Jujitsui Generis

More Revelations from Genetics

Of course, genetics researchers and others are happy to claim this about people from other races/ethnicities...  but when it comes to intelligence, proposals like those found in Charles Murray's Bell Curve get you stoned by the academic elite.

'The attacks ... often read like an unintentional confirmation of our view of the "cognitive elite" as a new caste, complete with high priests, dogmas, heresies, and apostates. They have revealed the extent to which the social science that deals in public policy has in the latter part of the 20th century become self-censored and riddled with taboos - in a word, corrupt.' (Charles Murray)

If you are a geneticist and you think genes in populations have anything to do with intelligence, I dare you to speak up.

Training Bureaucrats?

Truly dedicated readers of this blog may remember that I’m glacially commenting on the state of what I'm calling the "property rights & development agenda" (as formulated by Hernando de Soto) in Iraq. The earlier posts are here and here. Being a typical chairborne blogger, I am restricted to evidence from the Internet, but live in the hope that some free-market soldier or Marine out there might write in with some real observations. In the meantime, working with poor substitutes…USAID has a portion of its website devoted to Iraq reconstruction (hat tip to fellow JG blogger Jason Turner.)  Though I’ve heard that Hernando de Soto’s ideas are respectable in the mainstream – even Clinton mentioned him positively, for goodness sake – there is no explicit mention of property rights here at all. 

The USAID Iraq page lists a bewildering array of initiatives, but of the fifteen "reconstruction accomplishment overview" section headings there is only one that looks promising for the legal regime for property. This is the Economic Governance heading, which does seem to speak the right language:

USAID supports sustainable economic reforms in Iraq including examining and reforming laws, regulations, and institutions and providing a framework for private sector trade, commerce, and investment. The reforms will strengthen the Central Bank and the Ministries of Finance, Trade, Commerce and Industry— among others.

When the past accomplishments and current activities under this heading are actually examined, however, they turn out to be mainly technocratic achievements such as teaching the central bank statistical analysis, creating public works jobs, and helping create an Iraqi government IT strategy. The most promising of these is "Evaluated and updated commercial laws on private sector and foreign investment," but at least in spirit I find this counterbalanced by "Assisted in developing the reconstruction levy in collaboration with the CPA and the UK Customs Service; this levy imposes a five percent tariff on imports to Iraq." Alas for the world’s largest free-trade zone. At least it appears to be only a revenue tariff...as I recall, customs were the only peacetime revenue source for the US federal government for many years, so perhaps this isn't a problem.

What I do fear is that, for all their high-level accomplishments, the various Coalition/Iraqi government bodies working on reconstruction are letting the ground-level property rights agenda fall between the cracks.  Sure, maybe an American or European entrepreneur has an easier time now in navigating the legal system for investment or contracting purposes. Is that same legal system easily accessible (meaning affordably, without too many delays or bribes) to a small businessman in Baghdad or Mosul?  This is not to say that the USAID accomplishments to date aren't impressive.  They are, and quite a few may actually be necessary.  It would be foolish, though, if we were to dump resources into recreating the American bureaucratic state in Iraq while neglecting the experience of the legal regime for the ordinary Iraqi. I would go as far as to say that only three things matter: security, property rights, and democratic legitimacy.  In that order.  If we fix those, the statistical competence or lack thereof of the central bank will take care of itself.

The Lilliputians Try Again

The U.S. Congress is rightly moving to diminish the power of the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) by threatening to withhold economic aid from countries that refuse to sign accords exempting U.S. citizens from the jurisdiction of the court.

This is a wise use of leverage over those who refuse to recognize the legitimate concerns of the United States. The court was purportedly established to try only the most heinous of war criminals, persons on the scale of Pol Pot, Hitler, or Idi Amin; but Congress is justifiably suspicious of malicious prosecutions which unfairly target U.S. soldiers, commanders, and civilian personnel.  In fact, there have already been a slew of international voices calling for U.S. soldiers, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, to be tried  before the court, and several have called for Henry Kissinger to be brought before the I.C.C.’s jurisdiction. (Some of the kooky ‘Bush=Hitler’ set have even demanded the President Bush be brought forward as a war criminal).

