Two thefts don’t make a right

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

The Case of South Africa

“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” ~ Peter Drucker

“We are looking ahead, as is one of the first mandates given us as chiefs, to make sure and to make every decision that we make relate to the welfare and well-being of the seventh generation to come… what about the seventh generation? Where are you taking them? What will they have?” ~ Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Turtle Tribe, Seneca Nation, Iroquois Confederacy

How does a lake make reparations for drowning a child? And this, after decades have passed when everyone else has moved on with their lives, had children, and grandchildren. And this, after the original waters have dissipated into the atmosphere to condense as clouds, then rain on some far off, disparate plain. How do you ask the lake to make amends? How then does a lake apologize for drowning a child?

This is the sort of question facing South Africa at the moment. Some South Africans have lived long enough to remember when farms were taken from their parents and grandparents by the state in the early 20th century. The Natives Land Act stripped land rights from indigenous people of African heritage. Their land was expropriated to Afrikaaners, European colonialists who had settled in the region and established political and economic power. How does a nation amend for sins committed a century ago?

Today, post-apartheid South Africa is considering expropriating some of these lands from white South African descendants. These are wealthy families whose prosperity is a directly tied to lands stolen a century ago. This farmland was stolen by individuals long since dead from individuals who are also long since dead. But that’s not what I want to talk about.

A Dangerous Precedent

Under the current South African constitution, lands cannot be expropriated without just compensation. Just compensation is arrived at by court process and requires time to consider. By mandating financial cost to acquire private property, just compensation ensures that the state does not acquire private property extraneously. However, efforts are being made to remove the “just compensation” requirement to expedite the redistribution of previously stolen lands. Some proponents argue that it would be wrong to compensate the descendants of those who stole lands in the first place; therefore, (they say) it is appropriate to remove the “just compensation” requirement. Whether to expedite transfer or avoid enriching supposed generational thieves, this would set a dangerous precedent.

The problem is that the law would merely remove the “just compensation” requirement and leave the language which permits the South African government to take ownership of privately held lands. One defense of removing the “just compensation” requirement from Section 25 of the constitution is that the government might not ever use expropriation measures. Another is that the government privilege to expropriate lands without just compensation would never be used for anything other than correcting this particular crime. But such specificity won’t be incorporated into the amendment. Imagine in seven generations when no one is alive to remember why this law was amended in such a way.

Today, such a law might be used in an attempt to correct the sins of the past. But tomorrow, when new leaders with new perspectives on sins of the past wield this power- what then?

If these powers are made expedient and uncostly now, then who might use them tomorrow, and how might they use these powers? Ultimately, the cost is paid from somewhere. If not from financial coffers, then South Africa will pay from social or cultural cache and those resources are much more difficult to replenish.

“In all of your deliberations in the Confederate Council, in your efforts at law making, in all your official acts, self-interest shall be cast into oblivion. Cast not over your shoulder behind you the warnings of the nephews and nieces should they chide you for any error or wrong you may do, but return to the way of the Great Law which is just and right. Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in view not only the past and present but also the coming generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground– the unborn future of the Nation.” ~ The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations: The Great Binding Law

Stake (and defend) your claim

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ~ Christopher Hitchens*

This statement changed my perspective on the world and perhaps changed my life. I encountered it while listening to a debate in which Hitchens was responding to a representative of some religious tradition or another. The opponent had made a lofty and impassioned, albeit unfounded, claim to the Truth. Hitchens gave no quarter and won the debate thoroughly. This simple axiom clinched my appreciation for the mind of Hitchens.

This mantra has guided my thinking and checked my wild ideas by requiring some sort of evidence for doing one thing or another, or responding to the claims and decisions of others. It’s also gotten me into a bit of trouble, but that’s a blog post for another day.

Recently, I listened to an excerpt** between Niall Ferguson, an historian, and Sam Harris, neurobiologist and prominent atheist advocate. In this discussion, Ferguson brought up his use of “counterfactuals” and the vast requirement attending their use. He spoke specifically of his argument that World War I would had ended sooner and the world would be better off today had the United Kingdom not entered the war.

