Victor Hartung and Tom Lowe - An Exchange on Politics

The latest exchanges can be directly accessed by clicking here.

January 24, 2000

Dear Tom,

Hope I didn't frighten you off with my outspoken comment about the writer of the paper you gave me, and so I wish to qualify my statement. As I read the paper I thought this guy is a Marxist and then I checked his web site and, sure enough, he identified himself as such. I find it amazing that so many people who admit to the failures of Communism and Socialism still cling to the concepts of Marxism, which is Communism and Socialism, often putting a different name on in.

I said this writer is crazy, but that's just an effort to not be so harsh. It is certifiably stupid to cling to political and economic systems that have proven to be so disastrous. And I will add to that the current beliefs of "modern liberalism."

In addition this writer bashes corporations in the most unproductive of ways, and he indicates zero understanding of what is the source of human progress.

So while I cannot comment on his specific charges about education, I wouldn't put any faith at all in the rantings of someone who is so oblivious to reality.

On the other hand Thomas Sowell has demonstrated many times a very keen perception of the motivators of human progress, and an equally keen identification of the elitists who would thwart that progress. I doubt that ending public education, or however you put it, is on his agenda. I bet that if he thought it could be reformed, he would support that tack fully.

Thanks for your input though. I always welcome an opposing viewpoint if I am given the opportunity to reply to it.

Cheers,

Vic

January 27, 2000

Hi Vic!

No, you didn't frighten me off with your outspoken comments about the Stratman article. I love to argue--it's the lawyer in me--but have always had to be careful not to rile folks by being too argumentative.

As to the Stratman article, I'm glad that you looked at his website, because there is a lot of interesting stuff on it. Unfortunately, you missed his article "Why Marxism Always Fails," appearing near the bottom of the home page, or you would have been more reluctant to brand him as a Marxist.

When I hear the term "Marxist" or "crazy" applied to someone, I usually hear in my metaphorical ear the sound of a mind snapping shut, because the terms are seldom used accurately in ordinary conversation. Instead, we use them as an excuse to close our minds to the words of a person who brings to our attention unpleasant facts that we would rather not think about. There is a long tradition in our country of labelling as "Marxist" or "Communist" or "crazy" people who oppose social injustice, irrespective of their politics. That way, we can associate them with the "evil empire" and dismiss them as totalitarians without having to listen to what they say. That's why when I heard you refer to Stratman as crazy, I concluded that further conversation would be unproductive. When the labelling starts, serious thought almost always stops.

Our country has a long and illustrious tradition of persons who fought the social ills of their day, but we are seldom reminded of them in the history books. Some of them were Marxist, but most of them were not. Virtually all of them were reviled as radicals and persecuted. We also have a long tradition of corporate chicanery, oppression and violence which haven't made their way into the mainstream history, either: Andrew Carnegie, the builder of libraries, for instance, instructing his Pinkerton thugs to shoot strikers at his steel mills, or the Colorado Nation Guard slaughtering the families and children of strikers at Ludlow in the first decade of the 20th century on behalf of the Rockefeller mining interests. In more recent times the political power of the large corporations has created a truly socialistic welfare state for the rich and powerful and a free market for the rest of us. Long-Term Capital Investment gets bailed out because it's too big to be allowed to fail, even though it was egregiously overextended; if you or I run out of money, we get a trip to the bankruptcy court. And the bankruptcy laws, thanks to the power of the large banks, have been considerably tightened up in ways that apply to small debtors but not, of course, with respect to the wealthy and powerful. You can be discharged of a $1 million debt and go scot free, but try bankrupting out of $30K; sorry, you have to pay it off.

It would be naive indeed, after having created the modern corporation, a legal person with eternal life and no restraint upon its size, to expect our creation not to behave in accordance with its legally-defined character. Unlike a natural person, a corporation is by law amoral, and its only duty extends to its stockholders--not its customers, its employees or even to society at large. Perhaps Mary Shelly was thinking about the modern corporation when she wrote Frankenstein.

