The Socialist Ace: What If You Were in Charge?

As a free-market person, I am sometimes jealous of socialists. They seem to march from political success to success. Even the murderous failure of the Soviet Union seems, in retrospect, a minor pothole on the road as opposed to the cliff to cast socialism forever outside of the Overton Window of socially accepted opinions. By contrast, the horrors of Nazi Germany have made it impossible to be a respectable fascist. It does not matter if you claim that the Nazis were not "real fascists" and that you support "democratic fascism." 

An essential component of recognizing the evils of fascism is a refusal to distinguish between the ideals of fascism in theory and the horrors that actual fascists inflicted upon the world. This principle extends so far that, in practice, one is forced to teach a cartoon version of fascism in school where fascists are motivated simply by hatred and a feeling of superiority over all other groups. Teaching kids that fascists were motivated by the democratic ideal of the nation coming together under the leadership of a leader who would make everyone turn from selfishness and instead work for the common good would raise too many uncomfortable questions and cannot be allowed.

Socialism, by contrast, is allowed to be judged by its ideals disconnected from its mass murders which are attributed to the personal failings of leaders like Stalin and Mao. In truth, as with fascism, the crimes of socialism were committed not because people failed to live up to its ideals but because they followed them all too well. Understand that if you truly believed that you had the solution to the problems of mankind and could make the world a loving happy place and all that was standing in your way were a few million bad people motivated merely by spite, you would agree to kill them. To refuse to save mankind out of a personal desire not to get your hands dirty with a few homicides would be monstrous.

What makes the ideals of socialism particularly appealing is a very simple question. If you look around the world, it is obvious that it is an incredibly unjust place with the world's resources distributed in a way that can neither be defended on grounds of fairness nor for its ability to maximize utility for all of mankind. If you were in charge of distributing the world's resources, could you distribute them in a way that was fairer and optimized utility? For example, it does not take a genius to come up with the idea that the world would be a better place if we paid professional athletes less and used the money to pay for lunches for poor kids.  

If you answered yes to giving kids free lunches or to any number of the schemes that are likely running through your head, then it is very difficult to resist socialism in principle. We might still have to figure out a means to make sure that the right person, someone like us, came to the top. That being acknowledged, once we solve this problem, we should be able to make the world at least somewhat of a better place. Recognizing that the world's resources are not distributed justly, it is the job of all moral people to work to redistribute resources in a way that is more equitable. From this perspective, it is hard to resist dividing the world into socialists, the good guys who work to better mankind, and opponents of socialism who want the world to be unjust presumably because they either are too ignorant to recognize that the world is unjust or because they are part of the oppressive class who are responsible for all the oppression.

Historically, most people, particularly if they have had some education, have believed that the world would be a better place if only they were in charge. One thinks of the example of Plato and his philosopher kings. It is not a coincidence that Plato was essentially a socialist who believed that the rulers of his republic should hold everything in common including wives and children. 

A partial defense against the siren call that socialism would lead to a better world if only your people were in charge is to recognize that it is unlikely that your people will ever get to put their plan for a better world into practice. Imagine that you had to choose between accepting the political/economic order that we have or agreeing to live in a world in which a random individual was allowed to redistribute resources according to their sense of justice. How many people would chance socialism then? Make no mistake that one person's version of justice is, to others, a nightmare worth forstalling even at the cost of their lives. I can imagine that certain ex-girlfriends and advisors would rather kill themselves than take a chance on living in my "just" world.    

A higher-level defense against socialism would be Hayek's "Why the Worst Get to the Top," which essentially argues that we do not even have the opportunity to take our chances with the moral sensibilities of an average person. Choosing socialism will mean submitting ourselves to the sort of moral monster willing to do what is necessary, even mass murder, in order to place themselves in a position where they can refashion a country according to their notion of justice. 

To truly break free of the spell of socialist ideals, one has to instinctually believe to the core of their being that if they were the benevolent dictator and had the power to redistribute resources according to what they believed was right, the world would not be a better place. Consider the example from earlier of using a socialized athletic system to fund education. We already have a version of this with college athletics where the millions that some athletes are worth are redistributed to universities that work for the "public good." I have a hard time accepting that the NCAA is really more just than the NBA or the NFL but I am sure readers could tweak the system to make it fairer. 

I confess, even after being a libertarian for more than a decade, I still cannot shake the fantasy that I would make a pretty good world ruler. Granted, my fantasy of being the Messiah includes a lot of telling people that they are all individuals and can think for themselves. As this is a fantasy, everyone is able to think for themselves while simultaneously doing what I would have wanted them to do anyway, saving me the effort of even having to think what orders I should have given in the first place.           

Are You a Fuehrerphobe?

 

As I mentioned in the previous post, you can win any debate if you are allowed to control the language used to describe things. Imagine that you had to debate a Nazi but the Nazi got to decide what the two of you had to call things during the debate. How well do you think you can do?

The Nazi gives the following opening: I believe in national democracy. The people express their will as a nation by gathering in stadiums to shout their adulation for the Fuehrer. This objectively proves that the Fuehrer embodies the collective will of the people. It is only through the Fuehrer that the people’s will can be expressed, allowing them to exist as a nation instead of a collection of squabbling individuals who will easily be conquered and enslaved by cosmopolitans, neoliberals, and Zionists. To oppose the Fuehrer is to oppress the people by robbing them of their voice and their ability to assert their nationhood.   

Essential to national democracy are the principles of freedom of speech and tolerance. The people have the right to express their will as embodied in the Fuehrer when he speaks the nation's truth. The nation is made up of many different kinds of individuals who, when left to their own devices, will inevitably disagree with each other over art, economics, and their non-Zionist religions. As the embodiment of the nation, the Fuehrer, through his person, resolves all contradictions among the people. This allows all members of the nation to tolerate each other, despite their surface disagreements, as they recognize that they have been made one through the Fuehrer.    

The elitist cosmopolitan neoliberal Zionist Fuehrerphobes seek to maintain their grip over the people and deny them their rights. They wish to replace the genuine democracy of the people with an Orwellian democracy with sham elections for politicians who do not embody the will of the people as only the Fuehrer can. National democracy is built on love for the people. Fuehrerphobes hate the Fuehrer because they hate the people. By trying to rob the people of their nationhood, they are essentially committing genocide. If you truly loved someone, you would respect them for who they genuinely are and not try to commit genocide against them.

Just as it is important not to be misled by the Orwellian democracy of the Fuehrerphobes, one should not fall for their Orwellian claims of tolerance. As we know from the Popper Paradox, it is not possible for a free society to tolerate people who reject tolerance and use the democratic process as a cover to impose tyranny. Since support for the Fuehrer is what makes someone part of the nation, Fuehrerphobes, who have separated themselves from the people in their attempt to overthrow democracy, cannot legally enjoy the rights of citizenship. They do not have the right to interfere in elections to fake the results to pretend that the Fuehrer does not have the full support of the people either by voting or by promoting fake news. 

It should be understood that underneath all of this rhetoric, lies a serious argument about the nature and purpose of democracy and liberty that liberals need to be able to effectively respond to. To understand Fascism, it is essential not to underestimate the lengths to which the common man will go to stick it to the liberal elitist intellectuals that he knows have nothing but contempt for him. That being said, liberals will never be in a position to storm this citadel unless they are first able to take the outer trench of language.

To add a further twist on this debate idea, imagine that you have a class of students raised on “national democracy.” These are genuinely good kids. They believe in freedom, tolerance, and social justice. They are eager to work for the greater good of the people by demonstrating their commitment to these principles to the administrators of elite schools. They like you but there is something a little off about you as you are different from every other teacher they have had. One day, a student asks you if you are a Fuehrerphobe. 

A hush immediately falls on the class. The students all know, with the surety that smoking is bad, that Fuehrerphobia is something simultaneously disgusting and absurd that should appeal to no reasonable person and yet is so deeply widespread in society that the Fuehrer is required to take emergency measures to protect the people against it. Fuehrerphobia is so dangerous because, unless you actively work to ally yourself with marginalized people and fill yourself with the Fuehrer's love, becoming an anti-Fuehrerphobe, it is inevitable that you will fall into Fuehrerphobic thinking. Most Fuehrerphobes do not even realize that they are Fuehrerphobes and will even deny the charge when accused. This is, of course, the ultimate proof of Fuehrerphobia.      

It would be useless to argue with these kids even if you were not threatened by secret police or with the loss of your job. National democracy honestly contains many noble ideals even as it serves to cover literal Nazism. These kids lack the language even for describing the Nazism that they are being raised with let alone for comprehending how someone might honestly be a Fuehrerphobe without being a hook-nosed villain trying to murder babies to use their blood for crackers. These kids need an alternative language where liberty, freedom, and rights have been restored to their classical liberal meanings. Alternatively, new terms for classical liberal concepts may need to be invented. 

