When speaking of the private sector, different people tend to imagine the thinking of private sector CEOs in different ways. This leads many to see corporations as evil — the more eloquent ones will say that they are disfavourable to human interests. Too often, people will rely on caricatures and abstractions when CEOs at the top of corporations are real people with concrete problems. Here is Ryan Air’s Michael O’Leary with some very typical CEO-speak:

Is this kind of thinking favourable to human interests?

Does the nature of funding (private or public) and the existence of competitors have an influence on whether a CEO will follow this kind of thinking?

-Dussault

[Sri Lankan civil-war refugees aiming for Australia, knowing that they will not be welcomed by the government.]

I am left unconvinced by the case for controlled immigration, but that is the reality in most countries. This implies that there are quotas and discrimination in terms of movement into Canada. However, if we are to have immigration subject to such control, if we are to limit the places allowed for the foreign-b0rn, then we are left with three major ways by which we can choose those who do come in: we can have a wholly “first come first serve” approach, allowing doctors, refugees and simple labourers in the same line; we can give places to those who benefit us the most); or to those who need it the most. In reality, we end up using all three of these approaches in the compromise over the control immigration.

When it comes to those whom we allow it because we deem them to be in need of our help, different countries define eligibity using different standards, but always it is implied that we should give asylum to those who need it the most — assuming  that we want to create the most benefit with the quotas we are forced to work with.

Yet, some seem to disagree. From the BBC:

The Home Office has been accused of telling gay and lesbian asylum seekers to avoid persecution back home by keeping their sexuality secret.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] claims the UK is turning international convention “on its head”.

[...]

“Would we have asked a Jew to hide in the attic to avoid being sent to the concentration camps?,” [a UNHCR spokeswoman] told the BBC.

Though I have no doubt that the persecution of the LGBT community is to be opposed, there are people in far more dangerous situations, such as (historically) those Jews the spokeswoman mentioned. If we take just about any country where the LGBT community suffers government discrimination — sadly, the list is long –, we can find many groups of people that are more at risk or that suffers in the present, rather than if they act in a certain way (it is possible to be chaste, but it is not quite possible to change one’s ethnicity). It is particularly hard to be homosexual or transsexual  in such countries — I have no doubts about that –, but what if homosexuality stood out in a crowd, like ethnicity can? To compare the Holocaust to what the LGBT community experiences is a stretch, since homosexuals are not actively sought for nor are they treated so harshly.

When one makes comparisons, it is only sensible to take something that is comparable in most respects so as to not create distortions. The problems of the LGBT community stand on their own, they do not need comparisons to the Holocaust — comparisons made more for the sake of emotional imagery/media attention than rational discussion. By simply comparing their situations, the spokeswoman relieved herself from the need to create a reasoning that stands on its own merits (the fault is perhaps on the BBC if it distorted the focus of her explanations). “We must do this with the LGBT because we should have done this with the Jews under Hitler” is not very convincing.

Quite simply put: if we are to limit the amount of places we give to asylum seekers, then those who come in should be those groups which suffer the most. Considering the percentage of humans which fit in the “LGBT” tag and considering the suffering that seems to be inflicted on the community (something that is, I admit, impossible to clearly measure), it seems that only a minority of LGBT will end up suffering intolerably. The rest, it seems, manage to hide it — some Jewish communities did the same. It is a sad fact that a homosexual in hiding is alone, while at least minority cultures have a community to help them out, but that is still nothing in contrast to the many slaves, neglected orphans, war and rape victims etc. So many people live in fear knowing that those who want to kill them can find them without any difficulties  — they are more deserving than those who can manage to go by without worries as long as they act normally. I know that “act normally” is easier said than done, but it is far easier than hiding one’s skin, gender, name etc. The desire for sex is not like that for eating, for we can live without sex and it can be replaced with other things that satisfy us in profound ways (such as arts, learning and friendship).