Thomas Sowell falls well within the American mainstream. Like any good propagandist Sowell is right much of the time, but in those things related to his particular agenda, which is the agenda of his well-heeled backers, he preaches a message that is quite divorced from reality. He would like you to believe that there is a liberal "elite" that is destroying the country. The reality is that Sowell himself is a member of the power elite, whose agenda he advances in his column. He defends the most abusive economic monopolies, like Microsoft, with carefully selected anecdotal data about an antitrust action by the government against Eastman Kodak in the 50s to prove his point, neglecting to mention the "unbundling" decision against IBM in the late 60s, which resulted in an explosion of new and cheaper computer technology. As I mentioned the other evening, he cites the SAT statistics to show that Mississippi students, with the lowest per student expenditure in education in the nation, score higher than students of Massachusetts, which has the nation's highest per student expenditures, but neglects to inform the reader that only a tiny percentage of Mississippi students even take the SAT, which is not required for most southern colleges and universities. Sixty percent of the students in Massachusetts take the SAT. If Sowell didn't know that fact when he wrote the column, he was inexcusably careless; if he did he was deliberately dishonest. Take your pick. And take him with a large grain of salt, either way.

Regards,

Tom

(date lost)

Tom,

If you think Stratman writes intelligently, you leave me very puzzled as to how to reply. My dictionary defines Marxism as a "theory of inevitable class struggle that will lead to the overthrow of capitalism and the advent of socialism and the classless society." Stratman can deny he's a Marxist all he wants to but all of his self proclaimed ideas are Marxist. "Class war," "workers struggle against the capitalist culture of competition & inequality," "solidarity," "equality," workers revolutions, collectivism, his unceasing disdain for capitalism and belief in victory of the workers, etc., are full blown Marxism.

I can't make any sense at all with all the stuff about workers values, workers sacrifices, and such. Seems like a bunch of blather to me, but I'm willing to hear you out.

When he talks about revolution what I hear is anti revolution. The American founders realized that the greatest threat to freedom was government. A workers revolution has to lead to a powerful government, or anarchy, which leads to a powerful government. I believe it is accurate to say that the American revolution of 1776 was incomplete in that not all parts of society were freed, most notably black people. Some of the social ills you probably have in mind are aspects of an incomplete revolution. As time has progressed more and more social ills have been corrected and more segments of society became more free, but some where back in the 19th century the anti revolution started and the state, instead of protecting rights, began to declare special privileges. Now the race is on by almost all groups to gain more and more special privileges.

When he talks against capitalism he essentially is promoting poverty for the masses of people and wealth only for the elitists that hold the reins of power. To promote human progress there must be the creation of wealth and capitalism is the only economic system that can create wealth. The source of progress is free people acting in their own best interest. That means people must be able to keep the fruits of their labor, and that means private ownership of property, and that is the essence of capitalism. Furthermore, in America most of the workers are themselves capitalists.

When he talks against competition, he's trying to squelch the greatest single motivator of innovation and discovery.

When he's talking about greedy capitalists, he's promoting envy. Yes, some capitalists are very greedy, many are not. Most of the benevolent non governmental institutions and organizations that benefit all of society are funded by wealthy capitalists. The wealthy give a lot more money to worthwhile charities than poor people. Let them have all the wealth they can gain because most of them use it to create more wealth and in the process they make many other people wealthy along the way. The state's job is to prevent the wealthy from using their power to abuse people like me. The state's job is NOT to take their wealth from them and redistribute to me.

When he criticizes corporations, he demonstrates complete stupidity. There are only 3 ways to accumulate enough capital to build factories without which we would be a very poor society. Government ownership, private ownership, or corporate ownership. Which of the 3 is the most preferable?

When he talks about corporations abusing their power, he's being silly. Corporations only do what the people that run them make them do so the issue is therefore with people who have or control lots of money, and many people with lots of money use it to buy power and influence. The best way to buy power and influence is to give power to politicians and then buy the politician. You can't stop this just as you can't stop government corruption, but the best way to curtail it is to limit the power given to politicians.

I think the evidence that Stratman is a Marxist is abundant in his own writings and I feel I have accurately labeled him. The evidence that Marxism is a complete failure in all aspects is more abundant. In calling him crazy, I was being kind to him. To paraphrase Stratman, Marxism always fails because it's a very bad idea dreamed up by a hate filled mind.

Yes, there are many social ills in this society and the "corporate chicanery" you mentioned is discouraging. Your claim of "a truly socialistic welfare state for the rich and powerful" has a ring of some truth to it, and your brief discussion of the forced "unbundling" of very large corporations is a subject I'm totally unqualified to form any opinions on. I was never convinced that Sowell's view on this issue is sound . I just don't know, and I will not form an opinion without knowing a lot more about it.

Thomas Sowell is probably not right all the time, but I would say he is way outside the American mainstream rather than well within as you say. In yesterday's paper he wrote about the folly of minimum wage laws. He writes frequently about the ability of all of modern liberaldom to ignore the tragic lessons of collectivism of the century just ending. He writes frequently about the decline of education, which is usually defended in mainstream publications. He has written very lucidly about differences in societies, classes, and races, why some people fail and some succeed, why such objectives as equality of outcome are bad and many other things. All these subjects and his comprehension of them are contrary to what I perceive of as "mainstream" concepts. I believe this man is one of the few really bright spots in the media.

You can find 2 years of Sowell's writings at the following:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.archives.asp

Why don't you just identify several that you think are all wrong and let me check them out.

Who are his well healed backers and what is their agenda? How do you know this?

Maybe I haven't covered all your points, but I've tried.

Cheers,

Vic

February 11, 2000

Dear Vic,

I am in receipt of your last letter and I am familiar with Sowell's columns at www.jewishworldview.com. In fact, it's where I get copies for my files when I like to lambast the guy.

Unfortunately, I haven't time to reply to all your points. Everyone that discusses classes, workers, capitalism and class struggle is not automatically a Marxist. The class structure of the U.S. is one of the things that are not allowed to be mentioned in the media, you will notice, but the discussion of class even precedes Aristotle and Plato, who were hardly Marxists. Anyone who points out the increasing inequality in the U.S. in both wealth and income is accused of encouraging a class war, for example.

Please realize that I am not trying to be rude in saying so, but when you state "I can't make any sense at all with all the stuff about workers values, worker sacrifices, and such. Seems like a bunch of blather to me, but I'm willing to her you out" you ought to seriously consider that, because of your experience, particularly in the military, and your natural mindset, the problem with your understanding Stratman is that you are totally ignorant of the real experiences of millions of hardworking men and women, and when told of such experiences and values, have such a fixed and unchangeable mental picture of just how the universe works that facts that don't fit into that schema are literally invisible and unthinkable. "Blather," in other words. It's a universal human characteristic to set up these mental filters, by the way.

Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions discussed the inability of scientists to even be aware of evidence contradictory to the dominant paradigm. It is as though it is invisible. In fields such as economics and politics, so often the subject of intense propaganda from all sides, this tendency is even more pronounced.

Several years ago, I exchanged letters with a right-wing Presbyterian minister on the death penalty, the economy and numerous other subjects and the result of all that trouble on both our parts was a file folder full of paper and two people even more convinced of the other's error. In the end, it seemed like a waste of time for both of us. I propose to avoid that waste.

I am enclosing a response I wrote to Sowell's column the other day. It appears in The Jackson Progressive, http://www.jacksonprogressive.com, which I publish and edit. Email me a reply and I'll print it along with my comments. That way, this discussion may edify others. The last time I checked, that particular column of Sowell hadn't been posted on the Jewish website.

Regards,

Tom

February 13, 2000

Tom,

First of all in your introductory email you attribute both Republicans and Democrats as claiming that both the free market and government are not the answer. Is that what you intended to say? I see the two as competing ideas. It seems to me that Democrats pay lip service to free markets but universally think government should be in control. Republicans pay lip service to reducing government and relying on free markets, but seem to give in on this idea very easily.

You seem disapproving of the free market for setting prices. Who or what should set prices in its place? Since labor is a commodity, the question includes prices for labor also.

Please support the charge that Sowell thinks a free market is a substitute for morality and justice?

Who are the monetarists who rule financial structures, how do they rule it, and how do they raise unemployment?

Just as a general comment you have expressed disapproval of a number of things. What are your proposed solutions?

February 13, 2000

Tom,

If labor is ONLY a commodity then, of course the market should set prices. However labor is human beings. The free market exists for the benefit of people, not the other way around. To insist that employers are justified in paying to employees as little as they can get by with, irrespective of human needs, is a truly monstrous proposition, rejected by virtually every civilization up to the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Of course he doesn't just come out and say it. In fact, he would probably deny it. That's the import of the neoclassical economic theory, however. He is a direct theoretical descendant of David Ricardo and Herbert Spencer. I would have thought that the article under discussion was based upon that proposition. I don't think it would make sense otherwise.

Good gosh, Victor! I thought you had studied some economics, you seem so sure of your economic opinions. Greenspan is a monetarist, the heir of the Chicago School, which includes Milton Freedman and Gary Becker. Inflation is the enemy. When labor demands threaten to raise labor prices, the Fed has three options:

1. Open market operations - The Fed can either buy or sell treasury notes. If it sells treasury notes, it takes in money and therefore diminishes the money supply.

2. Changes in discount rate - that's the rate the Fed charges banks to borrow money. Raising this decreases the money the banks have to lend.

3. Changes in reserve requirements - the amount of deposits that a bank must keep in reserve and not lend out. Increasing the reserve requirements diminishes the money supply, since banks cannot lend as much money and therefore they cannot create as much money.