Do You Support LGBTQ+ Rights?

 

I was recently asked by a student if I supported LGBTQ+ rights. I asked them what they meant by rights. It quickly became apparent that this student had not seriously considered what counts as a right and what it might be based upon. In essence, their belief in LGBTQ+ was the practical equivalent of being a sports fan. They were not asking me whether I agreed with their beliefs as they had no beliefs for me to agree or disagree with but merely if I cheered for their particular team. Their teachers had taught them that to be a good person, they needed to recite the credo "I support LGBTQ+ rights." For all intents and purposes, the students could recite something in Latin and it would be equally meaningful. To be clear, I do not question the intelligence or decency of this student. The fault is not with them but with the educational malpractice that they have been subjected to.   

What might it mean to support LGBTQ+ rights? One possible response is that LGBTQ+ people should be equal to heterosexual and cisgender people. This has a surface plausibility to it. LGBTQ+ people are human beings with rights who deserve to live with dignity just like everyone else. Now, what might this mean in practice? Consider that people with poor social skills, nose pickers, and MAGA Republicans are all human beings with rights who deserve to live with dignity. This certainly means that they have legal rights. If you are committed to civil liberties then there should be no moral difference between the police beating a confession out of someone with a pride flag or a MAGA flag. This is distinct from any kind of social right. In the real world, people are going to lose out on friendships and jobs for failing to follow all kinds of random social conventions that could never be defended simply on rational grounds. Furthermore, these social failings may be so subtle that neither party can even articulate the rule that has been violated. As someone on the autism spectrum, I am forced to reckon with this fact on a daily basis and pay a heavy price for it. Once we accept that society can penalize nose pickers, the burden of proof falls on anyone who objects to society penalizing anyone for violating a social convention. If people have the right to arbitrarily give nose pickers a look of disgust, they have the equal right to arbitrarily give a person in drag a look of disgust.    

I believe that LGBTQ+ people have the right to negative liberty. This means that the government should not cause physical harm to people it classifies as LGBTQ+. Such people should be able to engage in consensual behavior between adults as they wish whether that is non-heterosexual sex or gender reassignment surgery. As language is an arbitrary social construct, LGBTQ+ people have the right to call themselves married or members of the opposite sex. If they can convince the majority of society to speak their language, all power to them. This would be no different from the advocacy of Esperanto speakers. 

I would not be willing to grant LGBTQ+ people positive liberty but then again I do not believe that anyone has a right to positive liberty. I am willing to accept a legal obligation under the social contract to be drafted and have to mow down, with machine gun fire, a mob of theocrats trying to violently stop a gay orgy from happening. I am not willing to execute Christian bakers who refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. 

In any argument, it is crucial to control the terms used. Once the issue is framed in terms of supporting or opposing LGBTQ+ rights, the LGBTQ+ side is guaranteed to win. My students may not know what rights are but they have been raised to believe that rights, whatever magical black box they might be, are an important good to such extent that your support or opposition to them is what makes you a good or bad person. If we are going to change minds on LGBTQ+ issues, we are first going to have to get them to think seriously about what rights mean.  

D-Day and the Non-Aggression Principle

 

A foundational idea within libertarian thought is the non-aggression principle (NAP). I should not use physical violence against people who have not physically attacked me and have shown no evidence of plotting to do so. People who do not follow my religion or ideology and even commit blasphemy against it are not engaging in violence. As such, as hurtful as I may find their words, I must tolerate these people and cannot attempt to injure them. Libertarians go further with this doctrine and reject the legality of any law that lacks a clear victim of physical violence. For example, you have the right to shoot heroin and sleep with hookers. Such actions may be bad for your physical health as well as your family and the larger society. That being said, since these actions do not initiate physical violence, they should be legal. By contrast, all government action is, by definition, violent as it carries the implied mafia-style threat of either obeying or men with guns will do you extreme bodily harm. As such, any attempt by the government to go after people who have not initiated acts of violence themselves (people other than the likes of thieves, murderers, and invading foreign armies) is inherently illegitimate.

Perhaps the clearest explanation of this concept is Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable which is premised on the notion that it is better to be a prostitute or a drug dealer than a politician or a policeman. The fact that people are willing to break the law and risk prison in order to use your services demonstrates that people honestly want what you are selling. By contrast, as a public school teacher, I have no reason to assume that my students actually want to be in school. By agreeing to teach, I am, arguably, implicated in a conspiracy to deprive children of their liberty for hours every day in order to justify robbing the public to pay me a salary as I waste my student’s time. At best, I should allow students to play on their phones all day in order to better demonstrate that public schools are useless and should be abolished in order that kids should be allowed to make better use of their time by selling drugs and sex on a street corner.     

I would like to consider a limitation to the NAP. The NAP is premised on a world of individuals. What happens when we have to consider people as groups with narratives of initiated violence and victimhood? Imagine a German soldier sitting in a bunker, minding his own business, on the coast of Normandy, D-Day morning. Our German soldier has personally never initiated violence against anyone. Through no fault of his own, the only job he can find consists of putting on a uniform, carrying a gun, and sitting in this bunker. As this does not violate the NAP, our soldier agreed to do it.

Now our soldier finds that people he has never met are firing shells in his general direction, heedless of the fact that he might get hurt. Our soldier charges the Allied soldiers storming the beach waving a philosophy book and shouting: your actions violate the NAP and are, therefore, unethical. You are initiating violence against someone, mainly me, who has never harmed you. I was not part of the 1940 invasion of France, so it is not my fault that France is under German occupation. Furthermore, you are damaging beachfront property that does not belong to you. As none of you own property on this beachfront, you have no standing to argue that I have less of a right to be walking on this beach than you do. You need to sail back across the English Channel and leave me in peace to do my government job as inefficiently as possible. This will hasten the collapse of Nazi Germany, allowing me to finally do something useful like drug dealing or prostitution.    

Clearly, the German soldier’s position is absurd though I am increasingly frightened to suspect that many members of the Mises Caucus would be willing to agree that it is immoral for Allied soldiers to shoot him. Even though he has personally never harmed anyone, he is part of the larger system of Nazi Germany that has initiated violence against millions of people even as the vast majority of people in the system have not personally harmed anyone. Are we going to claim that the concentration camp guard who never shot anyone is innocent? What about Nazi propagandists like Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher?

Once we admit that our German soldier is guilty by virtue of our narrative that he is part of this larger system called Nazi Germany, it is hardly obvious where to draw the line. Imagine if a group of Englishmen were to charge the beaches of Normandy and open fire on the local French residents to retaliate against the Norman invasion of England in 1066, an injustice that the modern residents of Normandy have presumably benefited from in some way. Do students have the right to plant bombs in their teachers' cars in order to defend themselves against "educational violence?” On a serious note, critical race theory activists believe that you can be guilty of "structural violence" by virtue of being white and not actively working to overthrow the American political and economic systems, institutions tainted by racism.

Clearly, narratives are necessary in order to make sense of the world. That being said, once we allow for narrative thinking, we have to recognize how easy it is for anyone to game the system and argue that they are the victim of some historical injustice and that they have the moral right to do bad things to someone by virtue of the fact that the person can be connected as a beneficiary to that injustice. 

LGBTQ+ History Month

 

A local elementary school here in Pasadena placed the following banners in honor of LGBTQ+ month outside its front office. Let us leave aside the question of why it is more important for the school to ensure that elementary school kids are more aware of LGBTQ+ History Month than Filipino-American or Italian-American History Month. What struck my attention was the timeline's claim for 2003: "LGBTQ+ legalized nationwide in the U.S." 

I can only assume that this is supposed to be a reference to the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws. Obviously, this was a critical event in the history of gay rights that set up the Obergefell decision with its right to same-sex marriage. That being said, it is not as if LGBTQ+ people were illegal before 2003. While gay sex has certainly been illegal in many parts of the country, being a gay person was never, in of itself, illegal. As someone who studies Jewish History, the distinction is an important one. The Spanish Inquisition went after people who carried out Jewish actions such as eating cholent on Shabbos. The Nazis, by contrast, killed people for having a Jewish grandparent. 

The timeline's statement only makes sense if we assume that being gay is fundamentally about what kind of sex you engage in to the extent that preventing people from engaging in gay sex stops people, in some sense, from being gay as opposed to "merely" violating the right to privacy of consenting adults. If being gay is really about sex then it has no business being discussed with elementary school kids. Those in the gay rights camp need to get their story straight. 

