Five Lessons Obama Should Take From Biden | The New Republic

Useful and relevant stuff.

Five Lessons Obama Should Take From Biden | The New Republic

On Parents using Marijuana

I need to make it clear that despite not being a smoker of anything other than hooka/shisha, I am still for marijuana legalisation for social and economic purposes, as the only opposition to this light drug is ideologically conservative.

But this article by Mark Wolfe has me quite concerned regardless. To summarise, the he is a father with legal access to medicinal marijuana, and takes pride in the fact that his interaction with his kids improves drastically when  he is high. In short, the quality of his relationship with his kids is vastly improved if at the cost of the authenticity behind that relationship. Its not very often I side with terrified parental backlash.

I supported restraining the truth from grandmother mentioned Practical Wisdom who in her delusions believed that her husband had moved away (in reality he had died). The mad Kantian and prominently liberal case in the matter held that her right to the truth was most important. I side with the author Barry Schwartz saying her she has gained peace of mind through her delusion nor has it hurt anyone else in the process. The key is in the last statement, as I hold authenticity in the case of the pot-smoking parent to be far more important. Wolfe himself might be happier with his relationship with his kids, but in making this decision for himself he is also withholding his kids' right to the truth.

Much like we would find it atrocious to put someone else in Robert Nozick's experience machine, so it is atrocious for Wolfe to create a false image of himself to his kids regardless of whether or not they eventually understand the truth.

Truth and reliability for people and state

Was Kant right about no lie ever being permissible?

I don't think lies need always be a selfish act that should be likened to robbery of the truth. It's wholly possible for us to lie having the concerned person's best interests in mind. Some may view that as misguided or myopic, it need not always be the case. Indeed, telling the truth for its own sake without much thought or consideration to its consequences may be considered equally ill-considered and short-sighted.

Can Practical Wisdom be a reliable indicator of when to lie? So long as such people and purposes tend towards selflessness.  The whole point of Practical Wisdom is using your experience and good intentions to act for the sake of others concerned, when dealing with scenario pre-existing rule's weren't meant to consider. Practical Wisdom thus describes when a white lie is necessary.

Should we rely on those who don't always tell us the truth?

In short, yes. And not only because we have to. So long we trust lie to us only as a last resort or given no other choice, and so long as they have our best interests in mind and have consistently demonstrated as such in the past, then those we rely on shouldn't always have to tell us the truth.

Are purposeful omissions lies?

If an omission completely distorts the nature of the information provided, then of course it is a lie. On other occasions when the impact of the rest of the provided information is minimal. 

Personal Future Ideas

Personal manifesto and generalize summery of my philosophy in application, kept general, typical and largely centrist socially and left-wing economically.  For future use,

