Leonard Peikoff Podcast 24

Hot off the presses...

Leonard Peikoff Podcast 24 (4 Aug 2008)

Teasers: "inherent" non-conceptuality, smoking, culture and objective knowledge, treason in times of peace, contextual absolutes, private ownership of government property. 

Obama Tests the Waters for Nationalizing the Oil Industry

On the way home from work Friday, I heard something on a radio news summary that I thought I must have misunderstood.  When I got home (Note 1), I looked for it online at The New York Times... and there it was, buried innocuously in the fourth paragraph of an article called “Obama and McCain Confront Troubled Economy”:

Addressing a crowd gathered at a high school gymnasium, Mr. Obama unveiled what he called his emergency economic plan to address the nation’s economic woes, including a $500 energy rebate for individual workers and $1,000 for families... and a surtax on oil profits to pay for $50 billion in new spending, half of which would go to state governments that are also hurting and the rest to the depleted highway trust fund. (Note 2.)

The essence of Barack Obama’s message is: “I declare a state of economic emergency.  I shall seize the profits from greedy oil companies and return this money to my people, who need it.” 

What sort of a man issues such proclamations?  A dictator.

Who uttered it?  A man who wants to be the President of the United States.

Why did this catch my attention?  After all, there is nothing new about the redistribution of wealth in this country.  Legislators for the last century or so have spent most of their time doing just that.  The population is largely inured to it, to the point where many or most Americans hold the vague notion that it is the governments’ very raison d’etre to provide stuff for the citizens.  The “public debate,” such as it is, has descended to the level of arguing about who should get the loot, not whether or not it is proper to seize it in the first place. 

But in this instance, Barack Obama’s declaration is a remarkably distilled application of his worldview.  It is unusually clear.  The mainstream American politician will generally take more care to conceal the true meaning of his words.  He may not even know that he does so - he may do it subconsciously, instinctively sensing the limits of what he can get away with.  Perhaps he even couches his words out of a sense of decency, and to evade in his own mind the horrors, consequences, and betrayals of his policy.  Barack Obama evidently has no such decency and knows he can get away with anything.

I wonder: what policy would not be acceptable to the masses if it were uttered by this charismatic, undenouncable Messiah?  How does Mr. Obama’s “emergency economic plan” differ from say, Hugo Chavez’s nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry?  It differs only in degree, not in kind: he plans to use government force to seize the assets of private citizens in one particular industry, for the purpose of advancing his socialist agenda (an agenda opposed by almost nobody today).  If Mr. Obama becomes our next president, what is to stop him from wielding the entire executive branch to implement a de facto, if not de jure, nationalization of the oil industry?  Then, after oil, how about steel?  Pharmaceutical drugs?  Automobiles?  Insurance?  Corn?  Wheat?

Notice the precision of Mr. Obama’s policy.  It specifically targets not merely oil companies but the profits of oil companies, which he characterizes (as any Marxist worth his intrinsically-valued salt would) as “excess profits” and “windfall profits.”  Incidentally, these outrageous profits that Mr. Obama laments happened to be, on average, only 8% return on sales in 2007 (Note 4), but that is not the point.  Even if the oil companies had made an 800% return on sales, there is no justification for seizing their profits.  There is no economic justification, for in a free market higher profits invite competition and investment, and above all their is no moral justification, because these profits are earned.

We should not conclude, however, that Barack Obama is demonstrating a stunning ignorance of economics with this ham-handed, closed-fisted emergency economic plan.  It is true that the plan itself is appalling and even a partial implementation would be detrimental to the economy and a disaster for America.  But to conclude that Mr. Obama must be simply stupid is to take the man at face value, to pre-suppose that it is a goal of his to actually improve the economy.  If he wishes to bring everyone to the same level - the same low level - then he is quite on the right track.  If he cares not a whit about the economy but simply wants to become President of the United States, then his words reflect wisdom, not ignorance.  Sure, his plan is a naked power grab, but the man knows his audience.

No, I do not think Barack Obama is ignorant at all.  I cannot confirm the same for the idolators who swallow the words he bestows upon them like so many loaves and fishes.  

NOTES

1.  Here’s an interesting personal anecdote.  When I arrived home after hearing this radio report, I saw that my wife was on the telephone with one of our friends, one who happens to be reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time.  She was telling my wife, “Did you hear this thing about Obama that just came out?  I had to call you right away when I heard it.  It’s right out of Atlas Shrugged!”

2.  The New York Times, Obama and McCain Confront Troubled Economy,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/politics/01cnd-campaign.html?hp, 1 Aug 2008. 

3.  Barack Obama’s Emergency Economic Plan, http://www.scribd.com/doc/4385783/Barack-Obamas-Emergency-Economic-Plan.

4.  Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, Oil Industry Profit Review 2007, 8 Apr 2008, Table 1, p. 2.

Thanks for the Memories… and the Championships

At the last minute of yesterday’s trading deadline, Manny Ramirez was sent to the Dodgers in a three-way deal that brought the Pirates’ Jason Bay here to Boston.  I don’t think there is any way to construe the Red Sox as “winners” in this exchange – they paid an awful lot to get rid of one of the best hitters in our generation – but they did manage to salvage some last bit of value from Ramirez, who has suddenly become even less reliable than he has always been.  Though it is hard to put a finger on exactly how and why, his presence on the team has undoubtedly hobbled the Red Sox since the All-Star break.  He had to go.

