers, is equally bad. The only compromise seems to have international trade regulated by an international institution, one whose authority extends beyond national boundaries. This would ensure fair trade.

Lastly, I don’t support giving international institutions absolute power. The day-to-day running and non-rights related issues of a nation should be left to the national government. I’d also like to see more democracy in international institutions, perhaps even the election of ambassadors to the UN.

Internationalism, in the modest (multilateralist) form I advocate, doesn’t oppose patriotism (admiration of one’s nation). It accepts that specific people may find the ideals or customs of their nation admirable and is compatible with liberal nationalism.

But, all nations, under the internationalism I advocate, mustn’t violate human rights or engage in acts of aggression.

*The quote is an approximation.

Warrior Societies and Women

2007-05-05T20:12:00.000-07:00

An odd fact about ancient militarist societies is that most had a high status of women. In Sparta, for instance, girls and boys had a similar education, whereas in the non-militaristic Athens there was a rigid divide between male and female education.

Women in the Mongol Empire could divorce, own property, and fight in the military. Some were even prominent members of the elite. Compared to the rest of Eurasia, such a high status was extraordinary.

In Europe, arguably the most infamous warrior society, the Vikings, gave women the right to divorce.

These militaristic societies weren’t pillars of humanitarianism. Cultural and religious differences weren’t tolerated (except in the Mongol Empire’s case, though that was more due to necessity than preference). They were closed and authoritarian societies (Sparta was even fascistic).

Why then, compared to the more humanitarian Athens or Persia, did these societies give such a high status to woman? A sociology undergraduate gave a reason so obvious that I should’ve thought of it.

When the men were warring, the women maintained the homestead. This authority lasted even after the war.

Using a more recent example, the status of western women greatly increased during World War II, because women were needed to do the jobs male workers (now soldiers) had previously done.

It’s interesting to think, had the worst wars not occurred would women still have as high a status in society as they now do? I think so, partially because their status in North America decreased somewhat in the 1950s and surged later on.

Still, it’s odd to think violent war and militarism, the opposite of humanitarianism, can be responsible for one of humanitarianism’s chief objectives.

Daniel Tammet

2007-05-04T23:32:00.000-07:00

Daniel Tammet is an amazing Briton, for many reasons. He’s a polyglot, having a mastery of several languages. He’s even invented a new one. Furthermore, Tammet can solve even the most complicated mathematical problems.

He’s a high-functioning autistic savant. An epileptic fit, at age three, altered his brain, causing synaesthesia. He can visualize words and numbers. This process allows him to solve complex mathematical problems; despite the fact high-functioning autistics are generally poor at “abstract” thinking.

Neuroscientists are interested in Tammet because he could be the key to unlocking “savant abilities”. It’s even been hypothesized that we all posses such savant potential and that it only takes the right event (i.e. brain alteration from an epileptic fit) to actualize them.

When I first heard of Tammet (I was casually searching through Wikipedia articles to find his) I wondered if he held any implications for the philosophy of mind. He does.

Tammet shows us that Qualia (“subjective experiences” like colour) do serve a function, hence aren’t epiphenomenal. This is so because, if it weren’t for his “qualitative experiences” of numbers, he couldn’t perform the calculations he does.

Intellectual Freedom

2007-05-03T17:59:00.000-07:00

I was going to write a post about the ideal of intellectual freedom. I’d argue that it’s essential to any representative democracy, where there exists a free exchange of ideas.

It’s necessary because, while at first sight, some ideas may seem disgusting or inappropriate, we must always keep a rational and impartial perspective. This perspective would help us effectively dismiss such ideas, if they really were so absurd or repugnant.

Disallowing the expression of such ideas gives their originators a “persecution” veil, and would generate sympathy. So, if we really wanted to expose such ideas, suppression isn’t the answer. It backfires.

Of course, what ideas are “really bad” or “dangerous” can get arbitrary. Debate in an open society and higher education can very well be inhibited by suppressing disliked ideas.

