I will focus here on the views on progress and, in particular, concerns about public opinion that Mill put forward in ‘Civilisation’, published in 1836, when he was about 30 years old.

Mill identified three characteristics of civilisation:
• the development of commerce, manufactures and agriculture;
• people acting together for common purposes in large organisations; and
• peace being maintained within society through arrangements for protecting the person and property of members.
He suggests: ‘Wherever there has arisen sufficient knowledge of the arts of life, and sufficient security of property and person, to render the progressive increase of wealth and population possible, the community becomes and continues progressive in all the elements which we have just enumerated’.

Mill goes on to argue that the most remarkable consequence of advancing civilization is ‘that power passes more and more from individuals, and small knots of individuals, to masses: that the importance of the masses becomes constantly greater, that of individuals less’. He gives several reasons: economic growth results in the growth of a middle class and the dispersion of knowledge; the development of habits of cooperation and discipline in large organizations enable development of associations of different kinds, including benefit societies and trades unions; and improved communications through newspapers that enable people to learn that others feel as they feel.

Mill argued that political reform would follow inevitably: ‘The triumph of democracy, or, in other words, of the government of public opinion, does not depend upon the opinion of any individual or set of individuals that it ought to triumph, but upon the natural laws of the progress of wealth, upon the diffusion of reading, and the increase of the facilities of human intercourse’.

Mill’s concern about the growth in power of public opinion was that the individual would become lost in the crowd; although the individual depends more and more on opinion (reputation) he is apt to depend less and less upon the well-grounded opinions of those who know him. Mill suggested that with the growth in power of public opinion ‘arts for attracting public attention formed a necessary part of the qualifications even of the deserving’. His main concern was that ‘growing insignificance of the individual in the mass’ … ‘corrupts the very foundation on the improvement of public opinion itself; it corrupts public teaching; it weakens the influence of the more cultivated few over the many’.

One for the remedies that Mill proposed was ‘national institutions of education, and forms of polity, calculated to invigorate the individual character. Mill then proceeded to castigate the English universities for acting as though the object of education was to inculcate the teacher’s own opinions in order to produce disciples rather than thinkers or inquirers. Mill wrote: ‘The very corner-stone of an education intended to form great minds, must be the recognition of the principle, that the object is to call forth the greatest possible quantity of intellectual power, and to inspire the intensest love of truth: and this without a particle of regard to the results to which the exercise of that power may lead, even though it should conduct the pupil to opinions diametrically opposite to those of his teachers’.

Massive changes have occurred in university education over the last 174 years, some of which correspond to Mill’s suggestions. Does this mean that Mill’s views on university education are now of only historical relevance? Do our universities now inspire the intensest love of truth? Are these standards of truth-seeking now reflected in the mass media and politics?

Unfortunately, there seem to be many people in universities these days who would regard Mill’s aim of inspiring the intensest love of truth as a philosophically suspect idea that is inconsistent with the modern purpose of universities in training technicians and inculcating them with politically correct views.

Related posts:

1. How Could J.S. Mill Have Reconciled his Views on Liberty and Indoctrination of Morals?
2. What is Progress?
3. How Silly Were J.S. Mill’s Views About Income Distribution?

14 January 2009 9:54 a.m. I am packing for Haiti… so many things bring to help. How am i going to carry all this?

15 January 2009 12:26 p.m. I am STUCK in Dominican Republic trying to arrange a chartered flight to get us and the 36 rescue workers 4 dogs and 7,300 pounds of rescue gear to get them on the ground in Haiti. it is FAR too dangerous to cross on land WE NEED A FLIGHT. can you help in ANY way?

17 January 2009 7:33 p.m. I was put in that situation NO ONE EVER wants to be put in tonight… I got to ground zero to a hospital in the capital of Haiti, we were told needed us. The doctor pulled us aside and to a woman that had a gash in her calf big enough to put a football in, he siad, what do you do? I quickly replied, a tourniquet 1.5 inches above the knee… he said perfect DO IT.

WOW

There are two options:  coercion and force or freedom of choice.  My friend exercised his freedom of choice to spend his own money, which he has very successfully and morally earned through many entrepreneurial ventures, to board a plane and fly straight into a third world hell hole where it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the recent earthquakes.  Despite the economic conditions an estimated $10M of donations has been raised for Haiti relief efforts.

Fortunately my friend, like so many other good people, still has enough resources to perform this service while Obama struts around like a hero for using extorted tax revenue for aid.

THE DRIVE TO SURVIVE

Life has an unquenchable drive to survive even at the expense of other life.  It is the ability to reason that largely separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.  But that is not to say that humans, both in rags and pinstripe Wall Street suits, do not act like animalistic barbarians trampling other’s freedom of choice.

When times get tough it is the rare human that showcases the supernal spark by willingly sharing the last breadcrumb or boarding a plane and descending into chaos with the intent to relieve suffering.

THIN VENEER OF ORDER

Sure, there is the bad man who may steal or even rob a piece of bread.  But we can have at least some sympathy for this behavior when considering the totality of the circumstances.  And the bad man also realizes his badness.

But the truly evil man is the one that struts around thinking he is doing good by robbing the piece of bread from another to then allocate how he sees fit.

America, like Haiti and the rest of the world, has a tiny fraction of the population which produces the food.  When there are disruptions, whether it is a hurricane in New Orleans or an earthquake in Haiti, the thin veneer of order tends to evaporate for many reasons.

SURVIVALISM IN THE SUBURBS

The Telegraph reports that Royal Caribbean International, who has pledged $1m to relief efforts, maintained the schedule to send its cruise ship to dock at a private beach a mere 60 miles from the devastated Port-au-Prince.  Of course, some keyboard rescue workers think providing revenue for the locals in that city is insensitive and the trip to Labadee should have been canceled.  But that is about the worst thing that could be done.  But how far away from a disaster zone should activities be canceled?  60 miles?  600 miles?

Sure, dialing an 800 number or texting a $5 donation is commendable.  But to make a real lasting impact the issue is the need to be prepared locally with medical supplies, food, power, etc.

I compiled a collection of suggestions in Survivalism In The Suburbs for how an individual can be better prepared for possible disruptions and the dissolving of social order.  Being prepared bestows a position of power and the ability to act with a higher standard rather than resort to baser animalistic impulses.

Additionally, I recommend people have a ‘last plane account’ which answers the questions:  if you have to take the last plane out of your city then (1) where do you go and (2) how do you maintain your standard of living?  I have used my own preparations several times over the years.

THE REAL CAUSE

Since the earthquake is just the most immediate action in the causation chain it is credited with killing the tens or even hundreds of thousands of people.  But how many deaths could have been prevented but for do-gooder politicians voting to send foreign aid and market restrictions that destroy wealth and thus prevent the ability of the Haitian population to make adequate preparations?  But for these giant wealth destroying machines how many more resources would be available to respond to and relieve suffering?

Like the socialized roads in America that result in about 40,000 deaths per year; in this instance the blame is not being squarely placed on the criminal gangs costumed in government regalia who have made serious decisions months or years before that are both actual and proximate causes in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

It is so much easier to lay the blame on an unaccountable ‘act of God’ in an attempt to absolve the truly culpable parties.  Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences which are resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead Haitians.

GOOD IDEAS

I am grateful for those who have donated to help relieve the suffering in Haiti.  I admire my friend who has traveled into chaos to look his benefactors in the eye.  Hopefully he returns safely.

The Haiti earthquake of 2010 can be a teaching experience for us all.  When considering physical preparation I think the best insurance is a three month supply of food and a 72 hour kit.  We can inventory and bring current our supplies.

But to strike at the root we need to help others understand the source of humans rights and the proper role of government.

Since individuals are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and because individuals form governments to protect property, life, and liberty, it follows that individuals are superior to their creation of government.  Individuals can grant to their creation at most only those rights they possess.

No individual possesses the right to unjustifiably infringe on another individual’s autonomy, and because individuals create governments, no government can possibly be justified in the possession of such a right.  Neither does an individual possess the moral authority to use coercion and force to compel another to perform charity against their will.  Therefore, legitimate government must act within the constraints of the Non-Aggression Axiom.  Otherwise those actors are merely criminal gangs costumed in government regalia.

Government represents one of the most powerful forces on earth.  Therefore, an individual’s political beliefs reveal with perfect clarity his or her moral character.

Over just the past five years I have been in hurricanes and earthquakes in America, a massive civil disturbance in Argentina and several other life threatening situations. It can happen here and there.  Once we understand the philosophy then we can live in harmony with it and attempt to persuade others to do likewise.

You can not feed someone else when your own stomach is empty so why not at least get a 72 hour kit.  You can also persuade others through your example.  What better way than your local food bank or getting on a plane like my good friend?

Related posts:

1. Strong Feelings
2. New Executive Order: National Emergency to Stabilize U.S. Financial Crisis
3. Bretton Woods II: Will a New Financial-World Order Solve the Economic Crisis?

Related posts:

1. The Economics of Unions
2. Are J. S. Mill’s Views About Progress Still Relevant Today?
3. Wages in Banking

I’ve been rude to a friend of mine (Simon Phipps) on Twitter. On the one hand, why should I be rude to a friend of mine? On the other hand, if I don’t call him out for quoting stupid things (as if he agrees with them), then how much of a friend do I consider him? If I’m not willing to be harsh with him, then I can’t value his friendship much. If I’m not able to be harsh with him, then he doesn’t value my friendship much.

In particular, I feel very strongly that the wealthy should be responsible for the poor. “Responsible” means several things. First, it means only lending aid appropriately. “Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime.” It also means charity should only be for the deserving. “Give an ailing man a crutch and you have gotten him back on his feet. Give a healthy man a crutch and you have taken away his ability to walk.”

Responsible also means not using the power of wealth against him. This is a tough one. It’s very easy to look at someone who is not as wealthy as you, and decide how they need to be helped. Everyone who has more than someone else can fall into this trap. Certainly my country does it all the time, sending food aid to countries that can’t use that food, or to countries where their competitive advantage is that food.

And responsible means consistently advocating for free markets (not using the power of wealth) and private property. When my friends harm that cause, I get very upset. I can understand my enemies, and the people that hate me advocating for coercion. But my friends? That cuts me to the quick.

Related posts:

1. Second Half Growth: Coming on Strong
2. World Hunger and Its Complications

What is the problem with progress? I am just about old enough to remember the 1950s when the most persuasive point used in favour of any change in Australia seemed to be: “You can’t stand in the way of progress”. A lot of good things were done in the name of progress but other things, particularly uneconomic public investment in dam building etc. gave progress a bad name. More recently the concept of progress has been confused by well-meaning people who have combined national accounting concepts with idiosyncratic values to produce meaningless indicators of “genuine progress”. Further confusion results from the tendency for people who still cling to long-discredited collectivist political views to be described as progressives.


The article in “The Economist” this week (19 Dec ’09 to 1 Jan ‘10) about progress and its perils discusses the popular view that while technology and GDP advance, morals and society are either treading water or sinking back into decadence and barbarism. The general message is that despite a general tendency to shy away from judgementalism many people yearn for a sense of moral purpose. The article ends by quoting Susan Neiman, a philosopher, who asks people to reject the false choice between Utopia and degeneracy: “Moral progress, she writes, is neither guaranteed nor is it hopeless. Instead it is up to us”.


I agree that people need a sense of moral purpose. A large part of the apparent decline in sense of moral purpose, however, can be attributed to a lack of moral clarity. In particular, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about the morality of modern consumer society. It is common to hear even avid users of new technology suggesting that the production of this stuff uses scarce resources but does little to add to their happiness in the long run. So why do they buy it and use it? Could it be because such stuff provides them with improvements in communications etc that are of enduring benefit, even though it has little effect on their emotional states in the longer term? The moral issue, whether it is good for us to have such stuff, does not depend on its transitory impact on our emotional states.


In terms of public policy, if progress means anything it must mean movement toward a good society, or movement from a good society to a better society. Changes can be counted as progress if they improve our capacity to live together in peace, provide us with greater opportunities to flourish or provide us with greater security.


However, the idea of progress also embodies optimism about the future of humanity – the idea that there has been a tendency for material, political, social, intellectual and moral conditions to improve throughout human history and that such improvement will continue in the foreseeable future. Roger Kerr has recently reminded us how inspiring the idea of progress was in the 18th Century. He argues that the idea that life tends to get better over the longer term still has potential to be inspiring today.


It seems to me that despite all the existing and potential problems faced by humanity there is a basis for optimism that advance of knowledge will continue to enable people to enjoy progressively better lives in coming decades.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Related posts:

1. Are J. S. Mill’s Views About Progress Still Relevant Today?
2. Buffett: “Enormous Progress”
3. Economics of Women’s Progress

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Related posts:

1. Economic Geography and the Recession
2. Bernanke Underscores Improving Financial Conditions
3. Recession: Keynesian or Hayekian

Having recently read “Atlas Shrugged” properly for the first time (rather than skimming through it) the heroes, including John Galt, Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart, did not seem to me to be selfish. By the end of the book they had chosen not to live their lives for the sake of others and not to ask others to live for their sake. But this did not make them selfish in the sense of being deficient in consideration for others. Hank Rearden left his mother without means of support when he went off to start a new life, but it would be difficult for anyone who was aware of the way she repaid the kindness he showed her to argue that he had acted selfishly towards her.

Rand’s view that selfishness is a virtue follows from a narrow definition of selfishness as “concern with one’s own interests” and of individual happiness as the moral purpose of life. In the words of John Galt: “Happiness is the state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values” (p 1014).

Galt explains: “Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy – a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your minds fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer” (p 1022).

Rand’s narrow definition of selfishness enabled John Galt to say: “This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgement of truth” (p 1030).

Why did Ayn Rand adopt a narrow definition of selfishness? She could have avoided a lot of confusion by using another term, e.g. “ethical egoism”, to describe the virtuous concern for one’s own interests and accepting the popular usage of selfishness to describe unethical behaviour that involves pursuing one’s own interests at the expense of others. I suspect that Rand adopted a narrow definition of selfishness because she wanted to draw attention to her opposition to the view that self sacrifice is a virtue.

The view that self sacrifice is a virtue was clearly one of Rand’s main targets. In John Galt’s words: “If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a ‘sacrifice’: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty” (p 1029).

No related posts.

In other words, I am (and have just announced that I am) negatively socially and economically preferencing^* North Face™.

Here’s why.

Parody is clearly protected speech/commerce under US trademark laws. Even absent such laws, parody clearly does not constitute aggression, theft, etc.

South Butt™ is clearly parody. High school level parody, sure — it was in fact founded by a high schooler (he’s in college now) — but unmistakably parody.

Instead of taking the parody in good humor, or better yet taking up South Butt™ on its offer to sell, North Face™ decided to throw its weight around with churlish “cease and desist” demands and then a lawsuit.

North Face™ may “win” — in America’s “justice” system, being right and a pocketful of quarters will get you a cup of coffee from the vending machine in the hallway outside the courtroom — but they’re wrong. They know they’re wrong, I know they’re wrong, and now you know they’re wrong. They’re humorless bullies. So screw’em.

Even if they “win,” North Face™ has already lost. They’ve lost any and all future potential sales of their products to me and to anyone whom I have the opportunity/occasion to influence on the matter, yea unto the seventh generation, etc. (by which I mean, point your friends/readers at this post, please).

Negative social and economic preferencing does not strictly require an equal and opposite reaction (i.e. a matching positive social/economic preference), but in this particular instance I think one is justified. South Butt™ offers fun, attractive products at a reasonable price, and presumably buying from them will aid them in fending off the efforts of North Face™ to shut them down. I can always use a new t-shirt, and I expect I’ll get my next one from South Butt™. Consider yourself invited to go now and do likewise.

—–
Note: For more on social preferencing and other solutions (actually, a framework into which social preferencing and other solutions fit) to the problems of human interaction, see the writings of Paul Wakfer and Kitty Antonik Wakfer at Self-Sovereign Individual Project.

Related posts:

1. Stephen Colbert on Social Inequality
2. Did Smoke-Free Laws Have a Negative Impact on Businesses?
3. Saving Social Security: The SSA’s Alternatives To Higher Taxes, Privatization

The purpose of this post is to extend the analysis to consider the institutions that are associated with human flourishing. There is a great deal of evidence that economic freedom is associated with high income levels and other aspects of human flourishing such as health and education. Evidence on the effects of democratic institutions is less clear, although the opportunity for citizens to participate in political processes may itself be viewed as an aspect of human flourishing.
A recent study by Michael Stroup (‘Economic freedom, democracy and the quality of life’ World Development, 35(1) 2007) has examined interactions between economic freedom and democracy on measures of health, education and disease prevention. The study found that while greater economic freedom consistently enhances a range of well-being measures, democracy has a smaller positive influence.

I accept that leaders (and potential leaders) of non-democratic countries with low levels of economic freedom may need to consider whether they should give higher priority to democracy or economic freedom when devising strategies to improve the well-being of citizens. There are good reasons, however, why democracy and economic freedom should be viewed as complementary rather than competing objectives. For example, rule of law is less problematic if there is a mechanism for political leaders who are suspected of considering themselves to be above the law to be voted out of office. Similarly, control of corruption is easier in a democracy where the public has power to dismiss corrupt leaders. It is possible for democratic rights to result in greater rent-seeking and less economic freedom, but non-democratic rulers do not necessarily promote economic freedom and widespread prosperity – some seek to benefit themselves and their cronies by impoverishing the general public.

