Wednesday, June 17, 2009
My friend Sam Shirazi recently commented on the situation in Iran, and on what religion has to do with it. He gave me permission to post his comments here. Also, know that the mainstream media has been really awful in their coverage of the situation, so if you want more, Andrew Sullivan has been great.
The Situation in Iran Explained
June 15, 2009; 1:02am
Since the American media is doing such a bad job and I know a lot of people want to learn
more about what is going on in Iran, I have made a note summarizing the situation.
Iran was supposed to have an election for the office of President. The initial screening process eliminates many possible candidates and the government selects who can actually run. Off the bat, this means that the election process in Iran are not completely free. However in the past, the actual elections have been rather representative of the votes the people cast. The election of reformist President Mohammad Khatami with over 70% of the vote in 1997 is an example of this. Thus Iranians had a certain amount of faith in the voting process and this is why it was such a shock when the election was so blatantly fraudulent. The people believed that the regime would at least accurately count their ballots and are now outraged when this promise has been broken.
2. The Election Was a Fraud
There are numerous pieces of evidence to suggest why the election was a complete fraud. I would refer you to Juan Cole's article because it does such an excellent job:
3. This Was not an Election; this Was a Coup
It was clear that Mousavi, the moderate candidate, was going to win the election and not hardline incumbent President Ahmadinejad. This win would have meant that the hardliners in power would have to compete with a movement trying to change the system. Instead of accepting this result, the hardliners have effectively perpetrated a coup within the system in order to seize complete power from the moderates. This is significant because it demonstrates deep rifts within the regime with two clear camps emerging. The current Supreme Leader Khameini and President Ahmadinejad represent the faction of the hardliners who perpetrated the coup. Mousavi, Khatami, and Rafsanjani (a former President of Iran who currently hold important positions in the government and has much influence) are in the more moderate camp who are being purged out of the system. This article shows an Iranian journalist's explanation of why the current situation is a coup:
4. What's Next
The hardliner's have made their move. We must wait and see how the moderates and the rest of the country responds. Questions abound: how much support do the moderates have, will they negotiate with the hardliners, what final outcome do the moderates ultimate want (1. A new election 2. Major changes to the system 3. complete regime change), what is the endgame to the entire situation? Basically all the chaos that is unfolding is the attempts to wrest control from the hardliners who have seized power in a coup. These efforts can be categorized as a sort of counter-coup that is unfolding in the streets of Iran.
One thing is for certain: the situation is far from over.
p.s. One personal thing I would like to add. The protesters you see on TV and the internet are going out there with the possibility of imprisonment, injury, or even death. They are truly brave heroes who are really fighting for freedom and democracy at a time when those words are thrown around like they do not mean anything. I hope we can all realize how lucky we are to live in a country where we can express our political views and campaign for our causes and candidates without fear of anything bad happening to us.There have been a lot of misconceptions about how religion plays out in the current protests in Iran so I thought I would clear a few things up. I would just want to qualify this by saying that I am not religious at all, but that one of the main ways of looking at the current situation is through religion:Sam Shirazi
June 17, 2009; 2:09am
1. Supreme Leader Khameini is not the leading religious figure in Iran
Contrary to reports that Supreme Leader Khamenei is the highest religious figure in Iran, the fact is many other clerics out rank him based on religious credentials. Khamenei is indeed the leading political figure in Iran, but he did not achieve his office as a result of his standing as the leading Ayatollah in Iran. He was designated to be Supreme Leader by the leader of the 1979 revolution Ayatollah Khomeini and draws much of his legitimacy based solely on Khomeini’s decision 20 years ago. Moreover people call him the rank of Ayatollah, but many observers believe he does not actually have the credentials to warrant such a title. Thus Khamenei is not as popular a figure as you would think and that is why his certification of the election did not matter.
2. Supreme Leader Khameini does have a check on his power
Even though people argue that Khamenei has limitless power, there is at least a theoretical check on his power. Under the Iranian constitution, a 86 member body of clerics called the Assembly of Experts selects the Supreme Leader. Theoretically they can remove the Supreme Leader if he does not effectively perform his duties. This fact is important because former President Rafsanjani is head of the Assembly of Experts and many call him the second most powerful man in Iran. Rafsanjani is one fiercest critics of Ahmadinejad and is widely seen as a centrist pragmatic politician who supports Mousavi. There are rumors swirling that he is Iran’s holy city of Qom to round up votes to possibly remove Khamenei from power. Thus Khamenei does not enjoy the full support of the people or the religious establishment.
