Loving Photos

In 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had the case of Loving versus the state of Virginia concerning the Virginia anti-miscegenation law. The SCOTUS ruling that the law was unconstitutional was important because Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Loving faced prison time which would have been bad both for them as well as their children. I almost left off the prior sentences because I assumed that everyone would know about the Loving case however I decided to include just in case someone had forgotten. Now to the point of this post; you can see an interesting set of photos about the Loving family at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088040/Photographs-Lovings-interracial-marriage-time-banned-16-states.html
based on the exhibit at the International Center of Photography http://www.icp.org/

This is just one more reminder about why the government needs to stop defining marriage and since I have written on this elsewhere I will just provide a link:
http://www.alf.org/marriagemoulton.php

And this should serve as a cautionary reminder that the misguided opinion that in the hierarchy of government (city, county, state/provincial, federal) that individual liberty is necessary better served at a lower level. This opinion is demonstrably false. The situation is complex and nuanced which makes simplistic formulas and slogans not only inaccurate but detrimental to the quest for liberty.

So take a look at the photos for a visual reminder of a historic case.

Concerning SOPA and PIPA

Today is January 19, 2012 and a lot of blogs are either providing information about SOPA and PIPA or going black.  I have decided that the best approach for this small blog is to go the informational route.

There are several good informational sources such as https://www.eff.org/.

I have already contacted the Congressperson from the Congressional district in which I reside as well as both Senators.  If you do not know the names and contact info for these persons you can find assistance at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup.

Hopefully SOPA and PIPA will be stopped.

Ron Paul for POTUS? NO!

Ron Paul a member of the USA Congress from Texas is as I write riding fairly high in the polls in his attempt to obtain the Republican Presidential nomination. I have long had an interest in Libertarian political theory and thus have spent a modest amount of time examining the political background of Ron Paul since some people have referred to Ron Paul as a Libertarian. So what about Ron Paul and his run for the Presidency?

First let us consider if Ron Paul is qualified to be POTUS (President of the USA). In a purely technical sense Ron Paul is qualified to be POTUS since he meets the requirements specified in the Constitution. But what of the practical requirements for the position? POTUS is an executive position as well as a policy position. Certainly policy will typically change from administration to administration as each new POTUS establishes new policy directions and brings in new people. And many people focus primarily in the policy pronouncements that they think a candidate represents however we must not forget that the office of POTUS is an executive position.

There has been controversy about items published in the Ron Paul newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s about issues relating to race, homosexuality and HIV/AIDS.  Many of these passages are vile and offensive.  They have been published on a variety of website and I will not take the space to publish them again.  As best I can determine from looking at various sources the position that Ron Paul has taken concerning the contents of the newsletter appears to be a waffle between sometimes claiming the newsletters were written by others without his direct oversight or at other times claiming that he wrote the text but that it is all being taken out of context. Then in either case claiming that this has all been covered before so no further discussion is needed. Well I am not buying this; I think more disclosure is needed. Clear and unambiguous disclosure. This is one aspect of getting  an evaluation of executive capability. If a person writes something and publishes it then they need to take responsibility for it. If a person made a poor choice and delegated a writing assignment to someone else then make sure that what goes out is reviewed. Yes something things go wrong and yes we all make mistakes. However at the point the mistake is discovered the thing to do is be completely honest and ask for forgiveness. However we have not exactly got that; what seems to be the situation is that Ron Paul is now distancing himself from the statements but there is still no clear explanation of what happened on various occasions. So Ron Paul did not demonstrate competence at being chief executive over something as simple as a newsletter. Based on the evidence I have seen thus far I do not think that Ron Paul is qualified for a high executive office such as POTUS.

At this point someone I expect will ask but what about policy? Isn't Ron Paul good on policy? Well let us consider Ron Paul's policy positions. On the issue of foreign wars Ron Paul has one of the better records among national politicians. And for that he should be given credit. The issue which usually gets raised next is the Federal Reserve. Financial reform of the Federal Government is a good and lofty goal however my estimation is that it would take close to 30 years to unwind the complex web we have now. I am concerned that Ron Paul and his supporters have under-estimated the complexity and difficulty of the task. But for at least raising the issue and keeping a focus on the Federal Reserve and other financial components of the Federal government he again deserves credit.

