Archive

Archive for the ‘religion’ Category

Historic Times: Larry Lessig calls for Constitutional Convention to fix our corrupt, broken government

February 10th, 2010 No comments

Lessig doesn’ expressly say it, but we also need to rein in the “self-evident”, “unalienable rights” of all corporations

Actually, the last quip in the title are my words, not Lessig’s.

Last week, I noted Harvard law prof Lawrence Lessig’s earlier rebuttal to Glenn Greenwald regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United to overthrow centuries of American law and jurisprudence on the rights of corporations and to enshrine corporations – legal fictions created by states and with powers very severely restricted at the time the Constitution was negotiated and ratified by Americans who had recently rebelled against British company-structured colonies and monopolies – as entitled to “speech” under the Bill of Rights on the same basis as men, and made the following observation:

As an aside, other, non-corporation forms of property that had real human bodies – such as slaves – were clearly NOT afforded Constitutional rights of any sort at the time of the Revolution/Bill of Rights; freed slaves as they became citizens and non-citizen Chinese coolies received Constitutional protection ONLY when the Fourteenth Amendment was expressly adopted to extend “privileges and immunities” to citizens and “due process” and “equal protection” to “persons”.

It was this reference to “persons” that smart/prevaricating lawyers for extremely influential railroad corporations were able to persuade a sympathetic Supreme Court – in unargued dicta by a Justice and recorded in headnotes by a Court’s Reporter who were both former railroad lawyers – to the effect that either (i) the 14th Amendment-adopting states had all intended to mean that it would be the federal government, and not the states creating corporations or giving them permission to do business in-state, who would determine whether domestic or out-of-state corporations received “equal” protection of state laws as did citizens or (ii) that such was the hidden purpose of some railroad-friendly drafters of the Amendment, and that such hidden purpose should govern in interpreting the Amendment.

Is there any surprise that most of the subsequent 14th amendment case law is about how monied corporations vigorously pursued and advanced their interests, while blacks and foreign residents continued to get short shrift (“separate but equal”) from unconcerned federal judges?

Now, the thoughtful and highly regarded  Lawrence Lessig has written a must-read article in The Nation; “How to Get Our Democracy Back; If You Want Change, You Have to Change Congress” (February 3; February 22 print edition).

I won’t reprise the essay here — I have a few comments on what I see as serious shortcomings and blind spots in Lessig’s analysis, but the draft of these grows long (like my aside above) – rent-seeking; corporations; religion; limited liability; Constitution, speech, states, federalism – so I will post them separately.

Lessig’s article is a key starting point and long enough, though I will advise/remind the curious reader of my preceding posts on  corporate “free speech”..

In calling for amendments to the Constitution, Lessig joins others that have come to the same conclusion years ago, such as “whacko”, snivelling local communities/enviro-commie fascists (snark!) seeking to control the impacts of large multinational corporations on local communities and resources, and some state-righters seeking to breathe some meaning back into the Tenth Amendment and the moribound body of federalism. More on this later.

Those who want to get further stirred up might want to give another listen to the new music video Anthem of what our Founding Fathers said to King George:  It’s Too Late to Apologize.

Free speech 2: Finally, someone else – Larry Lessig – gets it on state-created corporations and speech!

February 3rd, 2010 No comments

Further to my preceding post on speech and corporations, I highly recommend Lawrence Lessig`s insightful short piece, “The Principled and Pure Court? A Reply to Glenn Greenwald” (HuffPo, January 27).

For those who haven`t seen it yet, I take the liberty of quoting liberally (emphasis added):

Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald
is just about the most persistent and effective critic of money in
politics today. He is among the least starry-eyed reporters studying
Congress. But his essay defending the Court’s judgment in Citizens United would have been better had he sprinkled a bit of the skepticism he has for Congress on the words penned by the Court….

The First Amendment, Greenwald tells us, is an absolute. It applies
not to “persons”; it “simply bans Congress from making any laws
abridging freedom of speech.” This law plainly banned these entities —
whether persons or not — from a freedom of speech. Ergo, this law is,
and should have been found to be, unconstitutional.

Sounds good. Sounds principled. Sounds refreshingly different from
anything else that happens within the reach of DC (i.e., good and
principled).

But apply that same test to the following (not so hypothetical) free
speech case: A bunch of doctors practice in family planning clinics.
The government issues a rule that says certain doctors in certain
clinics are not allowed to discuss abortion as a method of family
planning. They can talk about abstinence. Or condoms. But they are not
allowed to advise their pregnant patients that they have the liberty to
abort their fetus.

Sounds like — under the First Amendment Greenwald describes — a
simple case. Whether or not doctors are persons (and at least some are
just mere mortals), they should have the freedom to speak. Advising
someone about a legal medical procedure is among the core freedoms one
would expect a Free Speech Clause to serve.

Yet in 1991, in an opinion by Chief Justice Robert’s former boss, Chief Justice Rehnquist, in the case of Rust v. Sullivan,
the Court found no First Amendment problem at all with the government’s
restriction on doctors’ speech. Indeed, it wasn’t even a difficult case
according to the Court (“no question but that the statutory prohibition
contained in § 1008 is constitutional.”)

Why? How? Well the doctors at issue worked in family planning
clinics that had received at least some of their funds from the
government. And in exchange for that benefit, the government was free
to gag the doctors however it wished.
The doctors were free of course
to work in a family planning clinic not funded at all by the government
(for of course, there are plenty of those) (that’s a joke). But so long
as the doctors take this benefit from the government, they’ve got to
live by the rules of the government, at least so long as those rules
serve some legitimate state end.

So how is this case related to Citizens United? For the law wasn’t
applying exclusively to entities that had received something from the
government. It was applying to all corporations.

But of course, corporations do receive a gift from the government.
The government limits the legal liability of investors in that
corporation in exchange for their risking their capital to spur
innovation and growth. That benefit is significant. And the First
Amendment question is whether in granting that benefit, the state would
be free to limit the political advocacy that corporations engage in.

It seems astonishing to imagine the state couldn’t. State law has
historically had wide freedoms to condition the corporate form as they
wished. This fact has led some, including my colleague, Sina Kian, to
argue that Citizens United is less than people think. That the decision
notwithstanding, states could build this limit into their corporate
charters. Or that maybe even Congress could induce states to do the
same. The question then would be the reason the government had for
demanding the entity give up this liberty in exchange for the corporate
form. Traditionally, the burden of that question is the easiest for the
government to meet — is there any state interest at all?
In Rust, the
interest was that that government didn’t like abortion.

But I agree with Greenwald that there is something unseemly in the
idea that the government could restrict the speech of a class because
it doesn’t like the speech of that class.

Yet this is the most confused part of the commentary (and reaction)
of most to this kind of regulation. If the government’s reason for
silencing corporations is that they don’t like what corporations would
say — if it thinks, for example, that it would be too Republican, or
too pro-business — then that’s got to be a terrible reason for the
regulation, and we all ought to support a decision that strikes a law
so inspired.

That, however, is not the only, or the best, justification behind
the regulations at issue in Citizens United. Those rules not about
suppressing a point of view. They’re about avoiding a kind of
dependency that undermines trust in our government.
The concentrated,
and tacitly, coordinated efforts by large and powerful economic
entities — made large and powerful in part because of the gift of
immunity given by the state — could certainly help lead many to
believe “money is buying results” in Congress. Avoiding that belief —
just like avoiding the belief that money bought results on the Supreme
Court — has got to be an important and valid interest of the state.

If the Court really means to say that entities that fund or create
other entities can’t limit the power of those entities to speak — so
the government can’t stop doctors from talking about abortion, or the
IRS can’t stop non-profits from talking about politics — then we
really have crossed a Bladerunner line. For that conclusion really does
mean that these entities were “created with certain unalienable
rights,” even though they were created by a pretty pathetic creator —
the state.

My point is not that the state’s power to condition should be
unlimited. The point instead is that it’s not so simple, or absolute,
as Greenwald would have it. And given the true complexity of these
evolving and complicated doctrines, it is certainly fair to be critical
in the extreme of this decision by the Court, favoring speech that most
believe it naturally likes (unlike abortion-speak), in a decision that
ignores the judgment of Congress about the conditions under which the
integrity of that body, or any election, proceeds.

It seems to me that Lessig doesn`t go far enough, in questioning as I have all of the negative consequences of the state grant of limited liability to the owners of corporations. Surely any libertarian worth his salt should do so.