1. Never lose sight of what you genuinely believe is right. Politicians and statesmen all begin as idealistically as you do.
2. Successful election will compromise some principles, profound authenticity means only one or two are compromised. 
3. When in a room with the most typical politicians, focus in small measures how you may relate. All larger greater efforts must go towards setting yourself apart using authenticity as the greatest measure.
4. Bipartisanship for its own sake is just as myopic as partisanship for its own sake. Whether or not two parties typically agree or disagree on policy should be the sole basis of such co-operation.
5. The only ethical exception to the previous statement is when the security or solidarity of the nation as a whole is at stake.
6. "To realize the relative validity of one’s convictions and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilized man from a barbarian." - Joseph Schumpter 
7. Value the strength and integrity of public policy opinions of citizens, not sheer numbers and numbers alone. Never pick just the polls you like, but polls that follow an article providing context are invaluable!
8. Practical Wisdom in politicians is given and key, with regards to rules and incentives; specifically for scenarios rules and regulations were not designed to consider. The willingness to do the right thing, with the knowledge and experience necessary to know what the right thing is. This highest virtue must be practised to be perfected.
9. Cultivate purpose, authenticity, and positive freedom in citizens as socially inter-connected individuals. State and social institutions cultivate citizens whether or not they want to, make cultivation minimal and centrist.
10. Economically, we are a unified whole. No-one gets rich in any civilised society on their own, we are wholly interdependent. Economists need to take lessons in methods from behaviourist psychologists, who adjust for culture and context while remaining empirical.
11. Small and large businesses can not only function but thrive in an egalitarian society. Only the most titanic and multi-national corporations.
12. The mandatory right of employee ownership of the Canadian businesses that employ them is a sound and commendable of cultivating lasting and solid greater equality in our society.
13. Western society can and has functioned under top tax rates of 90% for those making over two million (real) dollars. Such that is present in the Nordic nations, however, should only be implemented by a political system and successive governments that earn that scale responsibly. 
14. That the sole determination of our personal success is our effort and merit; that is the idea we need, essential to fulfilling our potential as human beings. Ultimately, Rawls arbitrary basis for distributive justice is what we morally deserve. 
15. Distinguish entitlements as tending towards merit for true social mobility, moral distributive desert as total equality among citizens.
16. Outside of manual labour, wages matter little with regards to effort and output. As human beings, we are motivated not by what we do, but why we do it. We cherish this thinking in our greatest and most inspiring leaders.  Economists should learn greatly from this.
17. To cultivate a truly prospering society, focus on security, civic engagement, and social mobility. Security is important not only for its own sake, but also for trust, reason, and emotion void of fear. This leads a society in the right direction. 
18. Impulsive peace and pacifism is just as myopic as impulsive war. Any action by way of peace or war must be done for the sake of both hope and courage. Fear and and arrogance as demeriting war leads to atrocities. Cowardice as determining passive inaction in the face of such aggressive arrogance is no less vile.
19. The just nature of a war is often determined by the representing leaders of the nations involved. Leaders who are just and authentic.
20. Rights should be implemented always in accordance with equality of opportunity and social mobility. Excuse any irony with this statement- that's what rights were conceived for! As a means of securing equality of opportunity. Any rights which impede equality of opportunity is self-defeating. 

On Bias in Media and Academia

I would now like to take time to discuss the role that bias plays in the media, what we experience as opposed to what is acceptable. I will end on a note discussing briefly bias in academia.

What is media bias? For the purpose of this article I would describe media bias, not as a journalist or newscaster avoiding neutrality when discussing a worthy issue. I think we can make generic judgements on these events without a religiously adhering to neutrality. True neutrality is respecting and giving equal time to two sides in a debate. I would describe media bias as modifying what is circulated to fit a specific agenda, leaving only a token amount of the opposing opinion.

Of course I cannot write an article on media bias without mentioning Fox News, which alternates between denying what they do, and then pointing to other media as having a liberal bias in order to claim they balance the scales. Jon Stewart corrected them quite nicely when he said that the rest western media do not have a specifically liberal bias, rather they have a bias towards sensationalism, whatever the media feels will get them ratings. Though money from advertisers based on ratings is also of no small consequence. This sensationalism is seen in that media's quick ability to jump on left-wing politicians who act hypocritically or unexpectedly idiotic. Basically Anthony Weiner. Fox News on the other hand has excused any contradictions from Republican politicians that suit their agenda.

Excuse me while I state the obvious. What is unacceptable is that aside from sensationalism is Fox News, their active priority to manipulate their audience doesn't only defeat the purpose of news, it's anti-informative.  I favourite public policy poll of mine indicated that people who watch Fox News are less informed about news and current events then people who watch no news whatsoever.
By comparison (and this I never would have anticipated) viewers of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show are better informed about current events then viewers of any other American news network, so says public policy polling. Jon Stewart commented on the scale of his credibility by saying, smartly, "I haven't risen to their level, they've stooped to mine."