Logan's Run

Well, I had to scroll down through tracts of sarcasm in Logan’s response to get to something resembling reasonable argumentation--but it was there. In the interests of self-defense, however, I’ll start in the midst of the sarcasm (with rubber glove and Vaseline) and begin the fisking:

Of course, I'm not a philosopher, but if it will bring us together, I am willing to concede that rights don't exist in the same way as noses exist, or even in the same way as dumb ideas exist. Of course rights are a way of talking about things, and not some sort of object in and of themselves.

This is cute, but again sidesteps the primary libertarian question. He’s given us no argument for how, precisely, rights do exist—whether metaphysically, morally, socially, a prioristically or otherwise. And since Logan is the one who brought them up, he should be able to defend them. If he doesn’t know how they exist or – more specifically - how he arrives at them, then how can he or any other libertarian be so sure about all the positions and premises that flow from said rights? (Hey, I don’t deny we have rights. I deny we have universal natural rights, which is something Logan seems committed to. And this is what I find naïve.)

I, for one, would argue for individual rights on contractarian grounds. But not the Rawlsian contractarianism of 1971. Rather more like the Rawlsian contractarianism of 1993 or better, of Buchanan, Gauthier and Narveson if we’re going to play the name-drop game. Social contract theory allows one a lot more theoretical wiggle room, especially in fields like IR. But having an IR background, Logan should know this. Which brings me to:

Rootin' for Randy

Randy Barnett is arguing the medical marijuana lawsuit before the US Supreme Court this week.  Either way, the outcome will be huge in its implications.  But let's hope Randy takes it to them--and moves us a step away from statism and few steps toward pain-free munchies.

10 Steps to Better, Cheaper US Healthcare

1. Make people pay for unhealthy lifestyles.

Let insurance companies have information:  We should start listening to people like Radley Balko who think that fat people - for example - rather than being taxed or subsidized, should be charged higher insurance premiums.  Obesity is a good indicator of the likelihood someone will have other health problems.  And if insurance companies can do it for smoking, why not weight?  (Please, no responses about weight discrimination.)

Creating incentives for people to lead healthier lifestyles is just what the market would do.  If your insurance company charges you more for being heavy, you’ll lose weight and eat better if you need the money.  If you are one of those rare people with a predisposition to weight-gain, then you are no different from a person with any other congenital illness – who is also subject to rules of having a “preexisting condition.”  If you want to pay more to be fat, then go with God. 

Right now we’re all paying a fat subsidy for Americans via higher insurance premiums spread evenly over the population.  If we have a whole lot fewer unhealthy people, the existing “public health” burden would be reduced and we would have a lot more money to spend on expensive Atkins products.  (One might consider this type of plan before offering gastric bypass surgery under Medicare.)

2. Shorten the patents (and the FDA pipeline) for drugs. 

It may seem silly in the wake of Vioxx fiasco to recommend streamlining time-to-market for drugs.  But that’s precisely what we should do.  Doctors and patients can then become more aware of both the risks and the benefits of certain prescriptions.  Then, people can choose whether they think it is a good idea to be on a certain medication in light of those risks...

Robert Mugabe is a Genius

Just when you thought Robert Mugabe couldn't figure out anything more brilliant for the breadbasket of Africa, his government is proposing "Obesity Tourism."  SInce Mugabe's skinny black cronies have been unable to figure out all the complicated minutiae of farm operation since the "land reforms" began decolonizing (and starving) Zimbabwe, the government has decided to invite fat foreigners to come work on Zimbabwe's farms as unpaid labor.  In exchange, the fatsos get to lose weight!