But Lessig has understated his own case: the government has a valid interest in seeking to prevent not only the appearance that “money is buying results”, but actual corruption and sweet deals as well. Surely the Constitution was not intended to let wealthy individuals to get a leg up on everyone else by laundering their speech through a company and on a tax-deductible basis.

Further, Lessig fails to noted that the Supreme Court could easily have avoided overturning laws and decades of precedents and public understanding – and could have provided much-needed clarity – by concluding that the statements coming from corporations are NOT entitled to protection as First Amendment “speech”, because corporations are legal entities and not themselves actual individuals capable of “speaking” for purposes of the First Amendment. Such a decision would leave all corporate spokesmen and shareholders bearing, like the rest of us do, personal liability and moral sanction for false or offensive speech (though insurance or indemnification by others might of course be be available).

But via the growth of concentrated power enabled by the state establishment of the corporate form, we appear to be rapidly becoming a nation a county “of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation”.

Banning corporate political speech (and campaign contributions) would dampen the rent-seeking pressures that have fuelled to the growth of the state; such steps would also invigorate public discourse – and build greater national trust – by making it clear WHO is actually doing the talking (or letting the body politic discount whenever speech is anonymous).

Supreme Court, others confused about "speech" because they ignore (1) that corporations are not themselves persons, but creatures of the state

February 3rd, 2010 No comments

Further, virtually everyone has been ignoring (2) WHY it is that there is so much concern about corporations and their influence on (and vulnerability to) government: namely, states have allowed individuals (and now other corporations) to form separate, limited-liability legal entities that cut off their owners for any responsibility for the damages that such corporations may do to others.

One of the chief direct consequences of the use of the state to create corporations, as I have discussed in many posts (as the Mises` resident radical enviro), has been massive risk-shifting to the public and cycles of public pressure to use government to rein in corporations. In this, the better organized, longer-lived  and deeper pocketed corporations always having a leg up on gaming the drafting and interpretation of laws and regulations, and using government to steal further from/shift risks to the public at large and to hobble competitors. Thus the indirect consequences of the grant of a limited liability corporate personhood include not simply the financial crisis, but the growing distrust of government, corporations, politicians and voters of a different political stripe and the ramp-up in reasons to fight over the wheel.

I think that the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is wrong, chiefly because the First Amendment is about HUMAN speech, while corporations – though associations of humans – have a distinct legal identity and very different characteristics.

The decision is also wrong because the Roberts court fails to acknowledge that just as the state can create corporations, so also can it condition their existence on refraining from political speech (making political contributions, etc.), or regulate their speech via excise taxes or the like (just as the federal government so conditions the grant of income tax-free status to religious groups and non-profits on express restrictions on political speech). But far better to attack the problem at the root of incorporation (or at the Constitutional level) than by a host of federal-level laws and regulations – including those remaining on churches and NPOs.

I have commented on these points in a blog thread at the libertarian/right-leaning legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy.

TokyoTom says:

Leo Mrvin: I haven’t given this much thought, but is it really inconceivable that if the First Amendment didn’t protect corporations, individuals who wanted to pool resources in mass media vehicles for political speech would do so without the benefit of limited liability?

Dilan EsperYou can make this argument, but it begs the question, because then the issue is simply re-stated as “can the government condition limited liability on individuals giving up their associational speech rights?”. 

In this case the question conflates the states which approve corporate status with the federal government, but why would such a question prove difficult? The federal government provides tax exemptions to religious and other groups on the express condition that they refrain from political speech.

It doesn‘t take much digging to see how profoundly the grant of limited liability to corporate shareholders has snowballed into the massive struggles for favor and regulation that we see today. Confused decisions that corporations (as opposed to those who own and staff them) have Constitutional rights has greatly contributed to this [- even as these decisions constantly acted to shift power from citizens and the states to the federal government] . (Likewise, the federal income tax has also perversely entangled the state in religious organizations and political speech.)

TokyoTom says:

If Congress can Constitutionally limit the speech of people who choose to associate as non-profit churches etc., why cannot it likewise limit the speech who choose to accept the favor of a state grant of limited liability?

 

John Dewey says:

The discussions about whether corporations have the rights of people and about whether the Founding Fathers could have considered corporations — is any of this relevant?

The First Amendment protects a citizen from a powerful government which would decide what speech the citizen would be allowed to read or hear. It’s not a right granted to a speaker, but a right granted to a listener or reader. As such, it makes no difference whether the speech being protected comes from a single person, a non-profit organization, a union. a church, or a corporation. It is not the speaker but rather the speech — and the right of the citizen to hear it — which is being protected.

TokyoTom says:

John, I disagree. The First Amendment is about the peoples‘ rights to gather and to speak privately and publicly, including reporting on government.

Corporations are not people — but legal fictions that are creatures of their owners and the State, which protects their owners by giving them a special grant of limited liability. Corporations may parrot the words of particular people with in the firm, but they [corporations], like parrots, are not people and do not “speak” themselves. (Actually, this is unfair to parrots and other animals, which deliberately attempt to convey meaning to others, and not as a sock puppet for another person/animal/entity.)

While I‘m no fan of corporate income taxes, just as the federal government can condition “non-profit” status on a waiver of political speech rights by churches and other forms of legal entities, so states condition the grant of corporate status on the owners‘ acceptance that they cannot use the corporation as a political mouthpiece (such a use could be made expressly ultra vires), and so should states and the federal government be able to limit or tax political speech by corporations.

Not only would this be good law, but in my view entirely good policy by doing much to slow rent-seeking via large corporations, by removing incentives for wealthy investors to influence public officials and public debate. Let the rich (and others) speak for themselves – anonymously if they choose – but we can and should stop the money-laundering of speech through corporations.

The Roberts court showed it didn‘t have the strength of its convictions by upholding the part of McCain-Feingold that mandates disclosure of who is funding speech — in my view, this is incorrect. Anonymous speech very much SHOULD be allowed – but only for individuals and organizations that have not been granted limited liability by the state.

The chief sticky side issue here is the political gagging of churches and NGOs arising from the desire for favorable tax treatment [on this, the solution lies both in ending limited liability and in ending corporate income taxes].

The Road Not Taken IV: My other hysterical comments on climate science & how Austrians hamstring themselves

November 2nd, 2009 2 comments

In my initial post, on how Austrians strive for a self-comforting irrelevancy on climate change, I copied my chief comment to Stephan Kinsella.

I copy below my other posts and some of the remarks I was responding to on Stephan`s thread, including the one that I was unable to post – for some reason I am trying to figure out (but that Stephan tells me was not a result of moderation by him; I note my full apology, as stated in my update to my preceding post):

  • TokyoTom

    fundamentalist: “I love the responses from the GW hysteria crowd.
    They have nothing to offer but ad hominem attacks and appeals to
    authority.”

    Am I excluded from the “hysteria” crowd, Roger? Because if I`m in,
    you seem to have entirely missed my post, and my point, as to the
    consistency of your arguments with Austrian principles and the
    effectiveness of approaches like yours in dealing with the rest of the
    world – including all of the deluded and others who are engaged in bad
    faith.

    Published: October 30, 2009 9:44 AM

  • Stephan Kinsella
    [Note: this is the comment to which I responded with the remarks copied on my preceding post]

    “Tokyo” asked me to respond to his post but it’s so rambling I am
    not sure what to respond to. To me this is very simple. I think we are
    in an interglacial period. It’s going to start getting cooler
    eventually, unless by then we have enough technology and freedom (no
    offense, Tokyo) to stop it. If there is global warming maybe it can
    delay the coming ice age by a few centuries.

    If there were really global warming why not just use “nuclear
    winter” to cool things down? You don’t see the envirotards advocating that! 🙂 (see Greenpeace to advocate nuking the earth?)

    In any event as I see it there are several issues. Is it warming?
    Can we know it? Do we know it? Are we causing it? Can we stop it?
    Should we stop it?

    It seem to me we do not know that it’s warming; if it is, it’s
    probably not caused by Man; and if it is, there’s probably nothing we
    can do to stop it except effectively destroy mankind; there’s no reason
    to stop it since it won’t even be all bad, and in fact would be overall
    good. I do not trust the envirotards, who hate industrialism and love
    the state, and seek anything to stop capitalism and to give the state
    an excuse to increase regulations and taxes; why anyone thinks these
    watermelons really know what the temperature will be in 10, 100, 1000
    years, when we can’t even get accurate weather forecasts a week out, is
    beyond me.