The next policy issue that is raised is about the War on Drugs. Isn't Ron Paul against the War on Drugs? Well it appears that Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs at a Federal level. At a state level it is a bit murkier. Ron Paul has said that in his opinion drug prohibition is not effective but given his inclination to push many issues down to the states my understanding is that as POTUS he would not be in favor of Federal laws overturning drug prohibition if done at the state level but this is not clear. And this brings us to a crucial point; what else does Ron Paul want to be the exclusive to the states and what his view of the Constitution particularly the 14th amendment?

The clearest example of the views of Ron Paul on these issues can be seen in the bill he sponsored in 2011 HR958 which it did not pass although he has sponsored similar bills in the past
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958:

I will quote HR958 in part just so no-one thinks this is somehow being taken out of context:

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

So let us look at the the first item listed in HR958 which relates to "the free exercise or establishment of religion". I suspect that most people will recognize those words as representing the part of the first amendment covering what is commonly known as "the separation of church and state". What Ron Paul is proposing is that states could if they wanted have Bible reading in their schools and other similar actions and the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the USA) or Federal Courts could not hear the case. What Ron Paul proposes has so many flaws it is difficult to know where to begin. The problem that is glaringly obvious is that this proposed law would not stand up when challenged in the SCOTUS. Another problem is that mixing religion with government has historically been a bad idea; it often leads to the majority religion gaining advantages over minority religions or the non-religious. Historically although not perfectly the USA has been a country of religious liberty and I can not understand why Ron Paul appears to want to throw that away.

Now consider the next part of HR958 about "sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction". What is that about? Well probably many things but let us start with the Lawrence v Texas case where the SCOTUS overturned a Texas statute making consensual homosexual activity between consenting adults a crime. HR958 would be allow states to pass laws making homosexual activity between consenting adults a crime. Another thing that HR958 might be about is the Griswold v Connecticut case. That is the case where in 1965 the SCOTUS overturned a Connecticut law which outlawed birth control. Think about this for a moment. In Connecticut in the early 1960s Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton were arrested and convicted of opening a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. Ron Paul seems to have this continual refrain about putting policy issues back to the state level but what he fails to realize how the would diminish individual liberty. Or maybe he just does not care? Or maybe he actually wants to return the era before Griswold decision? It is difficult to say.

And in the third part of the text from HR958 that I quote above we find reference to "the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation". Of course this looks like an attempt to let states outlaw same-sex marriage. Since the SCOTUS has not ruled that state laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman are unconstitutional then why is it included? My guess is that some conservatives are looking ahead. There are obvious equal protection and other problems with restricting marriage to just one man and one woman. Those who are attempting to claim any sort of rational basis for outlawing same-sex marriage are finding that their arguments are not standing up to scrutiny. I do not have space to discuss same-sex marriage further however at: http://alf.org/marriagemoulton.php I have a short essay on the topic.

There is more that I could write on HR958 and on other topics related to the policy positions of Ron Paul but I think what I have written thus far is sufficient to make my point that Ron Paul has some policy positions that I think are simply wrong and ultimately would be corrosive to the structure of civil society.

Based on what I have covered above and other items which space does not permit it is my judgment that Ron Paul does not have the necessary executive ability to be POTUS and further Ron Paul has advocated policies which show poor judgment and thus from a policy perspective is not a good candidate for POTUS.

At this point I suspect someone is jumping up and saying "But Ron Paul is a Libertarian".

Let us consider the claim "Ron Paul is a Libertarian". Of course this does depend on what definition of Libertarian one uses. However I will state firmly that I do not consider Ron Paul a Libertarian, he is in my opinion a Conservative who sometimes takes positions which are sort of Libertarian. But just having some Libertarian positions is not enough. There are certain positions which Ron Paul appears to hold such as those I have discussed in relation to HR958 that as far as I am concerned exclude Ron Paul from the category of Libertarian.