That was what I planned to say. Of course, I’d add some concrete examples. Like how Bertrand Russell, a competent and excellent teacher, was prohibited from teaching at New York City College because religious organizers hated his ideas. So, the New York City College lost a potentially good professor, who’d bring prestige and over-qualification to the college.

Peter Singer, as well, would be another example. Had he been prohibited, like Russell, from teaching, critical debate and dialogue would have been stifled.

I’d go on to espouse the Canadian Library Association’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom. I’d be particularly pleased with how it mandates libraries to uphold intellectual freedom.

Then I thought some would say it’s either too abstract or that the examples were too historical. Then I found this lovely recent event.

Cary-Grove High School Student, Lee, was arrested for penning a violent-themed essay. The English teacher, Nora Capron, found it disturbing. Police chief, Ron Delelio, won’t release the essay. That’s a lovely way to avoid critical analysis, keep the public ignorant of the cause of the whole controversy.

Fortunately, bits and pieces of the essay are in this article. It’s an awfully distasteful essay, especially considering it was written in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting.

The whole case, nonetheless, reeks of conflicts of interest. It’s hardly surprising that the teacher was more disturbed with Lee’s essay, which criticizes her, than say Jameson Emling’s violent essay, which didn’t reference the teacher.

This brings me back to intellectual freedom. Our own dislike is just that, a taste we have. Ideas aren’t actions and there is no good reason to suppress the expression of them. We may argue against them or call certain expressive writings “disgusting” and explain why. But prohibiting them is getting onto a slippery slope, both ethically and constitutionally.*

* By constitutionally, I’m referring to the constitutions of Canada, the United States and most Western European Nations. All the constitutions of these countries contain provisions protecting freedom of expression, which make the suppression of ideas slippery at best.

First Nations Civilization

2007-05-03T13:07:00.000-07:00

It’s far too common, even among the learned, to view the indigenous peoples of North America as uncivilized primitives. The prejudice that when England established its settlement, Jamestown, the indigenous were destined for demise is common. This could be because much of standard US history is based on European sources.

Nevertheless, new findings are overturning these prejudices. In the May 2007 edition of National Geographic, a lovely article (Jamestown Revisited) bears testament to this. It turns out that, before the English came, Virginia was already “settled”. The indigenous Powhatan Confederacy, numbering 15,000 in the region, had both foresight and knowledge (combined, these equal “civilization” according to Bertrand Russell, in the essay Western Civilization).

Common prejudice tells us that indigenous of North America were simple-minded hunter-gatherers. They didn’t think to alter the land or store food, which is characteristic of civilizations. This, of course, is false. The Powhatan Confederacy burned the undergrowth of the Virginian forests to keep them open and managed the land wisely to grow crops.

On the other hand, Colonists had a tough time in Virginia. Unlike the indigenous people, they were unaccustomed to the land and too stubborn to modify their ways. Hundreds of colonists died and it took many to be shipped in from England to sustain the colony.

Only by spreading malaria to the Americas could the colonists prevail against the indigenous.

I’m not a cultural relativist, I’ll admit, Renaissance English (and European in general) culture did have some objectively better aspects than the First Nations culture. For one thing, they had the wheel and writing. Writing was the key to rational, public discourse. Without it, I can only imagine the sorry state of affairs the world would be in. European culture did focus more on rationality than First Nations culture.

But First Nations surpassed the Europeans in their ability to substantially cultivate the land, contrasted with the naïve and destructive practices of European Agriculture at the time.

Celebrity and Athlete Worship

2007-05-01T20:06:00.000-07:00

Link edited on May 6, 2007.

For the past little while I’ve been reading In Praise of Idleness, a collection of Bertrand Russell’s social topic essays. It was first published in 1935, and what strikes me is how much of what he said still applies to present day North America, especially the US, though we Canucks have picked up some of these habits.