    That said, I’ll take the watermelons seriously when they start
    advocating nuclear power. Until then, they reveal themselves to be
    anti-industry, anti-man, techo-illiterates. (See Green nukes; Nuclear spring?.)

    Published: October 30, 2009 10:03 AM

  • TokyoTom

    [my prior version ran off without my permission; this is a re-draft]

    It seems like I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t make him think,

    We all have our own maps of reality and our own calculus as to what
    government policies are desirable and when, but as for me, the status
    quo needs changing, and the desire of a wide range of people – be they
    deluded, evil, conniving or whatnot – to do something on the climate
    front seems like a great opportunity to get freedom-enhancing measures
    on the table and to achieve some of MY preferences, chiefly because
    they help to advance the professed green agenda. [To clarify, I didn`t mean that I want to advance “the green agenda”, but that the pro-freedom policy suggestions I have raised should be attainable because greens and others might see that they also serve THEIR agendas.]

    I see no reason to sit at home or simply scoff or fling poo from the
    sidelines, and let what I see as a bad situation get worse. There`s
    very little in that for practically anyone here – except of course
    those who like coal pollution, public utilities, corporate income
    taxes, big ag corporate welfare, political fights over government-owned
    resources, energy subsidies and over-regulation, etc. (and those folks
    aren`t sitting at home, believe me).

    I can keep on questioning everyone`s sanity or bona fides, or I can
    argue strongly for BETTER policies, that advance shared aims.

    Does Austrian thinking simply lack a practical political arm, other
    than those few who have signed up to support special interests?

    Ramblin` Tom

    Published: October 30, 2009 11:51 AM

  • TokyoTom

    Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and
    fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of
    others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.

    You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a
    scientist – as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a
    roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of
    others,

    (ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and
    at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in
    the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually
    defends and advances our policy agenda, and (putting aside the
    insulting and disingenuous “Tokyo asked me to respond” and “it’s so
    rambling I am not sure what to respond to”); and

    (iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the
    motives and sanity “watermelons” (as if they`re running the show), a
    few helpful, free-market libertarian “solutions”, like open-air
    explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a “nuclear winter” effect!

    And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we
    actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after
    all, underway is met with silence – other than your faithful report
    back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about
    …. science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not
    merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling
    melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway
    simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the
    very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!

    Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow
    engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the
    Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the
    big to do about climate – which may very well result in a mass of
    ill-considered, costly and counterproductive
    legislation – is really groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal fulminations here).

    If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.

    Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.

    Sincerely,

    Tom

    Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:

    “The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal
    seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute
    plans within the context of their goals. … [S]ocial welfare or
    efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. [C] that
    similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to
    catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being
    captured by prices.”

    “Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the
    heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that
    is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal
    plan formulation and execution.”

    “The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is
    conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to
    property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to
    identify possible ways of resolving it.”

    “If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in
    either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant
    resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist.
    This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly
    all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998;
    Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective
    on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen
    as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the
    market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the
    necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced
    property rights, is not in place.”

    Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM

  • TokyoTom

    Bala:

    “Did rising temperatures cause an increase in atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration”.

    This is a great, basic question; I`d love to answer it (actually, I
    already did, though a bit indirectly), but you see, I`m one of the
    nasty obfuscating members of the socialist hysterical crowd, so I
    really should defer to others here who have better ideological and
    scientific stature here (and who hate ad hominems and love reason),
    such as fundamentalist, or perhaps even our confident lead poster,
    Stephan Kinsella (who has nothing to offer on the question of how
    libertarians should engage with others on the political front), or even
    our humble physicist climate system authority, Dr. Hayden.

    Gentlemen, take it away.

    Published: October 31, 2009 11:31 AM

  • TokyoTom

    I`m sorry I don`t have time now to respond in more detail to those
    who have commented in response to mine, but let me note that not one of
    you has troubled to actually respond to my challenge, which was based
    on Austrian concepts of conflict resolution, understanding of
    rent-seeking embedded in the status quo, and the recognition that the
    present debate on climate, energy and environmental issues presents
    opportunities to actually advance an Austrian agenda.

    In my view, we can either try to improve our lot, by seeking items
    such as those I laid out previously or condemn ourselves to irrelevancy
    by standing by and letting the big boys and the Baptists in their
    coalition hammer out something worse from our Congresscritters.

    For this, the correctness of our own views of climate science
    matters little – nothing, in fact, unless we are willing to DO
    something about it, by engaging with OTHERS who have DIFFERENT views.

    For those who have too much trouble remembering the legal/regulatory changes that I suggested, here they are:

    [pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:

    * accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate
    income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
    * eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to
    allow consumer choice, peak pricing and “smart metering” that will
    rapidly push efficiency gains),
    * ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise
    unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more
    common-law dependent approaches),
    * ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
    * speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most
    threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural
    corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
    * if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that
    it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the
    hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact
    and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and
    least susceptible to pork).

    Other policy changes could also be put on the table, such as an
    insistence that government resource management be improved by requiring
    that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens (with a slice to the
    administering agency).]

    Many others come to mind.

    Well, what`s it going to be? Relevancy, or a tribal exercise in disengaged and smug self-satisfaction?

    Published: October 31, 2009 12:37 PM

  • TokyoTom

    1. Christopher and mpolzkill:

    Thanks for the favor of your comments.

    I was asking if Austrians never seek to practically engage others on
    questions of policy; the first of you brings up Ron Paul, but one man
    is not a policy, nor are his sole efforts a policy program; the other
    of you suggests succession from the U, which is hardly an effort at
    pragmatic engagement with anybody over a particular issue. (BTW, here
    is Ron Paul`s climate program.)

    I can see some engagement by libertarians on this issue, but such
    seeds either (i) die when they fall on the rocky ground of the Mises
    Blog or (ii) represent work by people paid to criticize one side of the
    debate, and consistently ignore problems with the definitely
    non-libertarian status quo.

    Why libertarians do not see any opportunity here for a positive
    agenda? Do they prefer to be taken as implicit supporters of the
    government interventions that underlie most enviros` complaints?

    2. fundamentalist:

    “I don’t see anyone doing that except the GW hysterical crowd.
    Honest scientists like Hayden try to present evidence and reason so
    that we can have a real debate, and the hysterical crowd flings poo
    from the sidelines.”

    Thanks for your direct comment (even as you lace it and others with
    ad homs), but can`t you see you also are missing my point? Are you NOT
    interested in trying to cut deals that would, say:

    * accelerate cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate
    income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
    * eliminate antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow
    consumer choice, peak pricing and “smart metering” that will rapidly
    push efficiency gains),
    * end Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise
    unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more
    common-law dependent approaches),
    * end energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
    * speed economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most
    threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural
    corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar),
    * insist that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens,
    * end federal subsidies to development on barrier islands, etc. or
    * improve adaptability by deregulating and privatizing roads and other “public” infrastructure?

    Or is it more productive to NOT deal with those whom you hate, and
    stand by while special interests cut deals that widen and deepen the
    federal trough?

    TT

    Published: November 1, 2009 2:21 AM

  • TokyoTom

    Allow me to outline here a few responses to the arguments raised by
    Dr. Hayden, even as I do not pretend to be an expert (and, to be
    pedantic, even though they are largely irrelevant to the question of
    whether Austrians wish to take advantage of the opportunity presented
    by the many scientists and others who have differing views, to roll
    back alot of costly, counterproductive and unfair regulation).

    1. Models: Dr. Hayden disingenuously casts aside what modern physics
    tells us about how God plays dice with the universe (via random,
    unpredictible behavior throughout the universe), and the limits of
    human knowledge (including the ability to measure all inputs affecting
    climate, including all of our own), and essentially asks us to wait
    until our knowledge is perfect, and our ability to capture and
    number-crunch all information relevant to the Earth`s climate
    (including changing solar and cosmic ray inputs and ocean behavior)
    before any of us, or our imperfect governments, can take any action on
    climate.

    Physical and practical impossibility aside, is this how any human or
    any human organization structures its decisions? Narrowly, Dr. Hayden
    is of course right that “the science is not settled”, but so what?

