Liberty, Equality and Free Markets

Is Liberty more important than Equality? Or is it the other way around? There seem to be many debates lately that eventually boil down to having to choose one over the other. To my mind, this is a false choice. Agreed, Liberty is a great concept. But should it be enjoyed only by those who demand it most vociferously? Or by everybody? 

To anyone who understands and embraces the idea of Liberty, it should be obvious that it is inclusive in nature, that it applies to all in equal measure. Equality is implicit in Liberty. Any interpretation to the effect that some (do, or should) enjoy more or greater freedoms than others is a fallacy. People who (claim to) champion Liberty -- who quote Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" at the drop of a hat -- but see Equality as a threat to Liberty, are the ones who want Liberty exclusively for themselves and their kind. And are therefore not true to the very ideal they cherish, the very cause they uphold. True believers in Liberty should therefore strive for greater Equality.

To strident advocates of Free Markets, who (ostensibly) understand and embrace its core principles, it should be obvious that Free Markets are inclusive in nature: the more the players the freer the markets. Exclusive markets are not free, and Free Markets are not exclusive. Where there is unequal access to markets, there will be less participants -- such markets will be less liquid, price discovery will be less efficient, transaction costs will be higher. By not removing entry barriers (or worse still, by erecting artificial entry barriers) to markets, they betray the very ideal they cherish, the very cause they uphold. True believers in Free Markets should therefore strive for equal access opportunity for all.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Post Script to Minor Observation #9

Apropos of my previous post, here're a couple of things I'd like to add:

First, to off-post/ off-line questions about why "A level playing field ...[blah]... is the only true path to progress", I have this to say: consider the impact on science, commerce and the arts, if the human capital of a couple of billion people were to be unleashed - a potential energy (which is currently locked up and underdeveloped due to malnutrition/ poor health and lack of access to a decent education and basic infrastructure) going kinetic. Just think about it. That's all.

Second, as an afterthought, I'd like to add a fourth reason to the three I listed: 

4. Belief (that "it is what it is", and attempting to change it is either a travesty or just plain futile). 

The belief that it is a travesty is an extension of Puritanical thought, but is not limited to Puritans alone. There are many in the Eastern hemisphere whose upbringing might have had nothing to do with Puritanism (i.e. the religious denomination) per se but who are Puritans all the same. 

Regardless, there is a belief that the right approach is to not level the playing field, but instead, to "make good" through eleemosynary acts. Quite often, this turns out to be insidious as reason #3 (Deliberation) albeit for different reasons. Except in cases where all that caritas manifests in the form of building institutions that work towards long term improvements in infrastructure, education, health-care etc. and towards putting all that within reach of those that don't have access to it presently.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Minor Observation #9

Most people in privileged positions are not inclined to be in favor of what is commonly referred to as a "level playing field". (Yeah, I know, sounds clichéd, but my other option is to indulge in some form of sesquipedalianism.)

This could be because of:

1. Ignorance (not knowing exactly how uneven the playing field is)

2. Apathy (not caring how uneven the playing field is)

3. Deliberation (specifically wanting to keep it uneven)

Of these, the third is the most pernicious. It arises from the insecurity that such people have -- that they may not actually deserve the position of privilege they currently enjoy. If they were secure in the knowledge that they did, then they should be confident enough to face the competition brought on by a level playing field. In fact they ought to welcome it.

A level playing field is important not because it is the morally correct thing to have (which it may well be), but because it is the only true path to progress. 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Scientists and Philosophers - what's the fighting all about?

My last blog entry here dealt with philosophers and their "science envy". A few weeks later, I posted an article by Lawrence Krauss - "A universe without purpose" - on my facebook page, commenting on my discomfort with Krauss's casual treatment of "nothingness", and also about how his title and opening line promise far more than what the content offers (which is very little, by way of clarity).

Today, I came across a more systematic critique of Lawrence Krauss and his views, by a more learned gentleman and a certified philosopher to boot (he's a professor at CUNY). His en passant swipe at Richard Dawkins is particularly amusing, and confirms what I'd suspected back then, when I posted Krauss's article on facebook - Krauss and Dawkins are mutual shills. Hawking is not spared either. If philosophers suffer from penis envy, there's another Freudian metaphor for what scientists suffer from, according to the author:

Okay, others can play the same game too, so I’m going to put forth the hypothesis that the reason physicists such as Weinberg, Hawking and Krauss keep bashing philosophy is because they suffer from an intellectual version of the Oedipus Complex (you know, philosophy was the mother of science and all that... you can work out the details of the inherent sexual frustrations from there) 

Interesting side story: my last blog entry post referred to a popular saying about ducks, and a comment by a reader here says: 

Accept that the philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as ornithology is to a duck. Ornithologists do know a lot about ducks, but ducks know nothing at all about ornithologists

Indeed. 

Reinforces a view I've often voiced - that scientists would do well to either completely stay away from philosophy, or embrace it without prejudice and understand it fully. Unfortunately, may of them wander into philosophy's wide open pastures, and, encouraged by their success as scientists, display their ignorance with hubris. Which is all very well, as long as they don't make gross errors in methodology. For example, concluding that all swans are white simply because the global scientific community has heaps and heaps of evidence to that effect and none to the contrary. And therefore elevating the status of that hypothesis to a "fact". 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Science, Philosophy and Taxonomy

Is philosophy a scientific discipline? Or is science a school of philosophy? 

Here's a view, along the lines of "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..."  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/philosophy-by-another-name/ 

Here's another, along the lines of "Lipstick on a pig ..." http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2012/03/05/dear-philosophers-please-get-over-your-science-envy-now/

Why would philosophers want to make Philosophy sexy and easy to sell as a hot subject? The next thing you know they'll be making sitcoms featuring philosophers, along the lines of 'Big Bang Theory'. Tchah! I'd say Philosophy is better off being vague, amorphous, protean in its scope (as perceived by those who don't get it) - an esoteric indulgence of "intellectuals" (in quotes, as those who don't get it would rather put it) with nothing better to do, and, in the final analysis, of no great significance in that it creates no "real" wealth. (Or does it?)

Parting thought: Philosophers suffering from penis envy of Science should note that Technology dangles a bigger dongle. (Unless you're a physicist who's made a career as a hedge fund manager. In which case, you rule, dude!)

[Modified version of my facebook posting earlier this week.]

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts