Posted by Marc Hodak on January 21, 2008 under Revealed preference | 
Today was a day to reflect on the life of Dr. Martin Luther King. The idea most closely associated with Dr. King, and I think the most underrated aspect of his legacy, was the principle of non-violence. I believe Dr. King profoundly understood how non-violence would increasingly trump violence in an increasingly transparent society. I believe he “got it” that non-violence can show the bankruptcy of any social structure that relies on raw power for its survival.
Hillary got herself into some hot water last week by suggesting that Dr. King’s legacy was incomplete without the coercive backing of the Federal government. I think she was way wrong. I believe that Dr. King’s legacy was cemented by the change in attitudes brought about by his leadership of the civil rights movement. He changed those attitudes with the widely covered spectacle of peaceful people facing down hatred and guns with nothing more than their dignity. He did something that no opponent can survive in the age of television—he made the other side look bad. He made “Whites Only” signs disrespectable. He showed us the faces of hatred on the other side of the police lines, and they were ugly. The change in attitudes among the indifferent majority of whites arose from the marches and protests he led, culminating in his famous speech on the Mall. He set in motion an eventual acceptance and integration of blacks into American society in a way that even the most draconian laws could never have accomplished, and probably would have stifled.
Part of Dr. King’s genius was that he knew he was not facing a monolithic, caricatured white enemy. That very caricature offended his belief that each individual had a distinct character and dignity. His dream was one of mutual acceptance and respect. He did not envision integration as a zero-sum game.
I’m convinced that today few among Dr. King’s many vocal supporters really get the message of non-violence. Clearly, many repudiated non-violence immediately after his assassination, I believe to the detriment of his movement. Others relapsed into caricaturing their political opponents as racists worth fighting by all necessary means. Most politicians who claim to act in his name are often pushing for the use of state power to impose the kind of world they think is right, which is really just another way of using violence to achieve a particular social structure. They didn’t get the irony of forced busing, never mind its long-term economic consequences, worst of all for black communities.
I appreciate this holiday because it reminds one of the value of non-violence. I want to live in a world where violence, or the threat of violence–from every source–is minimized.
Posted by Marc Hodak on December 9, 2007 under Revealed preference |
…as if a reasonable person needed any.
From Cato Unbound.
Posted by Marc Hodak on October 11, 2007 under Revealed preference |
The WSJ had an article about the difficulty certain communities face in continuing efforts at school integration. It was suggested that the integration debate was driven as much by the politics of test scores as the politics of race. It turns out that the mostly black schools significantly under-perform the predominantly white schools, even where the average income of the black families appears to be fairly high. So, black parents are eager to get their kids into the predominantly white schools because they have a reasonable expectation that their kids will get better educations there. Conversely, white parents don’t want their kids to go to predominantly black schools because…well, they’re racists. Or at least that’s a sentiment that the story writers appear willing to promote.
Ms. Horan says she moved her family to Milton from Boston 10 years ago seeking open-minded neighbors, only to be confronted by the same prejudices that she had hoped to leave behind. “Hurtful as it is to admit, racism is alive and well and living in Milton,” she says. Mr. Lovely, the board chairman, denies any racial tension.
The race card is an unfortunate draw, here, because Occam’s razor provides a perfectly simple and eminently reasonable explanation for why the white families don’t want their kids displaced into predominantly black schools, an explanation that has nothing to do with racism, even if racism exists (which it surely does). If the predominantly black schools were outperforming the white schools, who doubts that 80 percent of the white families would be clamoring for their kids to get into those schools? One can make the case that many of the other 20 percent might be racists, and they’d have a point, but it would have no more bearing on the discussion than pointing out that a similar fraction of blacks are probably racists, too.
I’m fine with the demise of the “separate but equal” doctrine. I think that most people (80 percent of us, anyway) would protest government-enforced segregation. But very few of us (especially those of us who made the tough, personal choices to position ourselves to make useful trade-offs for our kids) see the sense in government-enforced desegregation. Both doctrines treat individuals as tools of the state, trying to coerce a certain social outcome.
Unfortunately, much of this issue is a consequence of the collectivist manner in which most school systems operate. The government is inherently a part of the solution because it is inherently at the root of the problem.
Posted by Marc Hodak on September 27, 2007 under Revealed preference |
This from a public official:
I firmly believe and am confident of the fact that had it not been for the direct intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ last Thursday, a disaster would have happened. You can quote me on that.