Should news networks always claim to be neutral? No, not really. I would have a greater respect for Fox News if, lies aside, they would acknowledge their bias as what they believe in outside of the 'opinion segments' of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
Take The Guardian for example. It is one of the more expensive British newspapers that casually acknowledges its liberal bias in its articles. Regardless, it places an emphasis regardless the whole story, as opposed to lying by omission. While both in opposition and in government you would find opinion by PM David Cameron in The Guardian, and in the extreme you would even find full opinion articles by Tea Party members, republished with their permission.

What of bias in academia? It is the very nature, the very description of an academic study to have no intention or agenda. Those academic authors are clearly, for empirical reasons, encouraged to have expectations or hypotheses, but any study that has an end goal.

This is perhaps the only permittable criticism of The Spirit Level. This grand book, The Spirit Level is an economically left-wing study written in causal language with academic methods and referencing. The researchers sought to show that the social health of societies across income classes do better as they become more equal. They went above and beyond this, and while doing so solidified their research methods from any avenue of attack.  The ultimate goal of this would be so that the findings of their study could not be criticised without purely political motivation. In this, the authors succeeded.

While The Spirit Level was never meant to be a wholly academic study in the slightest, but the fact that they found what they set out to is still a valid criticism. From the economic right wing, it may prompt comparisons with the Cato Institute, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Organisations not unlike these receive huge paychecks from private interests, then have academics write brilliantly written 'academic' papers all with the end goal of reducing taxation and regulation. The Ludwig von Mises Institute has a nice review of anti-corruption documentary Inside Job: It prompts the notion that these bankers and traders are not really criminals, they just take advantage of a system they just find unfair. What the reviewer explicitly acknowledges is a eagerness to see purely government officials on trial.

Both seek the end results of their study, one more actively than the other. Virtue is necessary (and suitable) to distinguish the two, ironically, but this virtue may be used in a universal sense. The selfless virtues motivating the writers of The Spirit Level are universally superior to the selfish virtues of the academic writings working for the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Robocalls

"At worst, he personally ordered it done and chose the people who executed the plan. At the very least, he fostered an attitude within the party [...], chose the managers of the people who committed these crimes and completely and utterly failed to exercise any oversight, supervision or leadership.
In the end, it doesn't really matter where [his] actions or lack of them fall on that scale. He is the leader and a leader is responsible for the actions of the people he leads. 
If he had a right or honourable bone in his body, he’d admit that and resign immediately."

-Stephen Harper on Paul Martin during the Gomery investigation. 


Just another way history has a liberal bias.

War, Pacifism, and Negotiation

Negotiation, even with extremists, is hugely preferable. While I wouldn't expect such negotiations with extremists to be particularly practical by way of avoiding conflict, I would expect the nation’s local civilians to be increasingly sympathetic to our ability to find a peaceful means of avoiding conflict. Even with extremists, or any kind of violent opponent, you have to understand what their motives are. You cannot fight an effective war with an enemy you cannot claim to understand and predict.

Canada has always had a typically and fundamentally pacifist approach to war and conflict. To us Canadians, the best war is an avoided war. Dialogue and negotiation is always preferable to conflict and violence. But when, then, is violence acceptable?

Canada and India have similar non-violent roots in this respect. Even the great man and renowned pacifist Mahatma Gandhi had a principled exception where armed conflict was preferable: He would support violence if the only other route was cowardice. True pacifism, in his view, was never a sign of weakness. It was a sign of strength and moral superiority! Inaction however, cowardice and apathy; these did not amount to pacifism.

The key moral, I believe, to take from this is this: Is that violence or inaction must never be motivated by fear. Fear is hugely corruptible in both these respects.

It is a brilliant model that Canada should follow, and often has in its past. One could come up with exceptions such as the 1st World War, but in general Canada has joined Switzerland as being far more a peacekeeping nation.

When we do, after all things are considered, commit to a war or conflict of great scale like that of Afghanistan, once our troops are committed the entire nation needs to share their sacrifice. Tax increases on those who can afford it, very clearly labeled as needed for shared sacrifice; are necessary to pay for increased military expenditure. With label such as 'Defence Tax', those who bare the increased tax burden may easily expect it to be gone once war debts are paid off.