All of the above only matters if we believe in quotas, but there are those who ask: why not just invite them all? Well, xenophobia is in large part to blame. Then there are arguments based in economics, but they are at best murky. I believe that the flow of immigrants should be made smooth so as to not create major disruptions, but as long as things are regular and we assure that unemployment remains stable, there is little to worry about. Those who come in want work, so, at first, they do take up jobs, but they spend this money and create work for other people. Imagine a simple economy made up 50% of farmers and 50% of artisan; if the population doubles, then there will be twice the need for food, so half of these people will need to go into food (since one citizen produces food for two in this society) and the other half will offer services to the farming half in exchange for food. There are more details to this example, but I think it illustrates the absurdity in the belief that immigrants come here and “steal our jobs”. There are other ideas as to what would happen if we allowed open immigration, but, because immigration has been controlled for as long as transportation has been so easy, there is no hard evidence as to what would happen if Western countries opened the gates to Africa, South America and Asia. (I recommend that you research this matter in more depth, but I will leave this issue here).

The most compelling arguments have to do with the design of tax and welfare system: without citizenship as we know it, anyone could come in and profit from our social services at our expense. I can sympathise with those who believe this to be a problem, but even if this concern is justified (IF), then it should be noted that there are ways by which we could redefine the role of citizenship: we could allow anyone to come in and work, without visas, and, after they have shown some commitment to the country in terms of paying taxes, we could allow them to obtain access to the services their taxes fund. “Commitment” could be defined in many ways: perhaps after a person has been paying taxes for a certain number of years, or perhaps as soon as they can prove that they have paid taxes for a month. There are many ways by which this could be achieved and I will not explore this here, but it is clear that we can do this if we want. So, there is little substance to arguments from those angered by the possibility of people benefiting from a health-care system they do not contribute their share to.

I believe that most of what we are left with is ignorance and prejudice , but some good arguments can probably be made in favour of quotas on immigration; those I know, however, are too weak to justify such a serious limit as a limit on the movement of peoples.

-Dussault

“Settling an Argument” by Norman Rockwell

A few weeks ago, I wrote:

Last night, I was on the campus of the Université de Montréal (UDM) and met a student, obviously bright yet heavily intoxicated, who repeatedly declared that “la vie c’est d’la marde (life is shit)”. I listened as he repeatedly stated this claim, along with supporting claims such as that “the only reason we don’t all kill ourselves is that we don’t have the guts”. These seem childish even, but he proved his intelligence through earlier conversations and I could not help but conclude that his claims were not the mere ramblings of a man who has lost his capacity for reason, but conclusions which he supported even with a sober mind. My general observations suggest that what alcohol diminishes is not the ability to make propositions which correspond with one’s sober mind, but the ability to clarify the rational basis on which these conclusions have been founded. So, I assumed that a significant part of him did believe that “life is shit” and I had to say: “I disagree”.

The discussion (if I may call it that) which followed was not constructive since, though he let me begin my sentences, he repeatedly interrupted me a few words in. I do not blame him, since drunkeness increases impulsivity and seems to diminish people’s capacity to listen to others, and the fact that I had so drily disagreed with him might have created some undue tension. My disagreement was purely intellectual and I had assumed him to be capable of debating over a proposition without the interferences of ego. A person who cannot listen cannot discuss, so I put an end to this pointless exchange. However, since his belief that “life is shit” seemed to be a conclusion — a conclusion which I find heavily flawed –, I feel the need to attack it in writing.

One of the first things to keep in mind about this proposition is that it is presented as an objective representation of reality. He did not say “ma vie c’est d’la marde (my life is shit)”, but “la vie c’est d’la marde ([the] life is shit)”. Thus, from his perspective, life, as we all experience it, is shit.