This is the Jena, Louisiana DA’s explanation of why the protests against his arguably selective prosecution of black youths remained peaceful.
The DA and his supporters were trying to make the case that he is not a racist. I don’t know. And given what I know about how the press covers such things, I’m inclined not to believe that the DA is channeling old George Wallace. But that defense becomes a bit strained when this DA has looked out on the massive protests against his prosecution
and concluded that peace was maintained only because Jesus put his calming white hand upon their black hearts. What else could it be? I mean, is it conceivable that a large black group could have possibly maintained peace on their own?
Posted by Marc Hodak on September 19, 2007 under Revealed preference |
A couple days ago, Don Surber wrote a great piece on the return on investment in lobbying Congress.
You bought Google at $100 and 3 years later is nearing $600 a share? Big deal. Microsoft has gone up 28-fold over the last 20 years? Yawn. You want to make the big bucks? Rent a congressman. Your return on your investment can be as high as $75 for every dollar invested.
Well, being the smart guys they are, Google has caught on quickly.
Internet search company Google Inc. has registered in-house lobbyists for the first time since establishing a Washington office in 2005.
“We’ve expanded our presence because there are an increasing number of issues being debated in Washington that are of concern to our users,” said Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for Google, which spent $580,000 in first six months of 2007 to lobby the federal government.
That’s $100,000 per month that will go to a lawyer instead of an engineer.
Is this a great country or what?
Posted by Marc Hodak on September 15, 2007 under Revealed preference |
OK, here is my proposal to alleviate the organ transplant shortage: If you want to be the recipient of an organ transplant at some point in your life, you have to register somewhere as an organ donor, something as simple as checking off the box on your license, before you need an organ.
This is admittedly a proposal born of very little study on my part–you could fairly call it ignorance. I don’t know what percentage of people have checked off the organ donor box versus not. I don’t know how many potential donors’ organs go unharvested because they didn’t check off the box vs. the total need for human organs. I don’t know if we want to create a constituency that is indifferent to improved auto safety. But it seems to me that many people don’t check off the organ donor box because of a combination of the “ick” factor and laziness. In other words, for silly reasons that could be easily overcome with a little incentive.
I also understand that certain people can’t check off the box for religious reasons, thus likely placing those people below the line when it comes time for a transplant. I count my closest, dearest family members among this group. Screw em. If their religious beliefs take then out of the pool of donors, it should take them out of the pool of recipients, and leave the rest to God’s will.
Seriously, I would be happy to give my brother one of my kidneys should he ever need one. But my heart, when I no longer need mine, should go to someone who placed theirs at risk of being at my disposal. I think that’s as fair as inherently unfair circumstances can be.
Posted by Marc Hodak on July 9, 2007 under Revealed preference |
If you wanted to enhance the credibility of the teaching of good governance, wouldn’t you go to an organization like the U.N.? Of course. That is why the U.N. has endorsed certain guidelines for business school education such as:
We will incorporate into our academic activities and curricula the values of global social responsibility as portrayed in international initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact.
Since I think the U.N. should be taken at its word, I have begun to think about cases that can be used to teach these principles. For example, Principles 1 and 2: “Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses” could be illustrated with examples of how the U.N. has built its organizational capability to clean up human rights abuses. Or Principle #10: “Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery” could be illustrated with this.
Gee, if I wasn’t so busy preparing for my course on corporate scandals, I’m sure I could dig up lots of examples of U.N. initiatives to illustrate good governance.
Posted by Marc Hodak on May 1, 2007 under Collectivist instinct, Revealed preference |
Today is International Workers’ Day throughout the socialist and communist world, including the Daily Kos, who took this opportunity to slam Wal-Mart. They noted that Wal-Mart was investigated by Human Rights Watch, noting that:
Human Rights Watch, a non-governmental group based in New York, is best known for scathing reports on political issues such as the Rwandan genocide and the Congo’s use of children in its military.
The clear implication, of course, is that Wal-Mart’s treatment of its workers rises to a level of concern consistent with genocide and child conscription, because it’s non-union.
My standard for concern about an organization is somewhat different. If an organization has people beating down the doors to get in, it’s probably not a problem how they’re treating their workers. If an institution has people risking their lives to flee, that’s probably an institution that needs some outside monitoring.
The workers of the world deserve better.
