Israel Debate Insanity

According to Google (Google "define:insane") a definition of insane is:

In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction

A relatively common claim is that pro-Israelis are preventing debate on the issue of Israel/Palestine. It was made recently on the Liberal Conspiracy blog and today the UCU passed a motion that relied on it (see here).

Yet the topic of Israel and its actions must be one of the most discussed topics in international affairs. No one can seriously claim that debate on the topic is being prevented. I think, therefore, that anyone who makes that claim must meet the definition of insane above. What else prevents the normal perception of this simple fact?

Is there a better word to describe such an inability to see reality?

What Makes the West Bank "Palestinian Territory"?

This is the question asked by Elder of Ziyon. There follows a discussion about the legal status of the West Bank assuming that Jordan had officially annexed it after 1948. The post concludes:

I can't find anyone who talks about the legality or legal consequences of Jordan's actions in 1988. And I cannot find any possible legal justification for calling the West Bank "Palestinian territory."

It doesn't seem to matter to the author that there are 2 million or so Palestinians living there and that that might make it worthy of being called "Palestinian territory". More importantly, the entire discussion is irrelevant really because who cares whether Jordan's annexation was legal and whether it could legitimately hand it over to the PLO. What bearing can that have on the current situation?

The author might, of course, be idly speculating about the subject knowing that it is irrelevant. But if not it is truly worrying that he was a finalist in the "2011 pro-Israel blog-off". I maintain that more Israelis need to understand the need and the correctness of withdrawing from the West Bank. If the second most (because I assume he didn't win or else it would say winner not finalist) popular or important pro-Israel blog is encouraging the idea that the West Bank is not really Palestinian territory then that is surely making it harder for Israelis to reach that point.

Boycotting (Some) Israeli Goods

Gene at Harry's Place highlights a post from a councillor for West Dunbartonshire Council which has decided to boycott Israeli products. The complaint made against him (and others) is that if he is boycotting Israeli goods that should apply to computers and other very useful and expensive things. Gene understood his response to be:

"We will boycott Israeli products except when it inconveniences us in any way."

That was pretty much my interpretation too (although instead of "in any way" put in "too much"). But the point is what's wrong with that position? It makes perfect sense to me. The boycotters believe that Israel is doing wrong and should be punished and that a boycott is that punishment. Does that mean they have to punish themselves? Sure their boycott is less effective if it doesn't include everything but it seems perfectly sensible to not boycott those things that you would suffer more for boycotting.

NOTE: I do not support the boycott. I think it is wrong for a number of reasons. But that is not the point here.

I've always found this particular anti-boycott argument to be rather rubbish. Haha, you can't boycott Jaffa oranges because then you have to boycott Microsoft Windows too! What kind of stupid argument is that? Of course the response is to point out that actually, no, someone is entirely able to not buy one product from Israel in protest and yet buy another because it's just too much to give up.

So what explains the reasoning behind the argument? The only thing that springs to mind at the moment is that those making it see the boycott in a different way to the boycotters. And if I'm right then it says a fair bit about the anti-boycotters. You see, I think the boycotters might believe that they want to punish Israel. Nothing more. Indeed, that is pretty much what the councillor said.

But anti-boycotters might believe that boycotters believe that it is immoral to have any benefit from Israel for whatever reason. If that is what boycotters believe then of course it is hypocritical to buy even one thing from Israel.

The difference is simple. One is based on the assumption that Israel is doing something wrong, the other on the assumption that Israel is wrong. Like I said, if the anti-boycotters believe that all boycotts are predicated on the belief that Israel is wrong then that tells us a bit about them. They see what they want to see, perhaps. And that cannot be good.

Of course, I could be wrong. If you think I am please use the comments to explain why the argument is valid or else why, even though invalid and nonsensical, apparently rational people make it. Cheers.

Expanding My Remit

Originally, I started this blog to explore and learn about Libertarian ideas. However, I have now decided to expand it to include another topic which is almost entirely unrelated - the Israel/Arab conflict. You see, I'm generally a supporter of Israel over its Arab enemies. It's a democracy with freedoms and they're not. They want to attack it most of the time.

I had always assumed, in my naivety I guess, that most pro-Israeli activists (for want of a better word) whole heartedly supported the need to withdraw from almost all of the West Bank as part of any peace deal. I had also assumed that most Israelis felt the same and further that they wanted this to happen as soon as Palestinians agreed to it.

However, it seems I was wrong. Opinion polls from Israel indicate that only 1 in 2 Israelis would want to withdraw from the West Bank in return for permanent peace, and that's even if they were allowed to keep the major settlement blocs. Moreover, a lot of Israel advocates in the UK also don't really support withdrawing from the West Bank.

So maybe, possibly, I can try and help change some people's opinions on that front. It's at least worth a try. Because the kind of pro-Israel advocacy that tries to defend the status quo is not going to do Israel any good in the long run. Plus, I suspect that there are more than a few delusions flying around.

Well, you'll read what I write and hopefully see what I mean.

Natural Disasters and Reasons

Please note that this post is mostly tongue-in-cheek.

Via Harry's Place I read this opinion piece by Bill McKibben in the Washington Post. Basically, in a highly sarcastic and condescending fashion, he claims that all the natural disasters that have happened recently are the fault of humans causing global warming. What occurred to me (because I have an odd way of thinking) is that this is the same approach as religious crazies. Natural disaster happened? Aha - this is proof that we are sinning. Is there really that much difference between blaming a tornado on burning coal or on abortion?

Again - this post is mostly tongue-in-cheek.

Ash and Regulation

No, I'm not talking about smoking. I saw this video on the BBC News website in which Willie Walsh for the airlines and Phillip Hammond for the regulator argue about whether or not planes should be grounded because of the volcano in Iceland. Basically the argument is as follows:

Walsh: The risk is too low to stop us flying
Hammond: The risk is too high for us to allow flying

What isn't being considered here is who is taking the risk. Clearly the airlines are taking a risk with their planes and employees but the risk that the regulator is protecting against is (one hopes) the risk to the passengers. In other words we have two groups treating us like children unable to decide for ourselves whether the risk is too big or not. And not really like children either but more like one single child because we are lumped together as one.

Of course, none of us are expert enough to decide what level of risk the ash really poses, but then nor are the regulators. Mr Hammond admits as much. And nor are the airlines because we can't really trust them to tell us the whole truth. Nevertheless, whether to take the risk ought to be up to the people who are being put at risk. Let the airlines advise us and let the "regulator" advise us and then leave it up to us to decide. Some people will choose not to take the risk and others will decide that the risk is worth taking. Shouldn't that be how it is?

Another Thought on Super-Injunctions

A couple of weeks ago I looked at two of the arguments put forward regarding super-injunctions. At the time I made the point that they only served to gag the truth, never untruth. I think this point needs more attention.

As a Libertarian I don't want the State to get involved in making decisions for us. This includes things like which foods are good for us and which aren't as well as deciding which businesses are good and which aren't. I believe that us people collectively can regulate each other's actions and attitudes in a better way. We can do this by voting with our wallets. If we don't like the way a certain company treats its employees we can refuse to buy from them. Conversely, if we think that a certain bank has invested wisely we are more likely to lend it our money.

This entire system, though, relies on knowledge. We have to know what people are doing in order to make decisions about whether to encourage those actions or discourage them. And that means, I think, that the press (and everyone else) must be free to report whatever they want about whomever they want so long as what they report is true and accurate. And if it isn't then the person they damaged can sue.

It might be that the off-field antics of a footballer are not obviously something we should care about. But this is not a decision for anyone other than ourselves to make. Because there may be enough people who care about it to stop going to see that guy's team play, or maybe just refuse to buy products he endorses. Who knows? Who cares?

The basic point is that in order to be able to make informed decisions we must be informed. And a footballer's right to privacy means that his house cannot be bugged by journalists, it shouldn't mean that his mistress cannot tell all if she chooses.

Occidentalism by Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit

A brief summary:

People who have fallen behind or victim to Western liberal democracies seek to make themselves feel better. The West is obsessed with the individual and therefore it is mechanical, soulless, greedy and overly rational. The anti-West is all about the community and its people are in touch with their human side. They are prepared to sacrifice everything for the greater glory of the community. This same basic approach applies whether the community is the working classes, the German race or the Islamic Umma.