It is difficult to disagree with a proposition with elements left undefined. So, each word must properly be understood. For one, it seems clear that he did not speak of “life” as biologists define it, but as the “universal condition of human existence“. “Universal” could not have been “general” because he spoke in absolute terms and disagreed immediately when I spoke of my own life as not being shit. As for the meaning which he injected into “shit”, it is made clear by his claim that “the only reason we don’t all kill ourselves is that we don’t have the guts”. Life, it seems, is not an experience worth living; the pleasure we experience is not worth the suffering; we live merely because some force within most prevents us from following the rational course of action (suicide). He spoke of this experience as the only reality, rather than choosing modesty by speaking only of his experiences with life, leaving others to share with him their own.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

The essence of democracy lays in the assumption that a society is best served when power is entrusted to the common people. This is perhaps why democracies have been most successful when those who are defined as the “common people” have a fair amount of free time, allowing them to consider political matters; when they have access to reliable information concerning the issues the society faces; and when they are all tied to each other with a bond strong enough to resist man’s natural temptation to use force when disagreements arise.

In the past, there was much doubt as to laypeople’s ability to consider political issues in a rational manner. With advents in education and communication, it has become more difficult to under-estimate people’s ability to reason for themselves, free of overly successful manipulation. Even if the common people do not consider the issues from a thoroughly objective and rational manner, they are seen as being at least capable of making decisions as to what is good for them. Since decisions in a democracy are fueled by a consensus that must be supported by at least a significant part of the population, the whims of individuals lose influence in favour of decisions which will benefit a large proportion of society – and perhaps the whole of it.

Even when we decide upon such a system, there are many details to be considered as to how our democracy should be designed. One of the primary issues deals with the centralisation of power and there is a whole continuum of possibilities to consider here: on one end, there is autocracy, with one individual being granted absolute power; and on the other, there is absolute democracy, with the whole of society involved in every single decision. As we try to understand which point upon this continuum would be ideal – ideal, at least, for a specific society – it is important to consider the various problems that can arise as we increase or decrease the centralisation of power.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I have come across an organisation that calls itself “Non aux hausses! (No to the increase of public funds)” and have looked through its website. It seems that its members seek to improve the well-being of the poor and middle class by ensuring that the public services they use are not made more expensive. “The government’s greed can be satisfied through other means “, one would expect to hear. Yet, is the issue quite as simple as they present it: as a choice between hurting the poor or helping the rich?

Hoping to answer this, I did look through their website and have found their specific demands, but I have not found that which I deem the most important: the supporting ideas behind these demands. I am not one to attack conclusions directly; rather, I attack the way in which they are justified. Policy changes have a major impact on society and it is important that we do not implement them unless the arguments behind them are solid. So if an organisation wishes to advocate change, it must show us how its most thoughtful members were convinced that these changes were indeed for the best. This is not what I found on their website.

Now, to quote some of their suggestions:

# Adopt a more progressive tax system.
# Add at least one more tax bracket for the highest incomes.

I must ask: what basis do they have in claiming that this is right? It is nice to make suggestions, but I suspect that they have not tried to look at how our economy would be affected — because when the economy hurts, it is the poor and not the rich who suffer the most.

When the costs of a business increase — because of extra taxes, higher minimum wage, greater regulation and so forth — some businesses that were profitable will no longer be so, creating a loss in the economy for certain activities — activities for which there is not enough demand to justify the effort, with only meager profits to support the owners. When the owners shut down, the employees go home and start looking for a new job or, if it is the whole sector that is struggling, they go back to school so as to satisfy a labour shortage in another sector of the economy.

It is amusing that “Non aux hausses!” proposes changes which will lead some businesses to close, ultimately hurting those they wish to protect.

