On Eating Meat

the ability to suffer, not the ability to reason, should be the benchmark, or the "insuperable line."

Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they Talk? But, can they suffer?

-Jeremy Bentham

“Why do you eat meat?” “WelI, I gotta eat.” I apologize if this goes over the deep end, but this rebuttal reminds me of that certain individual who can be found in every horror story of humanity’s history. Those that were there, the justifiers. Slavery: “My fields have to be plowed.” Stalin’s Purges: “I need a job.” Female Abuse: “I had to keep control.” Animal Slaughter: “I gotta eat.” Lets stop justifying, lets call it what it is: they cared, but they just didn’t care enough.

These same individuals hold wishful hypothetical ideals. You can find them at Holocaust Museums. If you tell them the percentage of the German men who contributed to the killings, you can expect to find them murmuring “Look at what those people did, I would never do that.” Well lets be realistic: like those complying German men, they probably would have cared an often lot, but they probably wouldn’t have cared enough either to do anything but comply.

Sure, eating meat is driven by biological coding which makes it, whether right or wrong, some what justified. But this goes with other things as well. Men killing other men for vital food and possessions. Men raping women to spread the seed of mankind. The strong killing the weak, before the weak toughen and then kill the strong. These have all been ancient characteristics of man. But as man grew wiser, he created a world which did not require these acts to survive. Killing is now the equivalent of a mortal sin in nearly all philosophies. What we see as a necessary coding in the DNA of the earliest men, now is only performed by a sliver of a percentage of living humans. The same goes for rape, abuse and domination. Once we no longer require heinous actions to survive, we are quick to find our moral bearings. The same, I believe, is true for man’s lust for meat. Within a hundred years, edible flesh will likely be grown on its own from cells, without the brain of an animal to direct its growth nor his or her feelings to suffer along with it. I envision large 10 square meter slabs of pork, rolling off the line and right into freezer trucks (potentially healthier and more nutritious than pork we find in supermarkets currently.) Once this day comes, killing animals, by a meat eater’s standards, will not be necessary, and factory farming will then be vilified. Mark my words, when it comes to the horrors of factory farming, man will find his morality the moment its convenient.

The Crisis of Context

Causes of the recent financial crisis can be found in editorial section of any newspaper or blog in the world; Ashton Kutcher has likely tweeted about it. The situation is clearly complicated and it even seems naive to pin in all down to one cause. But life is more fun living in absolutes, so here is my theory.

A commune can practice communitarian lifestyles as long as it remains small. But it is pretty clear, that at some point, (due to free riders, accountability issues, and a disconnect between reality and ideology) the system breaks down. In Korea bus drivers do not personally collect money; instead an advanced form of a bucket sits by the door and passengers throw in the appropriate amount as they get on. But this system as well, is changing. Likely because people are no longer being honest enough to make it worth while to grant them the responsibility. Just like communes, the tipping point for the Korean bus system was likely an over growth in size. But it is not only increases in size that fold communitarian principles and necessitate regulation, we can also find fiduciary catalysts. Honor boxes will only be found selling goods of paltry sums. Tomatoes, sold in Florida, sometimes do not require a vender, nor do donuts, as a store in Ohio demonstrates. People can be trusted to act with dignity in these instances, for the gain of stealing a donut does not out weigh the cost of feeling guilty. But you wont ever come across an unmanned table selling laptops with a list of prices and an arrow pointing to a box. For many this would be just too tempting to resist.

Every system has a tipping point, either caused by excessive size or price. The lax financial regulations can work effectively in a certain context, but with the boom the US saw in the 90’s and early 2000’s coupled with the dash to gobble up new territory made available by globalization, our financial system was pushed beyond its tipping point. Temptations were too strong, effective accountability too complicated, and connections to principles too distant to expect the free market to run itself any where but into the ground.

