"Non-economists often get upset when they learn that someone has gotten rich by solving a problem. Economists, by contrast, worry when they think no one can get rich by solving a problem."
True.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
On free speech
Last night, I was in line for a cancelled speech to be delivered by American conservative pundit Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa. The speech was cancelled, it was said, due in large part to the number of protesters who made the scene unsafe for Ann Coulter to attend, essentially shutting down a perspective with which they disagreed. It was disgraceful.
More distressing to me than the vociferous display of intolerance however was the line of reasoning used by the anti-Coulter crowd as justification for the silencing of her viewpoint. Comments like "we're all for free speech, just not hate speech" were widespread and widely supported. Of course, this is a false distinction as "free speech" refers to a category of freedom and "hate speech" a category of speech. Setting aside the practical implications of defining such an ambiguous term as "hate speech", one can no more be "for free speech, just not hate speech" than "for freedom of religion, just not Christianity."
Free speech, by definition, includes protection of "hate speech" -- however it may be defined.
Last night's experience, if nothing else, lead me to the conclusion that Canadians -- especially young Canadians -- urgently need a primer on free speech, its meaning and implications. Were I in charge, I would, at the very least, make John-Stuart Mill's "On liberty" required reading for all high-school and University students.
Unless we as a society establish and defend our first principles, we risk their erosion and, ultimately, their extinction. In closing, some excerpts from JSM's 1859 essay "On liberty":
Update: A letter I wrote to the editor of the University of Ottawa's student newspaper on the subject was published today:
AS MANY OF you are probably aware, a speech scheduled to be delivered on campus this past week by American political pundit Ann Coulter drew controversy and much media attention days before it was supposed to be given, as the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) passed an “emergency motion” to petition the university’s administration to ban the contentious author from campus.
In defending the “Ann Coulter Ban Motion,” Jim Rae, an elected representative to the SFUO’s Board of Administration, wrote the following comment on a blog run by the Coulter-speech organizers: “I do not believe that free speech extends to shouting ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre, as this puts people at risk unnecessarily. To my knowledge, this is the common interpretation of free speech.”
Setting aside the fact that judging the appropriateness of speech seems to me to be far beyond the SFUO’s mandate and competence, Jim Rae proves that his knowledge of free speech—its true meaning as well as its common interpretation in a free society—leaves much to be desired.
In referring to the banal “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” cliché, Jim Rae misquotes and misrepresents the phrase’s original author, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote that “[the] most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic.” The worry in this, of course, was not that one would shout fire in a crowded theatre, but do so falsely. If the theatre were in fact on fire, shouting “FIRE!” would be the responsible thing to do.
In any case, the analogy quickly falls apart when one tries to relate it to a situation in which a woman whose views and style are widely known gives a speech to students who choose to attend. It is lazy and irrelevant.
The BOA motion was no more than an attempt to silence a point of view with which some in the student union disagree politically and, perhaps, take offence to personally. And that, in a free country—in a university setting, no less—is a scandal.
Mark Steyn, a widely published columnist and champion of free speech, once made the following point: “Here’s a good rule of thumb: Anybody who cites the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre line is brain-dead and has given no thought to the matter.” Jim Rae has proven himself no exception to this rule. Instead, alongside a majority of the BOA, he has given added weight to the often-quoted but insufficiently appreciated price of liberty: eternal vigilance. [The Fulcrum]
More distressing to me than the vociferous display of intolerance however was the line of reasoning used by the anti-Coulter crowd as justification for the silencing of her viewpoint. Comments like "we're all for free speech, just not hate speech" were widespread and widely supported. Of course, this is a false distinction as "free speech" refers to a category of freedom and "hate speech" a category of speech. Setting aside the practical implications of defining such an ambiguous term as "hate speech", one can no more be "for free speech, just not hate speech" than "for freedom of religion, just not Christianity."
Free speech, by definition, includes protection of "hate speech" -- however it may be defined.
Last night's experience, if nothing else, lead me to the conclusion that Canadians -- especially young Canadians -- urgently need a primer on free speech, its meaning and implications. Were I in charge, I would, at the very least, make John-Stuart Mill's "On liberty" required reading for all high-school and University students.
Unless we as a society establish and defend our first principles, we risk their erosion and, ultimately, their extinction. In closing, some excerpts from JSM's 1859 essay "On liberty":
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.
...
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
...
