Armed Liberal

I'm a liberal, and I think this post by Isntapundit (not Instapundit) is just great.

I keep wanting to write about sexy, controversial issues which will provoke wildfires of argument and commentary (after all, why else do this?), and keep getting sidetracked into what I know are relatively arcane issues – which I find to be absolutely critical and fascinating – and which I just can’t help but write about.

Chris Bertram (who I have complimented before) has another great discussion, this time on the flaws in libertarianism.

I have always felt that libertarianism was an interesting thought experiment (gedankenexperiment, as my old physics teachers used to say), on a class with Schroedenger’s cat. To be honest, I’ve also thought that Rawlsean liberalism was the mirror image of it, in terms of being the product of a bunch of smart, well intentioned kids sitting around with too much pilsner and pizza and trying to design a society.

In his terrific post, Bertram points out a key flaw in libertarian theory – which is that the absolute property rights created will need at some point to be adjudicated.

It’s a great point, but I don’t think he went quite far enough, so I want to take it and run a little further.

What, exactly, is property?

The “law for dummies” version is that property is something which you control, can dispose of as you see fit, can transfer the ownership of, and can deny the use of to another.

To which I add: Who says?

Well, in the old days, I did. By the force of arms. (i.e. I would either kill you and take your stuff, or threaten to kill you and you would then give me your stuff).

To condense two entire disciplines (sociology and anthropology) into some bullet points, we began to form increasingly complex kinship and then social groups, in no small part because we needed enough people by our side to keep the group over the hill from coming and taking all our stuff.

In these groups, often, the strongest took command, and could basically decide what stuff he wanted, restrained only by the fact that if he took too much stuff, the weaker members would gang up on him and take all his stuff.

Sometime around the beginning of the Enlightenment, the concept that everyone in society was subject to the rule of law…that it was not just the diktat of the strongest…began to gain currency. And as a part of that the concept of “ownership” came to the fore.

This meant that what you owned – your property – was yours independent of the say-so of the king, or the local powers-that-be. It was not “granted” to you by the Queen.

And, I will also argue (in this kind of cartoon fashion), that creation – of marketable, private property – is what led to capitalism, industrialization, and all the material progress that culminates with a college freshman surfing the web for fart jokes.

But in order to do that, we have to have a concept of ‘property’ which is both absolute, in that we have clear mechanisms to determine and enforce ownership, and flexible, in that we have to adapt the definitions of property to current social conditions.

We are living through an adaptation now as intellectual property in the form of movies and music is suddenly readily transferable (and changeable – the ‘remixed’ Star Wars Episode I.II is out on DVD).

So the reality is that property is a socially defined right; there are significant issues in how it is defined, and I will claim that the ‘best’ definitions require a healthy tension between the utility and fairness of individual control and the utility and fairness of a well-functioning society.

In my mind, this alone puts paid to the libertarian absolutism of property relations as the controlling element in social relations. Reality is, as always, surprisingly complex. And people are even more complex than that...

Well, wowie…three weeks into this, and I get a link from the man himself, Instapundit. As egoless as you try to be, it's hard to explain how good that feels...

He apparently got the link from Gail Davis at MyBlog, so thanks to Gail. I paged over to her, and noticed two things: Her ‘catchphrases’ are great – “Liberal and Proud of It”, and “Armed Women=Polite Men”. And she has some great, sensible commentary.

I didn’t find permalinks, so you’ll have to search or scroll, but she has at least three posts which I thought were excellent:

TUCSON POLICE: DAMNED IF THEY DO AND DAMNED IF THEY DON'T Appears that the Tucson Police Department video taped some individuals during an anti-sales tax demonstration. A policy to video tape demonstrations or gatherings that have a potential for violence came as a result of the Fourth Avenue Riot last April which was so incompetently handled by the Tucson Police. I don't know that there was any reason to think pro-sales tax and anti-sales tax aficionados were going to come to blows. Perhaps the video ensured that they didn't. I'm not really offended by the police video tapping specific actions during the event as long as those tapes are not retained once the event is over and no further police involvement in the issue is needed. I much prefer a policeman taking a few videos (if they will be discarded) to permanent video cameras installed around public areas.

THE CONSERVATIONISTS ARE ... Ill advised at best. The following quote is a continuation of Josh Marshall's weblog entry below.

...I also concluded that many of the most visible hawks really are reckless, ignorant about key issues about the Middle East, and -- not that infrequently -- indifferent to the truth. They have been underhanded and they have used cheap media ploys.

Reckless and underhanded methods are not limited to those pushing the war or promoting their candidate for public office. Conservationists, who often have good intentions and valid concerns, emulate these methods and end up discrediting themselves. Conservationists have been so narrow minded that they inhibit any rational dialogue. And they do this in the name of "the better good." Apparently they do not believe 1. That their data can counter those who are underhanded and indifferent to the truth; 2. That given good straightforward information, citizens in this country are able to think for themselves; 3. That we actually have a right to make choices and may not agree with all they propose. The conservation movement needs to get it's act together, and stop trying to manipulate us in the same way as do those arch conservative republicans.

I believe that there is a strong and reasonable case for conserving (note that I do not say preserving) the environment. I think that Den Beste is off-base in his attack today on energy conservation (as I thought Friedman was for his view that conservation would somehow insulate us against Islamicist terrorism). But the environmental community is painting itself into a corner by crying “wolf” so often, and taking positions so extreme and ill-thought-through that they risk pushing the mainstream away.

ALTRUISTIC MEDICINE? Chris Rangel at RangelMD.com says:
: ...most physicians are forced into a system where they have to cram in 40 to 50 patients a day (at about 5-10 mins per patient) just to cover the office overhead. They work 12 hour days trying to balance office visits with hospital admissions and emergencies and then have to sit down and fill out paperwork for an additional 2-3 hours after the office is closed. I'm not a bit surprised to see more and more physicians dump Medicare, go to cash only services, and concierge arrangements. Will this create a class divide in the quality of health care? Most assuredly but don't go off blaming greedy physicians whom you believe are obligated by society to be more altruistic. You want altruistic medicine? There are plenty of places around the world (Canada, China or any communist country, the former Soviet Union) that you can go for socialized medical care. Funny though. I don't ever seem to recall a flood of people into these countries for the sole purpose of basking in the light of their superior medical systems.
I have a different view of how we got to this point. I think that the medical profession (mainly physicians) became excessively greedy (as a group).

I’ll tie this back to the increase in inequality which I keep harping on, which leads to the feeling that just making $150 - $200K/year really may not be enough to live as well as many of us think we ought to.

Maybe we should rethink?

Well, while admiring my own bad self in pixels in Instapundit, I notice a link to a story about hospital time with a child, and as a parent, can’t help but follow it to a brilliant quote:

There is a particular radiant serenity that is immediately apparent in the countenance and bearing of the parents of critically and chronically ill children. After spending time with others who are in the clutches of what is almost universally acknowledged as the most indescribably horrible human experience, I come away feeling that I have been in the presence of God.

Their game was running very late, but none of the t-ball parents had it in them to chase them off the field, so the coaches came up with some extra drills for the kids to do in the outfield, and the rest of us parents stood at the fence watching the game.

No one spoke about what we were watching; I don’t know what the other parents felt. I began by looking at the children struggling, and then remembering the relief I felt each time one of my sons was born and was pronounced fit. Then I felt bad for feeling that way, and started watching the parents.

And I know just what Katie Granju meant. There was an ease and a grace and a kind of joy that I saw in those parents which blocked everything else from my attention, and which I’m still carrying around with me and examining.

It amazes me how much I have to learn from people, and how easy it is when I just am willing to open my eyes and look.

I just got this link in email: SFSU cites Jewish émigré for 'hate speech' (May 31, 2002), and read the story -- it appears that a 50 year old Jewish-lady SFSU student is being charged under a hate crime statute, based on evidence that she told pro-Palestinian counterdemonstrators to "fuck their camels", and called on the Arabic word for "bitch".

I've Googled this and don't yet have confirmation, but it meshes with the earlier news reports that had a pro-Israeli student offered to the DA to be possibly charged with hate crimes based on what amounts to ethnic abuse.

I'm not in possession of all the facts (but the media reports are congruent); I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure some lawyers will pick this up and go into depth with it.

But if the facts are what they appear to be, this is beyond absurd. I'll go back to my earlier comment, which is that there is a wide gulf between passionate, even heated speech - which I'm pretty sure the comments above are - and threatened and actual violence - which I'm absolutely sure they aren't. It frightens me a bit that this distinction is somehow not clear to the eminient administrators of the University.

The only reason in the world that I can imagine for the SFSU administration to pick this one women out of what were doubtless dozens of people screaming imprecations is that she is Jewish, and that by referring her to the District Attorney they can maintain exactly the impression of fairness that they find so important.

The facts will come out in the next few days. Message to President Corrigan: I sure hope the task force you have empanelled comes up with something profound this summer. I know I’ll be watching. Why is it that my expectations are so low?

Note (6/8/02): I mistakenly typed "UCSF" for "SFSU" and just got caught. My apologies to the medical students.

I’ve actually gotten a fair number of emails asking me this; they presuppose that the only valid position for a liberal is to be disarmed, and the only valid position for a gun owner is to be a conservative. I’m neither. I own guns, and have spent a fair amount of time, energy and money becoming at least moderately competent with them. And let me state bluntly that while the politic thing for shooters to say in public is "I just shoot [trap and skeet] [a few targets] [to hunt birds].", that I do all those things, and in addition have trained hard to become competent in defending myself by, if necessary, shooting people.

I’m also a liberal, who believes that the government has the obligation, not just the right, to work to make our society, nation and world a better place. Which better place ought to be one in which fewer people are physically threatened seriously enough to need to resort to shooting people.

The intersection of those two beliefs – which on their face seem to be incompatible, but which I believe are not – defines a lot of what I believe about politics and the nature of good government.

Let’s talk a little bit about the armed side of it. Why be armed in today’s society?

Well, I’ll suggest four reasons:

1) It’s fun. Shooting is a pleasurable sport, things go “bang!!” loudly; well-hit clay pigeons gratifyingly disintegrate into a cloud of dust.

2) It is moral. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that people who eat meat and have never killed anything are morally suspect. Some creature gave its life for the chicken Andouille sausages in the pasta sauce I made tonight. Pork chops and salmon don’t start out wrapped in plastic on the grocery shelf. I have hunted deer, wild pigs, and birds, and I can say with certainty (and I imagine anyone else who hunts can say) that it fundamentally changed the way I look both at my food and at animals in the world. I respect the death that made my dinner possible in a way I never would have had an animal not died at my own hand.

When I have a gun in my possession, I am suddenly both more aware of my environment, and more careful and responsible for my actions in it. People who I know who carry guns daily talk about how well-behaved they are how polite they suddenly become. Heinlein wrote that “an armed society is a polite society”, and while in truth I cannot make a causal connection, when you look at societies where the codes of manners were complex and strong, from medieval Europe or Japan to Edwardian England, there was a wide distribution of weapons.

I know several people who are either highly skilled martial artists or highly skilled firearms trainers, and in both groups there is an interesting correlation between competence (hence dangerousness) and a kind of calm civility – the opposite of the “armed brute” image that some would attempt to use to portray a dangerous man or woman.

3) It is useful. The sad reality is that we live in an imperfect world, one in which some people prey on others. They may do it because it is a kind of crude redistribution (you have a BMW, he would like one); because they are desperate, or because they are deranged. They may have been damaged in some way by their genetic makeup or their upbringing. Or they may just be evil.

Bluntly, at the moment I am under threat, I don’t care why they do it. My response is not very different from my response to my friends who said that “America had it coming” on 9/11. “Maybe. So what?” People who attack me or mine need to be stopped. If the only way I have to effectively stop them is to kill them, so be it. Once I am out of danger, I am happy to consider what it will take to improve education and job opportunities in the central cities, or to talk thoughtfully about helping the Palestinians figure out how to become a nation and a state.

There are bad people out there, folks. Some of them are tormented by what they do, some don’t care, some may revel in it. Someday, you may be confronted by one. What will you do?

4) It is the politically correct thing to do. I say this with all appropriate irony, but I am also a believer that an armed citizenry does two important things to the American polity:

a) it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between the individual and the State. I am pretty dubious about the apocalyptic fantasies of those who believe that a cadre of deer hunters could stand up against the armed forces of the U.S. or some invading army. In reality, I think that the arms possessed by the citizens of the U.S. are primarily symbolic in value, much like the daggers carried by Sikhs. But, having lived in Europe, I think that the symbolic value carries a political and social weight;

b) it makes it clear that we as citizens have some measure of responsibility for ourselves. The tension I talk about above is one between self-reliance and mutual reliance. In England today, a subject (I am careful not to say citizen) faces increasing limitations on the right of self-defense; the State is moving toward an absolute monopoly on the use of force. It should not be hard to imagine that the character of both the relationship of the individual to the state and of the individual’s relationship to society is vastly different under those circumstances. By being armed, I am taking responsibility – literally, the responsibility of life and death – on myself. When the state cannot entrust individuals to act with some significant responsibility, except as an adjunct of the state, we will have truly lost something that is a key part of what makes our politics work (note that I think that the same thing is happening in the EU today, with the same effect).

