Trivial Reasons

I’d like to quickly welcome anonymous, who will be guest blogging with us today on the subject of political debate (and possible on other topics in the future).

I feel that it is a mistake to align the Anglican Communion too closely with the Protestant church as a whole, as fellow poster Joe recently did. While the Anglican church has always been classified as such, it has in reality served as more of a half-way point between Protestantism and Catholicism (in terms of ideology and practice, and somewhat frequently in terms of “conversion”).

This idea of the middle way has a strong history within Anglicanism and is overwhelmingly present in the way the Church views hierarchy and authority. To most Protestants, the Anglican Church resembles the Catholic Church more than their own.

Because of this moderated approach, it is difficult to try to fit the Church as a whole into the postmodernistic framework that makes up the theologically liberal side of the Protestant church. This framework has gone beyond the tenet of sola scriptura — in which the truth of Scripture is both largely literal and interpretable by individual believers — and into a self-centered theology in which we ask “how can the church reach me where I’m at?” and “what does the Christian religion mean to me personally?”

These questions are not only unanswerable by most theologically traditional approaches to doctrine, but they are completely out of place. The Episcopal Church, as the official US branch of Anglicanism, has tried to marry the new approach with that of the traditional Anglican Church. While such actions have largely been allowed up until this point, a substantial rift is now opening as the actions of the US Church are departing further and further from those of the rest of the Communion.

While we can talk as we like about local variations of religious practice (and such variations do properly exist), there is a firm line between that discussion and one in which overwhelmingly important theological issues like the virgin birth, deity of Christ, nature of the Trinity, and authority of scripture are challenged or disregarded. This latter discussion is not about one part of the Church showing a matter of preference. Instead, it is about a schism in the Church in which one part has chosen to reject established doctrine.

A schism in the Anglican Church may sound novel, but the authoritative governing body of the Catholic Church has experienced them many times over the past two millenia. For the Anglican Communion to remain true to itself, the answer is not to jettison centuries old theology in favor of a postmodernic Communion (which is no longer really a communion at all), but instead to denounce the schism for what it is and take the appropriate steps to remove it from the Church.

A few weeks ago, an article in the Atlantic regarding Unity08, an internet initiative to nominate a bipartisan presidential candidate, was brought to my attention by fellow TR contributor Joe. I had intended to write about it at that time, but forgot until I was reminded of the same intiative by my father-in-law today. Essentially, I think it’s an
interesting idea. That said, I’m not sure that it will accomplish its goals.

I have incredibly little faith in the ability of our two party system to field a candidate who represents my views, and I have just as little faith in its ability to produce a centrist candidate. I would most likely be more interested in supporting a centrist candidate than either a Republican or a Democrat (although it would, of course, depend on the specifics of the candidates).

Nevertheless, the reason that I don’t think Unity08 will accomplish its goals is because I don’t think it can gain a wide enough following to push someone into the White House. That said, it can be argued that a win is perhaps not the immediate objective, but rather that support for such a candidate would signal the need for change. That may be true, but what I see as particularly harmful is that a centrist candidate is going to split the center vote away from the next most moderate option. Therefore, it is more likely to polarize the election and result in a more radical presidency than would otherwise occur.

I will be very interested to see what happens with Unity08, but at this point I remain skeptical.

Steven brings up some interesting questions in his recent post on the subject of a Christian Canon. These are issues that I have been considering over the past couple of years as well. Specifically, what makes the Protestant Canon authoritative and conclusive, and is an argument towards that end consistent with the tenets of Protestantism? Personally, I have come to the point where I strongly doubt the validity of the Protestant scriptures as an inspired set.

There is a double-standard at play here. The Catholic Canon is the result of years of tradition, Church history, the writings of the Church fathers, and a final and authoritative definition by the Tridentine Council. Martin Luther, on the other hand, picked up the shorter-lived, but not new, theme of demoting some books to a sort of quasi-canonical status and others to the status of apocraphyl. These changes eventually made their way into the Protestant Canon that many accept today; however, who is to say that one is more authoritative than the other?

While not all Protestants look at the results of Luther’s work as inspired, many do. Moreover, these are often the same people who look at the work of the Catholic Church, and its dependencies on tradition and claimed authority, and dismiss it as relying on an invalid claim to divine inpiration in a post-apostolic time. But I must ask: are not Protestants claiming the same authority when they vest their Canon with inspirational origins?

The evidence suggests that Protestants are in fact just as likely to ignore the doctrine of sola scriptura as Catholics are to reject it. Nearly any Protestant will claim allegiance to the scriptures alone, but do they actually practice this? The formation of their Canon is just one example among many in which Protestants demonstrate that they are willing to rely on tradition over enumerated doctrine even as they decry the same, only formalized, process within the Catholic Church.

I finally got around to watching The Power of Choice, which I had recorded a few days ago off of PBS. It is a 90 minute documentary on Milton Friedman’s life, ideas, and legacy. The piece ends with a quote from Friedman regarding how the true test of someone’s ideas is whether they are still studied and discussed 50 years later. In some instances, Friedman’s work is already approaching that longevity; nevertheless, his ideas will be discussed for much longer yet.

The documentary is not entirely unbiased (it was produced by Free to Choose Media), and seems to find Friedman’s work to be above dispute. That is not to say that I am disputing his work, but some surely would. That aside, I recommend watching it.

On another slightly-related topic, I recently heard an interview with Tim Harford, author of The Undercover Economist. I was very impressed with what he had to say (on the good of sweat shops, in this case) and am planning on picking up his book. According to Tyler Cowen, it is “one of the very best introductions to the economic way of thinking,” and referencing a rather elitist-sounding statement by one of my fellow contributors here at TR, “[Harford] has done a much better job than Levitt at conveying the economic way of thinking to the masses.”

It has already made the rounds, but I like it nonetheless: The Road to Serfdom in cartoon form (via Greg Mankiw).

In Trivial Reason’s second roundtable discussion, we are considering the question of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. It has taken me a few days to form enough of a position on this subject in order to post my thoughts. The truth is that my past stance was loosely held and even more loosely considered. This stance was utilitarian in the same sense that Steven referenced in his post. That is, leaving aside the questions of embryo collection or in vitro fertilization, it would be better that embryos were used for stem cell extraction and research than to simply be discarded.

Unfortunately, I found this position to be morally indefensible. To demonstrate this, I will compare it to the case of Terri Schiavo. Critics, in their opposition to Mr Schiavo’s plans to remove his comatose wife’s feeding tube, cried euthanasia and murder. In my view, they were wrong. While it would clearly have been murder for Mr Schiavo to administer a lethal injection or gunshot to his wife, taking her off of life support was not. The distinction here is between letting someone die and killing someone. The former can be acceptable; the latter is clearly not.

Embryos considered for use in stem cell research face a similar situation. They can be discarded, in which they are left to “die”, or their stem cells can be extracted which will cause an instantaneous sort of “death” (by “death” here I mean that, at the least, the embryo will no longer be eligible for further development). This comparison is not perfect: Ms Schiavo, according to her husband, wished not to be sustained in such a state — an embryo cannot be asked the same question; however, it is similar enough to demonstrate that discarding the embryos is a regrettable path, but a more conscientious one than what amounts to the explicit and intentional killing of the embryo.

This is my moral stance. In the end, however, it is not necessarily my political stance. In a country in which abortion is an acceptable, if often regrettable, practice, it would be hypocritical of the government to morally legislate against embryonic stem cell research when there are so many potential benefits to be reaped.

The best quote I’ve read today is to be found in a TCS Daily column by David Kirby and David Boaz entitled Examining the Libertarian Vote in Depth:

Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) told her Libertarian challenger after a debate, “If you weren’t sitting in that [wheel]chair, I’d slap you.”

The whole article is worth reading.

For a lesson in bureaucratic inefficiency, look no further than today’s New York Times editorial on food industry regulation. The Times is right: the current state of food regulation by the FDA and Agriculture Department is laughably inefficient. When it comes to the solution, however, the Times is wrong.

Centralizing regulatory power and cutting out the special interests might improve the results, but there’s no proof of that. Moreover, past attempts to centralize governmental power in single bureaucratic bodies have had lackluster results (e.g., Department of Homeland Security).

Instead, the Times hinted at the proper approach but neglected to develop it:

[Theodore] Roosevelt battled the drug companies, the big food processors and the meatpacking companies to protect American consumers from irresponsible corporate behavior. He argued that bad business practices were ultimately bad for business.

In today’s world in which information travels at extraordinary speed, the government does not have to tell us not to eat E. coli-contaminated spinach. News will travel, and a combination of two reactions will occur: a) people will stop buying and consuming spinach from the affected supplier, or b) the supplier will recall their spinach and institute more substantial safety and inspection measures. If B does not occur, A will and it will adversely affect the business.

The biggest counter-argument to this approach is that there is a lack of information in these markets. I simply believe that this is no longer true.  Consequently, the solution to the regulatory inefficiency is not to create more bureaucracy, but to eliminate it altogether and allow the market to work.

It appears as though we may be considering a return (and permanent) mission to the moon. For those, like me, who question why we would make such a colossal misappropriation of public funds, here’s the answer from a “senior [Bush] administration official”:

Big works. Big grabs attention.