The really strange thing about this mess of a statement is that Lawrence v. Texas had nothing directly to do with much of the LGBTQ+ alphabet. The decision affected trans people about as much as heterosexuals. Whoever made the timeline was so wielded to the notion that LGBTQ+ represents a coherent group of people that they kept to it even to the point of writing utter nonsense. Here is my proposal to the LGBTQ+ advocates running our schools. If you are planning to groom my kids, pump them with puberty blockers, and castrate them, is it too much to ask that you at least teach them to write about history in coherent sentences?           

Non-Intuitive War Crimes

 

An essential component of Protestant theology is sola scriptura that only the Bible has authority. For this to work, it is necessary to not only accept a Protestant reading of the Bible but also that only the Protestant reading of the Bible makes sense. In essence, a Protestant needs to be perfectly confident that he can drop a suitably translated Bible next to a native Pacific islander and they would be able to reconstruct Protestant theology for themselves. The moment we no longer assume that this is likely, sola scriptura collapses and we are left having to choose which pair of exegetical glasses we are going to use to read the text with. Protestantism may be one possible framework along with a Catholic or a Jewish reading but that will no longer be sola scriptura. 

I see a similar problem with the notion of international war crimes trials. There is a basic problem with charging someone from another country with a war crime mainly that it violates one of the most basic principles of law, ex post facto. For something to be a crime, there has to be a clear law with set penalties that were being violated at the time the crime was committed. Without this, governments can arrest anyone for what they did last week even if it was perfectly legal then.  

The Nazi defendants at Nuremberg were some of the evilest people in all of history and they certainly deserved death. That being said, the Nuremberg trial itself was illegal. The actions of the Nuremberg defendants, including mass murder, were all perfectly legal under German law. By contrast, the crimes, the tribunal, and the very process of the trial were all made up on the fly for the sole purpose of prosecuting the defendants. Considering this, an essential justification of the Nuremberg trial was that the crimes committed were so egregious as to make it obvious to the defendants that what they were doing was a crime. 

Considering this, a war crime cannot just be something that is a war crime. In order to be a war crime, it needs to be obvious that the action is a war crime. The moment we fail to meet that high standard then we lose the moral high ground and are stuck in the morally dubious position of trying to punish people for failing to live up to our morality. 

A war crime can never be obvious because the very act of fighting in a war already violates the most basic of moral taboos, murder. One thinks of the scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where Paul stabs a French soldier that was in a shell crater with him. Paul, stuck in the crater, is forced to listen to the man die. The power of the scene relies on Paul, stuck in the muddy crater and cut off from the fighting around him, coming to the awareness that, because of his actions, a human being is dying next to him and that he will never be able to wash this guilt from himself. Sending people to war means telling young men to murder other young men who simply happen to be wearing the wrong-colored uniform. If they agree to commit cold-blooded murder, they will be hailed as heroes but if they refuse they will be imprisoned or executed for dereliction of duty.   

If this was our standard for a war crime, war crimes would be obvious and just about every soldier and politician throughout human history would be guilty of committing them. Imagine if Amnesty International were to be contacted for help by a soldier in prison for refusing to fire on uniformed enemy soldiers who refused to surrender. The moment Amnesty took such a case would be the end of war crimes theory as no country could ever accept that their soldiers have a moral right to refuse to fight.  

For a war crime charge not to collapse into reductio ad absurdum, we need to assume that there really is such a thing as legitimate war, where you murder perfectly decent people who have not harmed anybody, and that this can be distinguished from illegitimate warfare which is a crime. I do not want this to sink into moral relativism. Clearly, there can be distinctions made between legitimate and illegitimate warfare. Part of being a citizen is agreeing to murder people in legitimate wars and the government has the right to punish people who wish to renege on this agreement. The problem is whether we can assume that these distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate will be obvious to all reasonable people.

Imagine that I was drafted into a war. I agree to murder someone in an enemy uniform who was not in the act of trying to murder anyone from my side. Perhaps, they were on the toilet and I took them out with a sniper rifle. My commanding officer next tells me to start shelling a kindergarten classroom that enemy soldiers are using for cover. Have I just been ordered to commit a war crime and should I risk going to jail rather than do such a deed? What if the kindergartners are singing a song about how they pledge to kill people in my country? Why is it worse to kill those kids than the soldier who was not threatening my side?

I like to think of myself as an educated person. That being said, I am not any kind of lawyer or war crimes expert. Presumably, my officers will have manuals written by legal professionals employed by my government explaining how the orders they are giving me are not war crimes and, as such, I will face prosecution for failing to carry them out. What grounds would I have to argue against that? At least I know enough history and political theory to give some decent speeches before my military tribunal when I am tried for dereliction of duty. What is an eighteen-year-old fresh out of high school supposed to do besides listen to his government’s lawyers and hope that his side does not lose the war?

There are many areas of law that are allowed to be complicated. For example, I cannot assume that I have correctly filed my taxes simply by relying on my moral intuitions. On the contrary, I need to rely on professionals. Similarly, the precise parameters of the right to kill in self-defense are not intuitive. As a rule of thumb, if you have time to worry that the law might not recognize your right to self-defense in a particular situation that is a sign that you should not kill your attacker. By contrast, for war crimes to be a meaningful charge, it needs to be intuitively obvious. Soldiers cannot be expected to go to war advised by foreign legal experts whether something is really a war crime. The moment a war crime becomes something that you even need an expert for and cannot simply rely on what your "parents might say” then the entire legal edifice of war crimes collapses into the personal morality of foreign lawyers to be used against you if your side loses the war.     

Sacrificing Your Children on the Altar of Principle

A critical argument for those in the LGBTQ camp is that, unless LGBTQ individuals are accepted by their parents and peers, they are liable to commit suicide. This argument has a moral component. It can be argued that people who reject the premises of the LGBTQ movement are committing “literal” violence and endangering LGBTQ people with their “hate.” As such, the government is justified in acting against social conservatives in ways that might otherwise appear like a violation of conservatives’ freedom of speech and religion. There is also a practical component. As a parent, regardless of what you think of LGBTQ arguments, would you rather see your child become LGBTQ or be dead? I wish to take this argument head-on and ask are their principles worth sacrificing your children for?

I once did a post about the proper response of a parent whose daughters became bell-bottom-wearing, lesbian Nazis. To return to this basic premise, imagine that your child’s psychologist sat you down and solemnly explained that your child now identified as a Nazi. They prefer to be called Adolf and demand reconstructive surgery to become white and blond to match their “true Aryan ubermensch selves.” Finally, they wish to have a swastika tattooed on their forehead. The psychologist makes it clear that, unless you accept your child for who they “really are,” they are liable to kill themselves. As such, they put the question to you: would you rather be the parent of a living Nazi child or the parent of a dead child?

I would be willing to refuse the demands of such a kid. If a social worker attempted to aid my child in order to save their lives, I would insist that the government treat them no differently than any common kidnapper. This is not because I doubt what the psychologist told me but because I have principles that I am willing to die for and even willing to sacrifice my children for. I believe in classical liberalism and seek to impart those values to my children. If I had to choose between giving them the impression that I was ok was Nazism and seeing them dead, I would choose their deaths. I would even be open to the idea of outright killing them myself to protect society.

I do not think that this makes me a bad parent. The job of a parent is not merely to take care of their children’s bodies but also to prepare them to take their places within society. That larger society is more important than their lives and may require their sacrifice. Sometimes, parents must send their children off to war. My middle name comes from a nineteen-year-old cousin who was killed in Lebanon several months before I was born. His parents sent him off to serve in the IDF knowing that he might come back in a box and he did. Other parents must deal with children who come out of the closet as Nazis. While such parents might be tempted to simply love and accept their children for who they are, liberal democratic society demands that you reject such children even at the cost of their lives.

Sacrificing your children is certainly a high bar and there are many things I would not be willing to sacrifice them for. Despite being a traditionally observant Jew, I would rather my children reject Judaism than damage their mental health and put their lives at risk. If this means that I must accept their non-Jewish wives or even that they are in relationships deemed by Leviticus to be abominations, so be it. That being said, I do believe that human beings are born into societies and that we have no right to expect society to refashion itself to suit our convenience. As someone on the autism spectrum, this is something I am very conscious of. All my life, I have had to accept that I must either conform myself to the dictates of society or be prepared to pay a heavy price. You have the right to make your own lifestyle choices but other people have the right to disapprove of those life choices and to make their disapproval clear to you. If that disapproval causes you distress and psychological harm even to the point of driving you to suicide, that is on you and not them. Much as Nazism is an existential threat to liberal democracy, I fail to see how a liberal democracy can hope to survive citizens who believe that they not only have the negative liberty to make life choices but also the positive liberty to not have other people disapprove of them. I am willing to stand on this principle even at the cost of my children.

If my children become LGBTQ, I will still love them and want to be part of their lives. That being said, I would insist on my right to make my disapproval clear even to the point of taking largely symbolic actions like refusing to attend their same-sex wedding or granting permission for them to have “gender-affirming” surgery. I recognize that this is liable to cause them great distress and for that I am sorry but there are certain principles worth standing for even at great cost.       