The thesis fits well with Nick Cohen's central one (see my earlier post on his book). Essentially both believe that the major political positions in play are based on irrational reactions to the world. The rationalisations come afterwards. What if, though, all people form their political opinions first with irrational instincts and feelings and find the rationalisations later? That doesn't sound very unlike the way people behave really.

Defaulting on Loans

With the troubles that some European countries are having, it seems that some (many, most?) supporters of the free-market are urging those countries to default. See for example Tim Worstall in his post today about Greece. Now, these guys obviously know a lot more about economics and philosophy than I do but the question occurs to me that surely defaulting without repercussion is not in line with free markets?

A loan implies a contractual obligation to pay that money back. So how is it possible to square a desire to see contracts enforced with the acceptance of defaulting on loans? I could understand if the suggestion was for Greece to default and have her assets taken by others rather than continue on borrowing more and more and making things worse. But the implication is that it would be OK for Greece to simply refuse to pay back the money and yet retain her assets. Her only "punishment" being that no one would lend any more money to her again.

What's Left by Nick Cohen

I've just finished reading What's Left by Nick Cohen. Here is a summary of the main thrust of the book as I see it:

Many people on the Left have expended such time and effort in opposition to Western democracy (in favour of some form of Socialist system) that they cannot bring themselves to accept that that same Western democracy is actually the best system. Doing so would imply that all their efforts had been in vain. This irrationality forces them to continue or strengthen their opposition to Western democracy and offer their support (tacit or otherwise) to fascism as the last remaining alternative.

I think that the same basic phenomenon can now be seen spreading through the advocates of free markets and less State intrusion. Why? Because of climate change. Anti-capitalists and anti-globalisation campaigners etc have obviously used the discovery of climate change to push forward their political agenda. And the world has largely swung behind them. The reaction from those who disagree with that agenda cannot be outright blanket denial fuelled more by irrationality than careful analysis. Yet for many that seems to be precisely what has happened.

Those who usually pride themselves on their scientific understanding and on their belief in the rational scientific method now see climate scientists as all part of some giant conspiracy. They deny not only that we are responsible for climate change but that it is even happening. We need to find ways to counter the political agenda of what we might call the Green-Left without turning to irrationality.

University Places and Seats

Another thought in regard to Sam Bowman's article about the proposed change to university places. He argues that allowing someone rich to buy a place at university doesn't take someone else's place away.

The government’s proposals would allow some applicants to pay their own way – creating a place that would otherwise not have existed. This is the crucial point to remember. If a girl's parents pay the extra price for her to go to Oxford, nobody else is deprived of a place.

I simply cannot see how that is true. There are only so many seats in the lecture theaters. One of the comments on the article raises a similar issue with regards the lack of quality teachers. The response was that as demand for those teachers increases their wages rise and more are attracted to it.

This is true for teachers and to some extent true for buildings. But the problem is surely one of elasticity? No university is going to build a new lecture room for 1 extra student. And no university is going to hire an extra lecturer for 1 extra student. For a while, at least, the rich people buying places will be depriving the poorer people of places.

What is more is that we know that the current tuition fees cap is below the actual cost of tuition. In that case universities would like to offer all their available places to those paying the higher fees. They wouldn't hire new staff simply to allow more people to join the university who cannot cover their costs.

And so the inevitable result would be that the government would place a limit on how many of these bought places are available. And that limit would mean that it would never become worth building that new lecture room because there would never be enough of an increase in the student body. And that means that the places taken from the poorer students would never become available again.

Price and Demand

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to economics. Yet I think I understand the role of price on supply and demand. The rationing effect of price appears to be widely welcomed in Libertarian circles as the best way of apportioning out limited resources. After all, those who are prepared to pay the most must be the ones who want it the most. This is one of those arguments that I'm uncomfortable with.

I saw it today in an article by Sam Bowman over at ASI regarding allowing universities to offer very expensive privately paid for places. He says:

This kind of shortage is all too predictable – when you set a price ceiling for something, you should expect shortages. For an example of this, look at the 1973 oil crisis. The US and UK imposed price controls and experienced fuel queues and shortages; Japan and Germany allowed prices to rise and consumption dropped in reaction, with fuel going to the places it was most in demand.

It's obvious that a price cap causes shortages - more people can afford the resource than can actually have it. But it isn't clear that a high price ensures that the resource goes to "the places it is most in demand". All it ensures, I think, is that it goes to the places most able and willing to pay.