The habits I’m speaking of are overvaluing athletes and celebrities, while undervaluing intellectuals. Russell notes, in the tenth essay of his book, Modern Homogeneity, how the scientific community is viewed as elitist for its requirement of professional training, yet such elitism is common and lauded when it comes to athletes. This trend has been noticed by professors to the present day.

The enormous salaries of athletes, second only to business administrators, are testaments to this undue worship. Sports, rather than a new idea or discovery, are almost always the topic of conversation in most households.

Of course, along with sports, accompanies gossip over the trivial details of celebrities’ lives. The majority of youth, rather than reading about history or science, waste countless hours going over the trivialities of celebrities’ lives.

If the majority of youth spent as much time keeping up to date on science or current affairs as they do following celebrities’ lives or the scores of sports, we’d have informed and competent future voters.

To sum up, celebrity and athlete worship generally encourages anti-intellectualism, through its overemphasis on personalities as opposed to ideas.

Defining Social Justice

2007-04-29T19:51:00.000-07:00

Far too often, social justice is referred to without definition. Without clarity, social justice is just a buzz word which can be attacked by the laissez faire right.

Popper defines criminal justice in The Open Society as “equality before the law”. That is, people are judged impartially, without privilege due to income or class status. Social justice, then, can be thought of as a counterpart to criminal justice concerning ones opportunity in life. In short, social justice is equality of opportunity.

Perfect equality of opportunity is far too often thought of as existing in the world’s laissez faire liberal democracies. This isn’t so.

Equality of opportunity, social justice, requires more than an absence of barriers based on ethnicity or gender in the workplace. It requires an equal start in life.

An equal start implies good education, healthcare, and motivation. It implies an equal shot at making it into university for both inheritors of wealth and the poor. Scholarships and government funds are a concrete proposal for achieving such equality of opportunity.

I don’t want anyone thinking I’m an absolutist on social justice. It does come in degrees, with a rigid caste-based aristocratic society being on one end (extreme socially injustice) and a society where everyone has an equal chance at another end (perfect social justice).

I don’t think its’ practicable to achieve perfect social justice. Nevertheless, I think social justice is something we should strive for, with piecemeal and cumulative efforts or reforms.

Social Democracy in Europe

2007-04-28T16:27:00.000-07:00

Political analyst Sheri Berman has written a history (PDF) of social democracy. It starts with noting that in the 19th Century, the “Age of [classical] liberalism”; liberal theory was both an explanation and justification of capitalism. Marxism reacted by providing both an explanation and justification for the downfall of capitalism and rise of communism.

Communism was based on historical materialism and class-conflict. Historical materialism claimed that history’s next step would, necessarily, be communism and that this communism would result in class-conflict. This meant that:

a) Wilful political activism was unnecessary (as economic forces would move society towards communism naturally)
b) Other classes would be hostile to communism (class-conflict)

Eduard Bernstein, based on the realities of the politico-economic world, realized that the market system was here to stay and class antagonism wouldn’t gain electoral results. He provided the foundation for modern social democracy, cross-class cooperation and political activism.

When the governments of Europe instituted social democracy, they used the markets to benefit society, not the other way around. The essay ends by advancing a similar position for foreign trade.

If you want a better and fuller description, read the essay (PDF).

It’s interesting to note that Berman does to social democracy what she claims liberal theory did to capitalism, explains and justifies it.

Arationality

2007-04-27T18:16:00.000-07:00

The notion of arationality I’m advancing reconciles these two statements:

You should never be irrational.

Rationality, by itself, cannot get you through life.

Rationality is basing your beliefs on evidence and reasoning from sound premises, while irrationality is the inverse. In debates, (small “r”*) rationalists are told by Fideists that some things are “beyond reason”, and must be taken upon “faith” (believing based on personal prejudices or feelings without justification). Fideists say that we cannot get off the ground based only on reason, sighting ultra-rationalists like Spock.

In response to the Fideists, I’d say no beliefs should be irrational (contrary to the evidence or based on personal prejudice), but human motives and wants are based on non-rational (henceforth arational) desires or emotions.

A desire like “I want to eat” or “I want to continue living” cannot have justification in the same sense a belief like “the sun is the centre of the solar system” can. In this sense, desires are arational but not irrational.

Now, you may be thinking that actions themselves cannot be rational or irrational because they involve arational desires.This isn’t so. If you desired to help the poor and, to accomplish this, decided to flip a coin, you’d be acting irrationally. This is because your intention (to help the poor) and intentional action (flipping the coin to help the poor) has no causal connection.

This concept, arationality, is nothing new. I’ve heard it mentioned many times, from people such as Massimo Pigliucci to Alonzo Fyfe. But this concept is ignored and has gained little notice, so its reiteration is needed.

Endnote

I say “small r-rationalist” to distinguish between the “Continental Rationalists” of renaissance Europe, like Rene Descartes, or “Platonic Rationalists” of Ancient Greece. These Rationalists thought that, through “pure reason” one could gain certain knowledge of the world.

This is something a probabilist and fallibilist such as I could never agree with. I see reason as justification and justification as tentative.

Why I Am a Dipper

2007-04-20T22:26:00.000-07:00

Newer Note: "C-48" link edited again on June 27, 2008 to a CBC article.

Note: "C-48" link edited on July 7 to specific version of Wiki article.

Before joining the Blogging Dippers, I’d like to give a rational justification of my support for the New Democratic Party of Canada. It mainly ties in with my support for Social Democracy in general and how it’s proven effective in Western Europe.

Before one supports a political party, they ought to read the constitution of that party. The NDP constitution specifically states support for what

they call “democratic socialism”. Usually, democratic socialism refers to replacing the market system with a completely planned economy via democratic reform. If this were the case I wouldn’t support the NDP, as I believe in using the market system to generate wealth which the state can use in order to give the public social benefits.

The NDP constitution (PDF) doesn’t explicitly state that they wish to abolish the market system, though. It says, rather, “democratic socialism” is defined as the position goods shall be distributed and produced based on the needs of individuals. This is somewhat vague, and allows for the existence of competitive markets by my interpretation. Markets can produce goods and even distribute most of them based on traditional, transactional means, but some of the goods will be distributed by the state to the more needy through the institution of social welfare, as my interpretation goes. This is identical to my social democratic philosophy.

The NDP constitution does have a rather far-reaching objective, the abolition of child poverty. Especially since Western poverty is relatively defined. Nevertheless, I enthusiastically support attempts to minimize child poverty and extend social benefits to children so they may have a high standard of living.

On more concrete issues, I’m in line with the New Democrat Party’s attempt at starting a Canadian social charter, the senior’s charter. Their housing strategy and ability to get the strategy implemented in the Liberal Minority Parliament also attracts me to the party. Regulating drug costs is another policy of theirs I quite like.

Like all political parties, though, the NDP does have its flaws. They seem unable to compliment any other party when they do something right, explain their policies in a background of negativism (That is, to say, they attack other parties policies viciously as if they will lead to Canada’s collapse.), and tend to speak of their policies in loaded terms. However, so do all the other parties. Intellectual and rational analysis, with fair or balanced description of opposing views, never made its way into politics.

A critique, from a strategic perspective, is that supporting the NDP won't get anything done. As good as the New Democratic Party’s policies are they cannot be implemented as the party will never becoming the governing party. This view ignores the role a strong NDP opposition has in initiating change. The NDP can affect government policy in a minority government and has. Bill C-48, aptly named the “NDP budget bill”, came out thanks to the New Democratic Party’s work in a minority government. Going to history for some more examples, it wasn’t until a significant threat from the left, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, emerged that Mackenzie King’s Liberals began constructing Canada’s social safety net. And it won’t be until a significant NDP threat emerges that the Liberals (yes, more than likely a Liberal Minority would be more negotiable) will begin constructing a Canadian social charter and welfare state.