3. This is not the Ayatollahs/Mullahs vs. the people
The news has described this as an uprising against the Ayatollahs and Mullahs in Iran by the people. The fact is that the religious establishment is not unified in one camp or another and some of the Ayatollahs and clerics support the protesters. In fact Iran’s actual highest religious leader is Ayatollah Montazeri and he recently put out a statement in support of the protestors saying, “a government not respecting people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy.” Ayatollah Sanei issued a Fatwa or religious edict saying that it was a sin to manipulate with the votes of an election. That is not to say that there are not Ayatollahs who support Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, but the point is that the people are not protesting against all the Ayatollahs. The people are protesting with the support of many of reformist clerics in Iran against the hardline rulers of the country.
4. The reformist are not secular
The idea that the moderate or reformist elements are secular Western style liberals is not accurate. Mousavi who is the main challenger to Ahmadinejad in the recent election served as Prime Minister of Iran in the years following the revolution. Another reformist candidate in these elections was Karroubi who is a cleric. Moreover, former President Khatami who is a leading reformer in the current protests is also a cleric. The above mentioned Rafsanjani is also a cleric which is a requirement to be in the Assembly of Experts. Indeed Mousavi and other reformist have repeatedly invoked religious imagery in their campaign and have told the people to shout God is Great as a protest. While part of this is to cover their protest as within the bounds of the Islamic Republic, it is clear that many of the protesters are deeply religious.
5. A second Islamic Revolution
There has been a lot of talk that Iran is still a very religious country and thus Ahmadinejad has a large base of support in the country. Thus many have argued that the election may not have been that fraudulent and that the protesters make up a vocal minority of the country. As I have laid out, the reformist are made up of many of these religious Iranians and have a strong base of support within the religious establishment. They represent a new version of Islam that accepts freedom and justice as Islamic virtues. This contrasts with many of the hardliners who have been running the country who believe in a more militant and repressive versions of Islam. The battle between these two visions of Islam is now taking place in Iran, and the winner will determine the future of Iran and possibly political Islam. While there is certainly complicated power dynamics and personal ambitions in play in Iran, much of what is going on can be viewed as a battle between two visions of Islam. That is why I describe much of what is going on now as a second Islamic Revolution to reclaim the true nature of Islam.
Posted by Seth Goldin at 10:34 PM
Friday, June 12, 2009
Charlie Lynch was sentenced yesterday, to 366 days in prison. Though prosecuting this upstanding citizen at all is a gross miscarriage of justice, the sentence seemed worthy of a sigh of relief. He is free pending appeal, and the sentence is likely to be knocked down, possibly to four months. Here's a roundup of recent press. Also, check out the Facebook group.
- Medical Marijuana's Whipping Boy, Charlie Lynch, To Be Sentenced June 11: Faces five years for legally operating a dispensary in California
- UPDATE: CHARLIE LYNCH SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR AND A DAY; Free pending appeal
- "THIS IS AN INJUSTICE AND I THINK EVERYONE HAS GOTTEN THE MESSAGE."
- Charles Lynch sentenced to 366 days in prison for growing legal medical marijuana in California (UPDATE)
- CA Medical Marijuana User Sentenced to One Year
- Chronic City: Dispensary Operator Charlie Lynch Gets 366 Days In Federal Prison
- California Man Jailed for Medical Marijuana
- California Man Sentenced In Medical Marijuana Case
- Medical marijuana store owner sentenced to prison
- Why Not Two Days Instead of 366?
Posted by Seth Goldin at 7:30 PM
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Recently Noam Chomsky was interviewed on Citizen Radio. His position on the war on drugs is strangely wrong, and seriously misguided. LEAP, which is a wonderful organization that I praise, respect, love, and support, has a promotional image on their site of prominent figures from the left and right who "agree" on ending the war on drugs. I don't know about Barbara Ehrenreich or Howard Zinn, but I'm not sure that Chomsky's opinion is really in the same spirit as a libertarian like Milton Friedman or an old conservative like William F. Buckley. Chomsky is not a critic of the war on drugs like these critics are. While it's good to have another prominent critic of the war on drugs, the foundations of Chomsky's objections to the United States' current drug policy are so twisted and bizarre that I wonder if his voice is any help at all for advocacy of this important issue.
