Positive Liberty

Remember Monopoly Eminent Domain Edition? Now the planners admit it themselves!

Continuing with the theme of my last post, and referencing the same LA Times article about gay men having children with the help of surrogates, I wonder whether gays’ artificial reproduction may actually produce “better” social outcomes (children grow up to be better educated, earn more, have more talents, etc.) than from “normal” heterosexual reproduction.

The question that needs to be answered is whether the circumstance described in the LA Times article is or will be somewhat typical of when gays have children. If so, then gays’ reliance on artificial methods may have the effect of selecting for the “more desirable” genes — higher intelligence, better looks, various talents, etc. — for gay couples. Then, comparing the children of gays v. straights, the social outcomes for gay families may be better.

Here is how the article describes it:

Chad Hodge liked #694. She was a 21-year-old college student, 5-feet-5, 135 pounds, with straight brown hair, blue eyes and a narrow nose. She had won 16 awards in high school for academics and music, and scored a 1210 on the SAT. She was outgoing, intelligent, responsible and friendly, or at least she said she was. . . . But David Craig, Chad’s partner of seven years, had his heart set on #685. She was a teacher, 23, 5-feet-2, with wavy blond hair and light blue eyes. She wore a size 0. She had been a varsity tennis player in high school, a ballerina and a classical pianist.

Note, those who argue against gay marriage stress that studies show children do best with married parents of both sexes. Indeed, at the very least, social science demonstrates that poor, unwed, uneducated young mothers having children out of wedlock practically guarantees poverty and other social problems. Democrat William Galston noted that one need do only three things — simple things that anyone can do — which practically guarantees avoiding poverty: 1) don’t have children until you are married, 2) don’t get married until you are at least 20; and 3) graduate high school before getting married and having children.

But failure to do this, and its consequences (the inner city ghettos) is not at all the same or anything remotely similar to say, two professional, educated gay men using a surrogate or adopting. Thus any “study” which relies on comparing intact heterosexual families to out-of-wedlock births by single mothers is utterly inapt to the gay marriage/gay family debate.

When poor unwed young mothers have children, it is the antithesis of “rational planning.” When gays adopt or use a surrogate, they have to jump through an endless set of bureaucratic hoops and pay significant $$$. And such requires the utmost amount of “rational planning.” (Indeed, ironic that the inability of gay couples to naturally procreate may select for rational planners among gay parents, and make typical gay parents superior to typical straight parents, whose average parenting level is brought down by all of the parents who have children irresponsibly when they shouldn’t.)

Some social science already shows that gays tend to be better educated, have higher income, and possess greater wealth. All of this correlates with higher average IQ levels. And gays stereotypically are more creative (and it’s not just creativity in styling hair, but in producing the Western Canon. Bruce Bawer’s article “Canon Fodder” could have been called “Queer Eye for the Western Guy”). Add to that the hurdles that gays must go through to have children which may select for more responsible and affluent gay parents, and the results may be children of gays, as a group end up, on average, better off by various measures. The fact that the children are missing a parent of one sex may be a negative. But the positives — parents with, on average more wealth, more education, more income, better genes — may outweigh the negative of missing a parent of one gender or the other.

But not for that reason. Try this one instead:

Economists haven’t adopted the vainglorious practice of physicists and applied numbers to their laws, but if they did, the first law of economics would be that lump-sum transfers are more economically efficient than in-kind transfers. If you are going to give a gift to somebody, you should just give them the money. They will be a better judge of the best way to spend it.

If instead, you give them a specific good, then you make them worse off, unless you somehow miraculously anticipate what the recipient would purchase if he received the money instead.

Now if you know someone well, perhaps you can anticipate the type of gift they might like. But Halloween is no time for thoughtful, targeted gift-giving. At Halloween, each house on a typical American block picks out one type of candy, and they give that exact same candy willy-nilly to everyone who shows up at the door. It’s an economic nightmare.

I might add that even if you did miraculously anticipate what the recipient would purchase, you’ll still only about break even when compared to giving him money.

Unlike Christmas, where the deadweight loss in gift-giving arguably reinforces the ties of fellowship with friends and family, Halloween’s deadweight loss encourages a something-for-nothing ethos among the kids three blocks down from me, who frankly are total strangers. I know my neighbors, and my friends, and my family, but let’s face it: Those kids might as well live in Idaho for all that I know about them. And Halloween candy just isn’t going to change that.

(Oh, and let’s define our terms while we’re at it: Break-even for me would be a whole bag full of Lindt Excellence 85%. That or coussins de Lyon, which I don’t think you can even get in the United States. But they are the best candies in the entire world, and I’d gladly take just one rather than an entire bag of the more ordinary stuff. Is it just me, or are they flavored with Chartreuse, too?)

In reading the Adams-Jefferson letters, I was surprised by the following statement by Thomas Jefferson:

I have ever been the enemy of banks; not of those discounting for cash; but of those foisting their own paper into circulation, and thus banishing our cash. My zeal against those institutions was so warm and open at the establsihment of the bank of the U.S. that I was derided as a Maniac by the tribe of bank-mongers, who were seeking to filch from the public their swindling, and barren gains. [Jefferson to Adams, Jan 14, 1814, p 424 of Cappon, ed.]

