Feed Editor 22 Feb 2010 02:12:18 GMT The aim of this web site is to help clarify the philosophical currents animating important realities which affect the political and economic aspect of our lives as well as the moral-spiritual. My assumption is that the philosophical ideas we hold are the most important determining factors in how we live our lives, both publically and privately. Additions to the site generally focus on morality broadly construed, spiritual thought, depth psychology, and political and economic philosophy applied to the real world, as well as relatively recent American film as a vehicle of depth psychology. http://www.practicalphilosophy.net en A friend asked me why I so heavily criticize the Republican Party today, so I felt I needed to give some specific reasons. I challenge anyone to come up with a strong criticism of the left of center in general or Democratic Party specifically. My reason for not critiquing the Democrats is because they are more nuanced when discussing policy and moral values. They clearly do not manipulatively appeal to latent morally black-and-white sensibilities in voters. That this nuance is present makes all the difference between a society that is improving and one that is in decline. 22 Feb 2010 02:12:18 GMT http://practicalphilosophy.net 47C9F001-2763-432D-A05A-DFB1064A5B75 Compelling BBC series on why Anglo-Saxon/American civilization has become increasingly anti-social. All these theories tended to support the beliefs of what were then fringe economists such as Friedrich von Hayek, whose economic models left no room for altruism, but depended purely on self-interest, leading to the formation of public choice theory. In an interview, the economist James M. Buchanan decries the notion of the "public interest", asking what it is and suggesting that it consists purely of the self-interest of the governing bureaucrats. Buchanan also proposes that organisations should employ managers who are motivated only by money. He describes those who are motivated by other factors—such as job satisfaction or a sense of public duty—as "zealots". 18 Feb 2010 21:22:27 GMT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series) 1988C83F-F824-4237-89EE-360CB1149226 Quote from article: Researchers say the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the U.S. last year -- more than prostate and breast cancer combined. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it's 50 percent. ... Farm groups and pharmaceutical companies argue that drugs keep animals healthy and meat costs low, and have defeated a series of proposed limits on their use. 30 Dec 2009 22:59:03 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/29/us/AP-When-Drugs-Stop-Working-The-Meat-We-Eat.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=antibiotic%20meat%20farmer%20drug&st=cse A6776F2D-606E-400A-A29B-826FF25E7EEF In this post of December 28, 2009, I respond to charges by conservatives that the Obama Administration is too liberal and acting like a "nanny state". I argue that reasonable regulations are both good and necessary. Several examples of current policy lacking good regulations are given. (The post may have been moved to the "prior postings" page, whose link is at the bottom of the current post on the home page.) 28 Dec 2009 17:22:08 GMT http://www.practicalphilosophy.net/ EB11313C-61F9-41FB-8043-E1C845CAF737 Important article in New York Times Magazine on culture, sex and marriage. I've been arguing since the 1970s that the relativism of the left could never be a strong foundation for healthy culture and that it would still lead to a reaction on the right. This reaction would be harmful in ways that would make the left wish they had not opened the genie bottle of moral relativism. Indeed, the Bush Administration was morally relativistic to a degree that would make a leftist blush! 23 Dec 2009 23:08:17 GMT http://www.practicalphilosophy.net/ 2EFA2596-A0B6-4BF0-9AAC-B4C5749102A0 I've been sensing for years that southern Louisiana has something that the rest of the nation doesn't - a culture that cultivates "being present to the moment" and not emphasizing what we are going to do next. My understanding is that this owes to a combination of the dominance of Catholic and black culture. By contrast, one of my critiques of the northeast is that it tends to cultivate thinking about "what we have to do next". If this is a correct analysis, then by definition such a mind set would make it harder to feel content with life, because we are always in the present moment, not in the "what next". The point is not that we should not think about the future, but that if there is a heavy stress on "what's next", this is going to be problematic psycho-spiritually. Apparently, a study was releasted this week that seems to reflect this! I doubt that that study asked respondents to talk about "presence", but it is interesting that New York was last, while Louisiana first! Terry Quote from article: The state-by-state rankings were not a priority, he said. But they are what has inevitably drawn the most attention. In case you were wondering — and you know you were — the Top 10 states on the happiness scale are, in descending order, Louisiana, Hawaii, Florida, Tennessee, Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Alabama and Maine. 