In the interview, Chomsky maintains the idiotic view that the government could get rid of drugs if that were the true goal, but this isn't happening because drug policy is actually a cover for a malicious scheme to justify military intervention in Latin America, to stifle leftist movements and make way for evil capitalists to invade and enslave the peasants, by wage slavery of course. There's a certain elegance to the consistency here, but like most things Chomsky says about politics, this all falls apart when examined against the facts. If all this sounds like I'm setting up a straw man, I'm not. The insanity from the far left really is this stupid. The belief in the efficacy of government action, particularly an enormous project like ridding the country of drugs, is a kind of secular mysticism.
Preaching about the ability of government to accomplish such a ridiculously enormous task should set off warning bells to even a minimally competent reader. The U.S. government has demonstrated for decades that it is totally incapable of limiting the supply of drugs in any meaningful way, wasting billions of dollars in enforcement, yet Chomsky thinks, "There isn't any war on drugs. If there was a war on drugs, the government would take measures which it knows could control the use of drugs." This blind faith in government is typical unreason from Chomsky and the far left.
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris excellently dissects the troubling latent religious foundation for the war on drugs. He explains that the morality characteristic of religion, morality that justifies authoritarian interference in personal choices is the true underlying cause of the war on drugs. This is useful insight. The authoritarian institution of the war on drugs is justified in exactly the same way as the authoritarian institution of religion. Many secularists find no objection to drug policy, because they see it as perfectly legitimate to use state violence to interfere with personal choices. I find Harris's account accurate and useful because when advocating for a change in drug policy, it's easy to get caught up in factual presentation of the costs associated with drug policy, costs that are disastrously higher than the stated benefits. Jumping to a cost-benefit analysis of government policy can be persuasive to intellectually honest policy wonks, but such analysis misses a more basic point that it is not legitimate to use state power to try to reduce or eliminate recreational drugs.
Chomsky's nonsense reads like a fringe conspiracy theory. He believes that the federal government is intentionally failing the stated goals of the war on drugs to pursue ulterior motives unrelated to the authoritarian moralistic case for cracking down on drugs. That moralistic drive, by the way, should seem perfectly acceptable to leftists who believe that government should act to enforce a collective will, and that better health could and should be achieved by preventing access to dangerous substances. Chomsky names those ulterior motives concerning drug policy, "Out-of-country operations are just a cover for counter-insurgency, or for clearing land in Columbia and driving out peasants so multi-national corporations can come in for mining, and resource-extraction, and agribusiness, and macra production, and so on." So, what explains the billions of dollars allocated domestically to curb the supply of drugs? Chomsky ignores all these inconvenient facts that directly expose his ideas as nonsense.
Economics and psychology have shown that people respond to incentives, yet leftists ignore individual response to incentives. One destructive incentive regarding drug policy is that part of the funding of police departments is directly linked to the amount of arrests they make for illegal drugs. There's no good reason to think that cops are malicious thugs who enjoy terrorizing citizens to stop them from experiencing pleasure. The rhetoric from Chomsky and other figures on the left is riddled with the fundamental attribution error, as if those in government are really just evil and love to oppress the masses. While I agree with leftists that there has been a lot to hate about George W. Bush in the past eight years, I've found it painful to hear leftists act as if Bush agreed with them on everything and did the opposite, just because he's evil. He's not evil. He's wrong. The visceral hatred of Bush in the past decade has been too acceptable in place of solid political reasoning in liberal and libertarian circles. It has induced the atrophy of substantive political discourse.
Chomsky is really smart, or at least widely respected, and yet he so blatantly promotes some of the most backwards, wrong ideas that it would seem he must be doing so willfully. He harps on negative externalities, as if this is a huge problem with the foundation of capitalism, yet he doesn't advocate for Pigovian taxes or efficient tort. He just writes this off as one more reason why capitalism is immoral. That he ignores the obvious solutions is evidence of intellectually dishonest, ideological blathering.