Book Review on The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 1: The Spell of Plato

2007-04-20T20:42:00.000-07:00

Well, as I promised my (almost non-existent) readers, I’ll give a fuller commentary on The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 1: The Spell of Plato. This book was written by Karl Popper, a philosopher, during the onset of World War II. As Popper notifies in the book’s preface, it was written in a time when fascism seemed as though it could prevail, and stern critique of its progenitor ideologies was necessary.

At the start of the book, Popper attacks a view he labels historicism. This is the view that history proceeds following strict historical laws or “laws of cosmic development”. This means that history’s course is predetermined and can be predicted by a select few, dialecticians, with knowledge of these laws.

Popper’s critique, in brevity, is that no such laws are discoverable and that these generalizations have lead to immense harm and destruction. Or, that the general attitude of historicists regarding the predetermined nature of social change has led to the evils of authoritarianism, communism, and fascism.

Popper then goes after Plato. He seems to think Plato was insecure about the change going on as the Athenian City-State became increasingly democratic and humanitarian. Plato, coming from an aristocratic background, saw this as a threat. He saw the change as historical corruption. Thus, he formulated a historicist law, that “over time, the corruptibility of the state increases and it degenerates away from its perfect form”. At the top was his ideal “form” of the state (based on his theory of forms), next in line was a Spartan-style state, then democracy, and finally, the worst variety, most distant from the “perfect form” of the state, was tyranny.

Popper than discusses another side of Plato, that of the Utopian Social Engineer. Plato wanted to reconstruct the state, starting anew, into a Spartan-style oligarchy. It would be ruled by Philosopher-Kings, with a strong warrior class, and with a lower class of slaves and labourers. I’ve done some further research and found out that the Philosopher-King parallels Sparta’s Kings, the warrior class Sparta’s Hoplites, and lower class parallels the Helot slaves. Popper details how Plato’s utopia is utterly authoritarian, anti-humanitarian, and collectivist. He furthers that Plato’s utopian ambitions influenced other ideologues with authoritarian agendas over the years.

While I haven’t read Plato’s Republic, I can say this doesn’t paint a good picture of it. The book is very well written, clear, and convincing. Nearly every argument is substantiated with a quote from one of Plato’s dialogues, and detailed further in the “Notes” section. I didn’t like, however, that he forgot to mention Sparta’s one strong point; their high status of women in comparison with Athens.

Political Progressivism

2007-04-16T16:48:00.000-07:00

I’ve finished reading Karl Popper’s The Open Society and It’s Enemies: The Spell of Plato, and it’s given me ideas on how to explain specific political philosophies.

Progressivism, at least in the sense I use the word, means supporting gradual and cumulative change, as opposed to radicals who support immediately restructuring all of society, conservatives who support minimal if any change, and reactionaries who advocate going back to the allegedly “good old days”.

Closely related to progressivism are what Popper calls “Piecemeal Social Engineering” or “democratic social reconstruction”, which he claims is the only rational method of social engineering. Piecemeal social engineering involves changing specific social institutions one at a time, without restructuring the whole of society or trying to get an “ultimate solution” to all social problems. In my mind, progressivism and piecemeal social engineering are one and the same.

Popper contrasts this piecemeal method with “Utopian Social Engineering”, where a blueprint for a perfect society is used to restructure every social institution in society, to uproot all of society. This approach is the same as radicalism.

Popper notes that Utopian Engineers, when “starting fresh”, lose sight of their goal. That’s because their goal developed from a social environment which has been eliminated. Furthermore, Utopian Engineers are even forced to adopt piecemeal engineering and restore many of the former social institutions, like Lenin’s reinstatement of private property under the “New Economic Policy”, if they intend to fix the mess they’ve made.