On Coaching and Teaching

 

When working with students from disadvantaged communities, it is easy to fall into a negative cycle. These are students who are often even less inclined than most kids to read as they come from cultures that do not even offer the pretense of supporting reading. The parents are likely not going to be able to help them with homework so the temptation is to not give them homework in the first place. These students are often significantly behind their peers so it is tempting to keep the curriculum simple and not demand too much from them. We do not want these kids to become frustrated and drop out. While this sort of thinking may be founded upon good intentions, there is a trap. These students will, one day, go out into the world to compete for college placements and ultimately for jobs against students who have been given a vigorous education both at home and at school.   

Imagine being a basketball coach for a team of middle-class Jewish day school kids. These kids have their Judaic classes plus a variety of secular interests and hobbies besides for basketball. Most of these kids are here because they think it might be nice to hang out with their friends after school. Shooting a basketball and playing pickup ball is fun so why not join the team. You want them to run laps and do drills? How mean of you. Why are you yelling at them? They are doing their "best."  

I used to be one of those kids when I was in 5th grade at Columbus Torah Academy. I particularly remember one practice where the coach made us run ten laps around the gym. After finishing, I went to get a drink of water from a fountain in the gym. The coach yelled at me and then made the entire team run another ten laps. In essence, that practice consisted of us running laps. Why did he "waste" our time like that? We could have run laps at home. Shouldn't our couch have been actually teaching us how to play basketball? 

As an adult, I now recognize that the coach was right. One of the most essential parts of being on a team is to put yourself into the hands of a coach, recognizing that the coach understands the larger picture of what the team needs in order to win better than you do. As a player, if you do not understand this down to your very gut, the coach should cut you immediately even if you have Stephen Curry's 3-point shot. The greatest shot in the world is not going to help your team if you do not know how to get open and can easily become a trap if you lack the humility, when double-teamed, to accept that you might not be touching the ball that game. This might be the game for the number five guy on the team to be fed the ball and take those open shots.

To be clear, we were not a good team and regularly lost heavily to local Catholic schools like Saint Catherine’s and Saint Pius. I was certainly one of the lousier players even though I honestly tried. This was not our coach's fault. He did his job even if it was not a pleasant one. I do not believe that he acted out of any desire to beat down on elementary school boys. The fact was that we were going up against more talented teams and he had to make do with what he had. It would not have been kindness if he had told us we were great only for us to get blown out by reality. 

A more extreme version of the coach is the drill sergeant. Consider the example of the film Full Metal Jacket. It is easy to laugh at the antics of the sergeant but there is something truly tragic about his situation. The Vietnam War is in full blast and the recruits he is training are draftees. We can assume that they are not America's best and the brightest. These are kids who could not make it into college even to avoid military service in an actual war. The sergeant knows that many of these kids are going to die. It is his job to make sure that they do not get their squad mates killed. Then you have someone like Gomer Pyle who most certainly should never have been allowed into the army except that it was the job of some bureaucrat to meet a quota by drafting Pyle even if Pyle is going to get someone killed.

Being a teacher does not involve life and death responsibility like a drill sergeant but the stakes are higher than that of a coach. The worst that can happen if a coach fails at their job is that the kids will be humiliated for an evening by a better-prepared team, possibly leading some of the kids to conclude that they do not have a future in sports and, instead, should become accountants. If a teacher fails at their job, then students will graduate and apply or even start college not even realizing that they are not prepared because, all along, they were fed a fake education.

From this perspective, it seems logical to license teachers to do anything we allow coaches to do. Specifically, teachers should be allowed to accurately describe a student’s shortcomings to their faces and expel them from the classroom for failing to live up to basic standards. Furthermore, obedience should not be something up for negotiation but should be seen as the price of entrance. 

The reason why this does not happen is that the consequences of a teacher not doing their job are entirely long-term. There is no big game next week where the students will be crushed by a better-prepared squad. In practice, even exams usually fail to properly demonstrate that students are not up to task as they are created and administered by the teachers who have every incentive to not hurt their students’ self-esteem. Imagine if my coach had been allowed to schedule a game for us against our school kindergarten. We could have been an A+ team.

As teachers, we work under a further significant disadvantage. Students volunteer to join a team so the coach is free to kick anyone out if they do not get with the program no matter their individual talent. Most students who come to my class have no particular desire to study history. I have to be grateful to the students who do their work as they are told even if they then take a sip of water. If students tell me to "go F myself," the most I can do is report them to the administration, knowing full well that, at best, any punishment will be symbolic and that the student will be back in class the next day. I stand a greater chance of losing my job for "creating" a situation where a student might become "frustrated" enough to curse at me than that student has of being expelled from my class or from the school.       

I have taken to teaching some of my students to play chess. Chess teaches critical thinking and focus. You cannot simply do the first move that occurs to you. Most importantly for my students, chess is unforgiving in its exposure of your ignorance. You think you are smart; why did you just lose? Let us go over the game and see all the better moves that you should have seen if you were actually paying attention. There is no need to insult the students. The game itself can offer more biting criticism than I ever could. With chess, you do not need to wait several weeks for the big game to expose your failings; all chess needs in order to expose you is a few minutes. 

The Theology of the Romance Novel

I confess that I have a fondness for reading the descriptions of romance novels and I occasionally submit myself to the sadomasochist act of reading the books themselves. What intrigues me about romance novels is that they function essentially as frum novels (fruvels) with a clear theology and theodicy that make them utterly predictable.

Consider some sample texts from books descriptions:

Together, they journey through everything Quinn's been too afraid to face, and along the way, Quinn finds the courage to be honest, to live in the moment, and to fall in love. (Excuse Me While I Ugly Cry by Joya Goffney.)

She's had enough of playing the good wife to a husband who thinks he's doing her a favor keeping her around. Now, she's going to take some time for herself ... she's going to reclaim the carefree girl who spent lazy summers sharing steamy kisses with her first love on Sullivan's Island. Daring to listen to her inner voice, she will realize what she wants ... and find the life of which she's always dreamed. (The Last Original Wife by Dorothea Benton Frank.)

She can only trust her heart…and hope it won't lead her astray. (The Bookstore on the Beach by Brenda Novak.)

If she can dare to let go of the life she thought she wanted, she might discover something even more beautiful waiting for her beneath a painted moon. (The Vineyard at Painted Moon by Susan Mallery.)

Violet is tempted to take the ultimate step to set herself free and seek a life of her own conviction with a man whose cause is as audacious as her own. ... Violet's story of determination and desire unfolds, shedding light on the darkness of her years abroad...and teaching Vivian to reach forward with grace for the ambitious future - and the love - she wants most. (The Secret Life of Violet Grant by Beatriz Williams.)

These stories are all framed by a particular worldview. The goal of life is to gain self-fulfillment in the form of romantic love. As Nietzsche understood, in our modern world, God is dead (i.e. irrelevant). This leaves man as the only standard of moral value. Since we can no longer expect to find fulfillment in a relationship with God, the alternative is to find fulfillment in the self.

Romance novels, like much of what comes out mass media, takes this concept and gives it a populist twist. The average person cannot plausibly expect to be able to come into themselves by becoming a great artist, writer, or philosopher. That being said, the average person can imagine having sex with someone and that this will lead to a relationship that will lead to them feeling fulfilled. The fact that the sex may violate traditional communal norms, rooted in religion, helps make the sex an act of self-fulfillment. The protagonist is able to choose themselves over the demands of society, demonstrating that their personal happiness is more important than following the expectations of the community.

At the beginning of the story, the protagonist should be someone living under comfortable circumstances but lacking romantic self-fulfillment. This serves to demonstrate the all-importance of love. You can have everything but your life will still be worthless if you do not have romance. If the protagonist does find themselves in a difficult situation at the beginning of the novel that difficulty should clearly arise out of the fact that they were already living without romantic love. For example, the housewife finding out that her husband has been cheating on her and is going to divorce her, leaving her with nothing, has an economic problem that is really a romance problem.

Our protagonist, having lived their lives by the rules of society and now coming to recognize that this has not worked out for them as well as they might have hoped, is suddenly confronted with someone who presents some sort of challenge in the real world that should reflect the raw sexual desire they awaken in the protagonist. After an obligatory round of saying no (the equivalent of the Campbell hero initially turning down the quest), the sex should happen, leading to a heightening of the conflict, which will clearly be resolved by the protagonist deciding that choosing to "follow their heart" is more important than anything else in the world. At this point, the problem will melt away and a happy ending is to be presumed.