His claim regarding "private tyrannies" commits the fallacy of composition, if his argument is that because private companies have top-down management, a society with an economy comprised of such companies is similarly repressive and dictatorial. Ben O'Neill points out that the more basic reason that his claim is wrong. The relationship to a government is not voluntary. An agreement with a specific company is a voluntary contract between the employee and that company. Leftists get this so wrong. In a free market, private companies do not have institutional legal protection to directly coerce their employees or their customers, though indeed it is problematic when big companies buy off political power. Governments are different; governments grant themselves legal protection to use violence where they see fit. Still, in the wacky world of the far left, private companies are considered oppressive.
Paying taxes is not a voluntary action that demonstrates either a collective will or consent to a social contract, no matter how much leftists say that it is or want it to be so. If you don't pay your taxes, a representative of the government will show up to your home and forcefully imprison you against your will. Chomsky demonstrates so clearly that he doesn't understand the crucial distinction between a private company and a government:
His error, which is typical from the left, is to conflate negative and positive rights. A government that bans a book violates the right to free speech, but a company that refuses to publish a book does not. In fact, using the government to force a company to publish a book, a leftist "remedy," violates the rights of the people in that company. Even those on the far left who don't believe in property rights can still recognize that compelled speech is a violation of freedom as well, yet they fail to connect that this is exactly what it would mean to force a company to publish a book. The cognitive dissonance from these leftists must be unbearable.
The most extreme banning of a book I've ever experienced -- or for that matter heard of -- was in the US. The first book that Edward Herman (economist at the U Penn business school, Wharton) and I wrote together was published in the early 70s by a small but flourishing textbook publisher. It was called Counterrevolutionary Violence. They printed 20,000 copies, and started publishing ads. One of the ads was seen by an executive at the conglomerate that owned the publisher, Warner publications, now part of Time-Warner-AOL. He didn't like it, asked to see the book, and when he saw it, went berserk. He ordered the publisher to withdraw it, and when they refused, he closed the publisher down, destroying all their stock.
I brought the matter to the attention of civil libertarians, but they didn't see any problem. Ideological fanaticism in the US considers only government interference with freedom of speech to be illegitimate. Private tyrannies can do what they want. Warner also tried to prevent us from publishing it elsewhere, claiming copyright, etc. It was a bit of a legal hassle, but their claim was so absurd that we finally just went ahead and published a much extended version (Political Economy of Human Rights).
Chomsky's conception of "private tyrannies" is quite misguided, but his frequent usage of the term "private tyranny" is interesting for another reason. He's well qualified as a linguist to criticize certain uses of language in political discourse that frame issues deceptively, but by promulgating the term "private tyranny," he's trying to deceive with language as well. The term is concise and memorable. It's a rhetorical shortcut that skips over a giant claim that requires much more explanation. Of course, if the actual argument is stated clearly and dissected, it is easily seen as the elementary philosophical error of conflating negative and positive rights. Furthermore, if the top-down management of private companies really embodied tyranny, the oppressive dynamic would be self-evident, and his attempt to influence political discourse with a hyperbolic, sophomoric talking point would not be necessary. He pretends that he's a dispassionate commentator about power structures encoded in language use, but he's very much involved in the game.
In another context, defending evolution from intelligent design, Eugenie Scott coined the term "Gish gallop" to describe a frustratingly effective rhetorical technique. The offender puts forth so much nonsense and gibberish that the person constrained by reason and logic does not have time to effectively communicate their position. I suspect that Chomsky's enormous output of political writing over his career is sloppy, beyond admirable prolificacy; I suspect that this career is a form of the Gish gallop, over a lifespan.
In my experience, when I have explained political power as force to statists, they get uncomfortable yet cannot substantively object. Haidt's Social Intuitionist Model seems to explain these interactions well. Humans generally don't actually reason to get to a conclusion. We just come up with reasons to justify our intuitions. This is an important clue as to why intellectuals lean left.
After Chomsky's nonsense can be exposed for it's incorrectness and intellectual dishonesty, a larger question remains. Why do intellectuals lean left? When I first considered this question, I considered it very a very important question and quandary, because it appeared to me that the smartest people leaned left while I supported free markets. What could I have been missing? I was wrong for a few reasons.