I’d consider my political philosophy in the piecemeal spirit. Most of my recommended policies have already been implemented in places like Western Europe, and wouldn’t require the radical restructuring of society.

Clean Air Act

2007-04-11T19:58:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, I was very pessimistic about climate change. However, there is some hope.

The hope involves air quality. Air pollution is quite different from other climate aspects; it’s easy to notice. Anyone who’s been in a metropolis is familiar with air pollution. Contrast this with other types of climate change, which will take years to become noticeable. Therefore, you’d expect voters and hence politicians to pay more attention to air quality.

The issue of air quality, more precisely of the Clean Air Act, threatens to cause an election. The opposition parties (Liberals, NDP, and BQ) want levies or carbon credits for businesses not meeting emission reduction targets.

Well, the Tories have conceded to some of the opposition’s demands. The Senate Committee’s version includes the carbon credits for businesses.

It hasn’t past yet, but this is a sign of progress.

Political Institutions

2007-04-10T20:17:00.000-07:00

I’ve just read the seventh chapter of The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, a book by philosopher Karl Popper. I intend to do a thorough review of this book later on, but for now I’ll focus on what Popper calls the theory of unchecked sovereignty vs. the theory of checks and balances.

The former theory assumes the rulers do or should have unchecked power. Popper dismisses this, as even the autocrat depends on the secrete police and military to do his biding. Popper proceeds to claim we should engineer our political institutions to be resistant against a bad ruler, a would-be autocrat (the latter theory).

Concisely, Popper thinks the question of “How we organize our political institutions?” trumps the question “Who should rule?”

This fits well with my support for a constitution protecting rights and democratic procedures, thereby inhibiting a would-be autocrat’s plot.

He Beat Me To It!

2007-04-09T19:52:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post, I criticized the film 300 for glorifying the Militarist State of Sparta. Turns out Ephraim Lytle beat me to it. Lytle is an assistant professor of Hellenistic history at the University of Toronto and saw the film before me, so it really isn’t a surprise.

Lytle mentioned some other fun facts about Sparta which I didn’t know, such as their kings being exempt from the “right of passage” shown in the film or that it wasn’t giant wolves but Helot slaves who were killed in this passage.

Not only did Lytle beat me to it, but he also said it better than me.

Political Philosophy

2007-04-08T11:22:00.000-07:00

In my first post I said I’d give context to and justify my support for social democracy. In brevity, social democracy is state-regulation/intervention in the economy with individual freedom and leads to a more prosperous society.

My own social democracy comes from liberalist and democratic socialist philosophy. Despite this, social democracy is not true socialism, but instead a mixed economic system.

From liberalism comes the ideal of individual rights and markets. While traditional liberalism supported completely free markets, I don’t. The liberal ideal of government procedures being openly accessible to the public, an “open society”, is part of my philosophy.

The ideal of extending the type of rights comes from democratic socialist philosophy. Social rights or positive rights are rights such as the right potable water, healthcare, or education. Economic intervention for social justice is another ideal I take from democratic socialism.

Ideals I get from both liberalism and democratic socialism are democracy and secularism. By “democracy” I mean the representative kind, where there are some legal rights to protect the individual or minority from tyranny of the majority.

More concrete proposals include nationalizing or municipalizing industries like water management, healthcare, daycare, education, postal services, and telecommunications. Of course, for most of these (daycare, education, postal services, and telecommunications) there would be private alternatives.

To protect social rights, industries would be under state-regulation. Minimum wage, union rights, tax penalties for businesses causing environmental damage, and high tariffs on businesses with use child labour. Following that note, I support a fair trade, as opposed to a protectionist or free trade, policy.

The structure of government would be a representative democracy, were constituents elect a representative per constituency. It would have a constitution consisting charter of individual freedoms, protecting the individual or minority from tyranny of the majority, and a social charter, listing social rights, like the one in Europe.