# Reduce or even abolish tax exemptions (that only benefit the rich)

When it comes to certain sectors of the economy that cannot survive because of the extra burden imposed by taxes, the government can create tax exemptions so that the activity still exists. Though this is open to the influence of lobbies and corruption, if the government organisation that decides this is objective, then it is quite clearly for the best: the basic idea is that it is better for the activity to exist and the government not be able to tax it than for the activity to simply not exist because the government taxes are too much for that particular business. Again, this is about more jobs and a more interesting economy, with a greater variety of activities.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I was exchanging some words with a friend, after I had mentioned an article. He suggested that the article “could easily be Israeli propaganda to legitimize a new attack on Gaza.” I tried to explain that such information seemed contrary to Israeli interests — that if Israel wants to publish propaganda, it should write something that is more advantageous to itself –, that the newspaper that Haaretz used as a source was owned by a Saudi who has been accused of funding Hamas and seems quite unlikely to start publishing Israeli propaganda, and that the source that this latter paper used seemed credible and, if it was a lie, could easily have been denied by Hamas. Then the conversation became about whether Haaretz was trust-worthy. This lead me to write a letter that was much longer than our previous exchanges and is perhaps more suited to this website than through the medium we were using:

Haaretz is a well-respected Israeli newspaper which I have been reading for some time. I can tell you that, especially in contrast to other voices coming from Israel, it is favourable to Palestinian interests, though it does not, of course, neglect Israeli interests. Just read about Gideon Levy, who is an editor for Haaretz that regularly publishes pro-Palestinian articles. Haaretz does, however, publish a diversity of view points, so there will be one extreme with Gideon Levy, but also a variety of op-ed articles that speak in favour of Israel’s interests. To suggest that it is a mouthpiece for the Israeli government to publish propaganda, however, seems like no more than ignorance as to what the paper actually publishes.
Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I have seen both teachers and books describe neoliberalism as an ideology in opposition to government intervention in the economy. Its adherents tend to be vilified as zealous believers in the invisible hand and this definition of neoliberalism is then used in a straw man argument, with neoliberalism clearly shown as false due to the many examples of how the invisible hand does not always guide private interests in favor of the common good.

Any just definition of “neoliberalism” must be compatible with Milton Friedman’s ideas, since, as far as I can tell, he has been the one most widely described as a neoliberal, even though he did not identify as one (as few if any “neoliberals” do). Thus, we should probably consider what he had to say about government intervention in the economy:

“[T]here are only three major grounds on which government intervention is to be justified. One is “natural monopoly” or similar market imperfection which makes effective competition (and therefore thoroughly voluntary exchange) impossible. A second is the existence of substantial “neighborhood effects,” i.e., the action of one individual imposes significant costs on other individuals for which it is not feasible to make him compensate them or yields significant gains to them for which it is not feasible to make them compensate him–circumstances that again make voluntary exchange impossible. The third derives from an ambiguity in the ultimate objective rather than from the difficulty of achieving it by voluntary exchange, namely, paternalistic concern for children and other irresponsible individuals.”

-Milton Friedman, “The Role of Government in Education.”<http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fried1.htm>

Even if we assume that these are the only conditions under which government intervention is to be justified, it is possible to allow a great variety of interventions, including tobacco taxes (the “paternal concern” clause), radical environmental laws (due to neighborhood effects), public companies (in cases of natural monopolies) and so forth — all while respecting the limits of government intervention as stated by the best known “neoliberal”. Thus, it seems ridiculous to claim that neoliberals are opposed to government intervention in the economy.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

When trying to consider the problems of the future, we have to keep in mind that several assumptions are always at play. Still, it is interesting to think of problems we may very well face somewhere in the future. I do not believe that we should be too precocious in trying to attack these issues — we have to deal with problems that are real and current, rather than waste our energy on the fancies of our imagination –, but, with all of this said, it remains an enjoyable intellectual game that may have implications for policies in the near future. So let us begin:

It is possible that, one day, we will achieve something akin to immortality, where age is no longer a threat to the well-being of our bodies and death no longer broods above our lives as a guarantee of our end. This is quite clearly the ideal that we move towards when we invest in medical research. Even before the advent of science, the possibility of immortality excited the imagination of cultures throughout the world. Yet, what would happen if we turned this dream to reality? It might be in fifty years or it might be in fifty-thousand years, but, with a few assumptions, it seems almost inevitable.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I tend to believe that philosophical differences boil down to differences in terms of values, of which none is better than the other since they are essentially assumptions about the nature of our world. The conflict between primitivism and liberalism serves as a fine example:

When I speak as a liberal, one of the most wonderful things about this world is the number of choices we have. In this modern world, our economy is so advanced that millions of people can live within the same, relatively small, area. These technological advances are the natural product of a liberal economy and one of the advantages is that I, as an individual, have access to so many different people that I can easily find specific types of people and thus associate with a human subculture of my choice. This allows me more freedom to shape my life how I want it to be shaped. Yes, we are all limited by external factors, some of which are imposed by our society, some of which are imposed by reality, but, in the end, we have greater control over our lives than we have ever had. We are not limited to a few sources of food, to the people in our village and to “survival” as our main job.

However, this perspective conflicts with another: yes, it is true that we can now shape our social surroundings with more ease than before, but this may destroy the natural balance of personalities that we may find in villages. In the past, just like we do not choose our family today, we did not choose anything about our social surroundings. We were born in a random village and that’s where we grew up and died. Even nomads would usually remain with the same group of humans. What happens in a modern, liberal society is that — if I am to use such crude language to describe people — “intelligent” people will leave the “village” to form a subculture with like-minded people, leaving the village without “intelligent” people. The same goes for different personality types. Thus, while this may be of benefit to “intelligent” people who crave interactions of a certain level, the village gets deprived of its share of “intelligent” people. The same goes for its natural chiefs, natural shamans, natural strongmen etc and it is, in the end, wholly abandoned as we are all stratified by liberalism and its efficiency. People who work in factories tend to frequent people who work at jobs of a similar nature. The same goes for people who work in law, in the arts, in farming and so forth.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

At 32%, what is marketed as the world’s strongest beer has just been released. As per its label:

This is an extremely strong beer; it should be enjoyed in small servings and with an air of aristocratic nonchalance. In exactly the same manner that you would enjoy a fine whisky, a Frank Zappa album or a visit from a friendly yet anxious ghost.

Beautiful. I’m interested in how this plays out in the political arena. Though a case can perhaps be made for controlling drugs that are unsafe to use, it is clearly a sign of incoherent policy-makers to allow drinks that are significantly above 32%, but not beer. At 30 pounds ($50) the 330ml bottle and with marketing that tells us how it’s made to be savoured, the customers are certain to drink it at least as responsibly as they would drink whiskey, and probably more so than the Jack Daniel’s that gets chugged at college parties. And yet, the same company was previously challenged for having too strong a beer. It won, but that was with a 18.2% beer; now that they have almost doubled the strength, there are some things left to unfold.

But even if it might be used in irresponsible manners that are not possible without such strong beers on the market, is it really the responsibility of government to protect us from our own choices? This is where the problem of self-ownership arises: can we talk of “self-ownership” and if so, to which degree should this exist? Alcohol laws are an example of the government intervening against people who wish to trade alcohol, for the sake of protecting the consumer from his own choices. It is almost universally accepted that it is righteous to use force against someone who uses undue force towards another, but what about when the person harms no one, except perhaps — just perhaps — himself?

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Let’s consider these words by Winston Churchill:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

I would not extend this to the economic systems of capitalism and socialism, but still, it holds a certain truth:

Something that is too often ignored is the value of wealth inequalities within human societies, at least at some point in their histories. It does cause certain problems that we should most definitely be aware of, but it also offers certain advantages that could not be gained without it and progress — by any definition I am aware of — would never have been possible without relying on wealth inequalities.

For example, we can consider Socrates, who is often used as the symbol of Western philosophy. We are told that he was an eccentric man who would walk around Athens and ask men difficult questions that might otherwise seem simple. We are all familiar with the concept of “justice”, for example, but if someone came to you, asking what “justice” was, could you really explain it in an intelligible manner?