Of course much of what I have written here depends on a particular definition of Libertarian and I realize that others will have definitions which differ from mine and which they might claim are better or at least just as good. And there are those who claim that the term Libertarian should be a "big tent" term where many views are welcome. I have come to disagree with the "big tent" view. Having a "big tent" is fine for a social gathering however having a "big tent" for the definition of term has a serious downside. Before long the term can become so broad that it can accommodate many contradictory positions. And even worse it can become so watered down that little if any serious thought is required of those who claim its banner. I think we are long past the time for having a serious discussion on what is means to be a Libertarian. Perhaps this short essay will get it started.

On avoiding the overly broad brush

Within the past few months I was reading a blog post by someone I have known for several years and noticed something that caused me to write this entry. The general topic of the blog post was about sexual harassment at certain events in general and very specifically about an event which had recently occurred and the author of the blog had made some very good points as well as referencing the contributions of other bloggers. Then later in the comments section this blogger suddenly wrote as sort of a witty throw away line that one should remember that this type of event is frequented by XYZs who feel that they should be free to behave or act however they see fit. This is not the exact wording; I have altered it enough so that it will not come up at the top of a Google search and I am using the term XYZ instead of the term this blogger originally used; it might have been a racial or religious group such as Jew or Hindu or it might have been a political group such as Democrat or Tory or it might have been something like Hockey Fans. The point is not the exact group that XYZ designates; the point is that an overly broad brush was used.

Obviously this is a logical fallacy since not every or even most XYZ members behave as the blog post states and in point of fact it is actually contrary to their beliefs. But of greater consequence is that it reflects poorly on the blogger in question which is unfortunate since the blogger writes quite well on some important social topics. And in the past I have in conversations with members of the XYZ group recommended reading the blogger. Hopefully the blogger will not repeat this off handed comment about group XYZ in the future.

It is all too easy to make this sort of mistake in writing or speaking; likely we all have at one or more points in our lives. Now with blogging the words have more permanency than when they were just spoken. So I urge we all try to avoid using an overly broad brush no matter how humorous or witty the line might sound.

On considering the arguments for or aginst an issue

I am getting over a cold and thus I was looking at Facebook today and came up on:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=259927584049082set=a.203922859649555.50182.203742949667546&type=1&ref=nf"
which for those not wishing to get on Facebook is this image of "space required to transport 60 people" comparing car, bus and bicycle:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/296411_259927584049082_203742949667546_688992_633353283_n.jpg

Now with a few moments of reflection one realises that there are several things about the image which do not make sense. First is the word 'space'; is it space as in the space occupied by just the vehicles which is what is shown with cars parked almost bumper to bumper or perhaps would showing the space taken on the roadway during typical operation be better? And should the occupancy rates be the maximum possible, minimum possible, mean possible, actual peak usage, actual off peak usage, etc.?

The point of this post is not to focus on problems with the image. The point of this post is that in the comments section on Facebook it sparked a comment which is an exquisite example of confusing or conflating a criticism of an argument with a criticism of the issue about which it refers. There were many comments on Facebook and I glanced at some at noticed that in addition to the discussion of the personal, economics, social and general policy issue about various mode there were those commenters who pointed out some of the problems with the image similar to the ones I mention above.

It was in response to these criticisms of the image that some one attempted to answer some of the criticism and then wrote: "THOSE who critized at the picture are HELPLESS SELFISH PEOPLE !". I suggest we overlook the problems with spelling and grammar and focus on what I think is the essence of the Facebook response.

To me the essence of the Facebook response is that demonstrating a fault or weakness in an argument or evidence about an issue is also an attack on the issue under discussion. The Facebook response seems to hold that if the proposition is better to ride a bus or bicycle than drive a car and if an image is provided which appears at first glance to show a reason why driving a car is very space inefficient then discussing the weakness in the image is mistakenly taken as if it was a direct attack on the primary proposition that riding a bus is better than driving a car.