I guess I could stand to lose a few pounds.  And to think... I could see all the beauty of an mismanaged African farm while helping to feed the people who have stolen property and turned out thousands on their ears!   Not that I or any other chubby tourist knows how to operate farm machinery.  It can't be that hard, right?  I'm sure the government overseers will be able to give me the proper direction, just like they are to those currently operating the farms.

This latest move takes Kim Jong Il out of the lead for the world's greatest tinpot dictator.  But stay tuned there's more to come from the guys who have it all figured out.

The 'U' Stands For Useless

We already knew the United Nations was ineffectual. Any institution that purports to represent the interests of a phantom global community (as if such an abstraction were possible) will find its proceedings bogged down in the battles between individual member states (rightly) intent on privileging their individual interests above all others. And, as many had suspected, we’re now learning the depths of the corruption which plagues the inner bureaucracy of the U.N. But we have always expected the U.N to, at least, excel – the way committees often have - when it came to issuing condemnations and resolutions. After all, there’s been no shortage of votes at the opportunity to pass resolutions criticizing Israel or denouncing the United States. Looks like a real life crisis would merit quick action.

Well, apparently not. The U.N. General Assembly failed Tuesday to pass a resolution criticizing human rights abuses in Darfur. Now no one was suggesting any type of military action, or a resolution weighted with extensive commitments, but – in the least – it seems (and without delving into the philosophical depths) that we could count on the U.N. to condemn – if only for the sake of propriety and consistency - what most around the world have already openly admitted is an attempted genocide. Instead, Kofi Annan has refused to openly acknowledge the extent and scope of the systematic bloodshed in Sudan, lest it force the Assembly’s hand; and the General Assembly has decided to scuttle a resolution (with a ‘no action’ motion) on even qualifying the events in Darfur as human rights abuses.

If we can’t count on our super-committee to even issue resolutions anymore, then what exactly can we count on them for?

Utterly useless.

The Essence of Libertarian Naïveté

Justin Logan gives a sneering criticism of Ryan Sager’s TCS article.  On a whole, Logan is right in criticizing the lack of depth in Sager’s article.  Ultimately, however, the critique has little more substance than the object of the rant.  Aside from the implicit ad hominem, (e.g. making fun of the newspaper he writes for, referencing big libertarian names,...) the critique has only the merit of pointing out the want of depth. 

Until we get to this point in Logan's post, in which the timeless refrain of the naive libertarian begins to play:

Most libertarians believe, as Robert Nozick did, that: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights.)"  I believe this, too.  For me, this group of rights includes the right to one's own life.  This right is possessed by all people, even Iraqis.

This is Logan’s first and last article of faith.  And he leaves it out there naked and vulnerable (like most libertarians do).  Again and again, we must ask the naïve libertarian what he bases these premises on.  “Principle” he answers, as if he’s been talking to God or somehow limning the ultimate nature of morality by reading gradschool textbooks. 

Thanksgiving Guilt Trip

Tomorrow when you're bitching about your underdone turkey, or griping about Uncle So-and-so's tactlessness, recall this story my Mom told me today:

A courier had come into her office to deliver some packages.  He was a young man from West Africa, (Cote d'Ivoire she thinks).  He had made small talk.  Asked about her Thanksgiving plans.  The conversation unfolded and eventually she learned the young man had - only three months ago - lost his American wife and unborn child to a fire.  Only her eight-year-old son survived (his stepson), but with 65 percent of his body burned and still the boy lies in a coma. 

When the young man returned to his job as a forklift operator after the fire, his boss let him go.  So, no family, no job, no home...  nothing.  He knows very few people in Charlotte where my mom lives and gets scraps of social contact through strangers like my mother whom he encounters on his new job as courier... (at least he has that)  I doubt he wants to go back to the Ivory Coast. 

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving.  Celebrate underdone Turkey and obnoxious family members.  Hell, celebrate sucking air.  If Abraham (the young courier) can keep on going, we can.