To anyone who has been through a secondary school World History course in America, this would seem a bold claim. And Ferguson understands that. Defending his claim required discussing the minutiae of economics, internal and international policy, political interdependence, finance, law, etc. He had to imagine in considerable detail the specific conditions resulting from his alternative, his counterfactual. A counterfactual requires this full breadth

Returning to Hitchens’ quote above, there’s another side to the coin. Bold claims require bold evidence. The greater, more bombastic the claim, the more convincing the evidence must be.

Carry this bit of Hitchens with you in the following week. When someone makes a claim, or decides toward one action or another, ask them what helped to reveal that option to be the best one to follow. Or don’t- not everyone handles confrontation well.

But think to yourself- “what makes this true?” If the answer is “nothing,” then is it really true?

*I’m paraphrasing Hitchens

**You can find the Niall/Harris discussion here.

No choice but to feed a wolf

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

There is a popular folk tale, ascribed often to Cherokee origin, about a young man struggling to manage his behavior and emotions during adolescence who is sent to his grandfather for advice. The grandfather responds by telling his own story:

“An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me,” he said gravely to the boy.

“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil- he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” Staring deep into the hearth, his fearful countenance and meek voice gave way to a warm smile and soft eyes as he continued:

“The other is good– he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you– and inside every other person, too.”

The grandson thought about it for a moment. The features on his face drooped, and he asked his grandfather fearfully, “Which wolf will win?”

“The one you feed,” he said.

I share this little tale because in participating in a democracy we are feeding one wolf or another. There are many wolves and I’ve named some of them in this tweet: A wolf named liberty, a wolf named socialism. In stretching this metaphor, institutions, not the underlying ideas, are the wolves that we feed; institutions like the freedom to enter and compete in commercial markets, the universally equal application of the rule of law. It is the institutions we feed, not the philosophies underlying those institutions.

Which wolf are you feeding? Which do you think we ought to feed? Leave a comment below or on @Tehrm on Twitter.

Signal, Meaning, Noise, Malaise

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

I broke something recently. I’m not sure I want to put it back together.

Meaning

“There is something wrong with your theology if you can’t preach it.”

This was one of the single best pieces of advice I received in university. I was in a philosophy and religious studies program at the time. Post-modernism had stormed the young minds of the ivory tower and meaningless drivel ran rampant throughout term papers and lunch-time discussions. My professor had had enough.

One day, after a student had spouted something particularly meaningless (though it sounded impressive!), our esteemed professor declared that “There’s something wrong with your theology if you can’t preach it.” The caring warning fell on ears that could not hear its meaning, sadly. But I took it up as a personal challenge to always be clear in my meaning, to be purposeful.

It was also around this time that the same professor had us read through Walker Percy’s “The Moviegoer,” a light-hearted, existentialist novel. It is the only lighthearted existentialist novel I know of. As a nascent existentialist and cinephile, I related strongly to the story. It follows Binx Bolling on his search to discover meaning. He describes his search:

“What is the nature of the search? you ask. Really it is very simple; at least for a fellow like me. So simple that it is easily overlooked. The search is what anyone would undertake if he were not sunk in the everydayness of his own life.”

Malaise

I have been sunk in the everydayness of my own life for over a year. Subject to unexamined patterns and assumptions, my life was painfully rote. I need not have thought about anything. In reaching for my wallet in the morning, I did not need to consider it or attend to it. I could blindly reach out, acquire it from its night resting spot, and place it in pocket without thinking. Existence without participation. Malaise.

Noise

Noise is an input. It feeds into a system, but has no meaning. If you can recall the days of radio when a station was suddenly overwhelmed by static, you will understand “noise” in the sense I am using it. Information was being transmitted to the station you were listening to, but it did not have any meaning to you. It wasn’t useful to you.

Noise can also be the patterns and assumptions we make about the world: Reaching for a wallet knowing that it’s in the same place it always resides; reading from your phone as soon as you sit down on a couch or table of friends. What are the assumptions you make about the world? What has become mere reflex?

These behaviors and expectations keep us occupied and motile, but not really engaged. It’s like listening to a static-ridden radio station. You are doing something, but the activity is meaningless.