And it is easy to see why this erroneous connection can occur. A proposition is usually supported by many arguments and pieces of evidence. If all are removed then the proposition has no support. However what many people fail to realise is that it having invalid arguments supporting a proposition is harmful. If someone is really interested in both being as accurate as possible and in a particular proposition then they should not only welcome the criticism and refinement of arguments; they should actively engage in the process themselves.

Let me repeat this: if you hold a position on some proposition then you should be subject all arguments and evidence in support of the proposition rigorous criticism. What you want to do is remove the invalid and weak arguments so they can be replace by better arguments. And if it is an argument that you created yourself then I recommend spending some extra effort in rigorous criticism.

If vigorous criticism causes all of the arguments and evidence for a proposition to fall then that is a good indication that the proposition needs revision. In the example we have before us if the image was the only piece of evidence for the proposition that riding the bus was better than riding the car and that image had all of the faults listed then perhaps that proposition might need revision to something like:
1. Commute time is improved by riding the bus instead of driving a car
2. Energy is efficiently used by commuters riding the bus instead of driving a car.
3. Commuters have an easier time dealing with their children' s after school activities and running errands by riding the bus instead of driving a car.
4. Space on the roadways is better used by riding a bus instead of driving a car.
And so forth. Many different propositions are possible; what this continual criticism of the propositions, the arguments and evidence allows us to improve what we know. This is (in part) how we improve human knowledge. And if it turns out the proposition needs to be refined that clarifies what exactly is the issue at hand.

Persons familiar with Pan-Critical Rationalism (see The Retreat to Commitment by W. W. Bartley or read the short overview essay by Max More http://www.maxmore.com/pcr.htm.) will notice that following the Pan-Critical Rationalist approach helps avoid the problems we have been discussing.

A final point that I want to emphasise is not just related to driving a car versus riding a bus rather it is the higher level principle of keeping our arenas of discourse and cognition well maintained. This does not mean rooting out all use of metaphor, simile, puns, wordplay, fun and occasional general silliness. But it is important to be able to recognise the type of activity in which we are engaged. And thus criticising the image is not selfish rather is it is mutually beneficial, positive sum.

This is particularly true about important questions yet is often these big questions that come with emotional commitment by many people on different sides. Typically we see this is questions related to religion and politics which are often given the designation as the two big question areas. And this is why it is important to keep in the habit on the small things so that we maintain the skills and habits for big question propositions.

About the Troy Davis case

Last week Troy Davis was executed by the State of Georgia. Based on what we now know it is very likely that Davis was innocent. This is just one more example why we need to abolish the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty should be abandoned for many reasons including the obvious reason that there is no compelling evidence that it reduces crime. The Death Penalty just like the War on Drugs is a useful tool for politicians to inflame the masses and garner votes while being a blight and drag on our society. 

And a close cousin of the Death Penalty is the reliance on eye witness testimony when it has been known for decades that eye witness testimony is highly unreliable.

All of this makes one wonder when a significant portion of the population of the USA will get a clue about these and related topics. Soon I hope but looking at the current state of political discussion in the USA I am not overly optimistic. However I have not yet slipped into pessimism.

Recent developments in Gay Rights

In the past few months we have seen same sex marriage pass in New York and the ridiculous "Dont't Ask Don't Tell" policy being swept into the dustbin. These and similar changes have been too long in coming about. And I want to point how important they are for our society as whole including straight, white males like me. I find a positive social good in living in a diverse community of people with equal liberty and find that my friends do also. If the government grants certain privileges to some and denies those same privileges to others then that is a harm not just to those denied the privilege but also to me and I think also to the society as a whole. And if one privilege is given only to a few; in this case one man and one woman marriage; then I worry that it becomes easier to give more select privileges for a few or to deny the liberties of any minority. Fortunately some progress is being made on removing special privilege of marriage only for one man and one women in a few states but there are still more states where change is needed. I will not elaborate my views on marriage at this point; a brief summary is already online at http://alf.org/marriagemoulton.php.

What I want to emphasize is that we have seen recent gains however those groups like Family Research Council are still around advocating their own special brand of discrimination. We need to be vigilant against the forces of repression such as the Family Research Council.