    2. Was there a tipping point 300 million years ago (or whenever it was when CO2 levels reached 8000 ppm) ?
    Dr. Hayden plays with language, suggesting that a “tipping point” means
    something irreversible over hundreds of millions of years, when it`s
    very clear that there have in the past been numerous abrupt changes in
    climate (some taking place in as little as a few years, with a general
    return to prior values sometimes taking very long periods of time) and
    that scientists today are talking about tipping points that may be reached in human lifetimes.
    Will we lose all mountain glaciers? Will the Arctic become ice-free in
    winter? Will thawing release sufficient methane from tundras and seabed
    clathrates to push the climate even more forcibly than CO2? Are we set
    to lose glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, regardless of what we do?
    Will we dry out the Amazon basin, and interrupt the Asian monsoon?
    There is plenty of concern and evidence that these things are real
    possibilities.

    3. “Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.”

    But you never tell us whether you, too, Dr. Hayden, are an
    “alarmist”. Further down you acknowledge that “Nobody doubts that CO2
    has some greenhouse effect” admitting (B) (though not that it may be
    the chief factor), but as far as (A) goes, you only acknowledge that
    “CO2 concentration is increasing”. Care to make yourself an alarmist by
    admitting what cannot be denied – that man is responsible for rising
    CO2 concentrations? Or you prefer play with laymen`s ignorance by
    irresponsibly suggesting that rising CO2 is now due to warming oceans
    and not man`s activities?

    – “CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind.”

    Yes, but what relevance is this now, when man is undeniably not simply “helping” but clearly responsible?

    – “The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution.”

    So? Does the fact that CO2 fluctuates naturally do to things other
    than man`s activities mean humans` massive releases of CO2 have NOT
    made a “meaningful contribution”? It`s very clear that the Industrial Revolution caused a dramatic rise in CO2. Surely you don`t disagree?

    – “Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2
    level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply
    assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.”

    “Alarmists” of course is simply an unhelpful ad hom; and as for the rest, concerned scientists and laymen clearly note how CO2 has fluctuated prior to the Industrial Revolution.

    There undoubtedly many clueless laymen, just as there are some
    clueless scientists, so your sweeping statement may be narrowly
    accurate.

    But in the big picture, it is clear that man has had a drastic
    impact on CO2 levels – so what, precisely, is your point, except to
    confuse the issue?

    – “The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and
    increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice
    Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”

    Sure, but this doesn`t mean man hasn`t been the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2.

    Further, of course, warming oceans CEASED to release CO2 at the
    point that atmospheric CO2 started to make the oceans more acidic.

    – “The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2
    changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the
    current warming?”

    The lag in the historical record BEFORE man simply shows that CO2,
    which has an acknowledged warming effect, was a warming reinforcer and
    not an initiator. This does NOT, of course, suggest that massive CO2
    releases by man magically have NO effect.

    4. Assuming that we ARE changing climate, is that a bad thing?

    – “A warmer world is a better world.” Maybe, but are there NO costs,
    losses or damages in moving to one? And do those people and communities
    who bear these costs or kinda like things as they are have any choice,
    much less defendable property rights?

    – “The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as
    numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. … Those huge
    dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land
    is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.”

    I see; this is not a question of fossil fuel interests homesteading
    the sky (or being given license by govt) and so being entitled to shift
    risks and costs on us, but them beneficiently bestowing gifts on
    mankind – or dinosaurs, as Dr. Hayden may prefer! Wonderful gifts that
    cannot be returned for centuries or millenia! Yippee!

    [This is only scratching the surface of the letter, but I`m afraid I need to run for now.]

    Published: November 1, 2009 4:51 AM

  • TokyoTom [Note: my original post contained some bolding that went haywire and bolded most of the post; I`ve fixed that.]

    Okay, here`s a few more unconsidered thoughts to show how hysterical
    I am, am hooked on religion, hate mankind, [want to] return us to the Middle Ages
    and otherwise take over the world:

    – “Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.”

    Sure, for If only it were so simple. The increase in AVERAGE global
    temps that we`ve experienced so far has meant little warming of the
    oceans (a vast thermal sink), and has shown up at higher latitudes,
    where we have seen a very marked warming and ongoing thawing, a shift
    of tropic zones away from the equator, disruption of rainfall patterns
    and stress on tropical ecosystems; all of this is considered to be just
    the beginning of a wide range of climate effects that have not yet been
    fully manifested for GHG and albedo changes so far,. much less to
    further increases in GHGs.

    – “CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.”

    It IS a “pure and simple” plant food, but your rhetoric implies much
    more – essentially that CO2 is NOTHING BUT plant food, and large
    releases of it have no effect on climate. And this, as you well know,
    is NOT a “pure and simple” matter.

    – “CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.”

    You mean not by your reasonable definition, or under
    historical standards. But what IS “pollution”, but a social construct
    to describe the outputs of human activity that some of us have found to
    be damaging to our persons, property or other things that we value?
    Were CFCs released by refrigeration equipment “pollution” before we
    discovered that they damage the ozone layer?

    Scientists may be qualified to measure particular outputs and their
    consequences, but otherwise have no special insights into what others
    value.

    – “A warmer world begets more precipitation.”

    Sure, as warmer air generally holds more water – which in turn has a
    warming effect, let`s not forget. But as for the water itself, climate
    change leads to more severe rain events in some places but to droughts
    in others. And let`s not forget that a warmer world means that mountain
    snows don`t last until spring and summer as they once did, leaving
    streams and forests drier, and adversely affecting agriculture that
    relies on such water.

    – “All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient
    between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer
    and less violent storms.”

    Not so fast; this doesn`t hold for rain events or tornadoes.
    Further, independent paths of research indicate that while the North
    Atlantic may end up with fewer hurricanes, warming is likely to make them more intense.

    – How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice
    and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

    First, note again the Dr.`s use of a strawman; no one is expect an
    imminent melt of “ALL” the ice. But significant melting and thinning of
    coastal ice IS occurring, and not merely on the West Antactic
    peninsula, which the good Dr. would realize if he`d trouble himself to
    compare his simple mental model, of reality with FACTS. As previously
    noted, coast ice sheets are plugs that slow the flow of glaciers from
    the interior. As these plugs are removed, the glaciers flow more
    quickly, via that exotic phenomenon we call “gravity”. I`ve already
    addressed this above, with links.

    – “If the waters around it warm up, they create more precipitation.”

    Yes, but does the new precipitation balance the ice being melted?
    Actual, detailed observations tell us that, despite your absolute
    certainty, that we are seeing increasing net mass losses far inland,
    not merely in Greenland but also in Antarctica. Your religious-like
    faith in your own superior understanding doesn`t make the facts go away.

    – “The ocean’s pH is not rising. It is falling, ever so slightly.
    Obviously your respondent has not the faintest clue as to how pH is
    defined. (BTW, the oceans are basic, not acidic.)”

    Yes, the good Dr. catches my mistake – pH is falling rather
    remarkably (from basic towards acidic) – but he too hastily skates past
    the main point, which is that this is due to increased atmospheric
    levels of CO2, which prove that the oceans are NOT actually releasing
    CO2 (or they`d be becoming more basic).

    I provided links in this last year here:
    http://blog.mises.org/archives/007931.asp#c192563

    Here`s more:
    http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/06/our-dying-oceans/
    http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:y_W6vseUrykJ:www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/20_2/20.2_caldeira.pdf+caldeira+ocean+ph&hl=en&gl=jp&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgEEoFLf7xd9QTyol2TYYmXKPxXFqMq5Nr1IPdGd_yEbV3zIxPi-4Rmhb6d-IQ-r4BPwBqzyhF6GZQw_ka1Eh3Ynn0lYlP7p974IYMHIdLMVE90nWJ81GHAfcdTrUJTNk7W8Man&sig=AFQjCNGg6Idq6GQ5gyrddlXRD8R98NQ_dQ

    From the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (UK) :

    “Until recently, it was believed that the oceans contained so much
    disolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions that any extra would have
    little effect. In fact this absorbtion was generally acknowledged a
    valuable process in protecting the planet from the worst effects of
    rising temperatures and climate change. However, in 2003 a paper was
    published in Nature (vol 425) which suggested that the increases in
    atmospheric CO2, occurring over the last 200 years, has actually
    increased the acidity of the oceans by 0.1 of a pH unit.The pH scale is logarithmic and this change represents a 30% increase in the concentration of H+ ions.

    “However, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been
    higher during previous times in Earths history and these high CO2
    periods didn’t cause ocean pH to change. The difference now is that the
    rate at which CO2 concentrations are increasing, is 100 times greater
    than the natural fluctuations seen over recent millennia. Consequently,
    the processes that ultimately balance the carbon cycle are unable to
    react quickly enough and ocean pH is affected. About half of all
    released CO2 is absorbed by the oceans but even if we stop all
    emmissions today, the CO2 already in the atmosphere has been predicted
    to decrease ocean pH by a further 0.5 unit.”