When the Fed takes measures to decrease the money supply (or raise interest rates, which comes to about the same thing) investment slows and consumption correspondingly slows, thus bringing about less demand for labor. Unemployment results.

Within the current capitalistic paradigm, it seems to me that the first steps would be a minimum wage sufficient to keep a family out of poverty. We had that in the 60s and productivity increased at a much faster rate than now. Second, a highly progressive income tax with unearned income taxed at a much higher rate than earned. Let's reward labor instead of speculation. Third a generous earned income credit to reward workers who work. Fourth, tariffs on imported goods sufficient to negate the advantage of slave and wage-slave labor in other countries, as well as lax labor and environmental laws. Fifth, lower property taxes on improvements and raised property taxes on land to encourage increased efficiency in land use. Sixth, and probably the most important, revise the corporation laws to make corporations legally responsible to the general public, as well as the shareholders. Seventh, enforce the anti-trust laws on the books as written. Eighth, enact a national medical single-payor plan, supported by general revenues. Ninth, change from a cash flow national accounts system to a capital budgeting system to reflect the true nature of the national deficit or surplus.

I'm sure I can think of some other things, but that's a start.

Now...your letter didn't sound much like a letter to the editor. How about coming up with a real stemwinder and letting me put it in?

Tom

February 14, 2000

Tom,

OK, if you don't think Stratman is a Marxist that's ok with me. Just explain to me the differences between his ideas and Marxism. The label doesn't really matter other than it summarizes ones ideology, so if we don't call him a Marxist, it's necessary to identify each individual belief.

It seems to me like the media at every opportunity publishes information and studies supporting the belief that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and the middle class is shrinking, so to say that the subject of class structure is verboten by the media I think is flat out wrong. I'm not interested in collecting the clippings necessary to prove the point. But I think it can be shown that inequalities between rich and poor are not as great as popularly thought to be, and I do think the frequent use of this idea by politicians and the media does encourage class envy, and I think some politicians love to create class envy.

I invited you to make sense out of what I call blather, and what I got back is the charge that I lack real life experiences and thus have limited understanding, and am closed minded. Lin & I think that's pretty funny and we're wondering how you might have any knowledge of what I have not experienced.

I too have engaged in long and fruitless discussions, in my case with devotees to modern liberalism (Modern liberalism is not liberalism at all. It is some form of statism and statism embodies just the opposite of classical liberalism.) And I too wish to avoid another long unproductive debate. That is why I'm trying to get your beliefs pinned down before answering them, and I'm very fussy about being accountable for what I say and expecting my disputant to account for what he says. Please note that because I have asked you to back up your comments doesn't mean I think all your views are wrong. Some of them might have merit and I want to know how you got them.

On the other hand, you have made it clear that you embrace statism of some sort. The past 100 years have provided so much evidence that statism is a complete failure in all its forms, that for any intelligent person to embrace it is incomprehensible to me. So the primary question I place before all others, how do you overlook all the experience that has shown the failure of statism? And the evidence doesn't just point out it's failure, it shows beyond any doubt that statism has caused human misery on a scale never before seen. A couple Frenchman have written a recent book of the results of their extensive study of the human cost of Communism throughout the 20th century and they estimate 100 million lives killed by Communism around the world.

So if you can make the incomprehensible comprehendible, I'd be interested to take the rest of your views item by item. I don't think you can do that, but I'm willing to listen.

Cheers,

Vic

February 20, 2000

Tom,

First some definitions:

By "mainstream" I presume you mean Sowell defends the status quo and differs little from the popular ideas that prevail in the public's mind on matters of public interest. You leave me considerably confused on this matter because the prevailing ideas are centered on faith in government's ability to solve social problems and correct social inequalities, all of which call for more money and power being given to an ever growing government. All of Sowell's writings that I have read or read about very lucidly explain why this popular faith in government is failing and in fact cannot ever succeed, and so that is precisely opposite of what I understand "mainstream" to mean. You then propose programs that require much more money and power be given to the government. Therefore if "mainstream" means popular concepts of big and beneficial central government, you are part of the "mainstream" and Thomas Sowell is way out of it

Statism is the doctrine or practice of vesting economic control in a central government. Communism, fascism, Nazism, socialism, are all statisms. Minimum wages, high taxes, income credits, high tariffs, national single payer medical plan (socialized medicine), are all aspects of statism. The Great Society, the War on Poverty, and such are statist programs.

No, I'm not proposing anarchy, that would be really dumb. Classical liberalism is a better alternative. Classical liberalism implies the minimum amount of government necessary to maintain order. Free people, free enterprise, free markets, free trade, low taxes, are aspects of classical liberalism.

American liberalism (what I call modern liberalism) is the opposite of classical liberalism, it continuously strives to give more and more money power and control to the state

A commodity is defined as any useful thing that is bought and sold. Labor is useful and is bought and sold. Labor must therefore be a commodity. By your own admission then, if you can't show that labor is not a commodity, you agree that the market should set labor prices. But you're not going to accept that conclusion. You're going to come back with some emotional pitch that labor is people and people are human beings and human beings are not commodities. And I say, right, humans are not commodities, but when humans make commodities, the labor that makes the commodity is itself a commodity that can be bought and sold to the highest bidder like any other commodity

********************

Now to try to reply to some of your points:

All your specific suggestions for improving lives expand the size, power, and control of government. They are therefor features of statism. The primary question that we should all be asking is: does statism work? As stated above what I get as the main point of much of Sowell's writing is elucidating the many different ways that statism has itself proven it doesn't work, and the many different ways this question is deliberately avoided being asked. For example: You have proposed socialized medicine, higher minimum wage laws, higher taxes, and high tariffs to improve lives. Do these programs actually work? There's plenty of historical evidence floating around to answer the question, but the questions is never brought up by those who propose these things, and those who ask the question are put down by the "mainstream" as mean and unsympathetic. Sowell is definitely not main stream on this issue

When you chastise employers for paying as low a wage as they can get by with you are leaving out the most important parts of the story. Some employers are complete rat finks and buy the cheapest labor they can, as well as some employees are rat finks and do the lousiest work they can. Many employers, probably the more successful ones, realize the value of good employees and treat them accordingly. Many employers know their success depends on the quality of their employees and share profits with them, and some make their employees capitalists by sharing ownership with them. In either case you pick, the worker has to make the employer a profit, and the employer is competing with his product in the same way the employee is competing for wages

In addition, the associations between employer and employee are voluntary. If the employee doesn't like the wage, he doesn't have to take the job. You will then say, but maybe it's the only job around, and I say there are a number of things he can do to get himself out of this predicament, but the best solution is promoting a thriving vitalized economy that makes more jobs available so more workers can be more choosey

Then you say that the monetarists control the price of labor. I doubt this is true. A book published by Vedder & Gallaway titled "Out of Work" shows pretty clearly that wages are related to productivity. Their predictions of unemployment rates based on this relationship are uncannily accurate. Worker productivity has risen on an average of 2.7% since 1955 and wages have shown a steady increase through out the last century at a rate consistently higher than the CPI. When wages rise faster than productivity, unemployment results later. When government raises wages artificially, unemployment results later.

But suppose your accusation is valid, it can only be done by coercive power of government at the whim of people who have governmental power. All your suggestions for improving lives give more power and money to government. All your suggestions therefore increase the ability of government to screw labor.

Then you will say, I suppose, that government should be run by labor. Sounds good, but no matter how you set it up it ends up being government and does the things that governments do. The historical evidence on this subject is extraordinarily clear. See "Fifthly" below.

Then you might say, what about the increasing disparity between incomes, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and the middle class is shrinking. It's a popular hue and cry of politicians, poverty pimps, populists, progressives, prognosticators, professors, and proctologists, and it's "mainstream," but it ain't so. Sowell would rip this idea all to pieces. All classes are getting richer, particularly the middle class. Anyway, why worry about it? Most of the rich get rich by working harder and smarter and making other people richer also. Definitely not a "mainstream" idea.

And lastly on the worker wage issue, who is smart enough to set wages so that everybody gets a fair shake? Nobody is. No one is capable of outsmarting the information supplied by a free market.

Now about the 3^rd kidney matter, I've been wondering what I would do if I had the extra kidney and needed the money and I can't think of any moral reasons for not selling it to the highest bidder if no friend or relative needs it. What's wrong with buying and selling human organs providing the transaction is voluntary and both parties benefit? Don't just throw up your hands in despair, tell me what's wrong with it. If you want to give your kidney away, that's fine with me, but by what authority should you have the right to tell me what to do with mine?

I know nothing about Ricardo & Spencer or neoclassical economic theory. When I talk about moral values I'm referring to such things as personal honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, loyalty, responsibility, and that sort of thing. To me a good deal is one from which all participants benefit. A bad deal is one in which one or more participants gets screwed. Making decisions based on free market prices violates none of the moral aspects listed above. In fact it is especially moral because all transactions are voluntary. I therefore find no questionable moral values in Sowell's promoting the sale of a privately owned kidney on the open market. What would you do if you had the extra kidney and needed the money?