The following table presents indicators of the performance of various societies in relation to two indexes of economic freedom and the World Bank’s governance indicators. As in the table in the preceding post, countries have been ranked by per capita income levels. The ratings of countries with performance in the top quartile for each indicator are shown against a green background, those for the second quartile are shown in yellow, the third quartile in orange and the fourth quartile in red.
The table shows that all the institutional indicators tend to tell a similar story about performance of various countries. There are, however, a few exceptions for ‘Voice and accountability’, reflecting particularly an absence of democratic institutions in some high-income and upper-middle income countries. In the case of United Arab Emirates and Kuwait this is associated with relatively poor performance in a range of well-being indicators, but that is less evident the case in Singapore and Hong Kong (as can be seen by comparing information in this table with the one in the preceding post).
All the indicators are strongly correlated with per capita income levels. A few countries manage to have high per capita incomes without a high level of economic freedom and good governance – but only by producing a huge amount of oil.
Indicators are defined and information sources are presented below the table. Hint: Click on the table for a clearer picture.

Notes:
Income index: Real GDP per capita (rgdpl) for 2007 from the Penn World Table, expressed as a fraction of per capita GDP in the United Arab Emirates, the country with highest per capita GDP. Source: Alan Heston, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten, Penn World Table Version 6.3, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, August 2009.
Economic Freedom (Fraser): According to the Fraser Institute’s definition, individuals have economic freedom when property they acquire without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical invasions by others and they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others. Data from the 2009 report (for 2007).

Economic Freedom (Heritage): The Heritage Foundation defines economic freedom as the right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself. Data from the 2009 report.

Voice and accountability: Index compiled by the World Bank capturing perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association and a free media.

Government effectiveness: Index compiled by the World Bank capturing perceptions of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies.
Regulatory quality: Index compiled by the World Bank capturing perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.

Control of corruption: Index compiled by the World Bank capturing perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ‘capture’ of the state by elites and private interests.

Related posts:

1. Do All Well-Being Indicators Tell Similar Stories About Human Flourishing?
2. Does Economic Security Depend on Average Income Levels?
3. Don’t Restrictions on Freedom Affect the Quality of Life?

Hopefully everyone who reads the above paragraph will consider it to be a statement of the obvious. However, the idea that there is more to life than feeling happy or satisfied actually seems to be quite controversial. Some happiness researchers, including some economists, seem to think that everything that is good for humans to have can be reduced to a single number reflecting feelings of happiness or satisfaction with life.

In an earlier post (What are the characteristics of a good society?) I suggested that nearly everyone would agree that a good society would provide its members with opportunities to flourish – to have more of the things that are good for humans to have. In another post (Is a good society index a good idea?) I foreshadowed that I would attempt to identify the suite of indicators that are most relevant to assessing to what extent particular societies might qualify as good societies. This post goes some way toward that objective. It presents indicators of the performance of various societies in relation to a range of aspects of human flourishing.

In the following table countries have been ranked by per capita income levels. The ratings of countries with performance in the top quartile for each indicator are shown against a green background, those for the second quartile are shown in yellow, the third quartile in orange and the fourth quartile in red.

The table shows that many well-being indicators tell a similar story about human flourishing. It also shows, however, that both per capita GDP and subjective indicators of the quality of life have limitations as well-being indicators. This is particularly evident in regard to societies such as United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Kuwait. (Many of the indicators used in the table are sub-indexes of the Legatum Prosperity Index. Indicators are defined and information sources are presented below the table.)

Notes:

Income index: Real GDP per capita (rgdpl) for 2007 from the Penn World Table, expressed as a fraction of per capita GDP in the United Arab Emirates, the country with highest per capita GDP. Source: Alan Heston, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten, Penn World Table Version 6.3, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, August 2009.

Quality of life index: Gallup World Poll data on “life today” (latest available) country averages, expressed as a fraction of the rating for Denmark, the country with the highest rating.

Safety and Security: A sub-index of the Legatum prosperity index. High ratings reflect the existence of a safe environment and peaceful society.

Health: A sub-index of the Legatum prosperity index measuring how well citizens are capable of living long and healthy lives.

Education: A sub-index of the Legatum prosperity index reflecting mainly the years of schooling that a nation’s citizens complete.

Freedom: A sub-index of the Legatum prosperity index which measures how well citizens are able to freely choose the course of their lives and their perceptions of societal tolerance.

Democratic Institutions: A sub-index of the Legatum prosperity index which reflects civil liberties, political rights, the independence of the judiciary etc.

Social capital: A sub-index of the Legatum prosperity index which reflects how well people are engaged in social networks and relationships that are trustworthy and supportive.

Environmental satisfaction: Gallup World Poll data on the satisfaction of citizens with efforts to preserve the environment in their country, presented in index form such that the highest rating country has a rating of 1.0 and the lowest rating country has a rating of zero.

Related posts:

1. Do Economic Freedom and Governance Indicators Tell Similar Stories About Human Flourishing?
2. What Do We Know About the Neurology of Human Flourishing?
3. What Does the Legatum Prosperity Index Measure?