    From
    Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification”>Wikipedia:

    “Dissolving CO2 in seawater also increases the hydrogen ion (H+)
    concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and
    Wickett (2003)[1] placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean
    acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes
    during the last 300 million years.

    Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that
    surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly less than 0.1 units (on the
    logarithmic scale of pH; approximately a 25% increase in H+), and it is
    estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 units by 2100 as
    the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[1][2][9] These changes are
    predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic
    CO2 from the atmosphere, the degree of change to ocean chemistry, for
    example ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways
    society takes.[10] Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH
    is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could
    also be described as becoming less basic.”

    “The term global warming has given way to the term climate
    change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter
    term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If
    it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change
    whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.”

    Wonderful observation, except for the fact that IT`S WRONG; the
    change instead being deliberately led by Republicans; leading
    Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz in 2002 pushed Republicans
    to move the public discussion away from “global warming” to “climate
    change”, because, as Luntz wrote,

    “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming.’
    … While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it,
    climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional
    challenge”.

    Of course there IS the inconvenient fact that “climate change” is
    actually more accurate than simple “global warming”, but who cares
    about accuracy anyway, right Dr.?

    – “the earth has handily survived many millions of years when CO2
    levels were MUCH higher than at present, without passing the dreaded
    tipping point.”

    I already addressed above the point that while the Dr. seems to
    what to recreate the Cretaceous, the better for dinosaurs, most of us
    seem rather to like the Earth that we actually inherited and that the
    rest of current Creation is adapted for. He is obviously a physicist
    and not a biologist, and doesn`t seem to give any thought to the
    rapidity of the scale at which we are conducting our little
    terraforming experiment, and te challenges the pace of those changes
    are posing to ecosystems.

    – “To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists
    have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models
    take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs
    are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a
    travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.”

    To put it bluntly, this is largely rubbish; there is a tremendous
    and growing amount of climate change DATA. You just make it your habit
    not to let facts get in the way of your own opinions. I would be a
    travesty if we continue to countenance posts such as yours, questions
    of relevance to Austrian purposes aside.

    – “I don’t do politics”

    Fine; I can see why that would not be your forte. But what`s very
    puzzling is that you seem to think that climate science IS your forte,
    when all you`ve show is a shocking level of arrogant ignorance.

    – “I don’t pretend to be an economic theorist.”

    And on a blog dedicated to Austrian economists, just why, one
    wonders, do the “giants” in our Mises world keep filling the Blog pages
    with post such as this, which are, on their very face, IRRELEVANT, to
    the question of how Austrians wish to address the preferences of other,
    the misuses of government and the management of unowned common
    resources.

    – “he only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats
    is, in practical terms, their rhetoric. I don’t pretend to be an
    economic theorist.

    – “But the notion that we can run an industrialized giant on
    chicken manure and sunbeams doesn’t even pass the giggle test. Except
    in Washington.”

    At long last, you say something something intelligible. Except
    Washington spends trillions on nonsense at the drop of a hat, if you
    haven`t noticed recent events.

    Published: November 1, 2009 10:02 AM

  • TokyoTom

    Sorry if I`ve been a bit intemperate; that I`m rushed doesn`t excuse it.

    Dr. Hayden, you are entirely welcome to your own opinion and your
    own mental map of reality, but not to your own facts. As to your
    opinion and mental map, they are by your own admittance uninformed as
    to matters of economics and political science, but I must confess that
    I find your understanding of climate science to be seriously wanting.

    Given these, I fail to see what you offer here, other than a
    convenient, if very thin, cover for others here who don`t want to
    think, or to fight to make the world (or our own government) better.

    Sincerely,

    Tom

    Published: November 1, 2009 10:11 AM

  • TokyoTom

    Bala, I appreciate your polite persistence; I`m sorry I haven`t responded yet, but I`ll get to you.

    Please note that my time is both limited and my own (though indeed
    others have claims on it), and I have no obligation to spend any of it
    responding to your importunings regarding climate science, which are
    now shading into impertinence.

    Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish, but a fair reader might note that:

    – my priorities may (unsurprisingly) differ from yours,
    – my chief points (and Austrian principles as to how to engage with others) have nothing to do with climate science per se,
    – I explicitly make no pretense of being a scientist or climate expert, and
    – in any case, there is no simple course to understanding reality; we
    are all forced to make decisions as to how much energy to devote to
    puzzling things out on our own (and overcoming what we know of our own
    subconscious cognitive filters) versus outsourcing this effort to
    others (by accepting things without deliberation, “on faith” as it
    were).

    Others who have been around longer will know that I`ve also devoted
    what they might consider an unreasonable amount of my time over the
    past few years, “hysterical” trying to help others work through climate
    science (and policy) issues.

    TT

    Published: November 1, 2009 8:46 PM

  • TokyoTom

    mpolzkill:

    – “Tom, believing you live in a Republic with 300,000,000 people is a delusion which heads off all actual pragmatism.”

    This is not a delusion I have, but in any case it`s not at all clear
    that this or any other delusion “heads off all actual pragmatism”.

    – “Until there is actual representation, everything said by we
    proles is literally hot air (unless it’s happens to coincide with
    whatever benefits the regime).”

    I use “our government” simply as shorthand for what you call “the
    regime”, but perhaps may be more accurately described as a multicentric
    mess.

    In any case, the painstaking efforts of LVMI to grow the Mises
    website, and the welcome reception of and contribution to those efforts
    by everyone here – yourself included – belies both your near-nihilistic
    cynicism and your conclusion, as to virtually every topic discussed
    here. Words are deeds, though they be more or less frivolous, weighty,
    insightful or consequential.

    If the other Mises bloggers agreed with you as to the possible
    efficacy of their words, either generally or on this particular topic,
    they simply wouldn`t bother to post.

    However, I share your concern about efficiacy, which is why I
    criticize posts such these (whether by Stephan, George Reisman, Sean
    Corrigan, Walter Block, or Jeffrey Tucker), which are, by and large,
    more of a circle jerk than an effort to engage.

    – “thank you for being respectful”

    My pleasure, but you hardly need to thank me; this is a community, after all.

    – “even though you mistakenly think I’m a nut.

    In this case, it is you who are mistaken (not that you ARE a nut, but that you think I think you are).

    Tom

    Published: November 1, 2009 9:35 PM

 

This is last version of the comment that I tried to post several times:

method fan:

[my first attempt apparently failed to post, so apologies if this shows up twice]

– “You are insofar wrong, that not only this “data” is analysed but it is also used to “predict” the future of reality by using it in simulations!”

You miss my criticism of Dr. Hayden`s refusal to examine facts about ongoing melting in Antarctica, but of course I do NOT disagree with you that current and paleo data can be used to “predict” the future.

But of course a scientific understanding of the world, and information – in this case, both about the past and current trends of climate inputs – certainly can give us useful information about what the future may hold in store for us.

“There is no sound experimental proof that human activity-emitted carbon dioxide is the cause for some sort of global warming.”

Nicely phrased; there of course plenty of experimental proof that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric warming agent, but no experimental proof that it is “the” cause for any global warming.

While we are now running such a global experiment – one that started centuries ago and will not be played out for centuries hence and is, for all intents and purposes irreversible – and thus cannot, in the Popperian sense, even be considered an “experiment”.

Whether our ramping up of the experiment is prudent or principled are entirely different questions, and properly the subject of much discussion.

– “These guesses remind one of the idea that rain dances are the cause for rain.”

I`m tempted to make a comeback, but surely you realize your flip comparison is entirely inapropos.

Here`s hoping for more sincere discourse.

TT

[Update- apology] The Road Not Taken III: Stephan Kinsella plugs his ears on the Austrians` obstinate, willful irrelevancy in the climate debate?

November 2nd, 2009 5 comments

[Note: Stephan Kinsella tells me he has NOT put my posts on his thread on moderation.  I believe him, and so (even as I fail to understand why I was unable to post a particular comment after a number of attempts), as noted I would in my original post, I withdraw my charge that he put my comments on moderation, and offer my sincere apology to Stephan (and to LvMI readers) for my mistake and for the offense that I imagine I may have caused to his sense of fair play. I am happy to do this, though of course I deeply regret my mistake.

Stephan, I`m sorry. I take your word that the conclusion I jumped to was wrong.

I am still trying to puzzle through what happened; below I have restored an edited version of my prior post, with the unjustifed portions deleted.