As a work of religious fiction, a romance novel will contain some form of theodicy where the believer confronts some challenge to their faith which they must overcome to emerge as stronger believers. For example, a person prays really hard that God should cure his mother's cancer and it does not work; how could God let this happen? The believer will eventually learn that God had a plan for him all along, allowing him to develop a deeper relationship with God as something more than a genie who grants wishes.

In romance novel theodicy, the protagonist will have been burned before in romance, a teenage romance the did not work out or a divorce. After given up hope of true love, an opportunity comes their way, if they are "bold" enough to "believe" once more and take it. As with conventional religion, the believer has been given real evidence that their faith does not work, yet they are supposed to believe anyway. It takes a truly genuine faith to ignore evidence and believe anyway.

This use of theodicy is really a smokescreen. Like most works of religious fiction, romance novels suffer from a lack of real conflict. The point of a Christian novel is presumably about the protagonist choosing Jesus, which needs to be something simple enough that the reader can expect to be able to imitate. An exception to this rule would someone like John Bunyan. As a Puritan, operating within the salvation through grace tradition, Bunyan wanted to make the opposite point that accepting Jesus was something so difficult that no person could ever hope to succeed through their own efforts without active divine assistance. Good religious fiction requires an author who can truly imagine following a different path and get the reader to take that alternative seriously. This makes for good fiction but is totally counter-productive as religious propaganda.

Similarly, there can be real conflict in a Jane Austen or a Bronte sister novel. An Austen or a Bronte heroine is not free to follow her heart. She has a navigate a world in which she has limited economic opportunities and, if she is cast out by her family and community, death by starvation or tuberculosis is a real possibility. By contrast, the conflict of a conventional romance novel needs to be solved by the protagonist deciding that romance is all they care about. The point of the romance novel is precisely the fantasy that life's problems can be solved so easily. A good romance novel would require readers to seriously grapple with the struggle between duty to society and personal fulfillment without taking it as a given that the latter should take precedence. This would make for a good novel but would fail as propaganda for the religion of self-fulfillment.   

It might be interesting to, following the logic of Pride Prejudice and Zombies, to take a conventional romance novel and make it about accepting Jesus. A highly successful career woman has her life overturned when her godless husband cheats on her and demands a divorce. Moving back home, she runs into the handsome former high school sports team captain that she lost her virginity to as a teenager. Desperate to feel valued, she flings herself at him. The guy confesses that he really wants to sleep with her but he cannot because he has accepted Jesus. The woman is so impressed by the guy's self-control that she decides to go to church to accept Jesus. The night before, the husband returns and apologies. Now we have "drama." Will the woman still accept Jesus and will she dump who no good husband for her "true love?" She tells her husband that she can forgive him because there is someone who died for her sins. The two of them go to church to accept Jesus together and run into the other guy. Will our male hero fight for the woman he loves? No, the two men shake hands as brothers in Christ and the woman drives off with her husband, having turned down the really hot guy.  

 

 

 

 

The Buckeye Christian Political Club

 

Zayid and Umar live in Columbus, OH. They hear that on Saturdays in the Fall, a group of cool people meet in their secret club to drink beer and yell at a television screen. These cool people are keen to make sure that only other cool people join their club. As such, they only allow people who wear the right kind of clothes and say the correct password to enter. Zayid wears scarlet and grey and says something very ungentlemanly about a woman named Ann Arbor. As such, Zayid is deemed to be cool enough to enter. Umar wears blue and maize and sings "Hail to the Victors." He is chased away.  

It turns out that the cool people also have a meeting on Sundays where they sing songs and listen to a sermon, followed by cake and socializing. Zayid makes sure to wear a cross and tells the people that Jesus is his Lord and Savior. Umar wears a turban and says "Allah Akbar." Once again, things go well for Zayid and poorly for Umar. 

The following Tuesday, these cool people have their biannual go into a booth and fill in the circle next to some politician get-together. Zayid wears red again and tells the people that we need to ban critical race theory. Umar wears blue again and declares that the year 1619 was the true founding of America. Perhaps Umar's luck finally turns around.

It is clear that the cool people hanging out in the first instance are simply fans of Buckeye football. There is nothing ideological about their opposition to Michigan. Even if Umar was the world's greatest expert on football and could talk for hours with charts about the superiority of Wolverine football, it would do little good. If anything, Umar's intellectual defense of Michigan would backfire and convince the Ohio State fans that Michigan represents empty intellectualism rather than the instinctual embrace of the "soul" of football. 

If pressed, the Ohio State fans would likely concede that there is nothing intellectual about their choosing of Ohio State over Michigan. It is equally reasonable for Michigan people to choose Michigan. That being said, they will still want Michigan people to stay in their place "up north" and not force Ohio State fans to hang out with them. Michigan people may only be pretend stink but that pretend stink still carries a whiff to it. 

Once we understand that fandom exists as something real where people are incredibly passionate about something completely vacuous, it is hardly obvious that the fandom model is not in operation in areas that make intellectual claims that sound like they should be taken seriously such as religion and politics. Do the Buckeye Christians really have a well-thought-out theology that allows them to reject Islam or does their clubhouse serve the same function as a church on Sunday as it did as a Buckeye hangout on Saturday? It is hardly obvious that there is a meaningful difference between the claims “Jesus is Lord” and “Ann Arbor is a Whore.” The fact that people around the world might proclaim the former with enthusiasm and without the benefit of alcohol should matter little. If the Buckeye Christians do not talk about Jesus with a greater level of enthusiasm than their denunciation of Ann Arbor, why should we not assume that both of them are equally meaningful to them?     

The same goes for politics even though politics deals with objective facts as opposed to metaphysics and there are real-world consequences to politicians of one party or the other winning elections. (This is distinct from whether your vote actually matters.) Despite the fact that people regularly make statements in politics that should be subject to refutation, we should not take these claims seriously as something the people actually believe. Their claims likely function not as truth statements but as signaling devices to show what team they root for.

From this perspective, the more a claim is clearly false, the more politically useful it becomes as a signaling device. Claiming that Trump really won the election or that American police are the moral equivalent of the Gestapo are both ridiculous. But the fact that they are ridiculous makes them good signaling devices. Only a true-believing Trumpist or leftist, who had no interest in being accepted by mainstream society, would ever say such things. 

Peter Boghossian engages in a useful exercise where he has people line up along a spectrum indicating not whether they support a statement or not but how strong their position is. One of the things that comes out strongly from these exercises is that people who take the most extreme positions are not there because they really have done significant research into the topic. Instead, their positions are marks of their identity. This causes them to take challenges to their positions very personally and lash out when someone questions them. It is almost as if they were sports fans confronting fans of the opposing team.  

A Club That Yeshiva University Can Reject

 

Recently my alma mater, Yeshiva University, has been in the news over the issue of an officially sponsored LGBTQ club with the court ruling that YU is obligated to allow it. To be clear, I am opposed to YU probing into the personal affairs of students. I do not want any guys expelled for being caught having sex with their girlfriends. I do not wish to be accused of being inconsistent so it only seems reasonable not to expel guys caught having sex with their boyfriends. 

A major part of the culture of YU is that many students do not personally live the kind of life that YU endorses. This is important if YU graduates are going to take leadership roles in the broader Jewish community. The practical goal here is to create a world in which even those Jews who personally do not practice Orthodox Judaism, see themselves as Jews and see Orthodox institutions as representing them. Chabad is a good example of this kind of thinking. There are thousands of Jews in this country who drive to Chabad shuls because Chabad makes them feel welcome. For all my disagreements with Chabad, it needs to be said that Chabad has a genius for loving Jews even the completely unobservant. 

Whether you are YU or Chabad, one's ability to be welcoming requires a balancing act where one still recognizes that there are lines that cannot be crossed. For example, I would expect a Chabad rabbi to welcome people who they knew were active homosexuals. I would not be surprised if Chabad rabbis were even willing to acknowledge a couple as husband and husband or wife and wife. That being said, any Chabad rabbi who performed a same-sex wedding would need to be expelled. Failure to do this would mean the end of Chabad. If Chabad could allow same-sex marriage then what redlines would be left that would stop us from simply thinking of Chabad as Conservative rabbis in funny hats?

It is hardly obvious that YU would lose its ability to claim to be the flagship institution of Modern Orthodoxy in America if a rabbi with YU ordination agreed to perform same-sex marriages as a personal decision. An institution like YU may have significantly more leeway than Chabad to allow its rabbis to go off script. That being said, even YU must have its redlines. I am less concerned about where precisely those lines are than the fact that they really do exist.     

I recognize that there are practical reasons for there to be an LGBTQ club at YU. I have no doubt that there are LGBTQ students at YU trying to figure out how to balance their identity with their Judaism. I honestly want such people to feel that they can attend YU. Having a club is likely to strengthen their connection to Judaism. That being said, one needs to ask the question of whether there can be a club that crosses a redline. Is there a club that would be perfectly reasonable to expect at a regular campus but would destroy YU's claim to be an Orthodox institution if it ever officially agreed to recognize it?