My assessment is that the Sox management did the right thing - but in the manner of pulling a tooth that must come out, as opposed to buying a shiny new toy.

photo from The New York Times, credit Jim Davis, The Boston Globe 

Actually, the amount that the Red Sox paid to get Bay – moving Ramirez, plus Brandon Moss, a backup outfielder who would be a starter on many teams, plus Craig Hansen, a young right-hander who has struggled in the Majors but has upside, plus $7 million – speaks volumes about how badly the trust in Ramirez had deteriorated in the corner office.  The Red Sox management is terrific at staying focused on winning championships; they are conspicuously unemotional in dealing with players.  There could not have been anything personal in this trade, no intent to “punish” Ramirez for his recent transgressions. 

Indeed, Ramirez seems like a big winner in deal, getting everything he wants, since he apparently does not care if he ever returns to the World Series.  (He made the crass and somewhat perplexing comment that he “can even play in Iraq if need be.”)  The Sox clearly calculated that unlike past episodes of the last seven and a half years, this time they could no longer count on Manny stepping it up in September and October.

During the years that Manny was merely lazy, it was frustrating to watch him but I could accept this as part of the “Manny-being-Manny” package, as it came to be known.  He limited himself to being a two-tool player, but those two tools – batting for average and power – were so valuable it was worth it… I suppose.  At least he seemed like a decent person, if immature.  

But this season, especially recently, Manny’s antics took a turn toward actual malice.  It seemed a little different than past years, in subtle but important ways.  My brother pointed out to me how quickly and accurately Boston fans in general seemed to detect this change.  After putting up with Manny for almost eight years, in the last two or three weeks it is as if a switch had just been flipped.  There are still some Manny defenders, but for the most part, the fans have gone suddenly cold.  He was heartily booed the other night at Fenway Park when in the seventh inning, while the slumping Sox were being no-hit by the Angels’ John Lackey, Ramirez didn’t bother to exert himself past a trot up the first base line after hitting a ground ball to deep third.  He was thrown out by a few steps when with a little effort, he should have easily beaten the throw to break up the humiliating no-hitter.  (Dustin Pedroia eventually did so in the ninth.)

Not that the blame should be deflected from Ramirez, but I do not discount the possibility that his new agent, Scott Boras, could have played some part in the turn.  Of course, I don’t think Boras told Manny to start shoving old men to the ground or taking swings at his teammates as a strategy for making more money, but it seems that it would have been a simple matter for Boras to manipulate Ramirez with a few well placed comments – Wormtongue whispering in the ear of King Theoden.  Boras may have had much to gain by shaking things up.  I don’t think he could have expected much of a commission with Manny playing happily on the Red Sox for the next two option years.  In any case, it’s obviously Manny’s decision to act as he did.

Just before the trade, Ramirez had the gall to say, “The Red Sox don’t deserve me.”  He’s right about that, but not in the sense he intended.  Indeed, the Red Sox do not deserve him: the ownership and management have strained too much to accommodate him and have worked too hard building a team around a collection of hard-working veterans and talented youngsters to be dragged down by one guy who can’t be bothered to run on ground balls or to show up for a game against the Yankees in a pennant race.  The Red Sox of the last decade have been built on good men who consider hard work a matter of honor: Trot Nixon, Jason Varitek, Bill Mueller, Mike Lowell, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, and many others.  Boston fans will grudgingly tolerate laziness and goofiness in special circumstances, but bad guys are chased out of town.

Thanks for the memories, Manny, and thanks especially for the two World Series championships.  But I’ve already moved on, and all I feel is relief.

NOTES

1.  photo from The New York Times, “Red Sox Send Ramirez to Dodgers in 3-Way Deal,” http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/31/sports/01trade_600.jpg, 1 Aug 2008.

A Curious Prefix

A recent article in the MIT Technology Review was titled “An un-American feel aids expanding US Web firms.” This caught my eye, because it would be a surprising admission. The title seems to say that web-savvy American companies deliberately promote un-American content to help them make inroads with international customers.

However, it turns out that that is not at all what the article is about. Far from making an important statement about anti-Americanism, the piece simply makes a point that is trivially obvious: American companies would do well to recognize that customers in other countries like to see things that are familiar to them, as opposed to things that would be more familiar to Americans. To me, it’s pretty dull stuff.

So, why the provocative title? It is clear from the content that the title should have read “non-American” instead of “un-American.” It’s a curious misuse of the prefix. (I admit that I would not have bothered to read the article if it had used the much less interesting “non-American” adjective.)

Now, aware of the irony of having just declared the Technology Review article to be “dull stuff,” let me proceed to nitpick on the usage of these prefixes. My American Heritage Dictionary describes the subtle but important distinction between non- and un- as follows:

When used with adjectives, un- often has a sense distinct from that of non-. Non- picks out the set of things that are not in the category denoted by the stem to which it is attached, whereas un- picks out properties unlike those of the typical examples of the category.

In other words, if a stem adjective subsumes a set of properties – let us call it set A – then the non- prefix attached to the stem causes the word to refer to things that are outside of set A. The un- prefix attached to the stem causes the word to refer to things that are inside of set A, but unlike (or contrary to) those properties.

Thus, for example, John Ridpath, who is a passionate defender of the America ideals of individual rights and capitalism, is non-American because he happens to be a Canadian citizen. Michael Moore, an American citizen, is un-American because of his antagonism to American values. The Technology Review article highlighted certain preferences of citizens in China, South Korea, and Australia, but these preferences were simply different from those of typical Americans. They were non-American, not un-American.

NOTES

1. Technology Review, “An un-American feel aids expanding US Web firms,” (http://www.technologyreview.com/Wire/21138/?nlid=1238&a=f)

UPDATES
I added a diagram to enhance clarity. (Thanks LB!)