Meanwhile, the discussion continues at the Mises Blog, at the above thread.]

 

In my preceding post I commented on Austrian (dis)engagement on climate issues, as exemplified by Stephan Kinsella`s Mises Blog post, “Physicist Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims”.

[clip]

Instead of the usual cheerful message LvMI provides when comments
are accepted (“Confirmation…  Your comment has been submitted!)”, my
attempts  to comment are now met with the message, “Thank you for commenting.  Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.”

While there are times that this message is automatically served up
for technical reasons, such as not providing proper email address
(i.e., by accidently typing in “.comh” instead of “.com”) or providing
too many links (which may trigger a spamblocking feature), this [seemed to me] to be fairly clearly NOT one of those occasions – I had just successfully
posted a couple of comments that included links, and my “failed” post
included my usual email address (properly formatted, as I can confirm
simply by backing up) and no links.

[clip]

I copy below the comment that I
[had supposed] turned his playful non-responsiveness (see his comment to my prior post) into stony silence/silencing:

  • Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
  • TokyoTom

    Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and
    fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of
    others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.

    You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a
    scientist – as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a
    roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of
    others,

    (ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and
    at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in
    the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually
    defends and advances our policy agenda, (putting aside the
    insulting and disingenuous “Tokyo asked me to respond” and “it’s so
    rambling I am not sure what to respond to”); and

    (iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the
    motives and sanity “watermelons” (as if they`re running the show), a
    few helpful, free-market libertarian “solutions”, like open-air
    explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a “nuclear winter” effect!

    And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we
    actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after
    all, underway is met with silence – other than your faithful report
    back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about
    …. science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not
    merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling
    melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway
    simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the
    very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!

    Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow
    engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the
    Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the
    big to do about climate – which may very well result in a mass of
    ill-considered, costly and counterproductive legislation – is really
    groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal
    fulminations here).

    If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.

    Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.

    Sincerely,

    Tom

  • [Note: I had intended to excise the following from my comment,
    but it`s just as well that it slipped in, as it serves to illustrate
    what productive Austrian approaches to climate issues might look like.
    I`ve added a link to Roy Cordato.]

    Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:

    “The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal
    seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute
    plans within the context of their goals. … [S]ocial welfare or
    efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. [C] that
    similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to
    catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being
    captured by prices.”

    “Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the
    heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that
    is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal
    plan formulation and execution.”

    “The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is
    conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to
    property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to
    identify possible ways of resolving it.”

    “If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in
    either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant
    resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist.
    This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly
    all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998;
    Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective
    on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen
    as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the
    market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the
    necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced
    property rights, is not in place.”

    The Road Not Taken III: Stephan Kinsella plugs his ears on the Austrians` obstinate, willful irrelevancy in the climate debate

The Road Not Taken II: Austrians strive for a self-comforting irrelevancy on climate change, the greatest commons problem / rent-seeking game of our age

October 30th, 2009 3 comments

[Update: Readers may wish to note the latest developments, as I note in these follow-up posts.]

Stephan Kinsella – whom I have engaged before on the ramifications of the decidedly non-libertarian state grant of limited liabiility to corporations – has a new post up on the Mises Blog on global warming;  his first on this subject, as far as I know.

The post is surprisingly short, and consists of a simple introduction by Stephan a copy of letter to the EPA (which he has appended) that one Howard Hayden, a retired physicist, one whom Stephan assures us is “a staunch advocate of sound energy policy” – whatever that means (hey, me too!) – submitted in connection with the EPA`s Supreme Court-mandated consideration of whether to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Stephan also refers to Dr. Hayden`s letter as a “one-letter disproof of global warming claims.”

I welcome Stephan to this discussion, which has taken place at the Mises Blog in fits and starts over the past few years. However, the absence of any commentary by Stephan leaves me scratching my head. Where`s the beef? Are this person`s scientific views on climate so convincing or obviously correct, and are the policy implication so straightforward, and correct, that we should all “get it” and agree, without any commentary by Stephan? Or Is Stephan simply playing with our credulity, and his own?

In any case, given both (1) the focus of Austrian economics on productively addressing conflicts between people with conflicting preferences (and the frequently negative role that governments play in resource tussles, generally to the benefit of entrenched insiders and to government itself) and (2) the recent Nobel prize award to Elinor Ostrom regarding the ways that humans work together successfully or not) to address common resources, I am simply disappointed. Is this all that Stephan has to offer?

Observing that Stephan fits within a grand tradition at Mises of shallow thought on climate and other “environmental” issues, I felt compelled to post a few thoughts at Stephan`s post, which I copy below:

 

Stephan:

Thanks for bringing your post to my attention.

My short response? Remember “Thank you, Prof. Block, for feeding our confirmation biases“?

But since I can`t resist doing what nobody else seems inclined to – I suppose it is, after all, why you invited me to this feast – let me make a few comments on matters that would apparently not otherwise occur to you or to the rest of the community.

The fact that most of the contents of Dr. Hayden`s letter is confused twaddle that has been explained in detail countless times (and personally by me, ad nauseum, to the extreme annoyance of most of the blog over the years 2006-2008) aside, it puzzles me that you and others prefer to treat the pages of the Mises Blog as a forum to dismiss – through drive-by postings like this (a la Walter Block) of a particular piece of “skepticism” that caught your fancy – extremely widespread scientific views (held by EVERY major national academy of science, including China and India), rather than engaging in a discussion of preferences, institutions and policies.

As I`ve asked Jeffrey Tucker previously, is science the forte of the Mises Blog, or its readers?

Even if those who believe that man`s rising emissions of CO2 have nothing to do with an observably rapidly changing world and pose no threat whatsoever – and that those who disagree are all deluded and/or evil – turn out, after we play our little massive and irreversible game with the Earth for another few centuries, to be absolutely right, is engaging with them by dismissing their concerns an approach that holds even the slightest prospect of success?

It`s as if Austrians were determined to ignore their own principles, stampede themselves into irrelevancy, and to make sure that we get the WORST policy outcomes possible.

Why not, if you think others all wrong, deluded or evil, play along with their game, and actually seek policy changes that might not only address the expressed concerns of others in a meaningful way, while also advancing a libertarian, freedom-seeking agenda?

As I have noted in a litany of posts at my blog, most recently one addressed to Bob Murphy, such pro-freedom regulatory changes might include:

  • accelerating cleaner power investments by eliminating corporate income taxes or allowing immediate amortization of capital investment,
  • eliminating antitrust immunity for public utility monopolies (to allow consumer choice, peak pricing and “smart metering” that will rapidly push efficiency gains),
  • ending Clean Air Act handouts to the worst utilities (or otherwise unwinding burdensome regulations and moving to lighter and more common-law dependent approaches),
  • ending energy subsidies generally (including federal liability caps for nuclear power (and allowing states to license),
  • speeding economic growth and adaptation in the poorer countries most threatened by climate change by rolling back domestic agricultural corporate welfare programs (ethanol and sugar), and
  • if there is to be any type of carbon pricing at all, insisting that it is a per capita, fully-rebated carbon tax (puts the revenues in the hands of those with the best claim to it, eliminates regressive impact and price volatility, least new bureaucracy, most transparent, and least susceptible to pork).

Other policy changes could also be put on the table, such as an insistence that government resource management be improved by requiring that half of all royalties be rebated to citizens (with a slice to the administering agency).

As Rob Bradley once reluctantly acknowledged to me (in the halcyon days before he banned me from the “free-market” Master Resource blog), “a free-market approach is not about “do nothing” but implementing a whole new energy approach to remove myriad regulation and subsidies that have built up over a century or more.” But unfortunately the wheels of this principled concern have never hit the ground at MR [persistently pointing this out it, and questioning whether his blog was a front for fossil fuel interests, appears to be what earned me the boot].

There have been occasional   libertarian  climate  proposals floated over the past few years, but they have never graced the Mises Blog, instead falling gently to the ground unnoticed – apparently, except for me – like the proverbial unstrained koala tea of Mercy.

Austrians seem to act as if the love of reason requires a surrender of it in favor of the comforting distraction of a self-satisfied echo chamber of a type that would warm the cockles of any like-minded religious “alarmist” cult.

Then of course, we have our own  home-grown libertarians who are happy to participate actively in the debate (with many excellent points, naturally), but carefully skirt for the purposes of maximum effectiveness (and felicitously, for their own consciences) the fact that their views are funded by the dirtiest class of rent-seekers. Plus we have a few who are happy to regurgitate for us “heroic” “grassroots” efforts that are transparent corporate PR ploys.