While likely far fewer than LGBTQs in the Orthodox community, I assume there are Jewish teenagers who have privately accepted Jesus as their personal savior and are struggling with how to balance their desire to live observant Jewish lives while being true to their Christian faith, knowing that most people in the Jewish community would react with extreme hostility if these kids ever came out of the closet. 

If I knew that my roommate was in the closet about Jesus, I would not out them or try to have them expelled. If people began to suspect that he was really a Christian perhaps because he shokeled when reading the New Testament a little too intensively for mere academic interest, I still would not support any action being taken against them. Things begin to change the moment our Jewish Christian steps out of their closet and actively proclaims that they believe in Jesus. By doing this, they would be putting YU in a bind, either take action against the student or implicitly acknowledge that faith in Christ is not as absolutely contrary to Judaism as one might have thought. If YU feels that it has to choose the former then so be it. 

Clearly, YU should not allow there to be a Campus Crusade for Christ club on campus. I believe that USC should allow Campus Crusade for Christ on its campus even though they are a private university. The difference is that Campus Crusade for Christ does not present a head-on challenge to USC's mission while YU exists precisely to be a space for people who reject Christ. 

I believe that YU should not be hosting Christian missionary attempts to convert Jews on campus even though it is hardly obvious to me that Christian theology is less heretical than hardline Chabad messianism. I would be willing to allow a messianic Chabad club on campus even over the objections of Prof. David Berger. In truth, there are large numbers of non-Jews in YU's graduate schools. If non-Jewish Christians in graduate school wanted a Christian club, I would support them. For that matter, if a group of Christian undergrads from South Korea enrolled at YU to learn about Judaism and America, I would welcome them and allow them to form an official Christian club even if it crossed the line into missionary activity. What would be the point of these students coming to YU if they were not allowed to discuss religion? 

If you want to argue that YU should have an LGBTQ club, I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. I am going to ask you, though, to produce a list of clubs that would be perfectly fine on most campuses but should not be on YU. YU should not have a Nazi or Hamas club on campus but neither should USC. I see a Christian club as less of a problem than an LGBTQ club. If we are going to have an LGBTQ club at YU then it would be unjust to keep Jewish Christians in the closet about their chosen savior.               

Harry Potter and the Acceptance of Death

 

Last night, I finally finished Eliezer Yudkowsky's fan fiction series, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. It truly is a work of genius that should be recognized alongside the original series. It should be acknowledged that Rowling, for all of her talents with comic dialogue, mystery, and crafting a world you would wish to visit, had a weakness when it came to crafting magic systems and thinking through the implications of a power once written into canon. One can think of Yudkowsky as a satire on the original and an attempt to fashion a smarter version. 

Yudkowsky uses his alternative version of Potter as a means to talk about rationalism. It is to his credit that he is able to write a deeply ideological work of fiction without his message dragging down the entire story. It helps that becoming a rationalist superhero is actually something difficult to accomplish. You cannot snap your fingers and become a rationalist even if Yudkowsky's Harry does do quite a bit of finger snapping. Contrast this with accepting the non-Puritan version of Jesus as your personal savior or deciding to "follow your heart." Such ideologies make for boring fiction because there is no real obstacle that readers should take seriously. All the main character needs to do is get over themselves and do what they, deep down, really wanted to do all along.  

Furthermore, Yudkowsky deserves a lot of credit for his handling of Draco Malfoy and Professor Quirrell. Yudkowsky's Malfoy is not simply a bully but a smart kid, who has been raised by a terrible parent, Lucius Malfoy, and the wider society of Death Eaters to believe that non-purebloods are diluting wizarding magic and risk causing magic to disappear from the world. There is something highly relatable about him as he is introduced by Harry to science as something that forces him to think in ways completely contrary to how he is used to operating. Specifically, Malfoy has to come to terms with the notion that there is an objective reality that will not change no matter the rhetorical arguments or threats he makes. I would not say that Malfoy becomes a good person in the end, merely a less evil one. 

Rowling never bothered to develop Quirrel as a character. His function in the Philosopher's Stone was to be the butler, a character sitting off to the side that the reader does not really pay attention allowing them to become the surprise villain. When I first read the book back in 2000, I had to stop to remember who Quirrel even was. Yudkowsky's Quirrel is a brilliant teacher with a clear dark streak who becomes the primary mentor for Harry. Ultimately this also allows for the development of Lord Voldemort as someone with a plausible appeal. (The revelation, in the end, about Quirrel mostly parallels Rowling.) 

There is a major philosophical difference between Yudkowsky and Rowling that I wish to call attention to. Essential to the Rowling version is an acceptance of death. Already in the Philosopher's Stone, we are introduced to the idea that Nicholas Flamel would allow the stone to be destroyed even though it will lead to his death. This sets up Harry's actions at the end of the series where he overcomes the temptation of the Deathly Hallows and ultimately gives himself up to Voldemort to die. Voldemort, by contrast, is someone who flees death (something hinted at in his name). He made Horcruxes to keep himself alive, has Quirrel drink unicorn blood, and tries to steal the Philosopher's Stone. 

Voldemort only cares about his continued existence and therefore refuses to recognize the possibility that there are principles worth dying for. As such, he is unprepared for Lilly Potter being willing to sacrifice herself even though she had no reason to assume that her death would actually save baby Harry. Ultimately, this sets Voldemort up for being unprepared for people being willing to sacrifice themselves in opposing him even after he has taken over wizarding Britain and resistance is futile.  

Voldemort's pursuit of immortality is connected to his lack of any kind of friendship. Voldemort, even as Tom Riddle, is self-sufficient. He does not need or desire other people. The Death Eaters are servants to be used. He does not care about them nor does he rely on them unless forced by circumstances. If Voldemort is someone who is going to go on forever then there is no reason to attach himself to people who might live on after him. By contrast, Harry is distinctly dependent upon others, mainly Ron and Hermoine. There is no pretense that he could succeed on his own or that he is of ultimate importance. This allowed Rowling to plausibly sell Harry's death in Deathly Hallows. It would not have been inconceivable for Ron and Hermoine, helped by Neville, to finish Voldemort off without Harry.  

It should be noted that Rowling was fairly open-ended when it comes to the afterlife. Not even Dumbledore dares to claim that there really is life after death. Rowling's point was that death should be accepted with courage and part of that courage is not knowing that there is anything to look forward to. Nearly Headless Nick expresses regret for hanging on to the sure thing of life as a ghost instead of accepting what lies beyond, regardless of what that might be. One thinks of the example of Socrates agreeing to drink hemlock rather than violate his philosophical principles while not knowing if there is an afterlife or just an eternal sleep. 

Yudkowsky devotes much of that later part of his work to attacking this view. Harry refuses to believe in souls even when confronted with ghosts. The mark of the fundamental failure of the wizarding world in general and Dumbledore in particular in living up to the standards of reason is that, even with all of their power to violate the laws of physics, they have failed to eliminate death. Essential to Harry's ability to fight dementors (who become exponentially scarier in Yudkowsky's hands) is that Harry recognizes them as death and as a blight on the world that should not exist and that he will one day eliminate. This opposition to death eventually sets the ending with the Philosopher's Stone.  

To respond to Yudkowsky, it should first be acknowledged that it is a positive good to extend the human lifespan through advances in medicine. It is reasonable to imagine that future generations of humans will be able to live hundreds or even thousands of years due to superior technology. This is distinct from immortality though, presumably, longer lifespans will delay the development of a true awareness of death. As a kid, I had a difficult time imagining myself as an adult. Part of becoming an adult is an ability to imagine oneself growing old and then dying. 

I do not wish to dismiss immortality as a good thing. If someone were to offer me some, I certainly would not be able to resist the temptation. It may be possible to imagine a morality for immortals. That being said, our morality rests on the deeply rooted assumption that we are mortal. Being mortal forces us to consider whether life might have a higher meaning that will go on after us. This can be as part of the divine mind or the walls of Uruk. 

This affects how we relate to other people. We are social beings who aspire to be part of institutions that will live on after us. Part of being a parent is the recognition that you will eventually grow old and die. Instead of trying to be the main character of your story, your job is to be an important side character in someone else's story. To truly embrace this perspective, you cannot try to live through your children but, instead, must accept that your children will be different from you. Your job is not to create a clone of yourself but to equip another person, with their own identity, with the tools they need to achieve greatness. Perhaps your job is to read Harry Potter to them and then start printing off chapters of Methods of Rationality and reading them as well. 

