CraigShieldsQuestions.com

A concerned citizen from the Institute for Justice wrote in, wanting to make sure readers knew that IJ launched our First Amendment blog today: www.makenolaw.org.

She notes: IJ is a national public interest law firm and one of the nation’s leading legal advocates for the First Amendment. You may not agree with all of our positions on campaign finance reform, but I’m confident that you’ll realize our new blog is worth your and your readers time.

If there is any chance you could alert your readers to our new campaign finance blog, we would certainly appreciate it.

Thanks so much!

Consider it done. And yes, you’re right, the idea that campaign contributions from corporatations should be protected under the first amendment doesn’t square with me in the least.

Philosophy and Religion campaign contributions, corporatations, free speech

I hope readers have been following the discussion at 2GreenEnergy. If you want philiosophy — mainly political philosophy — there is plenty of it: the government’s responsibility in creating energy policy, our moral duty to future generations, etc.

Philosophy and Religion 2GreenEnergy, clean energy, political philosophy, renewable energy

As I’m mentioned, I’ve been so wrapped up with my writing at www.2GreenEnergy.com that I haven’t been able to find time for this blog recently. I hope that changes somewhere down the line.

In the meanwhile, please note that a great deal of what I write there is in the same vein as the thinking here. This piece on Bill Moyers is such an example.

Philosophy and Religion 2GreenEnergy, Bill Moyers' Journal

Sorry I’ve been gone; 2GreenEnergy has been consuming my attention.

But I’ll try to put up an occasional post.

Today, for instance, as noted in The Writer’s Almanac, is the birthday of Ogden Nash, who wrote:

“There is only one way to achieve happiness on this terrestrial ball, and that is to have either a clear conscience or none at all.”

Philosophy and Religion

Ever since I was a teenager I’ve been saying that what we’re seeing is the “denouement” of free market capitalism. I was long out of my teen years when everyone cheered as the Iron Curtain came down—and nobody’s saying that the USSR was good model for socialism—or anything else. But I think that, as loyal Americans, we assumed that unregulated capitalism would keep us free and relatively happy. What we’re seeing now is that this is most definitely not the case.

Our constitution provides us with the right to free enterprise, as long as that enterprise is not expressly criminal. There are no mandates that require our activities to be beneficial; in fact, many of the most profitable products and services offered in the US are clearly harmful to the people foolish enough to consume them. As examples, the fast food industry addicts people–mostly kids–to fat and sugar, causing obesity and other obvious health hazards, and the entertainment industry aggressively degrades our civilization through popular music and film–again targeting mostly kids–glorifying, crime, drugs, promiscuous sex, and dishonesty. The pharmaceutical industry isn’t exactly a friend of mankind either, as I’ve written elsewhere. I’m afraid that these problems are the natural and unavoidable products of capitalism: people making a living in any legal way they can.

In particular, as I’ve written elsewhere, we face a dwindling spiral of corruption and the deterioration of our democracy. How can we have a government “of the people” when only the richest of the rich can possibly get elected to an important office? The mixture of lobbying, quid pro quo campaign contributions, spending earmarks, etc., have essentially turned the authority for setting and enforcing public policy over to the corporations who control the politicians we elect.

This is exacerbated by the fact that the media, owned as it is by for-profit corporations, no longer even attempts to uncover and report the truth in many critically important areas. What you see, hear, and read is essentially entertainment aimed at amusing and distracting a race of increasingly oblivious sheep.

Btw, this whole idea would have been considered outright sedition if it were posited in 1989 when the Wall came down. Now, however, it’s gaining ground with some serious thinkers and loyal Americans.

I know this sounds depressing; it is! That’s why I blog. The only chance we have is alerting people to the challenge. And thanks, Fingers, for being a part of this.

Philosophy and Religion capitalism, endarkenment

Fingers writes:

Oddly enough, for many moons now I have been trying to explain this phenomenon of ‘disinformation’ you mention by postulating that we have entered a new age. Sure, money is a driver, but is it the reason?

After trying to categorize what I called the Age of Non-belief, I found that many others have come to the same realization. We have come to call it the Age of Endarkenment. If you google that term you will come across a hodge-podge of articles all saying the same thing: It’s getting harder and harder to “…get our leaders to see past this garbage and embark upon a full and fair discussion of the true costs and benefits of each technology, renewable energy will remain a pipedream.”

What caused this transition (and why it is occurring) is subject to debate for many more moons to come. Care to weigh in Craig?

Philosophy and Religion capitalism, endarkenment

… and here are my reply and the ensuing comments.

Hello, Dr. Suber.

And please accept MY thanks as well for your thoughtful response. If you haven’t seen it, here is the article I wrote about your piece: “Against the Sanctity of Life.”

I loved your essay on paternalism. For what it’s worth, I believe (as you suggested in the acticle itself) that we need to broaden Mills’ concept of harm in the “harm principle.” I would say that the state has the right and duty to protect its citizens from harm, and that all criminal laws must be directed at that idea. But as I see them, most of the laws you name are not paternalistic. Motorcycle helmet laws protect tax payers from the harm of having to share in the cost of repairing (idiots’) skulls, laws against mistreating corpses protect survivors from the harm of the abuse of their loved ones, public nudity laws protect from the harm of shocking indecency, etc. This leaves a large class of laws against truly victimless crimes, which I agree should be repealed. Of course, as you point out, it also leaves an enormous number of gray areas: the age of majority, the type of drugs we decriminalize, etc.

Philosophy and Religion moral philosophy, philosopy, sanctity of life

Dr. Stuber replies:

I’ve written elsewhere about legislating morality. Here are two examples, the first more directly relevant than the second:

Paternalism (1999)
(An encyclopedia article in which I surveyed the issues but did not feel free to take a position; I was also forced to keep it short.)

Self-Determination and Selfhood in Recent Legal Cases (1992)

My position is very close to yours, as you’ll see from the essays linked above. I don’t think we should regulate behavior unless it harms unconsenting others. When it only harms a competently consenting person, or when it’s harmless, then we should leave it alone, even if many people think it is immoral.

Best,
Peter

Philosophy and Religion moral philosophy, Philosophy and Religion, sanctity of life

Readers will recall earlier posts about the sanctity of life, and by reference to the writings of Dr. Peter Stuber, professor of philosophy at Earlhan University. Guest blogger Fingers writes:

Dr. Stuber,

First, a heartfelt “thank you” for your 1996 posting of “Against the Sanctity of Life”. As a socially conscientious scientist I found your article compelling, accurate and bold.

I looked for (and missed) your conclusion about legislating for morality. I understood you to say that we should make laws based on not only an ethical basis, but use our moral compass of the time as well, but [unless I missed it] you failed to make a distinction about the pros and cons of legislating morality, how we can define it, and whether or not we should.

Philosophy and Religion moral philosophy, sanctity of life

A friend writes:

Your essay on the sanctity of life is, of course, about the theory of how we should regard our fellows. In practice, however, our actions as a culture show our utter hypocrisy, and belie any real sincerity for a notion that we consider human life in any way sacred. 30,000 people succumb from starvation on this planet every day. I hear that’s not a pretty way to die. But they are not us, nor our direct relatives, and thus we care less for them than we do for the pet hamsters in our children’s bedrooms.

Philosophy and Religion hypocrisy, sanctity of life