Finally, since no one else seems to be remotely interesting in scratching the surface of Dr. Hayden`s letter, here is what a little due diligence turns up:

– sure, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. Some skeptics use this to suggest that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are due not to man, but to a naturally warming. That`s why it`s so interesting that, despite a warming ocean, ocean pH is rising [oops, I meant pH is “falling”, as I`ve noted in a previous comment about rapidly changing ocean pH]  because dissolved CO2 is also rising (because man`s CO2 emissions are forcing more CO2 to be dissolved in water).

– You ask sarcastically, if the melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else, how will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists? The answer is, simply, that (1) the warming oceans melt and undermine the coastal ice, and (2) as coastal buttresses are removed, gravity brings the continental ice down more rapidly. This process is well underway and apparently accelerating, as described in a study just published in Nature. Note also that not all of Antarctica lies precisely at the South Pole, and that some parts are melting directly as the atmosphere warms.

– finally, not all men are dinosaurs, nor is the rest of extant Creation (save birds, of course). Why should we feel comforted by the fact that we may, in the blink of an eye in geologic time (decades/centuries), be terra-forming the Earth for creatures that no longer exist, while stressing it for the rest of Creation? Do we have no right of preference in climate or in the life we share the Earth with, or have the investors in fossil fuel firms homesteaded the right to modify environmental matters willy nilly, come what may?

Thanks for providing the soapbox, Stephan.

Tom

I note that Stephan closes his introduction to Dr. Hayden`s letter with the following:

“I love Hayden’s email sign-off, “People will do anything to save the world … except take a course in science.””

Would that problems of governance of shared resources were so easy as taking a science course! Then ALL of us Austrians, and not merely our leading lights at the Mises Blog, could simply pack up and go home, and leave everything to a few philosopher-king scientists!

[Update] Bob Murphy & Gene Callahan flesh out the "objective" moral order: it applies only to those able to perceive it?

September 8th, 2009 2 comments

[Update: Bob Murphy sends in an email comment, copied (in relevant part) at the bottom of this post.]

I`ve addressed here on five different threads the question of whether there is an “objective moral order”, which Gene Callahan broached in a May blog post. I`ve commented here mainly because I find the subject interesting, but the subsequent discussions at Gene Callahan`s blog and at Bob Murphy`s blog to be rather unproductive, if not frustrating and disappointing.  However, I note that Bob Murphy, bless his soul, has kindly emailed me a comment for me to post on one of my recent threads, in which Bob refers to a recent relevant comment elsewhere by Gene.

Allow me to repost here Bob Murphy`s comment, and my response, but first here`s some context from the post that Bob Murphy is responding to:

1. Me:

While I certainly agree that man has an exquisite moral sense, my
own view is that that sense and capacity are something that we acquired
via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation,

– as Bruce Yandle has suggested,

– as argued by Roy Rappaport (former head of the American
Anthropology Assn.)
in his book “Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity” (which I have discussed here) and – as I have recently discovered –

– as David Sloan Wilson has argued in his book “Darwin`s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society“.

I note that the NYT has recently run a series of posts on related topics

In my view, our moral sense, rituals and “sacred postulates” (later, religions) have played a central role in the evolution of man as a
social animal, by
providing a fundamental way of ordering the world, the group`s role in
it, and the individual`s role in the group – thereby abating commons
problems both within and created by the group. The religious
lies at the root of our human nature, even as its inviolable, sacred
truths continue to fall by the wayside during the long march of
culture and science out of the Garden of Eden. While we certainly have
made progress (partly with the aid of “universal” religions) in
expanding the boundaries of our groups, we very much remain group,
tribal animals, fiercely attentive to rival groups and who is within or
outside our group, and this tribal nature is clearly at work in our
cognition (our penchant for finding enemies, including those who have
different religious beliefs that ours).

But I didn`t really kick off this discussion – why are Callahan and
Murphy so reticent to describe what it is they think they mean when
they assert that there are “objective moral truths” and an “objective
moral order”?  (I can understand why I seem to have earned the clear
hostility of one them; after all I have proven by my persistence and/or
thickheadedness to be, if not an “enemy”, then in any case not one of
the august clear-sighted.)

Here are a few questions I left with them at Bob`s most recent post:


Are those who believe that there is an objective “moral” order
asserting that, for every being – regardless of species – that there is
a uniform, objective moral order in the universe? Or is the argument
that there is an object moral order only for conscious and self-aware
beings, and none for organisms that are not conscious, or are conscious
but not self-aware?

– Or is the argument that the “objective”
moral order exists only for humans, and perhaps someday can be
identified and located in universally shared mental processes, based on
brain activity and arising from shared genes?  Will such objective moral order still exist if all mankind ceases to exist?

– Or is the
objective moral order one that exists for some humans, but not all –
depending on physical development of the brain as we mature (with the
development of some being impaired via genetic or other defect)?

– Is the human “objective” moral order universal, for all individuals – of whatever, gender or age – across all history?

– Is an objective moral order something real that can be tested for
despite the inability of a particular observer to perceive directly –
like beings that can`t directly perceive light (or like us who can`t
personally physically observe much of what technology allows us to)?

– And
if the objective moral order is a part of the universe, can we apply
the scientific method to confirm its existence of and explore its
parameters, and to explain (and test) it with “laws”?

– What are some of the parameters and laws governing the moral order?

2.  Bob Murphy`s comments: (emphasis added)

On the general issue of “are morals objective for everyone?” I refer to this excellent discussion by Gene Callahan:

www.gene-callahan.org/…/freedoms-just-another-word-for.html

[Here is Gene`s relevant comment:

“Something that is correct only ‘to’ someone is subjectively, not
objectively, correct. What ‘objective’ means is precisely ‘to any and
all possible perceivers.’ And, of course, it is simply a further muddle
to introduce beings incapable of perceiving the objective item in
question, as if that raised doubts about its objective status. ‘Would
this be objectively correct for ants?’ makes no more sense than ‘Is it
objectively true for ants that Mars has two moons?’ It is objectively
true, not ‘for’ anyone, that Mars has two moons, and it is also
objectively true that ants are a kind of being that cannot peer through
telescopes or count to two. It is objectively true that murder is
wrong, and if ants were the sort of being capable of murder, which they are not (as far as we know!), it would be wrong for them to commit murders.”
]

When I say that I think morality is objective, what I mean is that a
statement such as “it is better to kiss an infant than to drown it” is
a different type of thing from the statement “chocolate ice cream is
better than vanilla.” The latter is clearly stating a subjective
preference, whereas the former is (I claim) reflecting an objective
truth about reality.

Note that to say morality is objective doesn’t necessarily mean that
‘the same rules’ apply to everybody,
at least not in the sense that I
think you mean. It might not be immoral for Eskimos to euthanize old
people, whereas it could be considered murder in Manhattan.
But this
doesn’t actually prove morality is subjective. By the same token, it’s
OK for me to eat the food in my fridge. But if somebody else wandered
into my house and did the ‘same thing,’ it would be theft.

I’m a Christian so if you ask me for a list of these rules, a good
start is the Ten Commandments. And then if you want to know how to
apply these rules, I’d tell you to read the gospels and study the life
of Jesus.

As far as your specific questions, I don’t want to bother trying to
answer them. I admit I can’t give you great answers on some.
But to me,
that doesn’t show that morality is subjective after all. There are
plenty of non-material things (like mathematics etc.) that are
rock-solid objectively true. So I think our difference here is much
deeper than an issue of mere morality. I think you are a materialist
and I’m not, which is influencing our discussion on morality.

3.  My response: (emphasis added)

Bob, thanks for troubling to visit and
read, but your comments are obviously a disappointment – as you`ve
simply done none of the heavy lifting that you have implied by
insisting on various occasions that there is an “objective” moral order.

All that you`ve done here is to make a very weak argument that MAN
has a moral sense regarding how we treat others. But this is not only
obvious, it is also something that I have asserted all along.
While it
tells us something I agree is objectively true generally about man –
something that I have made various attempts to explore here and to
sketch out on your blog and Gene`s – it tells us essentially nothing
about an objective moral order to the universe
, that is applicable to
other life forms, and that will survive mankind if we were all ever to
perish.