Choosing Meaning: An Alternative Version of Pascal's Wager

 

The philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-62) famously argued that one should choose to believe in God, despite one's doubts, because there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by making such a wager. If you choose to believe in God and you are right, your reward in heaven is infinite. By contrast, the atheist loses everything if they are wrong. If it turns out that there is no God, the atheist gains nothing for being right as they will be just as dead as the believer who turns out to be wrong. A major problem with this line of reasoning is that it undermines the very notion of belief, turning religion from something one honestly believes into a wager that one makes. If we are going to believe in God then we are going to have to honestly believe in God and not simply in a lottery ticket, a horse, or a meme stock that we buy in the hope that the universe, in all of its randomness, goes our way.  

I would like to suggest an alternative version to Pascal's Wager that maintains some value. Let us step away from the question of whether God exists to offer a heavenly reward and instead ask a different question; does life have any transcendent meaning? Let us also throw in the question, does free will exist? Without free will, we are simply puppets on a string acting out some story. Whether we are central characters in this story or not, we as people, who make choices, cease to matter. To be fair, there are powerful arguments to be made against free will and ultimately against our lives having any meaning. In fact, if I were being truly objective in how I looked at the world, I would have to conclude that most probably free will does not exist and that life is meaningless. I choose to live my life in the belief that my life has meaning and that I have free will, knowing full well that I might be wrong, because, if given a choice, I would rather live my life as if it had meaning and I had free will and be wrong than to not believe in meaning and free will and be right. What is there to gain by not believing in meaning? What is the point of being a Transcendentalist and fashioning my own pretend meaning? I might as well pretend that meaning is real.  

Having taken this leap of faith to accept meaning and free will, I might as well accept that there is a supernatural creator of the entire universe who, through some mysterious process that I am incapable of understanding, allows me to have free will and made the world in such a way that it somehow matters how I make use of the free will. It should be understood that, as we are dealing with an ultimate power to provide meaning, we are dealing with a monotheist God and not simply one of many sources of power that can be tapped into. Clearly, belief in God does not necessitate a belief in free will. I have spent too much time reading Calvinist literature to think otherwise. That being said, I do not see how we can avoid an active belief in God without sinking into the radical materialism of Laplace's demon, rejecting free will and any sense of ultimate meaning.

Belief in God would not have to undermine science. We can embrace science as our primary means of understanding the creator of the natural world. Similarly, my study of history has helped me develop a certain Augustinian sensibility to how I understand human affairs. I am skeptical of human claims to virtue particularly those who achieve positions of power. By extension, I do not expect the creations of those in power, such as countries, to fulfill their stated purpose and not collapse due to the inherent flaws of their designers. And yet there are certain ideas and works of the humble that seem to survive the inevitable collapse of civilization to resurface for a new age. (See G. K. Chesterton's Everlasting Man.) I cannot shake the possibility that there is such a thing as providence. Anyway, I cannot bring myself to worship man so I might as well at least keep an open mind about there being something above mankind.     

Once I assume the God of monotheism in whom I am trusting to provide me with meaning and free will, there seems little point in trying to pursue meaning outside of him. This leaves me a choice. I can try creating my own religion to serve him or I can join a pre-existing monotheistic religion. The advantage of creating my religion is that it is likely to be more rational and avoid the inevitable objectionable features of a religion that evolved through some historic process. Historic religions on the other hand can provide a living tradition to connect to as well as an actual community to interact with. If this religion makes claims about a historical revelation that cannot be dismissed out of hand, all the better. The fact that some things in this tradition might make me uncomfortable and force me to struggle with them might just be for the best. To quote Shepherd Book from Firefly: "You do not fix faith. It fixes you."

Let us agree that I have not provided an argument for God, meaning, or free will; that was never my intention. I choose to take a leap of faith in sanity and live my life on the assumption that there is a God and that my life has a purpose and that he has created me with free will in order to accomplish that purpose. I might be wrong about this but I prefer to believe these things and be wrong than to reject them and be right. If you could convince me, as I am on my deathbed, that God, meaning, and free will had been illusions all along, I will go into the eternal abyss grateful that at least I had the chance to live my life as if these things were true.    

   

Quasimodo in the Classroom

 

Imagine that you are the principal at a school at the beginning of the year and you are given Quasimodo as a student. Quasimodo is a hunchback and incredibly ugly but this is no fault of his own and his loathsome exterior covers a truly decent soul. How far would the administration be morally obligated to go in order to accommodate Quasimodo? Clearly, the school needs to protect Quasimodo from blatant bullying. Quasimodo's teachers need to be prepped before the year starts for having Quasimodo. For example, the teachers need to be conscious of the fact that Quasimodo notices how people grimace at the sight of him and that it does real psychological damage. That being said, there are going to be real limits as to what Quasimodo's two moms, the Notre Dames, can demand from the school. 

Despite the fact that social standards of beauty are largely arbitrary and that they discriminate against Quasimodo, who never chose to look the way he does, it would be unreasonable to demand that the school overthrow conventional standards of beauty in order that Quasimodo no longer be considered hideous. A different standard of beauty, besides being impractical, would simply leave some other unfortunate student as the ugliest kid in school. To eliminate all standards of beauty, besides being profoundly impractical, would harm society. Beauty is foundational to art and to ethics. It is by contemplating mere physical beauty that we come to comprehend the possibility of a higher form of beauty such as the virtuous person. 

Unfortunately, a tragic consequence of believing in physical beauty is that, inevitably, there will exist an ugliest person such as Quasimodo who will be made to suffer even if no one is actively mean to him. While it would be wrong to stare at Quasimodo, he will catch on fairly quickly if people are not looking in his direction at all or if the timing for how long people look at him is different from how they look at other kids. What is the principal supposed to tell Quasimodo when Esmeralda turns him down for the prom and instead goes with Phoebus, the football captain, even though he is a jerk? Before the school accepts Quasimodo, the principal will have to be honest with Quasimodo's moms. If they really want to avoid getting him hurt at all costs, the best option would be homeschooling. 

For Quasimodo to attend school, it will need to be acknowledged that, while there is an obligation to tolerate and be kind to him, he will never be truly accepted. The very act of trying to be kind to Quasimodo will only further his alienation. Why would anyone feel the need to go out of their way to be nice to Quasimodo if it were not for the fact that they have already "Othered" him and, feeling guilty about it, wish to cover up for their moral failure? As such, the Notre Dames would have to agree to let the school off the hook for trying to make Quasimodo fully part of the community even though that is what pure Justice would demand.  

I bring up this example of Quasimodo because it sets an outer limit for the moral obligations of a school to a student. The fact that Quasimodo did not choose to be the way that he is allows his moms to make real demands from the school if it wishes to plausibly claim that they are serving the entire community but there is not going to be any blank check to refashion society to allow Quasimodo to function within it. 

Imagine that, while Quasimodo's principal is talking to the Notre Dames, he has to put them on hold because a call is coming in from Steve Urkel's parents, who want him to do something about the fact that Urkel finds himself socially isolated. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with Urkel dressing like a nerd and the school should protect him against physical violence. That being said, the Urkels cannot expect a higher level of support than the Notre Dames. Fairly quickly, the principal is going to have to point out that Urkel is choosing to wear dorky glasses. Even though it is wrong that kids do not want to be friends with him because of how he dresses, if Urkel wants friends, he should probably change his clothes.    

The moment we start dealing with students who violate social norms out of any religious belief or ideology, the ability of the school to act should constrict even further. Imagine that Quasimodo and Urkel were to come out of the closet as transgender Trumpist Christians and came to school wearing skirts, MAGA hats, and crosses. Clearly, Quasimodo and Urkel have the right to wear such paraphernalia even though it will make many people uncomfortable, particularly as they are likely to strongly oppose the beliefs of transgender Trumpist Christianity. 

While the principal is on firm ground to admonish students for making fun of people for their clothes and certainly for their looks, he is on far trickier grounds when students criticize or even mock the beliefs of other kids. Disagreement is an essential part of a free society. As a public servant, the principal needs to be absolutely neutral in the often brutal ideological discourses taking place around the school. He can protect Quasimodo and Urkel as long he acts in exactly the same manner for all other groups. It must be clear that he is not acting out of any desire to promote transgender Trumpist Christianity as that would violate the rights of all the other students. As this standard would be incredibly difficult to reach, the principal may have no choice but to allow Quasimodo and Urkel to be mocked. 

It will do them no good to argue that they really are women, that Trump really is their president, and that God predestined them from before creation to be part of the elect despite their sins. All three claims are things that their opponents have the right to dispute. Furthermore, it will not help Quasimodo and Urkel to argue that being transgender Trumpist Christians is essential to who they are and that their opponents are rejecting their humanity. They were on better ground arguing that being a hunchback and a nerd was essential to their being and even that offered them little benefit.      