Any student of American history can tell you that Jefferson mistrusted banks. I had thought, though, that he mistrusted banks because he mistrusted credit, much as Andrew Jackson would later do. I was quite surprised, then, to read that his chief objection to banking was that it would introduce paper money in place of sound currency based on gold, and that he rounded out this letter by complaining of the inevitable inflation that banks would bring.

I am not nearly so well-read in Jefferson as some of the other members of this blog, so I welcome their comments on this question. What else did Jefferson believe about banking, credit, and money? Where can I read further?

I generally agreed with Michael Shermer’s takedown of intelligent design in Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. By contrast, I found Jonathan Wells’ The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design both smarmy and condescending (I gather that it’s to be expected in the Politically Incorrect series). A note on each below the fold. By your requests, I’ll keep them brief.

Continue Reading »

Fascinating discussion by Richard Samuelson over at Claremont. It references an LA Times article about gay men having biological children with surrogates. Samuelson’s discussion notices that it’s only with the marvel of Western science that gay men have these choices.

He asks very apt questions:

A few further thoughts: What would someone (almost anyone) have said about a story like this 100 years ago? That gay couples existed out in the open would shock them….What will they say 100 years from now? Societies with open homosexuality are rare in history, and no previous society has tried to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. It is an experiment. Will it work? In a century, we might have some answers.

The same questions could have been asked when America was founded between 1776 and 1787. Our “Novus Ordo Seclorum” was a “great experiment” — something never done before and whose outcome was uncertain — which radically broke with tradition.

The attitude toward nature is fascinating here. On one hand, nature gives the couple its moral bearings. That they are attracted to men and not women dictates how they lead their lives. On the other hand, they use technology to overcome nature. It allows them to become, in a sense, joint fathers. What is the connection between these two attitudes toward nature?

Again, the same perplexing attitude toward nature was evident in America’s Founding. On the one hand, we appealed to “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” to found our nation. Yet, according to the East Coast Straussians, Locke’s teachings dictate that “[m]an, if he is sensible, separates himself from nature and becomes its master and conqueror. This was and still is the prevailing belief of liberal democracies, with their peace, gentleness, prosperity, productivity and applied science, particularly medical science.” Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, p. 171.

Keeping this in mind, Samuelson asks: “Finally, how does all that fit it with treating the human body as a commodity to be used according to basic instinct, and also to be rented out for hire.”

And indeed it was Locke who first posited that man owns himself. If I own my body, I can rent it out for hire!

Samuelson’s final question: “What would the founders think? Is this the liberty for which they fought and died?” Whether they realized it or not, arguably yes. Even though I often disagree with Paul Cella, he wrote a great article entitled “Locke Box”, where he noted “[i]f the[ Founders] were indeed Lockeans, and Locke was indeed a profound innovator, even a revolutionary, then America was indeed the vanguard of political modernity.” Arguably, it’s because of our founding principles that we read the story about gay men having biological children through surrogacy.

Here is an article that illustrates the seemingly private tyranny of co-ops. (Hat tip.) My own thoughts are that co-ops have every right to be jerks and I wouldn’t want to live with the likes of Mr. Winthrop anyway.

The “jerk” in the article is named John Winthrop — co-op board chair in Boston — who puts the kibosh on a prospective sale of a unit. He is actually related to the original John Winthrop of Puritan Massachusetts infamy. Given his roots, he must have inherited a “jerk gene.”

They’ve got every right to exist, but I’d never want to deal with one. So I won’t. In places like New York, even multimillionaire celebrities have been turned down. From the article:

Co-ops are much more common in New York than Boston, and prospective owners are frequently rejected without knowing why. Singer Barbra Streisand, clothing designer Calvin Klein, and casino entrepreneur Steve Wynn are among those rejected by co-ops .

In Minnesota, as in many other states, it’s illegal for gas stations to charge less for gasoline than they paid for it. Now, maybe it’s a bad business idea to sell things for less than you paid for them, but illegal? Indeed. The Midwest Oil company was fined more than $100,000 for charging below-cost prices for gasoline at their four stations in the Minneapolis area. They’ve appealed the decision, and I filed a friend of the court brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation to defend Midwest Oil’s right to charge low prices if they want to.

The theory behind laws that forbid below-cost sales (which are on the books in most states) is that a business could charge below cost, drive its competitors out of business, and then raise its prices and become a monopoly. Of course, the problem with that is that if the company raised its prices again, new competitors would enter the market, and the company would be no better off than it was before. That’s why federal courts have declared that under similar federal laws, you can’t prosecute a business unless you can show that there’s a “dangerous likelihood” that the business might become a monopoly. In my brief, I argue that Minnesota courts should interpret state law in the same way.

You can learn more in this interview with the Minnesota Taxpayers League. And here’s PLF’s press release about the case.