Now we face economists, like Richard Posner, jumping the Chicago School free market ship to Keynesianism with assumptions that, while not much is known, one thing is for certain, the free market did not work. I am afraid that momentum towards bringing us back to the middle will sling us too far in other direction. I am afraid that people will see this not as a contextual failure, how I am defining it, but as a ideological failure. Honor boxes work well in certain contexts, but not all; the particulars of our free market financial system is no different. The contexts have changed, but not the rules. We should be spending more of our time understanding these contexts, these tipping points, and where the future of the US fits into all of this, than fighting over one all encompassing theory, to live by or die by.

Capital Punishment in the EU: The Dictatorship of the Virtuous

Once a week, American law, foreign policy, and culture are chastised for one of a plethora of reasons by some cohort of mine. It’s weird how the context with which a complaint against my country is presented, defines my reaction.

Case in point: A European friend, in a hubristic tone of superiority, grilled me on the US’s tradition of capital punishment. Ordinarily I would agree the act is unnecessary as a natural law, but this particular time, after some thinking, I have approached it from a more biased angle. Biased yet appropriate.

Europe has abolished capital punishment in the Union. Kudos for doing so, but at what cost? Under what context? Before the EU was formed, the majority of its countries used and boasted capital punishment. But their sovereign right to decide was forfeited by signing the EU constitution. This constitution, twice thicker than a phonebook, was presented to each country with the option to either vote yay or nay on the entire document. Thumbs up on the whole thing and ascension in the EU, or thumbs down and a fade into insignificance. The US, on the other hand, in bringing its states together under a single federal entity, voted on each of the bill of rights individually. There were more than ten initially, but lacking a unanimous vote, some bills were thrown out.

And thats Democracy.

When an EU judge views capital punishment as being immoral, what in his educational background has qualified him to impose his moral views on others? The same goes for the right to assisted suicide, homosexual sodomy and abortion; right or wrong can not be determined by a judge. It must be determined by society. There in lies the difference between the two systems of law. It is not that American judges deem capital punishment an appropriate punishment, it is that American judges have a deeper conviction over any single natural law, and that deeper conviction is democracy. Democracy is our foundation, not the whims of a judges values at a given moment. The dictatorship of the virtuous has lead to inquisitions and witch hunts. We must approach progress with caution. Progress Morality Progress Morality: the often touted justification for much of the worlds impositions onto others. But progress towards what? Morality in whose eyes? Progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Moral certainty has brought self righteousness. We mustn’t judge with the rule of law that which is beyond the scope of the majority, and in the countries of Europe as well the states of the US, the majorities often prefer capital punishment. Decisions made by the elite few in opposition to the majority is effective in so long as the elite few exude well intentioned intelligence. But this structure of decision making is ephemeral in its efficiency. The long term requires the tossing and turning of the masses in order to stay afloat. Democracy is certainly slower; but it also certainly prevents a state from straying too far. Either progress towards well being or progress towards ill being: Democracy grants its citizens exactly what they deserve.

And thats America.

Happy Birthday to my wonderful mother.

The second reason for celebrating this great day...

On Jaunary 15th, 1951 Ilse Koch, "The Bitch of Buchenwald", wife of the commandant of the Buchenwald concentration camp, is sentenced to life imprisonment by a court in West Germany.

THE BITCH IS DEAD!!!!

in the head of antonin scalia??

A state which aims for absolute perfection, is doomed to destroy itself. For perfection must manage the nuances of all possibilities. But states which aim for a fairness which includes the extreme cases will guide society away from the traditions and the core it has been built upon. In taking for granted of what it currently possesses by reaching for more, a state risks dropping the lot. Let me clarify. In justifying torture for certain rare circumstances in which the world dies unless some glass-jawed lunatic reveals a bomb’s location, a state, if seeking perfection, might rationalize finding a position for torture in its constitution. Or in an attempt to combat the inefficacies of potentially damning soundbites inhibiting policy makers from speaking boldly with eyes on an upcoming election, a state might conclude that meeting notes should be withheld, discarding accountability as a public concern no longer in need of scrutiny. Debates are taking place in every evolving country of whether to trade off certain mechanisms, which are in place to prevent unravelling, to slip more under the rug. But at a point, ideology must restrain a runaway train; a government seeking perfection. A never ending lust for progress will bring nothing but progress towards chaos. “Greedy little pigs, you risked everything for just a little more. Now your rotting from the inside out, from the spine of your laws.” A constitution in indefinite transformation is not a constitution at all, its an etch-a-sketch...its a mood ring...and their novelties wear off eventually, even for children.

a thought from my socialist professor

Economic freedom invokes a lust for social and political freedom. Prosperity presages individual freedom.

world changing invention??