First, it's fallacious to rely on a claim that libertarian ideas are wrong because many smart people say so. This would be a fallacious argument from authority. The claim is wrong for another reason as well. Intellectuals are not the smartest people. They are only the vectors of ideas. During the Bush administration, the smartest people opposed Bush vehemently. Most people opposed Bush, and the smartest figures on the left could easily attack Bush's shenanigans. Bush did not represent a principled case for free markets, so it was easy for the left to gain influence by calling his disastrous fiscal policy "deregulation," no matter how inappropriate that description actually is.
Jonah Goldberg, in his talk at U.Va. this past year, mentioned that the Republican Party has two elements, the economic libertarians and the social conservatives. This is true, but Richard Posner broke the elements of the party down further than that on his blog. Posner describes a third element, the war hawks, and these three groups are in conflict. Both Posner and Becker have written much about the dynamics of the Republican Party, which really has been a shaky coalition for decades. It's obvious that the social conservatives have been dominating the party for decades now. With such a dynamic, it's easy to see why conservatism can be framed as stupid. Social conservatives have crowded out the smart, intellectual defenders of the free market. Members of the left aren't smarter than members of the right; the real intellectual ideas on the right have been widely misrepresented when Republican free-marketeers were totally absent. The economic prescriptions from the left are really as mystical, stupid, and unacceptable as the social prescriptions derived from religiosity on the right. Of course, there exists plenty of that same religiosity on the left, alongside the secular legacy of Marxist traditions.
Perhaps another reason why prominent intellectuals generally lean left is that more smart free-marketeers gravitate towards the business world, realizing that they can earn more money than they would in academia. The leftists remain in academia to become the intellectuals. That's not the whole story though.
The leftist intellectuals have only ever known academia, and academia really conditions them to view solutions to problems in ways inconsistent with the economic theory of a market economy. Central planning seems to work in the classroom, and people accomplish lots of things absent of the profit motive. In the mind of the leftist intellectual, the evolved capacities for empathy, altruism, and reciprocal altruism are extended beyond the point of what is actually feasible. Individual response to incentives is ignored.
Chomsky's "Gish gallop" is really amazing because he has incorporated a technique whereby he can just ignore facts and make up his own version of the events he describes, by referencing the propaganda model. Somehow, magically, he has the rationality to interpret the news and separate fact from fiction, but the public is manipulated by a hierarchy, and public opinion is subverted to corporate interests. It all sounds like a really bad conspiracy theory. The propaganda model of course contributes to common leftist fears of media concentration. The model is really a feat of mysticism. In response to a question after one of his lectures on Gaza, Chomsky actually describes his access to truth about politics through the propagandized news by comparing it to acquiring knowledge through the scientific method.
Chomsky claims that he aims to liberate people from oppressive power structures, but it is clear that he is just another totalitarian, and his anarchism is faux.
Extreme leftism will be around as long as religion is. Naive minds will try to apply evolved cognitive capacities for cooperation to the political process far beyond what is actually feasible or desirable. Because of this and the Social Intuitionist Model, it's best to enjoy the debate, but keep in mind why reason alone won't obliterate disastrous leftist ideas.
Posted by Seth Goldin at 11:15 AM
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
I've been in D.C. for only a few days now, and I'm puzzled by what seems to be an inappropriate excess of idle security guards and police patrolling the streets, more than anywhere else I can recall. My hunch, without any numeric data at all, and with a libertarian bias, is that this is an inefficient allocation of resources. I suspect that there are far more security guards and police officers supplied than what might be a market demand for them. I can imagine some bureaucrats making the decision to hire more and more police and security guards as a way of curbing unemployment in the city, because this is the capital, and they have the funds from the taxpayers. I don't know whether local services such as police are funded purely though local taxes, but I would guess that security guards for federal buildings are paid with federal dollars. I can understand why local police might be federally funded.
Just minutes ago I was bewildered as a police officer sat down in his car, then immediately, within seconds, turned his lights on and pulled over a car that was passing by. Maybe I didn't notice if this car ran a red light or was missing some easily noticeable required sticker, but if it were neither of those, the officer's decision to pull this person over was too fast to have checked the speed or run the plates.
Posted by Seth Goldin at 4:12 PM