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Update: A letter I wrote to the editor of the University of Ottawa's student newspaper on the subject was published today:
AS MANY OF you are probably aware, a speech scheduled to be delivered on campus this past week by American political pundit Ann Coulter drew controversy and much media attention days before it was supposed to be given, as the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) passed an “emergency motion” to petition the university’s administration to ban the contentious author from campus.
In defending the “Ann Coulter Ban Motion,” Jim Rae, an elected representative to the SFUO’s Board of Administration, wrote the following comment on a blog run by the Coulter-speech organizers: “I do not believe that free speech extends to shouting ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre, as this puts people at risk unnecessarily. To my knowledge, this is the common interpretation of free speech.”
Setting aside the fact that judging the appropriateness of speech seems to me to be far beyond the SFUO’s mandate and competence, Jim Rae proves that his knowledge of free speech—its true meaning as well as its common interpretation in a free society—leaves much to be desired.
In referring to the banal “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” cliché, Jim Rae misquotes and misrepresents the phrase’s original author, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote that “[the] most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic.” The worry in this, of course, was not that one would shout fire in a crowded theatre, but do so falsely. If the theatre were in fact on fire, shouting “FIRE!” would be the responsible thing to do.
In any case, the analogy quickly falls apart when one tries to relate it to a situation in which a woman whose views and style are widely known gives a speech to students who choose to attend. It is lazy and irrelevant.
The BOA motion was no more than an attempt to silence a point of view with which some in the student union disagree politically and, perhaps, take offence to personally. And that, in a free country—in a university setting, no less—is a scandal.
Mark Steyn, a widely published columnist and champion of free speech, once made the following point: “Here’s a good rule of thumb: Anybody who cites the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre line is brain-dead and has given no thought to the matter.” Jim Rae has proven himself no exception to this rule. Instead, alongside a majority of the BOA, he has given added weight to the often-quoted but insufficiently appreciated price of liberty: eternal vigilance. [The Fulcrum]
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Legacy
In the wake of the earthquake that struck Chile last Saturday (8.8 on the Richter scale, "nearly 500 times more powerful than Haiti's"), this analysis from yesterday's Wall Street Journal: How Milton Friedman Saved Chile.
It seems to me so painfully obvious as to what works and what doesn't, in terms of running a country and economy, that this sort of opinion piece should be made redundant. That there is still debate in academia and politics (especially academia) over the merits of a free-enterprise system, along the lines advocated by Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago in its heyday, seems to be missing the point of countless historical lessons.
I'd love to see Naomi Klein attempt a response.
Update: More on the Haiti-Chile disparity.
It's not by chance that Chileans were living in houses of brick—and Haitians in houses of straw—when the wolf arrived to try to blow them down.
It seems to me so painfully obvious as to what works and what doesn't, in terms of running a country and economy, that this sort of opinion piece should be made redundant. That there is still debate in academia and politics (especially academia) over the merits of a free-enterprise system, along the lines advocated by Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago in its heyday, seems to be missing the point of countless historical lessons.
I'd love to see Naomi Klein attempt a response.
Update: More on the Haiti-Chile disparity.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Just in time for the "Israeli Apartheid Week" kickoff,
Hezbollah supporters and other anti-Israel types rally in Paris:
This is not just another political rally; none of these anti-Israel rallies are. Notice at 2:50 - 3:30 the chanting of "Khaibar Khaibar ya yahud, jaish Muhammed sa-ya'ud", popular at these sorts of rallies, among these sorts of crowds. As explained in the video's info column, this is "the chant reminding the Jews of Muhammad and his army's slaughter and mass beheading of the Jews of Khaibar, after they had surrendered." And of course, Hezbollah is listed in Canadian law as a terrorist group (as per Regulations Establishing a List of Entities made under subsection 83.05(1) of the Criminal Code) -- that is, it has "knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity." Great company to keep, no doubt.
I suspect I'll have more posts written on the ignorance, nonsense and hate that make up the bulk of "Israeli Apartheid Week" before the week's up. But for now, as a preface of sorts to my point of view, I'll end with a quote from Michael Ignatieff:
This is not just another political rally; none of these anti-Israel rallies are. Notice at 2:50 - 3:30 the chanting of "Khaibar Khaibar ya yahud, jaish Muhammed sa-ya'ud", popular at these sorts of rallies, among these sorts of crowds. As explained in the video's info column, this is "the chant reminding the Jews of Muhammad and his army's slaughter and mass beheading of the Jews of Khaibar, after they had surrendered." And of course, Hezbollah is listed in Canadian law as a terrorist group (as per Regulations Establishing a List of Entities made under subsection 83.05(1) of the Criminal Code) -- that is, it has "knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity." Great company to keep, no doubt.
I suspect I'll have more posts written on the ignorance, nonsense and hate that make up the bulk of "Israeli Apartheid Week" before the week's up. But for now, as a preface of sorts to my point of view, I'll end with a quote from Michael Ignatieff:
Let us be clear: criticism of Israeli government policy is legitimate. Wholesale condemnation of the State of Israel and the Jewish people is not legitimate. Not now, not ever. [National Post]
Thursday, January 21, 2010
House of the Rising Sun
"Oh mother, tell your children
not to do what I have done.
Spend your lives in sin and misery
in the house of the rising sun."
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Just sayin'
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance" - Murray Rothbard
What went wrong?
For those interested in this sort of thing, bigthink.com has a series of videos up on their website in which questions are asked of economists, businessmen and other experts relating to the causes of -- and responses to -- the much-discussed financial crisis in the United States.
Check it out.
Here's one of my favourites from the series:
Check it out.
Here's one of my favourites from the series:
Economic freedom
According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom released today by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, Canada now boasts North America's freest economy.
Update: Point taken from another blog: "It’s ... interesting to note that all but one [of the top ten listed in the index] were colonies of Britain when Britain was one of the most democratic countries in the world. The only exception is Switzerland, which is currently the most democratic country in the world."
Update: Point taken from another blog: "It’s ... interesting to note that all but one [of the top ten listed in the index] were colonies of Britain when Britain was one of the most democratic countries in the world. The only exception is Switzerland, which is currently the most democratic country in the world."
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Albert Camus
"Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time"
It's always exciting to discover a new thinker to explore, especially one with whom my instincts seem to agree.
Whoever feels so inclined can get me this or this, or even this.
--
It's always exciting to discover a new thinker to explore, especially one with whom my instincts seem to agree.
Meanwhile, Camus found himself ever more repulsed by Communism, which he called "the modern madness." He saw Communism as a desperate attempt to create meaning and certainty. He wrote, "Those who pretend to know everything and settle everything finish by killing everything." If there were a choice between justice and freedom, meaning a choice between the ideal Communist state and the flawed Western state, he wrote: "I choose freedom. For even if justice is not realized, freedom maintains the power of protest against injustice and keeps communication open." [The New York Times]
Whoever feels so inclined can get me this or this, or even this.
On Haiti
Two random thoughts:
1. Of all the "help Haiti" groups I've come across on Facebook, I especially like the thought behind "Save Haiti[;] stop sugar subsidies".
The group brings attention to the sugar subsidies in the first world -- specifically, in the US -- that put Haiti's sugar production industry at a significant competitive disadvantage. Haiti, as we know, even before the earthquake, was a basket case, mired in poverty, crime and corruption. Those nation's that have now taken a renewed interest in Haiti and the wellbeing of its citizens would do well to consider actions that would improve its economic prospects in the long term. Leveling the playing field, moving towards free agricultural markets generally, and sugar markets specifically, would be a good start.
2. I am impressed -- though not at all surprised -- that Israel and the IDF are leading the way in relief efforts in Haiti.
1. Of all the "help Haiti" groups I've come across on Facebook, I especially like the thought behind "Save Haiti[;] stop sugar subsidies".
The group brings attention to the sugar subsidies in the first world -- specifically, in the US -- that put Haiti's sugar production industry at a significant competitive disadvantage. Haiti, as we know, even before the earthquake, was a basket case, mired in poverty, crime and corruption. Those nation's that have now taken a renewed interest in Haiti and the wellbeing of its citizens would do well to consider actions that would improve its economic prospects in the long term. Leveling the playing field, moving towards free agricultural markets generally, and sugar markets specifically, would be a good start.
2. I am impressed -- though not at all surprised -- that Israel and the IDF are leading the way in relief efforts in Haiti.
CNN reported that Israel is the only state so far to have sent a field hospital equipped with all that is required for surgical operations. Doctors from various missions send patients requiring surgery to Israel's makeshift hospital, particularly
those whose condition is critical, the news network said.
According to the report, other field hospitals contain no more than stretcher beds and medical teams who administer first aid, and they are not prepared for complex surgery. [Y Net news]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)