Now, if that isn’t absurd enough by itself, let’s throw it into context:

This official said Bush’s closest aides are promoting big initiatives on the theory that they contribute to Bush’s image as a decisive leader even if people disagree with some of the specifics. “Iraq was big. AIDS is big,” the official said. “Big works. Big grabs attention.”

So now we’re saying that Iraq “works”?

(Via Sasha Volokh)

Fans of the show (alas, there were too few) should be able to appreciate these shirts.

Sebastian Mallaby has a good overview of the Social Security choices the new Congress will be facing. Unfortunately, these choices ignore the real problem.

Social Security was never intended to be income for the retired. From 1900 to 1950, average life expectancy in the U.S. grew from 47.3 to 68.2 years. Social Security was normally only collected if an individual lived past their life expectancy. By 2003, the figure had jumped to 77.5 (CDC). Consequently, the average person today can conservatively expect to need income for 12.5 years beyond the retirement age of 65.

Not only have life expectancies risen, but so have the standards of health that we can expect at those ages. It is now very probable for people to not only live past 65, but to also be in a health condition that allows for additional work for several years thereafter.

Continue Reading »

I’ve always opposed the argument that a draft is more equitable than enlistment and should consequently be used to staff our military. To me, the equality of voluntary enlistment is inconsequential simply because it is voluntary. Whether a recruit comes from the bottom or top tax bracket makes no difference in whether they chose, for themselves, that enlisting was in their self-interest. Nevertheless, Russell Beland and Curtis Gilroy show that the statistics might not even be in favor of those crying for equality:

More than 90 percent of recruits have high school diplomas, compared with 80 percent of American youth overall. About two-thirds of today’s recruits score in the upper half of standardized aptitude tests. Military recruits are also more physically fit than American youth in general, and they are subject to strict character screening.

Finally, recruits come disproportionately from neighborhoods with above-average incomes. This was true before the war with Iraq, and it remains true today. In fact, those recruited during the war are more likely to come from affluent neighborhoods than are those who were recruited before the war.

Very interesting. On a more personal note, my primary objection to the draft comes in the form of a denial of governmental power. That is, I don’t believe that our government should have the authority to coerce me into fighting and risking my life on its behalf.

If you’re looking for an example of absurd market behavior, you need not look further than Philip Morris. In response to various legal suits brought against the company a few years ago, the tobacco company has been marketing against youth smoking. Today, the New York Times ran an editorial denouncing these marketing attempts as inadequate and ineffective.

However, when a company is asked to spend billions of dollars in an ad campaign against its own product, should we really expect it to be adequate and effective? I agree that youth smoking is undesirable, but this is not the correct approach. First of all, if a product is legal then it should be allowed to be sold and advertised freely. Yes, tobacco products are illegal for minors, but laws are already in place to prevent such sales. If stores are selling to minors, then the stores should be penalized. If parents are purchasing for minors, not much can be done about it. Forcing the contradictory behavior of both promoting and condemning cigarettes is illogical and unproductive.

If the government insists on overseeing this aspect of the industry, there are doubtlessly better ways to accomplish their ends. For example, rather than forcing creating an environment that compels the industry itself to spend billions on ads, fine them the money and give it to not-for-profits centered around preventing youth smoking. It is these organizations — not Philip Morris — that will have the proper motivation to prevent smoking among America’s young people.

As Capitalist Pig pointed out yesterday, Milton Friedman has passed away at 94. His impact on the world has been, and will continue to be, great. He has also profoundly affected many prominent economists, and a brief roundup of economics blogs posts on the topic demonstrates this fact well.

• Alex Tabarrok
• Arnold Kling
• Bryan Caplan
• David Friedman
• Free Exchange (Economist)
• Greg Mankiw
• Jane Galt
• Steven Levitt
• Tyler Cowen

Charles Krauthammer is wearing his neoconservative blinders again. While he has moved back and forth over the past few years between supporting the war in Iraq, calling for additional resources in Iraq, and declaring Iraq a success, he has now adopted a new stance: Iraq is a failure and it isn’t our fault.

Is this America’s fault? No. It is a result of Iraq’s first democratic election. The United States was not going to replace Saddam Hussein with another tyrant. We were trying to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East as the one conceivable antidote to extremism and terror. . . . It was never certain whether the long-oppressed Shiites would have enough sense of nation and sense of compromise to govern rather than rule. The answer is now clear: United in a dominating coalition, they do not.