The constitution would also inhibit religious inference in government affairs. This secularism would promote a “public sphere” of politics where religion had little say.

Education would be used to get informed participants in democracy. Critical thinking and numeracy would be focused on, after basic literacy.

Some may wonder what separates this view from “social liberalism”, a modern liberal philosophy. The difference I see is the extent of the regulation. Social liberals support a social safety net, but not an extensive welfare state where social rights are solidified with a social charter, a constitutional document.

Such a system is practicable and ideal. Finno-Scandinavia enacted many of these proposals. This has resulted in a lower poverty rate and a higher wage for the working class. Other Western European countries follow such policies, with reasonable success.

300

2007-04-07T21:54:00.000-07:00

300 is the historical fantasy film about Battle of Thermopylae, based on the graphic novel of the same name. From an artistic point of view, the film was a well done. From an ethical point of view, it’s a propagandistic idealization of a Fascist State.

I know these terms are loaded, so I’ll elaborate. Ancient Sparta was a militarist state, which the film makes evident. Spartans practiced infanticide, leaving deformed infants on a cliff to die. This was part of their rather Socially Darwinian shot at making their populace fit for battle.

Loyalty to the collective, the military and city-state, above the self, were at the heart of Sparta’s ideals.

The film makes notes of it. Yet, it manages to present them as virtuous and good. It manages to get us to identify and sympathize with the Spartans. It inhibits our moral conscience, so to speak (you wouldn't usually agree with such a statement). This is why I say it is propagandistic.

Some of the wronged parties, such as the deformed infant who survives the Spartan eugenicist’s attempt on his life (Ephialtes), turn out to be villains.

The film was also ironic due to inaccuracies. The Spartan King (hero) talked about the “slavery” of Persian Empire (antagonists), yet Sparta itself had an entire class of slaves. Athens is degraded by the Spartans as nothing but “philosophers and boy lovers”, yet pederasty was quite popular in Sparta.

To give the film (and Sparta) credit, the high status of Spartan women was true.

Of course, it could be that I’m just over-reacting. It’s just a film to be seen for fun’s shake. Then again, if someone positively portrayed Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany, you’d be concerned too.

More on Climate Change

2007-04-06T19:48:00.000-07:00

For quite some time, it has been the consensus of the scientific community that humans are causing climate change. A report from Brussels has specified drastic problems climate change would cause. Among them are flooding near costal/arctic regions, more droughts in Africa, and excess precipitation in the places where it isn’t necessary. Hurricane Ally will be worse and some of the effects are already occurring, according to this report.

I think we should be precautious, especially when evidence cumulates which shows how drastic and irreversible climate change will be. Stricter regulations and incentives for “green technology”, along with other practicable proposals, have been out for some time. Yet, only recently it seems politicians are willing to consider them, and even now it’s painstakingly slow. It’ll take voter action before the politicians take a stand, something which may be too little too late.

I should note, some think the market can solve such problems. This view is flawed as the consequences won’t be visible until long after the decisions have been made. By then, it’ll be too late to reverse the damage. It’ll take intervention before hand to save us the cost of dealing with climate change.

Introduction

2007-04-06T11:19:00.000-07:00

Hello to all those reading my weblog. I’ve decided to write this weblog because I have a lot of views and a strong desire to express them. So, here you are.

Among subjects that’ll touched by this weblog include current affairs, politics, analytic philosophy, and science. A variety, I know.

Politically, I’d consider myself a secularist social democrat. Of course, this is nothing without proper context and justification, which I will provide by some indefinite time in the future.

Philosophy is another area which interests me. I support, firmly, analytic philosophy, which is predominantly based on linguistic and logical analysis (analyzing statements) of traditional philosophy. As far as I’m concerned, this method is successful. Of course, I also agree with more naturalistic methods, which use data from the sciences to aid philosophical discourse.

I’ll elaborate later.

Farewell.