There’s more, which can be put simply that people will sometimes do stupid or evil things with their freedom. But without their freedom, they will seldom do great things. So by protecting society against one, you also deprive it of the other.

Sometime soon: how to be a liberal in a society that values freedom, and why freedom is critical to building an effective and durable liberal society.

Read this about a partial solar eclipse at sunset on June 10.

We'll be down the street at the beach, watching.

Here's a blog - 'Politics in the Zeros' - from Bob Morris, an interesting liberal here in L.A. (on the blogroll to the left). He talks about state politics:

Green Party candidate for Calif. governor pulling unusual interest
In what could be a major development, a coalition of nine business groups of people of color are considering backing Green Party candidate Peter Miguel Camejo, for Governor rather than Democrat incumbent Gray Davis. The coalition sent Camejo a letter saying they thought 20-30% of the minority vote could go to a strong Green candidate, as neither major party is effectively addressing issues.

Water news
Israel. A continuing drought and increased friction with Jordan and Lebanon has caused Israel to put all water matters under direct control of the Prime Minister. And how sad it is to continually read about depleted aquifers not replenishing - something that is happening worldwide.

India / Pakistan. India says it will continue with a disputed water project in Kashmir, regardless of what Pakistan says, and may scrap the treaty entirely if they go to war.

From What Are They Saying, an excellent blog by Mary Madigan:

Jak King* has decided that the Australian petition to have the United Nations declare suicide bombings a crime against humanity is badly drafted. But the alternative he offers is also poorly considered. His petition would make a crime of the death of any civilian by any military action.

The death of any civilian? There’s a big difference between accidental deaths and deaths caused by malicious intent. The former is not a crime. The latter is.

When civilians are not targeted in a military action, their deaths are unfortunate and accidental. When civilians are deliberately targeted, it’s a crime. The deaths of the villagers at My Lai was a crime. When a suicide bomber bypasses military targets to blow up the patrons of an ice cream store, that is also a crime.

Military action is inherently risky. If every death that resulted from military action were considered to be a crime, it would effectively make all military action illegal. Since these actions are often used to defend civilians against attacks by terrorists the result of this proposal would be more civilian deaths. This proposal is not only ill considered, it's potentially dangerous.

Junius has another great article (it seems somehow dismissive to call it a post) on property, in a dialog with Tom Palmer, who I believe comes off the loser in this exchange.

Junius’ key point:

Nevertheless, property is a complex set of relationships, and I don’t see that the fact that people can and do establish such conventions settles either the extent of what people may justly hold or whether they have full liberal property rights in their holdings.
…
Though I accept that there are limits on what states may justly do, when we have a state that functions as a proper constitutional democracy it seems right that it may properly modify and adjust the property regime in place in order to achieve desirable goals. So, for example, in the United Kingdom, buildings of great historic or achitectural interest are ‘listed’ and may not be modified or demolished by the owner without the consent of local government. Similarly people are required to maintain their motor vehicles to a certain standard if they are to be used on the public roads. All such measures constitute encroachments on full liberal rights of ownership: it would strike me as an extreme view that no such measures are ever justified. Further, more serious encroachments occur when the state uses its legislative power to compel owners of land to sell in order to facilitate a major scheme of public works. If the British Parliament had required the railway companies to negotiate individually with every single landowner, the railways would never have been built.

Junius, along with such other estimable thinkers as Cass Sunstein and Stephen Holmes and Thomas Nagel and Liam Murphy (and many, many other college professors who have, it seems, pledged their lives to undermining private property), has gone from acknowledging that property is an institution of social cooperation to asserting that it is the creation of a particular organization, and further, that that organization, as the alleged creator of property, is the rightful owner of all the property and empowered accordingly to distribute its benefits as its principals see fit. It is, according to Junius, "open to us to design the property regime (and the accompanying legal system, etc., etc.) with a view to the social outcomes we might expect it to yield." That is, it is open to "us" acting in our capacity as citizens of a democratic state, to design the property regime as we see fit, or to regard all rights as "socially negotiable." But, A) the institution of property and its enforcement should not be confused with the state, and B) even if the state were the sole creator and protector of property rights, it would not follow from that that it would be entitled to all of the benefits accruing to property.

Where most social theorists fail is in misunderstanding and mistrusting history, and the accretive nature of social change. They believe – and I believe this core belief is closely tied to the Romantic ideal – that they can will new social orders into existence. In this model, the institution of property does not emerge gradually, become rationalized as society moves to a formal structure of laws, and then represent the interaction of ancient social conventions and modern formal/legalistic ones. It is an either/or; granted by God as a precondition to human existence, or an arbitrary construct designed as a part of a conceptual political and legal regime (c.f. Rawls).

The obvious answer is that it is neither; property is, like all aspects of human politics and society, a dynamic, evolving, historical event. By that I mean that it is historical, in that it has specific meanings at a specific point in space and time; it is evolving, which means that what property is today is related to and probably not too far from what property was a moment ago; and it is dynamic, in that what we consider property to be today is different than it was a month ago (hardly at all), a year ago (slightly), a hundred years ago (somewhat).

Mike Golby attempts a takedown of the SFSU Blogburst.

His quotes, with my comments interspersed.

As far as I know, you either call it a Google bomb or a bunch of good ol' boys acting like ‘eedjits’. I believe these people are seeking publicity and an outlet for their frustration, impotence, and anger. They are doing so inappropriately and are fostering discord rather than harmony.

This is not the stuff of dancing in the park or singing folk and freedom songs. Having looked at the material Blog Burst has collated, I think we'd do well to remember that disillusioned, ill-informed, and misguided people have been 'organizing' for millennia. Today, this applies as much to fear-filled Israeli 'supporters' as it does to Palestinian extremists. When frightened out of our wits, it's what we do best. We project, act out, drive ourselves into a frenzy and, sometimes, sow chaos and destruction - no matter how smart we think we are.