To Be Woke At a Wedding

 

I was recently back on the East Coast for my sister's wedding in Baltimore. On the ride there, I got into a conversation with my stepmother where she asked me for a clear definition of the word "Woke." I found myself struggling to come up with a definition that could pass an ideological Turing Test where it would not be obvious that I am opposed to Woke thinking. Part of the problem is that Woke arguments function dishonestly using motte and bailey tactics, switching back and forth between its innocuous and radical claims when convenient. The actual claims of the Woke quickly veer into Poe Law territory that defies parody. Just as I might have been tempted to invent a Westboro Baptist Church to parody Christian fundamentalism, my parody of Wokeness would have involved white people paying a white woman thousands of dollars to tell them that they are racist. The problem is that Robin DiAngelo is not a work of fiction. The wedding itself ended up providing me with a useful framework with which to explain Wokeness. I noticed that almost all of the waiting staff at the wedding was black. By contrast, the vast majority of the guests were white. What might this mean from a Woke perspective?

First, to be Woke means to notice this fact that the people serving had a different skin color from the guests. As such, one should not be so literally colorblind as to not notice the different skin colors around you. Second, one should know enough about American History in general and about Baltimore in particular to recognize that this is not simply a coincidence. Black people are more likely to be economically disadvantaged to the point that they would find themselves working service jobs like being a waiter at a wedding.

These two aspects of Wokeness are fairly uncontroversial as so far all we have done is state an empirical and a historical fact. We have not made any value judgments about my sister, her new husband, and the hundreds of guests at the wedding. Furthermore, there is no particular course of action to be demanded beyond not abusing the staff or anyone with less money than you do. It is here that the radical nature of Wokeness shows its face. 

From a Woke perspective, the people attending the wedding are guilty of perpetuating systematic racism. It does not matter that the people attending may honestly feel no ill will toward black people, were perfectly civil to the blacks who served them, and never actively helped prop up segregation. Furthermore, it does not matter that most of the people attending the wedding were Jewish and that many of them were actually of Middle Eastern descent and not European at all. The claim that Jews have a history of being persecuted and were even victims of the Holocaust is itself a form of racism as it allows Jews to uphold their white privilege and not do the necessary work of dismantling white supremacy. (Note that Robin DiAngelo actually uses Judaism as an example of a defense mechanism used by people at her workshops to deny that growing up white in America makes you inherently complicit in racism.)

It is precisely when it comes to the question of what should be done that we sink into the realm of the Poe Law and Wokeness becomes a self-parody. Clearly, my sister needs to make more black friends. If need be, she should have hired black people to be her friends and come to the wedding. This could have been a form of reparations. Perhaps, she should have refused to hire black people. The fact that these people would not have had a job would help awaken their revolutionary consciousness to overthrow white supremacy. 

My wife and kids are people of color (POC). If we were properly Woke, we would have denounced my sister for having such a racist wedding where black people served white people. Furthermore, my sister showed her racism by inviting her brother's racially mixed family. Clearly, the only reason why she would have invited her brother to her wedding was so his family could offer some token diversity, rendering her racism less obvious to the not-truly Woke. 

Of course, the fact that I married a POC also makes me racist. The fact that I am attracted to this woman could only be because I objectify black women and wish to pretend that I am not racist. As such, my wife should divorce me and take away my kids to protect them from my racism. Even my wife, though, cannot escape the taint of racism. As a white-passing person, she benefits from white privilege while still being able to point out that she is a POC when convenient. The reason why she married a white man was in order to improve her standing as a white-passing person, thus perpetuating the white supremacist hierarchy with whites at the top and POCs scrambling to gain a higher place in the pyramid by making themselves as white-passing as they can and practicing white supremacist values like the traditional family and punctuality. She has spent her life being nice to white people, who are all racist, allowing them to pretend to not be racist by being friends with her. This has culminated with her marrying into my clearly very racist family, allowing us to pretend to not be racist.          

One of the hallmarks of the Woke version of racism is that white people are constantly going to try to pretend that they are not really racist by doing things that appear superficially tolerant like inviting their POC sisters-in-law to their weddings. This is a play on the Christian doctrine of total depravity. Part of being totally depraved is that even when you follow God's commandments, you are only doing it because you fear Hell and not out of love for God. The sinner loves sin so much that even with the fires of Hell raging beneath them they will not genuinely repent but will try to fool God with sham repentance. As such, their supposed good deeds are even more hateful to God than their sins. In Puritan thought, the believer needs to undergo a process where they almost despair of the possibility of ever being saved but continue to try to be virtuous. They might then find themselves filled with the knowledge of Grace and realize that it does not matter that they are the worst of sinners because God has arbitrarily chosen to save them through the death of Jesus. Similarly, in the Woke religion, being white makes you inherently racist, particularly when you try to not be racist. The only way to be anti-racist is to accept that you are racist and that there is nothing you can do to fix that. Unlike Christian total depravity, in the Woke religion, there is no black Jesus who is going to die to atone for your racism. To expect that of a POC would be, dare I say it, racist.        

Voting Rights for Racists: The Case for Legalized Discrimination in Government Jobs

 

In the past, I have argued that discrimination on the part of private businesses should be a legally protected right. How could an educated person such as myself, who is part of a racially mixed family, support "hate?" I believe that opponents of Israel should be allowed to use BDS despite the fact that it is an anti-Semitic conspiracy designed to discriminate against Jews and ultimately to offer moral cover to people who wish to murder Jews. Universities should be allowed to accept black students over white ones regardless of qualifications. For that matter, schools should be allowed to operate programs and create spaces solely for people of color. I may find these practices to be morally repellent but then again I am morally opposed to Aryan coffee shops and strip clubs. These are examples of social crimes where patrons of a business do not cause anyone physical harm but are encouraged to inculcate values that I believe are ultimately detrimental to a well-functioning society and yet I still believe that they should be legal.  

As a classical liberal, I accept the horrific doctrine that people should be allowed to openly support socially destructive ideas to the point that they cause actual harm. The reason for this is that I assume that the tradeoff is going to be even worse. For example, while strip clubs teach men to objectify women and not get married, they are not going to cause nearly as much harm as government-licensed Puritans armed with a modesty checklist who rely on government power as opposed to articulating a case to society (as well as themselves) why specific modes of dress (or the lack of which) should be opposed. If I can defend the right of businessmen to operate strip clubs, I fail to see how I can reject the notion that businessmen have the right to be racists and openly discriminate in their hiring. 

For a long time, I have accepted a distinction between discrimination carried out by private businesses and that of the government. This distinction increasingly seems strained to my mind. Imagine an election between evil billionaire Monty Burns and Lieutenant Uhura (may the memory of Nichelle Nichols be a blessing). Burns wins the election by openly appealing to the racism of voters. Furthermore, we are able to find enough voters to cover the margin of victory who confess that they voted for Burns not because they supported tax cuts for billionaires and the elimination of government oversight over nuclear power plants over more funding for linguistics and space travel but only because they refused to vote for blacks. As such, it is an objective fact that Uhura was discriminated against based on her skin color. Does this mean that what the voters did was illegal and the election should be overturned?

It is important to keep in mind that voters have the right to be idiots. Democracy is not about giving voters the best leaders. It is about giving them the leaders they deserve and giving it to them "good and hard." The racists who voted for Burns deserve whatever Burns will do to them and the liberals who voted for Uhura do not deserve much better as they agreed to be part of the same country as the Burns voters and have not tried to secede. 

Once we acknowledge that voters have the right to discriminate against political candidates, why not allow their racist elected officials to fulfill the wishes of their racist electorate by discriminating who is hired for government jobs? Why should Burns not have the right to fulfill his campaign pledge of paying for his billionaire tax cut by firing black teachers if that is what his voters elected him to do?

It should be noted that there are limits to this line of thinking. For example, it would not apply to the criminal justice system. If the district attorney would, as his closing argument, choose to lead the jury in a round of singing "kill the n-word," the conviction of the black defendant could be overturned. There is a difference between voters and jurors, mainly that jurors do not have the right to be irresponsible and follow their own bad judgment; they are required to follow a clear set of legal instructions given to them by the judge who in turn is bound by a code of legal ethics. Attorneys, unlike political candidates, are not allowed to use a wide variety of dishonest tactics to manipulate jurors. Defendants, regardless of their skin color, have a right to a fair trial and the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the judge to make sure they get one. Similarly, blacks cannot be kept from voting as they have a right to vote. 

All of this is distinct from a job, whether in the private or government sectors, as no one has a right to a job. By contrast, people have the right to discriminate and hand jobs to people for reasons that have nothing to do with qualifications or actual life choices. Your height and looks are based on your genetics. You never got to choose them and they are unlikely to be connected to your job performance. That being said, the reality is that people are discriminated against due to being short and ugly. It is certainly unfair but that is life. Why should we treat discrimination based on skin color any differently?