One of the things that Sowell is so very good at is explaining why discussions as this never resolve anything.

*** From: The Vision of the Anointed p. 8 by Thomas Sowell

PATTERNS OF FAILURE

Definition of anointed: Quoting from commentary by American Institute of Economic Research on the book: "The anointed are found mainly among intellectuals (Hayek's definition of which is 'second hand dealers in ideas'), the media, politicians, bureaucrats, and judges. Their vision is dangerous, Sowell believes, because of the 'dogmatism with which the ideas, assumptions, and attitudes behind that vision are held.'

A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages:

STAGE 1. THE "CRISIS": Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation is routinely characterized as a "crisis," even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a "crisis" has in fact already been getting better for years

STAGE 2. THE "SOLUTION": Policies to end the "crisis" are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and "simplistic," if not dishonest

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z

STAGE 4. THE ,RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as "simplistic" for ignoring the "complexities" involved, as "many factors" went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors

Sowell writes further that "those who accept this vision are deemed to be not merely factually correct but morally on a higher plain. Put differently, those who disagree with the prevailing vision are seen not merely in error, but in sin."

**** end of Sowell quotes

One reason I have such a high regard for Sowell is because he has elucidated so clearly what I have found to be absolutely true in all cases. I think a personal experience to back up Sowell's description of the prevailing illogic would be good to add.

The most revealing was an attempt to discuss the homosexual natural/unnatural issue with several of my modern liberal relatives. One of them declared herself to be a "bleeding heart liberal' in fact. Because I do not accept their belief that homosexual is natural I'm called narrow minded and without compassion and my information sources are not reliable. This in spite of my repeated and unanswered requests for information sources backing up their claim.

Pat Robertson was declared to be an unreliable source because he put together a video tape montage of actual obscene homosexual antics in public parades, yet at the same time information sources by homosexuals themselves were declared reliable. When I put that illogic in the form of a question, there was no answer.

At some point the discussion turned to evolution with all sorts of scientific reference defending this theory. I declined to debate this subject, but asked why they quote science on the subject of evolution and ignore science on the subject of homosexual. Of course there was no reply.

These are some of the "anointed" people Sowell writes about and this incident follows all the stages he has described. The "Crisis" is that homosexuals are treated unfairly, - the "Solution" is that if homosexual is legally declared to be natural, discrimination against them will end, - the negative "Results" being more violence against homosexuals, more disease, more dysfunctional families, and more screwed up children, - and the "Response" will be that the solution didn't work because not all people accepted the homosexual is natural premises. There will be no evidence presented to back up any thing at all, and what is more significant is that all evidence that tends to refute the premises is excluded from any discussion. And of course the claims of possessing greater compassion and understanding for homosexuals were made along the way. As Sowell also notes, these ideas become dangerous when they gain a lot of popular support and it seems like this idea has.

A final point Sowell makes is that such discussions are never fruitful. If one of the discussors will not debate the evidence, there is no possibility for resolving anything. This is the most significant point because many (not all, but many) of the issues of the day could be resolved if the information known about them was objectively debated.

I have not myself read any of Sowell's books, but I have read a lengthy review of his book "Knowledge & Decisions" published in 1980. It is a profound refutation of governmental, social, and economic policies in vogue today. This is not "mainstream" stuff but I can see why a Marxist wouldn't like it. That's because Sowell's analysis of facts & experiences clearly and thoroughly invalidates all forms of statism.

***********

And to conclude this letter, what do I propose instead?

Well, for starters, as many of the founders said and wrote, a self governing society must possess virtue to stay free, that means good moral values. I think the source of moral values is religion, but the fundamental source of freedom is the Christian religion specifically. Therefore for a society to remain free Christianity must maintain a strong influence in that society. Some joker will misconstrue and say I'm proposing government advocacy of Christianity. Not so. Government should just not hinder Christianity. (Many people believe humanism or the enlightenment provided the building blocks of freedom, but I believe it can be shown very clearly that Christianity is where freedom started and grew.)

Secondly, I'm convinced that human beings free to act in their own best interest and keep the fruits of their labor (private property) are the primary source of human progress. Some joker will misconstrue and say I think greed is the source of progress. Not so. Some people are greedy, many are not. If the society has a strong moral underpinning, the un-greedy will prevail and responsible citizens will dominate.

Thirdly, we'd make more progress in understanding what motivates progress if we viewed free enterprise as voluntary cooperation rather than just competition.