And that's why we put governments into place. Our forefathers saw the need to control our base impulses and our drive to surrender to mob rule. Government and its law enforcement agencies are there to protect us from ourselves more than from any external attack.

Generally, it's not necessary to take action against loudmouths, bullies, and cowards. They are their own worst enemies. I don't think recent Israeli / Palestinian protests across the United States have resulted in a single major incident. Nor would I categorize the writings of our war bloggers as 'hate speech'. Hatred and fear certainly seem to be there, but there is no sustained attempt to verbally coerce those of like mind into killing or injuring others because of race or creed. These people are rank amateurs. Usually, such groups overstate their causes and their rhetoric is self-defeating. They will drift further and further from reality and they will attract only those they deserve. Sooner, rather than later, they will die out.

Should they cause material or bodily damage, they would face both the wrath of their state security apparatus and their equals on 'the other side'. Should the state support them, they then become but an adjunct to a greater battle between two or more movements or countries. In such situations, controlling interests use or exploit them to add to or exacerbate the problem, or to further political agendas. In other words, these vociferous minorities are forever minor players, used by forces greater than their blinkered views allow them to comprehend.

Most Americans therefore feel that the danger posed by loose groupings of malcontents turning into organized bodies intent on disrupting social stability is real and deserves attention. The police, FBI, CIA, NSA, and other institutions are able to monitor such organizations before they cause real and lasting damage. The question is, do they have the will to do so or not? My guess is that they do. Had the U.S. security apparatus done its job last year (listened to its operatives and taken action when and where necessary) instead of engaging in political brinkmanship, Blog Burst might have no reason to exist. How much has the Federal Government learnt? The future, unfortunately, will tell. Until then, 9-11 will represent a tactical, defensive, political, and operational failure for those supposedly protecting the United States. And it will make Americans jump every time a bunch of crackpots with mush for brains threatens to bring on the Apocalypse.

For myself, I heap scorn on our war bloggers and their 'Palestinian' equivalents. They are baby 'disillusionaries'. Their 'static' renders them useless to anybody, especially the causes or governments they supposedly serve. They are worthy only of derision; nothing else. The going will get tough but they will not stay the pace. Trust me on this. I know these things.

I know something about the American people, and I can tell you that a Palestinian leader like that would be buried in support from a broad spectrum of us. Sadly, it is more likely that in Palestine, as it is constituted now, they would just simply be buried after being murdered by the current Palestinian leadership you so seem to love and legitimize.

Lots of luck, fella. I hear it's challenging in South Africa right now, and I'm sorry for that, and remain hopeful that there is a light at the end of the tunnel for you and yours.

Is indirectly commented upon in this post in the Bellona Times.

Social mobility. It is the magic glue that holds us together; it is the sense of possibility that each of us holds in our hearts, if not for ourselves, than for our children.

And one of the consequences of SkyBox Liberalism is not only the ossification of class...you in your courtside chair, Mr. Nicholson, and then the neat hierarchy of wealth and fame leading upward to the corporate SkyBoxes that make this all possible, and above them, the proles in the nosebleed seats, kept in their place by the minimum-wage guards who keep everyone in their appropriate section...but the obvious "flaunt it, baby" statement of your gracious wave to the fans sitting in the rafters.

Chris Bertram worries that there is a lack of balance in the Blogoverse’s coverage of the Middle East:

The blogosphere is very US-based and almost uncritically pro-Israeli and even bloggers who I link to and respect like Armed Liberal and Dave Trowbridge have a perspective that I see as unbalanced. ("Balance!, this guy wants balance! How can you talk of balance when anti-semitism is on the march and suicide bombers target civilians!" I hear you say. Quite right too, those acts are disgusting and morally repellent.)

Let me start by explaining what I’m afraid of. Because, in a sense, Mike Golby is right…one of the roots of my political stance is fear. Here’s what I’m afraid of - you all got these jokes in your email last year:

The Saudi Ambassador to the U.N. has just finished giving a speech, and walks out into the lobby where he meets his American counterpart. They shake hands and as they walk the Saudi asks, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America."

The American replies, "Well your Excellency, anything I can do to help you I will do."

The Saudi whispers, "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there are Russians and Blacks and Asians, but never any Arabs. He is very upset. He doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."

The American laughs, leans over and says, "That's because it takes place in the future."

*******

A father is walking with his son around the year 2032 in lower Manhattan. As they explore the area the father explains to his son about the grandeur of the buildings and take on the sites. Suddenly they come to a beautiful park and plaza.

The son is so excited at the beautiful park and monuments and asks his Dad: "What are these monuments for?"

The father replies: "This park is dedicated to honour the Twin Towers and the memory of the people of New York."

"What are the Twin Towers?" asks the son.

Dad replies: "They were two very large 110 story buildings which stood here nearly 30 years until Arab Terrorists destroyed them."

The son look puzzled, and says: "Dad, what is an arab?"
*******

And here’s my fear. I don’t want to be a part of a society that eradicated another culture; I don’t want to commit genocide.

I don’t want to be put in a position where genocide is either a reasonable option, or where my fellow citizens are so enraged that they are willing to commit it, and my opposition will be washed away in a tide of rage.

I want a calm, prosperous Middle East, and believe that the Palestinian Arabs who have been royally screwed by everyone…by the Europeans and Americans who established Israel without planning or compensation; by their leaders who have led them into several suicidal wars; by the leaders of the other Arab states who use them as cheap labor, exploit them economically, and exploit them politically…deserve decent lives.

They won’t get them following the path they are on.

They won’t get it by practicing terrorism, as opposed to guerilla warfare. There is a difference between warfare, even guerilla warfare, and terrorism. Guerilla warfare targets the military and strategic targets of the opponent, using deceptive techniques. The Viet Cong were very effective at this, as my countrymen learned to their dismay. Terrorism simply acts out blind rage by striking your opponent at their most vulnerable points…schools, restaurants, houses of worship.

They won’t get it by duplicitously saying one reasonable thing in English and another inflammatory one in Arabic. I spend too much time reading Arab News and MEMRI to have comfort that the Arab world gets it, and that the path they say they are headed down leads anywhere but annihilation.

Part of this is a clash of cultural models, a clash of languages, as Deborah Tannen explains in other contexts.