Consider two families. One is poor and their children go to school 20 miles from their house. One is rich and their children go to school 1 mile from their house. Both drive their kids to school. I would argue that by any sensible measure it is the poor family who most demand the petrol; they want it more and also need it more. Yet price based rationing would give it to the rich one.

Super-Injunction Arguments

From the BBC News an argument against super-injunctions:

Helen Wood, the former escort girl caught up in one of the cases involving an actor, said super-injunctions allowed wealthy male celebrities to behave as they wanted and set a "bad example".

Unless I'm mistaken the super-injunction serves to prevent anyone finding out what these wealthy male celebrities are up to in which case it is hard to see how their unreported and unpublicised bad behaviour could set any kind of example to anyone.

From the same report an argument for them:

Media lawyer Charlotte Harris, of Mishcon de Reya, said the stories subject to super-injunctions were quite often cases of "nasty blackmail". She said: "You should be allowed to end a relationship with somebody, whether you are married or not, without having that person say 'right, I'm going to go to the paper, I'm going to destroy your life, I'm going to tell everybody every intimate thing about you'. "You should have some protection."

While in general we should protect others from acts of revenge it's difficult to apply that principle to super-injunctions. Again, unless I'm mistaken the super-injunction is used to prevent the reporting of something that is true or at least true enough that the paper would not lose a libel case over it. In that case the damage is damage to reputation and only damaging because the reputation is not truly warranted. It seems difficult to me to make the case that the law should be in the business of protecting the false reputations of the famous.

If you want protection from acts of revenge by scorned lovers then the best bet is probably not to go off having extra-marital affairs with people.

UPDATE: Please read another post on this topic here.

An Idea About Welfare and Tax Reform

As I said in my first post, part of the purpose of this blog is to investigate my idea for welfare and taxation reform by exposing my thoughts to criticism and contradiction. But what is my idea? It is that welfare and taxation should be the same for everyone in the country.

If a family of 2 parents and 2 children (for example) require £10,000 a year to have a quality of life that is the lowest that is acceptable in the UK then the State should provide that family with £10,000 a year. It shouldn't matter whether the family earns nothing or earns £100,000 a year. I think this would make the system better. Obviously the State ends up paying out more money but the advantages are that there is no welfare dependence and the system has much lower overhead costs. It also fair in that everyone is treated equally by the State and might help end the politics of division in which the rich are made to oppose the poor and vice versa.

Taxation should be similarly blind to total income. There should be a flat tax on any income that is privately earned (ie not the income from the State). A flat tax is fair and again cheaper to run. It is also far simpler for people to calculate their own tax requirements. It may even encourage richer people from abroad to move here thereby benefiting everyone else.

I know that the idea of a minimum income is not new and nor is the idea of a flat tax rate. I don't know if anyone or any group has proposed both simultaneously and it largely doesn't matter. This is an idea and I want to find out whether it is a good one or not.

About Me and Why I'm Blogging

As the blog's name suggests I am an uncomfortable Libertarian. I am drawn to the basic ideals of Libertarianism and find myself in general agreement with most of the arguments I have read in favour of those ideals. But whenever I have examined those arguments I have never been completely comfortable that they are truly sound. Hence I am an uncomfortable Libertarian.

This blog has really two purposes both of which are entirely selfish. The first is to allow me to learn more about stuff. My hope is that I can use this blog to post my thoughts and have those thoughts critiqued so that I can learn. Perhaps I will become a comfortable Libertarian or be persuaded that another approach is best.

The second purpose is for me to investigate an idea I had. I'm sure it's not an original idea but that is hardly relevant. The idea is for a different approach to taxation and social welfare. In place of the current confused and complicated welfare system there should instead be a state income which is independent of means and private earnings and be related solely to need. And in place of unfair personal taxation there should be a flat income tax rate. I can post thoughts on that topic and results of research here and see what people think.

So the blog is selfish but with any luck some knowledgeable people will pop along from time to time and share their knowledge. And that sharing won't be just with me but with everyone and so maybe others can learn as I learn. Most of what gets written on this blog, then, will be wrong or half-wrong but you can't learn without making mistakes.

Even though the purpose of the blog is for my own benefit I do hope that you, the reader, finds something of interest here.