Fourthly, to improve the lot of all, society must create wealth. Capitalism is the only economic system known so far that creates wealth. If the rich get richer, that's good, because most of them got rich by making other people richer also. The poor are richer in a wealthy society than they are in a poor society.

Fifthly, it is a long established truth that government is by nature corrupt, inefficient, self aglomerating, self aggrandizing, and prone to use its power abusively. The constitution was written by people who understood this, and this truism hasn't changed. A society can minimize these characteristics by electing honorable men to manage government but it can't eliminate them or fundamentally change them. The only defense is to keep government as small as possible, and I note yet again that all your proposals for improving things will make government larger and will thus make things worse.

And lastly, the ideology I call modern liberalism is firmly anchored in some kind of religious like faith a main doctrine of which is relative values rather than absolute values. Facts and experience have no value unless they fit the supposition. Anything you want to believe is true if you believe it firmly. Any religion is a true religion if you believe it strongly enough. If this ideology prevails, the freedom America has spawned and which the whole world has benefited from, is in peril. I believe Thomas Sowell would agree with this statement.

These are the sorts of thinking that Sowell writes about frequently and with profound comprehension. There are a number of others. This is not "mainstream" stuff. Sowell is definitely not "mainstream", he's a lot smarter than that.

Cheers,

Vic

February 21, 2000

Vic,

I have received and printed out your reply of 2/20, and there is much to reply to.

I'm somewhat at a loss as to how this thing can go forward. I had expected something more in a "letter to the editor" format, but you have answered specific points contained in my previous letters. Should I simply publish the entire series of letters (in which case I will need you to send me a file of the first letter you sent me)? Let me know what you want to do.

I'm not willing to carry on a further private exchange of letters - it's too much effort for the results one gets. The purpose of the Jackson Progressive is to air these discussions and contribute to the general political dialogue.

Tom

P.S. You got me interested in reading some more of Sowell's columns and the result is a further article in the JP, Perennial Sowell Fallacies. Perhaps that article will explain even more clearly and technically why I think he's a dissembling sanctimonious windbag.

February 27, 2000

Well, Tom,

Guess I didn't make myself clear. I feel responsibility bound to carry on a discussion, but you've made it clear you won't discuss. While I haven't studied your site carefully, it seems like you are a significant contributor, and certainly the editor, and if you, the contributor and editor, won't carry on your end of the discussion, it's not a discussion forum that I'm interested in.

My other point is I haven't yet been able to enter into a discussion that is carried to a logical conclusion simply because most people just don't reply to information that refutes their suppositions. The discussion ends right there. Most people just want to vent their views, they don't want them challenged. And so most so called discussions end up being simply a batting around of viewpoints. I've wasted enough time on that already.

In other words, I'm ready to discuss, but only if there's some hope that it will be fruitful. Don't see any sign that your site will be fruitful.

Cheers,

Vic

February 28, 2000

You're right; apparently, I haven't made it clear.

Or you haven't been reading my letters carefully.

While I haven't studied your site carefully, it seems like you are a significant contributor, and certainly the editor, and if you, the contributor and editor, won't carry on your end of the discussion, it's not a discussion forum that I'm interested in.

My other point is I haven't yet been able to enter into a discussion that is carried to a logical conclusion simply because most people just don't reply to information that refutes their suppositions. The discussion ends right there. Most people just want to vent their views, they don't want them challenged. And so most so called discussions end up being simply a batting around of viewpoints. I've wasted enough time on that already.

OK, Vic - you asked for it.

Your writings are so loaded with precognitive assumptions you expect me to take at face value as a basis for the argument that answering them all requires literally a tome. I simply haven't the time and energy to work an 8-hour day, play in the symphony, edit a webzine and answer your letters with the kind of encyclopedic thoroughness that might satisfy you.

It is reasonable, for instance, to expect you to bring to the table a basic knowledge of economics.

I can't take the time to explain, for instance, how the Federal Reserve regulates the money supply, and how the money supply affects employment, as you asked me to do in a letter. Every first-year economics student learns those things. I've studied economics in college and have been studying it ever since, I've read Friedman and von Mises (although not Hayek) as well as Marx and the more liberal and radical economists, and I'm familiar with their arguments. I'm not ignorant of the great conservative thinkers from Burke to Kirk and respect them greatly, for the most part. But for theoretical and moral reasons, I don't particularly agree with much of what they taught.

The point is, though, that I've done my homework.

If you don't know who David Ricardo was, or what his theories on labor were, I'm not sure I have the duty of educating you, although his ideas, together with those of Herbert Spencer, are the guiding spirits of the conservative movement in this country. It is ironic that Ricardo was one of the great exponents of classical liberalism that you claim to believe in.