Energy regulators for electrical outlets.

If slowly feeding electricity into an appliance not in use, or into a computer charging a battery that is fully charged, then electricity is being wasted as it flows through an outlet. the regulator will sense a small enough amount of voltage coming through the outlet that clearly it is going into an object which is not in use. Sending electricity up to the source of the computer batter or the source of the appliance wastes energy as it travels through the cords, back to the outlet and then back to the grid. The regulator will cut the energy off its circulatory path, turning it back into the grid and cutting off the travel time and saving a tiny bit of energy. This could be installed on every outlet at its core, in every house and office in the world. It could work by require a minimum threshold of energy calling from the appliance for electricity to pass through. It will be more expensive up front, but it is not only better for the environment but also likely will pay for itself in saved energy bills in the long run.

some great nom de plumes...

casidy yas...fay hitas...jimmy chonga...sal sa...burt ritos...

the fair tax...

some thoughts on the fair tax via a conversation between a friend and me.

Jackson MacIntosh Strong I listened to some Fair Tax advocates talk last night and it made a lot of sense. Anybody with a counter argument/thought on "The Fair Tax" system?

Steven Hollenkamp

I think the fair tax has its place for a society in a particular context. The US in the early 2000s would fit that context. But moving towards abolishing the IRS doesnt really have a high priority for me in the present junkpile. Nor do I think increasing savings and investments, while decreasing consumption (which is what the fair tax would accomplish), is a good idea in the short term. The fair tax is touted to increase productivity by getting rid of income taxes and therefore increasing earning power. But all research that I have seen has shown that income elasticities are very low at the middle and high end of income earners and I would imagine people would not work harder on any income level in light of decreased income taxes. Instead they might work harder cause consumption is down so they must work harder to maintain.
But more importantly, I think the fair tax works well for a country who needs to start saving and stop spending. And in the long term, 15 years down the road, the US might find itself in that context again. But willingly decreasing consumption by charging 30% on every item sold doesnt seem to be in short term interests. It would bring in foreign companies doing business here, but that would take time to show its benefits. I also think a fair tax would have far more tax evasion in nominal terms than we presently have, even though the current systems inefficacies cant possibly seem to get any worse. Consumption taxes are an even easier system for the rich to worm through, and in the eyes of the poor: intuitively simpler and feasible.

Jackson MacIntosh Strong

good points bro...I we're told that we need consumption to "get out of this recession," isn't it consumption that got us IN to this recession? We need savings to drive small business startups and reboot our economy man

Steven Hollenkamp

it was not consumerism that got us into this... but it could be argued that it was superfluous consumerism. nothing is wise in excess. but to see the faults of excessive consumerism as justification for an abolishment of it, does not seem wise either. everything is good in balance. im not sure what is the best way to drive small businesses, but i dont think it is increased savings from decreased spending. And i doubt a switch over to the fair tax would reboot the economy; reboot in the immediate sense. the argument for the fair tax and other libertarian ideology (if this is even libertarian, it doesnt sound like it) should never the lure of a quick fix; or the shiny flash of willful optimism. It must only be one of tough love and delayed gratification. and that is what the fair tax seems to be, short term heart aches guaranteed, with maybe, theoretically, long run prosperity. but thats the argument to make and there is an argument to be made for it. but these ideas of short term difficulties for long term success (which i think the fair tax bears), bring to mind many disadvantages in the never ending short run surrounded by an ever expanding competitive globalized world.