War debts too, then, may well be a necessary supplement if tax increases are not enough. Once troops are overseas, they must be afforded all the equipment they need no matter what the immediate cost.  You might expect me to say a thing or two about cutting wasteful spending during times of war, but that is honestly a government objective that should be pursued during times of peace and war regardless.

Change in Thinking

At the inception of this blog, my philosophical was more based around communitarianism, a modern rendition of classical conservatism. This stands as opposed to libertarianism, which is a modern rendition of classical liberalism. All things considered, where as libertarianism utilises the the rational and calculating side of human nature, communitarianism hoped to utilise the emotional and communal side of human nature. I have come to see them as equally idealistic in their application.

My views have always been liberal in their application, yet Will Kymlicka has managed to change my views so that they are slightly to the political right of John Rawls, who is distinctly left wing both economically and socially.  The work of Joan Ralston Saul, A Fair Country, has consolidated this change.

This blog will keep its Aristotle-inspired name, I have simply become far more willing to use arguments based around individualism when it comes to social issues. Canada is a nation of history and culture with a classically conservative past that matters. When classical liberals headed the American Revolution, many classical conservatives responded by fleeing to Canada, a key reason for this. Will Kymlicka's vision that is based around John Rawls yet acknowledged these facts whole-heartedly.

Not all of my past posts were wholly communitarian of course, and not all of my upcoming posts will be wholly liberal, as I still feel even Rawlsian liberalism has some social shortcomings. One of the most important lessons I have learned is that individualism does not necessitate neutrality, nor does neutrality necessitate individualism.

I would how consider myself distinctly left-wing economically, and centre-left socially. This is because we as liberals cannot avoid the use of some conservative arguments when it comes to some social issues, whether or not we are advancing liberal policy.

Hypocritical Libertarians

Is a legitimate response to corrupt government to have less of it?
We cannot understate the degree to which corporations and politicians scratch each other's backs today in western politics.
Unfortunately an idealistic ideology has been increasingly used as a medium for corruption, that I must repeatedly bring up in this chapter. There are genuinely good, consistent, authentic people in this ideology but they are indifferent to those who are inconsistent and lie, all because of a scared label. I write of course, about libertarianism.

Do not rush to judge me, libertarians, or feel insulted that I've described you as idealistic. I describe myself as such, I only imagine libertarians would feel insulted because they typically imagine themselves as being down-to-earth. I will explain myself, but beforehand I will discuss how twisted libertarianism as become a medium for corruption. Fredrick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman would be turning in their graves after hearing about some politicians twisting the name of libertarianism.

First and foremost would be private competition. Fair competition in the free market is at the heart of monetarist libertarianism. It is not at the heart of the Koch brothers, who have long used twisted libertarianism to influence politics with their millions. They use their resources not to increase competition as would make Friedman proud, but to reduce competition more than necessary in favor of corporations already big.

What is more infuriating is the corruption of academia by twisted libertarians. They provide huge checks to 'educational institutions' claiming to be grassroots and independent, yet supply a selection of eager twisted libertarians. These people then write essays and books that do convince people, under the guise of true libertarianism, that huge oligopolies are no threat to the free market. This is wrong. There are academic papers typed by brilliant writers who are also paid brilliantly. These try with academic precision to convince you that small businesses can take on an oligopoly on a level playing field. This is no overstatement, for within libertarianism academic writers may be hired to write papers supporting your specific view. Many of these organizations claim to be grassroots when they are in fact paid for by ten or eleven very rich people.

My biggest problem with ideal libertarianism is its potential to produce hypocritical, twisted libertarians. True libertarians seem to be indifferent to their presence because they share the label. I cannot stand this. It is typical for members of any ideology to ignore the crazy among them for the sake of solidarity, to appear united. But if libertarians pride themselves in consistency; consistency in its truest form, they cannot hide from the crazy among them.

This kind of corruption makes limits to individual wealth a necessity for a just society and a good life. In the 1950's, American president Eisenhower in order to balance the budget, raised the top tax rate for those making over 200,000 dollars (2 million today) to 89%. He was, as a side note. How could someone possibly sustain an high-end career under such tax rates? You may well ask Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney; the Beatles paid a top income tax rate of 91%.
My point is by stating all is this; the rhetoric spouted by libertarians today would have you believe that society cannot function properly without low top tax rates. History has shown we can function well with high top tax rates!
Unfortunately today, I have to state a solution that is in equal parts outlandish, pragmatic, and idealistic. If it could be enacted, it would genuinely work.
The Keynesian Era of economics (1945-80's) saw far greater rates of economic growth and far greater stability than with libertarian-preferred Monetarism. These consistent decades cannot be passed over as some sort of anomaly. Monetarist economics has had its own decades to vindicate itself yet we have seen far greater financial instability, far slower economic growth and far higher unemployment, while taxes on top earners have been lower than ever. The monetarist response seems to be to blame all problems on any Keynesian policies that persist! The sheer audacity!
What Keynesian policies persist? Obama's stimulus bill was Keynesian in nature.
Another sad notion discussed by terrible business economists only a year ago was government debt as a cause of instability. They would see austerity measures and federal debt reduction act as confidence to investors. I believe there's a term for this, 'confidence fairy', asking for confidence under conditions that work against. Let this be clear, as unemployment skyrockets and business fail, the government receives less through income (payroll) taxes, less corporate tax and spends more on supporting the unemployed on welfare.
What makes tax rates like those I've mentioned impractical today are the fact that the top earners in society have gained so much money, they have all the resources needed to evade taxes (when they're not lobbying for less). All the same, there is no reason -do note- to have top tax rates a mere 5% or 10% higher then working class have to pay.

Here's why so little: the 1% with all the money and power associated, in the government or private realm, they by default have all the resources they need to dodge taxes. They'll leave their nations onetime want one or third passport is remarkably easy to come by for these people. My family worked its way up the social ladder in two decades. I own two passports, assisted only by the nature of the citizenship test, and being a natural citizen of the commonwealth. While we were supposed to stay in the UK, business called him closer to the United States, where the company is based. And so I consider myself to have become British-Canadian by trickier means. Don't worry, I have a friend I may be compared to:
A former (likable and relaxed) classmate of mine, a true rich kid ethnically half Iraqi and half Lebanese, had the passports for Iraq, America, France, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Those are simply the ones I remember and of which I am absolutely certain. When I asked him about them, he responded that his family are simply given them because of his dad's business in all these countries, for reasons of sheer convenience. You're a charismatic mate, and I put up with your wealth because you weren't judgmental or a show-off... No one should have such easy access to so many passports! There's no excusing this! Some consider my access to a second passport easy, and I really don't care if I sound like a hypocrite here. A clear line needs to be drawn, as the richest individual should never own more than three passports. You would never, ever introduce yourself as 'the French-Canadian-American-British-Iraqi guy'.

Faith and Athiesm, Emotion and Reason

"Imagination is more important that knowledge. Knowledge is limited, imagination encircles the world." - Albert Einstein

Why I am Agnostic

Prominent atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins offers up a picture a society that is based on evidence alone and is void of faith. On this specifically, I must disagree. Faith is so fundamental for human beings and acts as a medium for far more good than evil. It is the evil, and only the evil, that is publicised for its sensationalism. His vision of society strikes me for that reason as rather bleak. Faith without evidence is far too linked to the trust we give each other as citizens every day.
Science must always take priority, I think it is more inspiring to see scientific discovery as an act of worship: to honor God's work by understanding it in full. The only two times I could ever think of moral reasons to draw limits to science, would be experimentation without purpose. It is not at all imperial, and experimentation for its own sake the use of animals in ways many have not yet even encountered

When the social sciences (which have to include economics {human nature, money, and logic}) use imperial methods, they often choose to ignore culture and context for the sake of simplicity. Context and culture are inconvenient for imperial methods, but ignoring them renders obsolete the method's practical intentions.