But words and images are one thing. Semtex, car bombs, and WMD warfare are another. And to the extent that the Arab extremists are successful both in exporting their political rhetoric couched in blood to the U.S. and Europe, and to the extent they are able to silence or murder the moderate voices – the voices that counsel negotiation, economic warfare, peaceful confrontation – then they are speaking a language that my fellow citizens will demand a reply to, and the reply will be so horrific that I want to cry.

Check this out:

jeffbridges.com's clock

He's also one of the best actors of this generation. Hmmm...movie casts you would like to see together...there is a fun dinner party game!!

I'll open:

Jeff Bridges
Laura Dern
Lawrence Fishburne
Gene Hackman
Phillip Baker Hall
Ethan Hawke
Isabelle Huppert
Julianne Moore
Uma Thurman

Almost wouldn't matter what they were doing, they'd just be a lot of fun to watch...

This from Politics in the Zeros:

Perot Systems caught with hands in two cookie jars

As with many political scandals, the Enron trail leads to some unusual places. This time to Perot Systems, who simultaneously designed the California power system then sold software to trading companies teaching them how to game the system. That "giant sucking sound"? Why boy howdy, that was just Texas energy companies vacuuming money from California by whatever barely legal or outright illegal ways they could devise. And lest we forget, Perot Systems is headed by the very same Ross Perot who, when he ran for President, lectured us all about the virtues of being upright and moral. What a bunch of sleazy hypocritical weasels.

Oh...sorry...they are probably contributors to Governor SkyBox.

So today, it's officially a month. A couple thousand people (sorry about deleting the graphic for the counter a week ago...), some great email acquaintances who may become friends and a chance to work on expressing what I see, feel, and sometimes know.

This is cool.

There is a scene in Spiderman where Tobey Macguire first climbs a wall, then turns to the camera with a look that perfectly combines excitement, fear, and pure glee. I know just how he felt.

Got this email this morning, and I think it very clearly sets up a dialog on some of the issues I worry about. Today is chore day, plus I’ve promised to take Tenacious G (the SO) shooting, and this asks good enough questions that I want to think about answers. So here’s the letter, and later today I’ll intersperse some responses. I hope the writer answers, and we’ll play out a couple of rounds here in public.

Thanks to him for reading, for responding by setting out his positions, and for doing so in way that encourages mutual respect.

Armedliberal -

New to your blog. Certainly interesting material.

Re: "FEAR" I'm afraid you haven't made your point as crystally clear as you might have wanted to. I still have a question.

Actually I hadn't seen the "Arab genocide" jokes before I read them on your site, although I'm not surprised that they exist. Thanks, I guess, for having the guts to make them known. They are not as widespread as you may have thought.

A. You say, "And here's my fear. I don't want to be a part of a society that eradicated another culture; I don't want to commit genocide."

Fair enough.

B. You then go on:

"I don't want to be put in a position where genocide is either a reasonable option, or where my fellow citizens are so enraged that they are willing to commit it, and my opposition will be washed away in a tide of rage.

I want a calm, prosperous Middle East, and believe that the Palestinian Arabs who have been royally screwed by everyone...by the Europeans and Americans who established Israel without planning or compensation; by their leaders who have led them into several suicidal wars; by the leaders of the other Arab states who use them as cheap labor, exploit them economically, and exploit them politically...deserve decent lives.

They won't get them following the path they are on."

My question to you is whether your A position is strong enough that you will continue to fight for a peaceful Middle East, even if SOME Arabs continue to "follow the path they are on." Or is B is cop-out that will allow you to say "I told you so, but it's not my fault" after your fear in A is realized? Are you opposing genocide or making excuses for it?

For it's no secret that the hawkish position must almost inevitably lead, if not to genocide, to a situation where no Arab nation is allowed to exist as a sovereign entity. Expelling the Palestinians from Israel cannot be accomplished without destroying any force determined to resist it. Iraq and Iran will both have to go, along with Syria and probably Jordan too, as independent entities, followed by the Saudis too. The wealth that comes from oil will not be permitted to stay in Arab hands.

Yes, yes, if only all Palestinians would adopt Gandhian non-violence strategies. It would be a wise move. I hope they do it. Maybe Jesse Jackson can convince them of that. Until that happens, however, we must continue to live in the real world.

I think the right position is still that America must use its power to force peace. The Israelis bear a significant piece of responsibility for the current situation and they couldn't do what they do without the uncritical aid check from the United States.

Do you believe that the 2000 peace plan was generous? (The tactical question of whether the Palestinians should have accepted it is a different question). What can Arafat actually do to stop the violence now that the Palestian Authority has had all of its authority taken away? If he stopped talking out of both sides of his mouth would anyone notice? Or care? Isn't the demand for all terrorist acts to cease before talks begin a call for unconditional surrender? Aren't the Israelis acting as allies of the extremists by giving them what they want at the expense of whatever moderates are out there?

In short I am not willing to say that the behavior of the Palestinians must change without making a similar demand on the Israelis.

Do we disagree?

[name witheld pending author's OK]

Here is my first pass at a reply to the letter below (I'd give the author credit, but while I've emailed him and asked, I haven't received a reply. What's the blogger etiquette on that, anyway?). I think the questions posed are close enough to the "basic questions" to start a good discussion.

First Question:
My question to you is whether your A position is strong enough that you will continue to fight for a peaceful Middle East, even if SOME Arabs continue to "follow the path they are on." Or is B is cop-out that will allow you to say "I told you so, but it's not my fault" after your fear in A is realized? Are you opposing genocide or making excuses for it?

Well, I hope I was clear - I'm opposed to it. But being opposed to it doesn't imply that I am in all circumstances opposed. I'll quote another of my posts:

Bluntly, at the moment I am under threat, I don’t care why they do it. My response is not very different from my response to my friends who said that “America had it coming” on 9/11. “Maybe. So what?” People who attack me or mine need to be stopped. If the only way I have to effectively stop them is to kill them, so be it. Once I am out of danger, I am happy to consider what it will take to improve education and job opportunities in the central cities, or to talk thoughtfully about helping the Palestinians figure out how to become a nation and a state.

I do believe that there are a set of actions that the Islamist world could take that would lead me to decide that simply killing them all, or enough of them so they stopped existing as an effective culture, would be an acceptable response. I think that for me to come to that position, the actions they would have to take would be so horrific as to be unimaginable – I don’t believe they have the physical capability to do the things that would make “nuke ‘em all” even my reluctant position – but I’m probably pretty far along the continuum. Take a thousand people, a thousand average Americans, and I’ll bet that ten of them are pretty close to that position already. I’d probably be the 850th or so to take that position.