Further, I try to quote my sources, preferably as links to web resources, so you can go directly to the source. Your telling me that two Frenchmen wrote a book about the victims of communism without citing either the authors' names or the title of the book could easily waste an hour of my time trying to find your source. That is not an hour that I am willing to waste. What is AIER, by the way?

I am willing to provide a public forum and spend the time answering your letters as best I can. I'm not sure I could ever satisfy your "requirements" for an adequate response, however, for the reasons I set out above.

As an alternative, perhaps we could focus on a narrower topic, rather than a complete theory of government, morals and economics - a rather large bite to chew, don't you think? In fact, since the Stratman article provoked this exchange, and it's linked on the website, it might be a good starting place. You could take Stratman to task, paragraph by paragraph and I could probably convince him to enter into the conversation, although I really don't know, since my sole contact was to ask permission to reproduce his articles on the web site.

Think about it.

Tom

March 2, 2000

Tom,

No, I do not expect you to accept my views at face value. That is why I said in my introductory note to the long letter explaining my views that I am prepared to back them up. Ill be delighted to have you challenge my views, in fact. That's why I've written them. If I've got something wrong, I'm the first guy who wants to know it. Seems to me the better way to do that is to ask me to back them up and then explain just what I've got wrong and why its wrong, rather than just tell me I'm wrong.

The reason I don't offer backup information in the first round or 2 is because most people aren't interested. Most people just want to tell me what they think and how wrong I am if I don't see it their way. That's not what I call a discussion of differences. I call that just batting views around and that's what I want to avoid.

I recognize that you quoted some of your sources. I have not looked them up simply because you said you didn't want to discuss anything any more. I will most certainly check them out if you change your mind.

AIER is American Institute of Economic Research, Great Barrington, MA.

I don't think a tome is necessary to explain your understanding of how the Federal Reserve controls the money supply. Just a brief explanation will do.

I honor and respect your efforts at providing a public forum and view it as a public service. I wonder, though, if you shouldn't encourage some guide lines for engagement. I think there should be a specific goal of trying to resolve differences rather than just exchanging views. I've said that before and Ill say it again and again because I think so much of the public debate completely excludes that objective. For example, there is enough information from the experiences with socialized medicine upon which to make an accurate conclusion as to its efficacy. However what occurs that is called discussion is that each side quotes anecdotes and whatever information they can find supporting their own views and the discussion ends. There is no effort to understand let alone resolve the contradictions. Obviously socialized medicine is a good idea or a bad idea. It cannot be both.

To focus on a narrower topic seems like a good idea and I'm all for it, but its not that easy to do. From what has been exchanged so far you have made it very clear to me that you think increasing government power and control over the citizenry is the way to go and I've made it clear I think just the opposite. Obviously one of these concepts is worse than the other. Which one is it? If we could resolve that disagreement, wed be making some real progress and that's what I'd like to try to do.

Cheers,

Vic

March 2, 2000

Just a couple of comments, Vic.

Part of the problem is that it can be both, depending upon who you are and what you interests are. An HMO executive is going to see it very differently from a self-employed independent contractor earning the median income who can't afford a private medical insurance policy. I had to pay medical premiums while I was practicing law. My premium was outrageous and my wife couldn't even get medical insurance due to a minor medical problem - and that was through the Mississippi Bar.

The question is "efficiency for whom?" Often determining the answer requires a moral choice.

You misinterpret my words. Actually, I think that increasing the power of the citizenry over the government and the power of the government over the large corporations would go a long way towards improving our lives and our polity. If you shrink government now without shrinking the power of the large corporations over it, you will simply substitute corporate rule for a republic. Incidentally, in Facist Italy the term "corporate state" was used as a synonym for Facism.

You have a copy of the Stratman article. I have a link to it, but Dave gave me permission to reproduce it on my web site if I wish. Write a reply to his article, picking as many points as you like, or only one. I'll post his article, your reply, and my reply to your reply and that should get the ball rolling. If it's all right with you, I'll let him know what we're doing and he may want to have a say. If it works out well, we might actually get several intelligent folks to contribute.

How does that sound?

Tom

P.S. One request. Please don't use "smart" quotes. They are too hard to translate cross-platform. I prefer opening and closing quotes myself, but I've just about given them up when I work with the web. They're more trouble than they're worth.

Continued

Copyright 2000 by Tom Lowe. Noncommercial reproduction is explicitly authorized as long as this message and information about The Jackson Progressive below is included.