Thanks to Ed Brayton for bringing this case to my attention. We at the Foundation depend on people like him to let us know about cases like this. If you hear about a similar absurd interference with economic freedom or a violation of property rights, please don’t hesitate to let me know at tmsandefur@gmail.com!

Last time I posted something of me playing, I promised a more “structured” performance would follow (as opposed to me just jammin’). Well, here is a popular classical guitar piece — Recuerdos de la Alhambra — played on electric guitar with distortion. Not sure if the distortion really works — it might work if I could find a way to keep up the tremolo while slightly muting the strings.

When I recorded this a few weeks ago, I hadn’t played it for months, or seriously practiced it for years. That’s why the tempo is slower than what it should be. Also, I just played the first movement, didn’t want to bore you with the whole piece.

This clip, by the way, is getting a lot more hits on Youtube than my other guitar clips. Probably because it is a very popular classical guitar piece and many search for performances by name. If you want to see how the piece really should be played, check out this clip.

In the comments to my non-defense of Dawkins, “Mr. Econotarian” writes,

Even Atheists have to realize that religion is like sex, and Atheists are abstainers.

Religion is inborn, fun, and social. Sure, sometimes sex gives you STDs, or you could hook up with the wrong person and have a baby and screw up your life, but gee, it is part of our human existance, so let’s approach it cautiously, but be careful before we write it all off. [In fact], most [Atheists] have their own scientific spirituality (parallels to masturbation?) even if they don’t want to admit it in public.

This doesn’t mean God(s)(ess)(es) exist as supernatural beings, but that they are in our heads and everyone elses, and can’t be ignored until we find the right genes and can knock it out :)

Continue Reading »

Both political, both impossible. Both tantalizing. Neither particularly topical, but hey…

Continue Reading »

My readers knew I’d eventually get to this. I’m glad this issue is being discussed and wish it were more often. Indeed, there are so many current books on topic (James Hutson’s, David Holmes’s, Jon Meacham’s, and Michael Novak’s book on Washington), and many past ones that you would think this topic would be more popular on the blogsphere.

It began with George Will’s review of Brooke Allen’s newest edition to the line of current books on the Founders and Religion, “Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers.” Will’s review is sympathetic to Allen’s thesis, but, as he notes, “It…as polemics often do, occasionally goes too far.” After a brief mention by Matthew J. Franck of Bench Memos wanting for a response from an expert like Michael Novak, Novak and his daughter/co-author Jana, responded. Continue Reading »

Imagine that for all public debts, the United States issued two types of currency: Non-Latinos would get dollars, which are worth one dollar each. Latinos, however, would get American pesos, which are worth… exactly one dollar.

Continue Reading »

From what I understand of the decision, I can’t complain. Keep in mind New Jersey has an already existing statute which grants same-sex domestic partner benefits. This statute may grant many of the rights to same-sex couples that married couples have; but it doesn’t grant everything. I read this decision as stating either grant marriage, or grant all of the rights, every one, so that the arrangement would be marriage in all but name only. And that’s fine. Government need not be involved in granting the “name” marriage to any couple. But even if government does grant the name to heterosexual but not homosexual couples, as long as government grants same-sex couples every single right that married couples have, I think that’s close enough to satisfy a meaningful concept of equality.

On originalist grounds, I see this decision as clearly growing out of the “seeds” of equality that the Declaration of Independence and founding principles first planted. It’s certainly true that the Founders or the population at large didn’t intend for this. However, when the populace at large heard that very broad and general phrase, “all men are created equal,” arguably most people first thought: All white propertied Protestant males…a sentiment while which today would be unthinkable, was still remarkably egalitarian coming out of the throne and alter era of divine right of Kings and Aristocracy. Continue Reading »

Radley Balko’s readers respond: The new restrictions on Internet gambling are an outrage, and wow, are they mad. The restrictions are particularly galling given that they come from the party — supposedly — of limited government and personal freedom. Here are some choice quotes from Balko’s e-mails:

They ban online poker, while state lotteries and online horse racing wagers are exempt. Does Bill Frist really think we don’t realize Harrah’s was his 13th largest campaign contributor? The moral argument holds no weight. This is hypocrisy at its finest. A lifetime Republican supporter, I will no longer be backing them in ‘06 and ‘08. This is an all-out attack against American values…

…Your point that poker players are a “largely apolitical group” that may well “get politically motivated” by this legislation is spot-on. Many Internet poker strategy forums are now awash with posts calling for poker players to vote Democrat, vote out all incumbents, or vote for the Libertarian party….

…Around 10 million people its estimated play online poker. They probably would have been content to have been left alone by the politicians on Election day and just played cards . Now they’ll have to find something else to do that day..like vote. I can’t wait for the day after the election when the out of touch GOP leadership is scratching their heads as to why they aren’t in power anymore. Its because we’re not the suckers they were betting we’d be. The “Green Felt Revolution” will be heard in DC this year…

The Green Felt Revolution. Perfect.