And I’ll reply with a question to you: Can you imagine any circumstances, any form of threat or attack by the Islamists on the US or the West that would lead you to support nuking them all? If they developed aerosolized Ebola? If they had twenty suitcase nukes and started using them?

What would you do?

This came in today; again I've emailed the author, haven't heard back, and want to get it out there so I have redacted his name.

Let me hereby state the offical Armed Liberal mail policy that I just made up: All emails that I get from non-bloggers are fair game for posting without attribution - I will withold your name and email. If you don't want it published, tell me. If you want your name or email or url on it, tell me. If you are a fellow blogger, I'll assume it is for attribution and give you recognition and a link. Seem fair?

Read this, it's great:

You wrote:

I know several people who are either highly skilled martial artists or highly skilled firearms trainers, and in both groups there is an interesting correlation between competence (hence dangerousness) and a kind of calm civility – the opposite of the “armed brute” image that some would attempt to use to portray a dangerous man or woman.

This one grabbed me. I served in both the Army and the Navy. My father was a career Navy officer and was away from home much of my young life - serving in, among other places, Vietnam. Even after leaving the Navy I took work with the Department of the Navy as a civilian, one of those few who worked overseas (southeast Asia, Persian Gulf, and other interesting spots) and had to maintain weapons qualifications.

Finally I left that job because I wanted to live a "more normal" life, in a more fixed location, in my own house on my own property. I took another government job, this time with the US Courts in Seattle (maybe the most politically correct and leftist city in America). For the first time in my life I was among people who had never served, many of whom never even knew anyone who had served. Many of my new coworkers were distinctly uncomfortable around me. Reasonably so, from their perspective - I was a creature of violence, one of the hard men Orwell wrote about who do rough things to protect our freedom, and who were satirized by Jack Nicholson's thuggish Colonel Jessop in A Few Good Men. "You want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall!" and "The Truth? You can't handle the truth!"

Most of the excessively "liberal" (it appears your definition of that word differs somewhat from theirs) people I worked with never said anything overt, but they were definitely concerned at having such a brutal goon working alongside them. Many of them, I think, doubted that I was fitted for such a delicate position amongst such genteel people. Finally, one coworker asked me what was the most important thing I learned in my military training.

"Self control" I replied.

He was astonished and thought I was kidding. His perplexed statement was a treat - obviously my answer was far outside anything he expected. He asked me to elaborate, and I said that when the military teaches you to use deadly force, they spend almost as much time on the ethics of using it. They teach that it's just as important to know when to kill as how to do it, and that an out of control killing machine was as dangerous to your own side as to the enemy. The military does not want mindless automatons, but reasonable, thinking people who use judgement as well as skill.

I don't think he believed me at first, but over the next few days he seemed to be absorbing what I had said. Eventually it seemed to me that he treated me with a bit more respect and a lot less uncertainty.

[name witheld]

Howard Owens, who writes the terrific Global News Watch wrote:

I've got a question for you ... I understand why you're armed, but I don't understand why you consider yourself a liberal?

1) To be vulnerably broad and fuzzy, that governments have the right and duty to make things better for those who are poor and powerless; and that the duty of government to defend freedom and property is balanced by a duty to defend justice and mercy. As noted in all my comments on equality and legitimacy, I think the role of the government here and in Europe in reifying the economic and social stratification is a terrible and dangerous thing;

2) The classical ‘liberal > conservative’ continuum in American (and to an extent European) politics has to do with the appropriate role of government versus the role of individuals and other nongovernmental organizations (businesses, unions, social and cultural organizations). The basic ‘conservative’ point tends to blend (with varying degrees of success) a kind of Von Mies-ian distaste for central planning and authority with a belief that the appropriate role of government is to defend the stability and interests of business and the ‘social order’. I believe that central planning and authority have been crucial to the success of the American model, and that the real history of American success is written not only in the energy and abilities of our individual citizens but in the great actions of the central and state governments that built schools, universities, railroads, created the financial mechanisms that made widespread homeownership possible, have defended the environment, and promoted and enforced an end to racial and sex discrimination.

You say you believe we should make the world a better place. But how does that differ from what conservatives believe? I consider myself a conservative and I want to make the world a better place. And I believe the path to a better world is found in freedom, not tyranny. I believe in democracy and free markets. The more democracy we have, the more we have of the rule of law and of property rights and free trade, the more we will have of peace, love and understanding.

A democratically elected Saudi government would, today, doubtless launch a suicidal attack on Israel.

I think freedom is a great thing, but that it has to grow from a cultural environment (ours isn’t the only culture that can support it, but it has worked here) that can sustain it. And, bluntly, I don’t think that freedom to, which I believe is the kind of freedom you are talking about, is the only kind of freedom; I think that freedom from - from hunger, poverty, disease, ignorance – is equally important.

I don't know any conservatives that would disagree with that goal.

I can't say I've ever seen much in your blog that would suggest you are really a liberal.

One other point -- The jokes are funny, but I don't believe even the people who first thought of them really believe in ethnic cleansing or genocide. I don't know any conservatives that seriously want to destroy Arab nations or Islam. What we do want is peace. What we do want is safety. And the best way to do that is through regime change. Democracy is the answer. That has no hint of any suggestion in it that cultures or races should be destroyed or even harmed.

I’ll try and expand on this as time allows. As I’ve noted in our emails before, I am awed and amazed at the quality and quantity of information you put out. I’ve still got my training wheels on, but give me some time and I’ll keep up.

My earlier correspondent, Steve Cohen (not the BRIE Steve Cohen or the Russion historian) got in touch with me and permitted me to give him attribution. Here is the second of three replies:

For it's no secret that the hawkish position must almost inevitably lead, if not to genocide, to a situation where no Arab nation is allowed to exist as a sovereign entity. Expelling the Palestinians from Israel cannot be accomplished without destroying any force determined to resist it. Iraq and Iran will both have to go, along with Syria and probably Jordan too, as independent entities, followed by the Saudis too. The wealth that comes from oil will not be permitted to stay in Arab hands.

I’ll take this as a question in the form of a statement.

There are two real issues here. One of them is about intentions and root causes, and goes to two very broad worldwide trends – the rise of the romantic, as opposed to bourgeois, worldview in the West and elsewhere – and the rise of what Joe Katzman is talking about in 4th Generation Warfare. The other is about tactics and specific mechanisms.