Rediscovering the Signal

Recently, I woke up and started to reach for my phone, but suddenly stopped. For months, maybe years, I had woken every morning, and grabbed my phone to read the news of the day and check social media to see what everyone else thought the news of the day ought to be. On this day, though, I had stopped my hand mid-air as it reached for the familiar spot where my smartphone rests overnight. Instead, I rolled over on my back and simply reflected on the thoughts already in mind.

I realized that I do not give myself a chance to reflect anymore. I have become very skilled at finding and imbibing quality information, but I never stop to reflect on what it means, how it should be catalogued in memory, or how it influences everything else I already know. For a moment, I was outside myself watching my decision at a fork in the road. One stretch of road continued along the empty patterns I had developed and practiced for years. The other was a route I had abandoned long ago- a route that cherished reflection, meaning, and application.

I started to reflect on who I used to be and whether that person was accessible to me now. My life is filled with patterns and assumptions for which I do not care.

As there is something wrong with a theology that cannot be easily preached, there is something wrong with a life that cannot be explained.

With that, I’m off to a matinee. It’s been a while since I’ve watched a good movie.

The Last King of America

by ⋅ 1 Comment

(or, a Presidential Hopeless)

Today I turn thirty-five. I now meet all of the criteria required to Preside over the United States of America as Commander-in-Chief. God help us all.

I don’t know why, but this little milestone has been lodged in memory for over a decade. I remember making light of it in my twenties. “Eight more years and I can be president,” I would jest on a twenty-seventh birthday. The truth is that I have no interest in being president of a country, but if I were– oh, buddy. Look out, now.

My platform would be to strip from the Office a great number of powers which should not have been granted in the first place. In times of duress, it is natural for a person, and more so for a people, to look toward strong, salvific figures who will make the hard decisions on our behalf and oppose whatever evil needs to be thwarted. Surviving and being saved doesn’t sound so bad, right? The problem is that once the dark times have passed or the Monster has been felled, the expanded powers remain. They do not diminish in kind with the removal of the threat.

This has led the country of my birth to adopt the very practices and powers which precipitated its emancipation from England.

On War Powers

Imagine a President who could not volunteer his countrymen into combat or war. The Office would still command the military, but could not pick a fight at will. This gets a bit messy when we think about the heroic efforts of uniformed Americans to infiltrate dangerous settings and extract kidnapped or enslaved people in far off sovereign nations.

Stories like this make us feel good about ourselves as Americans and make us think, “Gosh, it’s a good thing the President can order that to happen.” The problem is that the President can also order things that would make us feel not so good as Americans. We rarely hear about those stories– even then, it is thirty or forty years after the events.

On Economic Powers

Behind the scenes of the Executive Branch are strategists, lawyers, and economists hard at work to articulate trade agreements and review proposed amendments. Strange, then, that by executive order a president might impose tariffs on trade with specific partners.

“Whoa, wait a minute,” I hear you thinking. “Of course, Congress has explicit powers to levy and control taxes, tariffs and such. ” Through various legislative acts, Congress has ceded such powers to the Office of the President. Without consulting any other body, a President can currently levy tariffs on a commodity of his choice at will.

This is significant because trade creates peace. This indirect benefit of trade is shared among all people, not just those directly involved in the trade. The peace I create personally between myself and another is enjoyed by all members of our respective communities. Trade creates peace not just between individuals, but incentivizes peace between entire communities respectively.

Again, you might think unique, salvific power concentrated in an individual is not so bad. What if we discover that a certain commodity or product is “bad” for the environment (without considering degree of offense; just a binary “either good or bad”). Without immediate action, we might continue to enrich the country of origin or the manufacturers with our trade and Congress would require some time to order prohibitive tariffs. Better that we give a single individual the right to close trade with a new found enemy quickly. Never mind that peace and prosperity necessarily result from trade.

My Platform

Only madmen and machiavellians seek out such power as we have in the Executive Branch. I’m not either of those, but if I were and became President, I would empty the tool chest.

Imagine a country in which no single individual could plunge us into a twenty-years war; where people were not subject to undue hardship through absurd surcharges for the right to thrive through trade and commerce.

Imagine a country with no king.

Vote Tehrm: The Last King of America.

Photo Credit:
https://collegeinsider.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/abdicate.png
https://collegeinsider.wordpress.com/satgre-word-pictionary/