I`m afraid I have to disagree with you about Gene`s post, which in
fact illustrates the weakness of his position regarding “objective
truth”.
While he suggests that by “objectively correct” we mean
something that is correct for `any and all possible perceivers’ (so
far, so good), he then presents the example of ants, for whom he
asserts it would be wrong for them to commit murder IF THEY WERE
CAPABLE of committing murder. But he`s failed to notice that he`s not
only begged the question about what we mean by saying that “it is
objectively true that murder is wrong”, but he`s suggested that because
ants lack a capacity to perceive moral strictures against murder, they are unable to commit it.
By doing so, he`s just invited in all of the questions that I`ve
outlined above
[in item 1 here], plus questions of culture and exigency that you have
pointed out by your reference to Eskimos.
Can any animals or life forms
other than man commit murder? Do moral restrictions against murder
require some threshold level of self-reflection, intellectual capacity,
typical social structure, physical and social maturity, or upbringing?

So there IS an objective moral order, but it only applies to those
able to perceive it? 
This is both a very modest position, as well as
one that oddly smacks of belief in Leprechauns.

Rather than arguing that still undefined but “objective” moral rules are embedded in the structure of the universe but have only limited application, isn`t it easier to acknowledge that man has a moral sense, observe
that it enhances our ability to cooperate, observe that other animals
also exhibit patterns of reciprocal behavior and posit that our moral
sense is something that we have evolved, as it enhanced our ability to
survive and procreate?

#

re: Evolution, religion and our insistence on a still undefined “objective” moral order


[Remove this Comment]

Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:27 AM
by
TokyoTom

By the way, I note that fellow Community blogger lilburne and I agree generally about morality*

“There is a burgeoning school of thought in evolutionary biology and
the cognitive sciences (led by Marc Hauser and Steven Pinker) which
contends that morality is not just cultural artifice, but that it is an
intrinsic feature of the human mind which evolved over the countless
millennia of humans living together.”

mises.org/…/245211.aspx

 

If anyone is still reading, let me note that I posted a week or so ago further thoughts on the evolution of moral codes and why we fight over them (rarely applying to those outside our group the same moral standards that we apply to those within our groups).

[Update:] Further email comment from Bob Murphy (posted with approval):

I’m going to have to punt on this debate for now. If you agree that
“Bob should not kill an infant” has a truth value more significant
than “Bob should not wear a dress to work” than I’m happy. I think
maybe when I say “morality is objective” you are interpreting it to
mean something more than what I do mean. After all, you are saying
moral rules apply to all humans, so I don’t know what our difference
is at this point. I thought originally you were saying you were a
moral relativist.

A few simple thoughts on the evolution of moral codes, and why we fight over them (and religion, liberty and the state)

August 30th, 2009 No comments

A recent post on the Mises Daily pages on the “Religious Roots of Liberty” by the late Congregationalist minister Rev. Edmund Optiz (1914-2006) (originally published in The Freeman, February 1955) provides an opportunity to restate and discuss some of the thoughts I’ve been working though on evolution, group dynamics, religion and on the assertions of some that there is an “objective moral order”.

It seems like quite a bit to chew, I know, but I dared (with the modesty and boldness of the inexpert, of course) to venture a few thoughts.

[And since I’m having problems with formatting here, I am linking to the archived version of this post.]

Evolution, religion and our insistence on a still undefined "objective" moral order

August 28th, 2009 3 comments

I refer to my previous posts on the interesting subject of whether there is an “objective moral order”, which Gene Callahan broached in a May blog post, returned to in a subsequent post but abandoned, to be picked up but ultimately punted by Bob Murphy (and again by Gene when he visited Bob`s thread).

While I certainly agree that man has an exquisite moral sense, my own view is that that sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation,

– as Bruce Yandle has suggested,

– as argued by Roy Rappaport (former head of the American
Anthropology Assn.)
in his book “Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity” (which I have discussed here) and – as I have recently discovered –

– as David Sloan Wilson has argued in his book “Darwin`s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society“.

I note that the NYT has recently run a series of posts on related topics

In my view, our moral sense, rituals and “sacred postulates” (later,
religions) have played a central role in the evolution of man as a social animal, by
providing a fundamental way of ordering the world, the group`s role in
it, and the individual`s role in the group – thereby abating commons
problems both within and created by the group. The religious
lies at the root of our human nature, even as its inviolable, sacred
truths continue to fall by the wayside during the long march of
culture and science out of the Garden of Eden. While we certainly have made progress (partly with the aid of “universal” religions) in expanding the boundaries of our groups, we very much remain group, tribal animals, fiercely attentive to rival groups and who is within or outside our group, and this tribal nature is clearly at work in our cognition (our penchant for finding enemies, including those who have different religious beliefs that ours).

But I didn`t really kick off this discussion – why are Callahan and Murphy so reticent to describe what it is they think they mean when they assert that there are “objective moral truths” and an “objective moral order”?  (I can understand why I seem to have earned the clear hostility of one them; after all I have proven by my persistence or thickheadedness to be, if not an “enemy”, then in any case not one of the august clear-sighted.)

Here are a few questions I left with them at Bob`s most recent post:


Are those who believe that there is an objective “moral” order
asserting that, for every being – regardless of species – that there is
a uniform, objective moral order in the universe? Or is the argument
that there is an object moral order only for conscious and self-aware
beings, and none for organisms that are not conscious, or are conscious
but not self-aware?

– Or is the argument that the “objective”
moral order exists only for humans, and perhaps someday can be
identified and located in universally shared mental processes, based on
brain activity and arising from shared genes?  Will such objective moral order still exist if all mankind ceases to exist?

– Or is the
objective moral order one that exists for some humans, but not all –
depending on physical development of the brain as we mature (with the
development of some being impaired via genetic or other defect)?

– Is the human “objective” moral order universal, for all individuals – of whatever, gender or age – across all history?

– Is an objective moral order something real that can be tested for
despite the inability of a particular observer to perceive directly –
like beings that can`t directly perceive light (or like us who can`t
personally physically observe much of what technology allows us to)?

– And
if the objective moral order is a part of the universe, can we apply
the scientific method to confirm its existence of and explore its
parameters, and to explain (and test) it with “laws”?

– What are some of the parameters and laws governing the moral order?

If I`m being self-deluded about the willingness of those who believe that there IS an objective moral order to explain it (and to evidence it in their actions), I hope a good reader or two will let me know.

Evolution & religion: Idle hands express idle thoughts about Bob Murphy`s determination to apply reason to his insistence that "non-believers burn in hell"

June 22nd, 2009 No comments

I refer to Bob Murphy`s blog post, “Do Non-Believers Burn in Hell?”, which is still active, but with little further contribution from Bob (who`s been busy doing God`s work  on other matters). In the post Bob asserts that “the doctrines of Christianity make sense and are logical” and attempts to explain what he means by his belief that atheists are “going to hell.”

Below are my two posts on the thread.  The first asks Bob to clarify his logic; the second steps back to meta-issues that are too often unexplored in arguments over religion.

A. June 14, 2009 5:23 AM

Bob, if you`re in favor of using your reason when contemplating God, can you tell me:

1. is there a hell? what evidence is there for hell?

2.
Who goes to hell? You suggest “person[s] who actively rejected the
Creator’s offer of friendship”, but by this (a) do you imply that
everyone got a “personal” offer? how so?

(b) if not, what
happens to those throughout human history who never got a personal
offer, or who thought their offer was to follow Judaism, Islam, the
Budddha, etc?

(c) what about those with limited capacity –
children (including those stillborn, or naturally or artificially
aborted), the mentally handicapped? do they burn in hell for eternity,
or are they united in communion with the Creator?

I`m not sure
where reason leads us in matters of faith, other than we have a
capacity to believe all manner of what seems obvious nonsense now.

B.  June 22, 2009 4:42 AM

James, I think you are being far too judgmental.

And I think this discussion generally is too shallow.

Can
I suggest that you – and others – step back to consider the role of
“Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity,” as explored in a book
of that title by Roy Rappaport (former head of the American
Anthropology Assn.
and published postumously)?

Rappaport
recognized the role that ritual and “sacred postulates” (later,
religions) have played in the evolution of man as a social animal, by
providing a fundamental way of ordering the world, the group`s role in
it, and the individual`s role in the group – thereby abating commons
problems both within and created by the group.

The religious
lies at the root of our human nature, even as its inviolable, sacred
truths continue to fall by the wayside during the long march of
culture and science out of the Garden of Eden.

Amazon

Google Books

review by Mary Catherine Bateson

Interview

Especially as we live in an increasingly global world, it behooves us all to know ourselves better – even us hermits in Tokyo.

Can we sheath our vorpal swords?