January 27, 2008
Disagreeing With Michael Shermer Part 3
I don't want to be too hard on Dr. Shermer because I normally like his work. Also, not having actually read his book, I can't offer a critique of his arguments; all I'm responding to is the Skepticality interview, which I thought could have been just a tad more, uh, skeptical.
(Sorry, Swoopy. In your shoes I doubt that I would have done anything differently. Except on the Kindle and Microsoft, perhaps...)
So I'm going to end this series (I think I hear both of my readers cheering) with an edited version of the email that I sent to the podcast's feedback address right after listening to the show. It's a bit breathless and not totally coherent, but here it is:
I just listened to your excellent interview with Michael Shermer. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Shermer, but I wonder whether he has let his ideology (Libertarianism) blind him in his idealization of free markets. That's a subject that he addressed in his July, 2006, Scientific American column, The Political Brain. In that column he pointed out how MRIs of both Democrats and Republicans show that they each tend to look at evidence that confirms their positions and ignore evidence that is in conflict with them, but he seemed to imply that as a Libertarian, he was immune to that effect. So I wish you had pressed him a bit more on a few points.
For example, in comparing the "African village" with the Manhattan "village" there was no mention made of all the people who are living in poverty or of the homeless problem. Did you know that on any given night there are nearly 200,000 veterans who are sleeping on the streets? Many of them are quite visible in Manhattan.
Or concerning Wal-Mart, he seemed to paint its critics as thinking of Wal-Mart as "evil" for putting Mom and Pop shops out of business. Well, I don't consider Wal-Mart or its management "evil", and I recognize that things change and the trend has been toward consolidation, where economies of scale can allow large stores to charge less than smaller stores, etc. However, I do fault Wal-Mart for not providing health insurance for their employees and for paying lower wages than those stores that they have put out of business. And for not letting their employees form unions. And for paying outlandish salaries to their executives. That last point can be made about many companies these days.
On some topics I can heartily agree with what Dr. Shermer said, such as the discussion of higher wages not necessarily making people happier. Nearly two years ago I took an early-out offer and retired on a salary that is about half of what I had been making. And you know what? I barely notice the difference. (And I realize that however I may feel about it, I'm just one data point.)
And regarding third party candidates being viable, that will never happen as long as we have a winner take all system of voting, because it's unlikely that a third party will ever be able to assemble and maintain a large enough block of voters, except perhaps in limited regions. However, if we were ever to adopt one of the more innovative voting systems, then there is a good chance that other candidates could get a foot in the door. For example, in a three way race, it's easy to conceive that a majority of the voters might prefer the third guy as their second choice; in a voting system where they could indicate that preference, then third parties would stand a chance.
And finally, I wish you had pressed him on his statement that the two parties don't offer much of a difference. I see a clear difference between the parties on a wide range of issues. To over-generalize:
Health insurance: Dems are for, Reps are against
Gay rights: Dems are for, Reps are against
Tax and spending policies: Dems favor more equitable taxes, balanced budgets, and responsibly putting tax money to work to help the citizenry, whereas Reps pretend to like smaller government, but they really just want lower taxes on the wealthy and are willing to run up big deficits to help those wealthy folk. Both sides do like pork, however.
Constitution: Dems favor it, Reps hate it, at least when they are in power
Global warming: Dems favor trying to do something about it, Reps are opposed
Evolution: Dems accept it as a fact, a lot of Reps don't
Science in general: Dems pretty much accept it (although they may sometimes exaggerate on an issue), Reps have declared war on it (just ask Chris Mooney).
Religion in government: Dems accept the separation of church and state, many Reps don't
Torture: Dems oppose its use, many Reps like it
Crime and drug policy: OK, there you got me. The parties really are too close on these issues. If I had my druthers, no one would ever be jailed simply for using a drug; in fact, I'd pretty much eliminate prisons except for violent offenders. But that's a subject for another day.
Anyway, you know that I love your show, so please don't take anything I say as a personal criticism. It's just that there are some things that I'd like to ask Dr. Shermer myself. And I'm kicking myself for not attending his lecture in Philadelphia last week; I let a little thing like the cold weather keep me in my warm home.
Maybe I was a little snarky there. Ok, a lot snarky.
Just a couple more points. During the interview Dr. Shermer alluded to the drop in the stock market prices. I wonder if he realizes that the drop in the stock market, the coming recession, and the problems in the real estate markets and mortgage industry are the result of the banks being given too much freedom (there's the free in free markets) and then abusing that freedom.
No matter how much Shermer argues that we evolved to be fair traders, the world today is very different from the world where that evolution took place. Sure, in a small community where everyone knows everyone, there are many reasons to be honest in one's dealings, but in a world where you don't know or see your customers, well, I'm not sure that the same rules apply.
Remember, it was the free market system that gave us the slave trade. [Snark! Snark!]
Posted by jt at January 27, 2008 03:13 PM