On the front of intentions and causes, the core issue is that the Arab cultures have brewed a combination of anti-Western and anti-bourgeois values that will make it very difficult for us to have a dialog with them – forget that, that are making it very difficult to have a dialog with them, as we from our specific cultural and historic perspective understand a diplomatic dialog. Because the issues under debate are not only the kind of rational, objective discussion over actions and commitments to action that we expect when we negotiate, they have to do with understandings, perceptions, and worldviews.

This fits neatly into the 4GW (4th Generation Warfare – see Winds of Change) model of “diffuse warfare”, in which states may only indirectly be the actors in wars, and in which the power of the state itself is limited by extra-state actors.

One of the problems is that everyone has fallen into orbit around the question of the Palestinian State. So here is the $64 question:

If the Palestinians had a state, could they maintain a monopoly on inter-state violence?

I don’t think so, not today. The fundamental characteristic of a state is its ability to exercise a monopoly in interstate violence. If a bunch of American militia types decided that they wanted Baja California, and started mounting cross-border raids into San Felipe, it would be expected that the US would use it’s military and police forces to find and stop them. And we certainly would (although there were periods in our past – a hundred or more years ago – when that was not the case).

Tactically, the question is what actions by us will permit the moderate voices in the Arab world to be heard? By moderate, I do not mean pro-Western, non-Islamic, or even pro-Israel. I mean simply the voices that do not believe that the interests of the Muslim community will be advanced solely through violence and the threat of violence.

I don’t think that the hawkish position leads inevitably to genocide; I think in combination with some common sense and an amazing restraint on the part of Israel, it leads to the best possibility we have for avoiding genocide. I believe that inaction or acquiescence leads us to a higher liklihood of genocide, as the Islamists remain convinced that our military power is a hollow shell and that we are afraid of them, and that escalating their violent rhetoric and actions will gain them more than political or economic action.

I don't doubt that the wealth of the Arab states figures into the equation at some level. But I also don't doubt that if the WTC was still standing, and if the Saudi and Iraqi governments had shipped the dozens of possible suspects living there over to us, that we would not be considering any military action.

Howard Owens quickly replied to my quick reply, leaving me with one significant question:

How the heck does he write so quickly and lucidly? I get away with a kind of breezy, conversational style which buys me a lot of room in structuring my arguments. He doesn’t, damn his eyes.

But here’s a breezy, conversational reply:

Hey! I read Adam Smith, too, ya know. (here I start feeling like Matt Damon defending his interpretation of the post-Revolutionary economy in the South). I don’t think that what I believe violates what he suggests, or what Locke suggests for that matter. I believe that it is a matter of degree and emphasis. Remember, in the overall spectrum of political positions, the positions held by contemporary American conservatives and liberals occupy a very narrow band.

But I do believe the distinctions are important, and more importantly, I am grasping for a different construction – it’s out there and maybe I’ll find it or help articulate it.

Look, the State cannot solve everyone’s problems through direct intervention. But state policies, combined with individual action and responsibility, can go a long way to doing so while still defending, and even encouraging individual action and responsibility. I’m trying to articulate a kind of “4th Generation” politics that includes and involves, one that, most importantly, somehow can operate on a finer grain than the massive, almost Stalinist programs of the 60’s and 70’s.

Historically, a lot of what I’m trying to get to was included in the culture out of which Smith, Locke, and the Founders came. They had no need to articulate it in their politics, because it was the water in which they swam. We don’t have that embracing – and stultifying – culture any more, and we are trying to extend the kind of politics that have worked so well for us to vastly different cultures (your talk of democratization throughout the world). It won’t work.

It isn’t working well for us today in the U.S., it isn’t working in Europe, and it sure as hell won’t work when we attempt to transplant it like a rose cutting to countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Note: Just paged over to his site to get the permalink, and the no-goodnik has stolen my thunder for what was to be my third and reply to Steve Cohen. Read this, and watch for my comments later this morning. It worries me sometimes that I agree with him so much…

“JB” aka “long-haired country boy” says nice things about Howard Owen’s and my dialog in his blog ‘Long Haired Country Boy’. Plus it’s fun to read…

The ex-military man in the post below (who stunned his co-worker by explaining that self-control was the most important thing he learned in the military) gave me permission to identify him: He is Steve Skubinna, and someone in Seattle owes him a beer for me. (or up there, should it be a latte?)

Steve Cohen writes, in conclusion:

Yes, yes, if only all Palestinians would adopt Gandhian non-violence strategies. It would be a wise move. I hope they do it. Maybe Jesse Jackson can convince them of that. Until that happens, however, we must continue to live in the real world.

In short I am not willing to say that the behavior of the Palestinians must change without making a similar demand on the Israelis.

Look, here we get down to the nub of the matter.

First, ask yourself why aren’t you willing to hold the Palestinians to some acceptable standard of behavior? I can’t speak for you, but believe that most people don’t in part because of the Romantic attachment to outsider behavior, a fascination with expressive violence, and a built-in disdain for the bourgeois virtues of compromise and cooperation, as I’ve discussed elsewhere.

I think that the Palestinian powers-that-be have fundamentally miscalculated by choosing terrorism over guerilla warfare, and until they have the political capability and social will to renounce terrorism, they will never get a fair hearing from the U.S., nor from Israel.

I agree that we need to use our power to force peace, but how? We tried in it Beirut, and you may have noticed that it didn’t work so well. There is no central government that we can attack, threaten, or neutralize. There really isn’t a central government or group that we can negotiate with, because every time we start with a group, the more rejectionist elements either kill the negotiators or split off into a new group.

You say “Isn't the demand for all terrorist acts to cease before talks begin a call for unconditional surrender?”, and that’s the key point. No, it wouldn’t be.

The PA could act politically and economically (nonviolent action, general strikes, boycotts). They could even act militarily, but within the accepted confines of guerilla warfare (as noted by that damn idea-front-runner Owens) by attacking Israeli military targets. But these actions would require a level of social and political cohesion that I don’t think exist today in Palestine.

Sadly.

I got an email from a John Lott Jr., who turns out to be that John Lott Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. A terrific and interesting book, and one that has not, as far as I know, been effectively answered by the anti-gun folks. He corrects me on the issue of state monopoly on violence, as I mention here, by pointing out that I probably meant “state monopoly on legal violence.” Uh, of course I did!!