While his points are valid, they were also largely forseeable before the war. The source of the problem is not, as the pro-regime change neoconservatives like Mr Krauthammer are now saying, that the Iraqi government is flawed. Don’t misunderstand me — it is flawed. The source of the problem, though, is that we entered into Iraq with the perception that an immediately post-war Iraqi government could be without major flaw.

The arrogance of the neoconservatives has never been more apparent than now. Mr Krauthammer is one step away from declaring a loss in Iraq, but he can’t bring himself to blame it on a failed American vision for change. Attributing the blame to Iraq will only embolden those of the neoconservative mindset to attempt regime change again in the future. Unfortunately, history suggests that any future attempt will, once again, fail.

It was reported yesterday that Microsoft has agreed to pay Universal Music Group a fee for every Zune that they sell (Microsoft’s new highly-touted, but less-than-highly recommended, “iPod killer”). When Universal was asked about the arrangement, Doug Morris, their chief executive, said that “we felt that any business that’s built on the bedrock of music we should share in.”

There is a whole layer of sarcasm regarding why anything built on music — not “our music” or “music by Universal artists”, but just “music” — should generate revenue for Universal, but I’m going to suppress that for now. Instead, let’s look at this from an economic perspective.

Continue Reading »

A few days ago, my co-blogger Steven alluded to my stance on Sarbanes-Oxley by saying that I think it a necessary but overreaching reform. This is an accurate statement, but also one to which Steven’s own views are contrary. Instead, he argues that “[s]elf-interested shareholders can effectively prevent and compensate for corporate malfeasance.” I cannot agree with this for two reasons.

First, independence presents a problem because the self-interests of shareholders are aligned with the interests of the company — the two are not independent. For the average investor this question of independence may not be an issue. Her ownership is insubstantial enough to her own net worth that it may be more important for the company to be acting legally than to be highly successful. For the investment firm that owns 5% of the company’s stock, though, the response may be different. For it, when faced with a choice to either ignore illegal activities or see that 5% stake turn into nothing, the incentives to ignore the problem are too high.

Rational ignorance, on the other hand, suggests that the average investor is going to have very little interest in following the day-to-day operations of the company. After all, it isn’t worth her time to do so. I, for example, routinely throw out any proxy voting documents that I receive regarding my investments. My vote would probably not make a difference, and even if it did I do not know what policy would be best.

When these two issues are combined, the average investor may be willing to prevent corporate fraud if she discovers it, but she does not have incentives to do so. In comparison, the investment firm has strong incentives to monitor the company, but has negative incentives to report any discovered infractions. As a result of this, government regulation is required.

Steven recently posted on the “Hobbesian Man”, and I believe that he is right to say that neither free individuals nor elected and empowered politicians will be perfect; however, I strongly disagree with his assumption that the empowered politician is deserving of more fear than the individual down the street.

The elected official, while just as susceptible, if not more susceptible, to corruption, also has an equally weighty check on his power: concerns over re-election. This provides a strong incentive to both serve the people and to remain accountable to standards of common decency. While these incentives are not always successful at reigning in the behavior of politicians, they are nevertheless effective.

The individual down the street, conversely, does not have these same checks. That is not to say that there are no checks on his behavior. In an anarchic society, any negative actions on his behalf could result in a multitude of reactions, up to and including his death. This provides an incentive, yes, but is it of the kind that we want? Moreover, how effective is it really?

Even in a governmentless society, there will always be certain parties that hold more power than others. In some cases, the differences in power between individuals will be quite vast. If the individual down the street holds this sort of power, you may be powerless to override him. Instead, he will be nearly omnipotent in reigning his power over you. Is this a trade-off that we are willing to make?

I believe not, and consequently I must reject what I perceive as the Hobbesian-naturalism of anarchy and instead promote contractarianism as a much more desirable solution.

Ever wonder what the so-called “No Fly List” looks like? Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes reveals that it’s just a list of names — some all too common — against which travelers are checked. In a world of 6.5 billion people, you’d think that collecting a little bit more information than a name would be worthwhile. Unfortunately, as names are all we have, situations like the following are bound to occur.

Gary Smith, John Williams and Robert Johnson are some of those names. Kroft talked to 12 people with the name Robert Johnson, all of whom are detained almost every time they fly. The detentions can include strip searches and long delays in their travels.

“Well, Robert Johnson will never get off the list,” says Donna Bucella, who oversaw the creation of the list and has headed up the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center since 2003. She regrets the trouble they experience, but chalks it up to the price of security in the post-9/11 world. “They’re going to be inconvenienced every time … because they do have the name of a person who’s a known or suspected terrorist,” says Bucella.’

Now, let me make clear that I don’t know of a better way to do this. But, at the same time, is this list actually preventing terrorism? I tend to doubt it.

(Via John Gruber > Kevin Drum)