Emotion and Reason

Classically in politics, liberalism has focused on reason to give an optimistic view of human nature, conservatism has focused on emotion to give a pessimistic view of human nature. I should say that emotion and reason (used at the appropriate times for the right things) give reason for optimism.

Importantly, emotion does not have to be just viewed as just some hindrance to reason. Trust, creativity, and faith are all born of emotion, it's what separates the human from the machine. Imagination is fundamentally irrational when in the right light. The single most iconic TED speaker, Ken Robinson, stressed that one cannot exercise creativity if there is a persisting fear of making a mistake. You cannot help but take risks in the creative process, it is born of emotion. If you want to exercise true creativity, you must rid yourself of any fear of making a mess, or being mistaken.

Reason, importantly, puts crucial limits in place. History shows time and time again that actions and votes made out of fear are both irrational and harmful to a society. It cannot be allowed to happen. Voters, thankfully, appear to appreciate optimism in candidates for office- except when times are down. In Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill voters appreciated figures who were down to earth and could 'tell it like it is.' In both cases the trust of the electorate was worth it. But even when a society is hindering on economic disaster, with our modern elections, I have seen the votes goes to the optimist.

Multiculturalism for Canada

Many modern conservatives like to tote that multiculturalism is a tried and failed experiment. These people fall short of advocating a dangerous kind of nationalism, where citizens are expected to adhere to only a single culture. But I would like to comment on the shared discontent with multiculturalism failing to meet our expectations.
My own response requires concessions from each side of the political spectrum. First and foremost, Canadians must be receptive of immigrated citizens' culture. Multiculturalism cannot succeed if those who come here immediately feel like their cultural heritage is under threat. Once, however, we do learn and display our culture and beliefs with pride, we must remind all with the fact that no foreign culture may take priority over Canada's own, obvious as it may seem.
This does not mean that an immigrant's own culture is under threat by default- no-one should be made to feel as though an individual's capacity for cultural identity is limited; I have known many who proudly display multiple cultures. I belong to three: Canadian, my British heritage, and my Indian heritage. I have never felt that any had to be exclusive. Therefore, I would not tolerate immigrants who would knowingly move to Canada yet reject Canadian culture outright and refuse to integrate. Multiculturalism would fail as a fragmented society, yet thrive as an integrated one.
This should be obvious, only the most extreme liberals could possibly oppose it. In an upcoming post I shall clarify what Canadian culture really is at its fundamental nature.

Inspiring the Citizens and Consumers

I'm going to talk about key ways to motivate people when pitching ideas, products and policy. One way is from a TEDtalk; focusing on the dream and vision. The other is from a collection of fragments of public work and is closely related, focusing on the narrative.

The first is vision. It is the norm both in politics and in business. It is run by those who pride themselves on being rational, and when presenting ideas they do the rational thing: first they tell us what the product/plan is, then they tell us why it's necessary and the impact, and they end with the vision of society after this is done.
It's rational, but it leaves the electorate and investors yawning and thinking about coffee.
Political and business academics are again at odds with reality.

To inspire people you reverse the order of presentation! You begin with your vision, the end goal in mind, why things can and should be that way, and then you end on your product or policy to bring that about! This approach is uniquely idealistic and pragmatic.

The second means of inspiring people would be the narrative. Politically speaking, the narrative has been generally seen as irrational, as the culture and traditions associated with our heritage are seen to set us back and impede progress. I would argue that it is in fact rational, we respond to narratives and our heritage basically because we cannot make sense of ourselves without looking at how we got here on a metaphorical timeline.

That aside, investors and voters need a good story. The story of how we got here, where we are, and what we're going to do about it. This begins with a vision of the past instead of the future, and the final solution may freely be contrasted with any opposition or competitor's idea. Apple employs this brilliantly. Obama however, shied away from discussing 'how we got here' for the sake of bipartisanship, and it's a small but crucial part of what hurts his support.