I can only compare being corrected in an issue like this by Lott to the time Arnold Schwarzenegger stopped by the gym I belonged to and explained to me that I was doing my situps wrong. I trust that this correction will have a more lasting effect.

Owens suggests that I need to cut the apron strings. It's a good post, and I think I can use it to elucidate some of our differences, but a) I want to take some time and respond thoughtfully; and b) there are chores to do before I can blog much more today.

Check this space soon.

It looks like this is working again. Buy a pizza and soda or ice cream for an IDF patrol.

If there was one to buy for Palestinian peace activists, I'd post it as well.

that has nothing to do with the post, but I couldn’t help the pun.

Eric Raymond, author of 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar' (and of the cool blog 'Armed and Dangerous') dings me a bit:

I find it interesting that, in that article, you imply a strong critique of the top-down "single massive project" approach to social change. Yet in explaining 'liberalism' you still champion centralization and state intervention.

There is a contradiction there with which I do not think you are yet dealing.

Actually, no. I may not yet have expressed it clearly, but here’s my chance to start.

Bazaars don’t spontaneously appear, and most important, don’t spontaneously thrive. There are a host of conditions which control their presence and growth – geographic, cultural, seasonal, legal, and political. We can either simply assume that they appear spontaneously, according some arbitrary ‘hand of God’, or we can study the preconditions and, if we want to encourage successful bazaars, attempt to replicate them, or manage the success of the bazaar.

I do not imagine that the sponsors of open-source software projects do so with no intentionality or direction; they are often surprised by the direction the project takes, but they reserve the right to prune unsuitable branches.

I believe that we need to replace the Stalinist (hyperbole alert) ‘large footprint’ liberal programs that we are familiar with much finer-grained, dynamic programs in which the participants participate, rather than simply stand in line and receive.

The machine-tool program I mention earlier, the Grameen Bank programs, and I am sure, other programs which I don’t yet know about are excellent examples of what I’m talking about.

There are other government programs and tax structures which could encourage this kind of thinking, and which I’ll address over the next few days as time and attention allow.

But to summarize as simply as I can: I don’t believe that the bazaar, or spontaneously organized social or economic activity is directionless. I believe that when you read the classic ‘I, a pencil’, that we were better at making them than they were in the Soviet Union.

And I believe that it is possible to design and have a hand in organizing self-organizing systems such as markets. That what we do here in the U.S. Anyone who believes that the market here is not created by and reflects political and social organizations is just ignorant. Why do homeowners get tax relief and not renters? What is DMCA?

And I believe that it is possible to design and influence a better market; one that improves on the things which I and other liberals hold important while at the same time preserving the freedom and dignity, and individual energy of the free actors who participate in it.

Dinner calls.

Gene Expression, written by three scientists and a venture capitalist.

TAP backs up Lou Dobb's assesment that the Islamists are the threat.

They also set out a pretty good agenda for the Democrats, if the Democrats had anyone bold enough to stake out a position.

Thanks to Instapundit for the lead.

...sorry, Professors Reynolds and Vokoloh...

Check out my neighbor, Little green Football: EU shuts off the money.

I'm off looking for confirmation.

Conventional wisdom has unpopular Gov. Gray "SkyBox Liberal" Davis in a lock for this election over his stiff and inexperienced (but wealthy) opponent Bill "Daddy's Money" Simon Jr. in the election for Governor of California. Could the CW be wrong? Today's S.F. Chronicle suggests that an election could break out in California this fall.

At this point I can't in any conscience vote for Simon; but in opposition, I'd rather get my hands chewed off by a woodchipper than vote for Davis, who is a corrupt, small-minded, visionless functionary. Fun decision, no? Is Mel Brooks running?? Gov. LePetomaine, anyone?

Eric Raymond has a great response to Howard Owen's and my blathering about liberals and conservatives.

I always put it less thoroughly, but a bit more succinctly: It's a choice between the people who gave you the S & L scandals and those who gave you the DMV.

Joe Katzman, over at Winds of Change, has a series of excellent articles on dirty bombs and the political/tactical effects of the recent Chicago arrest.

How do these guys do it?

Declan McMullen's excellent site has a link to a new expansion of wiretapping and logtapping (what else would you call it?) powers in the U.K.

Apparently they are giving every local Animal Control Board rights to read your email.

It extends the list of public authorities that can issue RIP s22 notices
(ie to access traffic data from telcos and ISPs)...

...to add the following central Government departments

1. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
2. The Department of Health.
3. The Home Office.
4. The Department of Trade and Industry.
5. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
6. The Department for Work and Pensions.
7. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for Northern
Ireland.

AND pretty much any local authority

8. Any local authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Local
Government Act 1999
9. Any fire authority as defined in the Local Government (Best Value)
Performance Indicators Order 2000
10. A council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc.
(Scotland) Act 1994
11. A district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act
(Northern Ireland) 1972

Even a liberal like me can see that.

I thought Spring was already here; but based on the comments in the blogoverse, the testosterone is rising now instead. Den Beste, and then Den Beste again, is answered by Olsen, and then Raymond offers a harder-core perspective.

Olsen seems to have come out the worse, based on what looks like his backing off. [Note: this has changed since I wrote this, and he is in his own words, 'clarifying', not backing off.] Since things have cooled off, let me dump some ether on the embers and take his back.

I’m a hippie liberal who thinks sex is great and p0rn isn’t. Not just for the reasons outlined by Raymond above…that it’s anti-erotic and not well done…but inherently, because it externalizes and commodifies what ought to be a core human experience, and because it a part of a dangerous larger trend which risks making us all passive consumers of our lives, instead of participants in them.

It’s not just p0rn, it’s the NBA and NFL and NASCAR; the replacement of sport…in which we can participate at the park, or rink, or even the local dirt-track…with spectacle, in which hundreds of participants entertain tens of millions of spectators.

The idea that we would ‘professionalize’ sex in the same ways that we have professionalized sports and entertainment appalls me.

I try and explain to my sons…who all have a healthy teenage interest in the female form…that it’s better to hold hands and smooch with a real girl than to jerk off to pictures of someone you’ll never meet, much less get to go to bed with.

When Olson says:

You can talk to them, you can even touch them, but you have to treat them as individuals, as actual people with identities of their very own, or they will know that they aren't real to you, that they are just symbols, and no one wants to be just a symbol. They want to be loved, they want to be touched, they want you to do everything to them that you want to do to them; but they want to be treated as actual flesh and blood, not as bloodless abstractions. No one ever had a relationship with an abstraction.