Now, the reason that Socrates could spend his free time doing such things was precisely due to wealth inequalities. Athens was only a great place to live for the minority of its population — the rest were slaves. We can speak of equality all we want, but the choice we must make here is between a society where everyone is forced to spend all their free time working to survive or a society where these people share the burden of supporting a minority class of people, who, for mostly arbitrary reasons (such as the achievements of their ancestors), do not need to work much to ensure their survival. Most of this class, like most humans, are trivial creatures dedicated to no more than the pursuit of worldly pleasures. However, in this class, again like in the rest of humanity, there will be, by chance, some who will have the potential to innovate in the realm of art and philosophy. Thanks to wealth inequalities, these people will have been taught to write and read, they will have access to books and they will have plenty of free time, all of which can simply not be offered to every individual within a society with little technology.

Today, thanks to technological advances, we can afford to provide this opportunity to everyone. We still need to work, but it is not a burden so heavy that we have no time to educate ourselves or refine our art. However, these technological advances were in large part brought to us by men who benefited from wealth inequalities, especially once we look further back in our history.

It no longer makes sense for us to have a system of entrenched wealth inequalities, but in the past it did and this is something that we should keep in mind when looking at history as well as our modern world.

Such ideas might seem blasphemous, like spit upon the idealism that unites both liberal and socialist, but, ultimately, what must reign is what must work. Ideologies are useful tools in forming a coherent society, but attempts to define a single true ideology that is effective and moral for all cultures through all periods of time is, at best, an achievement that we are no closer to than the theory of everything in physics. The truth seems to be that such despicable things (to us, Westerners) as child labour and entrenched wealth inequalities do have a perfectly valid functions in certain contexts, which also happen to be the contexts where they arise. As for when they are no longer needed, well: it is there that the fight must begin, and, hopefully, end.

- Dussault

It could be said that philosophy is about rational, systematic thought; intellectual creativity; defining our existence; resolving ethical and political challenges; etc. However it is defined, it essentially boil down to something that can benefit each individual, both in terms of contributing to his happiness and in terms of contributing to the well-being of the organizations he holds a place within. This is, I expect, the reason why, in Quebec, college (CEGEP) students are expected to take three philosophy as a perquisite for their diploma.

However, this leads to certain complications. How can we teach philosophy to students who have no genuine interest in the matter? Because these courses are mandatory, the reality of things is that many students attend them solely for their degree and have no passion for what is thought in the classroom; they merely want to get it over with. This is something that is obviously taken into account, as the courses seem designed to introduce students to certain concepts, rather than to elaborate upon them. Still, we do not know how to best teach anything to students, let alone something as subtle as the art of reason.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

It does not seem to me that there is a rational basis in claiming that there is no God. If the existence of an entity identifiable as a “God” seems improbable, then how should we consider the probability of life existing? We believe in life because we experience it, because it is all around us. Some would say the same of God, though they would obviously not be referring to a man with a beard. The disagreement often seems like a matter of language, where the word “God” is used as a metaphor for something that we all experience, for something that we can not disagree upon. But even when we manage to pull ourselves above this confusion and agree upon a certain definition of “God”, conflicts may remain. This is because there are genuine disagreements on what is “rational” and “irrational”, “true” or “false”, “good” or “harmful”. These disagreements, I find, lack the beauty of tolerance and make a good display of people’s assumptions. It is difficult to have a constructive discussion when we rely on different assumptions and focus on attacking the opposite position rather than understanding it as the other side understands it.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

There are people who worry about how our world has become, how trivial we have become. So many hours are spent in front of the television, watching hollow comedies, hollow dramas and hollow action. People spend on clothes, beauty products and drugs. Few people have creativity to share in science, philosophy and art. Comparisons are made to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where Ford is worshipped and humans have become little more than machines on an assembly line, created to be happy until they must be recycled.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Here is a man that has chosen to take his wife’s last-name. I understand his reasoning. He felt a personal want to share family names with his wife, but did not want to make her change her last name, since men often expect this on the part of women and some believe this to be unfair. Anyways, his wife did not want to changer her last name, and if he was the one who wanted them to share a last name, then he was the one who should make the sacrifice of changing his name. This seems perfectly sound.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text