22 Nov 2009 20:07:08 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/nyregion/22nyc.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1261459203-w1pQyONYZGnBtPNFbuV+vw D12B60A3-B8B2-469F-A8D4-9FADA6F530A2 Keeping a close eye on Congress and the Administration regarding appropriately regulating the banking industry is essential right now. While it seems to me that even the Democratic Party has not been assertive enough in reregulating the banks, especially around the issue of derivatives, note in the text below that it is Republicans who are outright opposing regulating what experts say need to be regulated. Note too that the Republicans are outright opposing more protection for consumers regarding credit cards. The banks has been highly abusive in raising interest rates and charging exhorbitant late fees. Excerpt below from article: Mr. Shelby is said to be opposed to major provisions of Mr. Dodd’s bill, most notably the creation of an agency to protect consumers from abusive and deceptive mortgages and credit cards. Mr. Dodd has yet to produce a Republican who supports his plan. Moreover, several provisions will probably be opposed by moderate and conservative Democrats with ties to various industry groups that have raised objections to the measure. 10 Oct 2009 22:39:38 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business/11regulate.html?hp C11845E3-6C41-4CFD-A3E5-657B353562ED I've been claiming for five years that the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand has infiltrated the Republican Party, being a primary reason for its embrace of the idea that selfishness is morally good and more generally its turn towards appealing to emotions based in moral fanaticism. The article linked here makes the same general argument. While it makes sense for someone who is 22 to be influenced by Rand, as I was, it is neither healthy nor rational for anyone over 30 to take her ideas seriously as political philosophy. For one thing, her primary influence is Nietzsche, the one philosopher I don't teach to freshman given the mental illness it can lead to if one isn't careful when reading. (Rand can also lead to mental illness. By their fruits you shall know them, and her life was increasingly marked by chaos and narcissism.) Her misguided passion in praise of capitalism was also heavily driven by her experience of Soviet Communism, and much as she talked as if she affirmed life, she rejected all traditional ideas of Western civilization. Perhaps the most important value Rand has undermined in our political culture, especially in the Republican Party, is the value of moderation, the most important pillar of American political life. Rand's radical individualism is as destructive of social and political life as any violent terrorist driven by religious fanaticism. The bizarre thing about those in the Republican Party who are appealing to her "ideas" now is that they are out of date. They might have made some sense around 1980, but not today. Here is a quote from the article which shows a lack of sense of timing and history: "At “tea parties” and other conservative protests, alongside the Obama-as-Joker signs, you will find placards reading “Atlas Shrugs” and “Ayn Rand Was Right.” Not long after the inauguration, as right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck were invoking Rand and issuing warnings of incipient socialism, Representative John Campbell, Republican of California, told a reporter that the prospect of rising taxes and government regulation meant “people are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ ” This last comment is a remark of someone who is both ignorant and a demogogue. The odd idea that seems to be influential on the right that the US is becoming"socialist" suggests that these individuals have been living in a secluded gated community for 20 years. In fact, regulations and taxes have gone down significantly since 1980, and income inequality has soared. We need many MORE regulations today to get back to a MODERATE situation, and the notion that "Obama wants to regulate business and this is bad" is right out of a marketing strategy by private corporate interests! So why the false belief that we are on the LEFT of center, when in fact the US is far to the RIGHT relative to our own history and the rest of the West? I keep coming back to a two-part answer to this question: American radical individualism and the addictive anger sustained by false moral righteousness. The odd, cult-like belief that "the individual" LITERALLY makes it on their own, by "their own hard work", apart from the help from others or society, allows this nonsense to be "believed". The actual RELATION to life these ideas have is about as strong as the actual relation tapping my toes three times has to making me live better! Ayn Rand is in fact contrary to most of the social and political values Americans in fact live by, including and perhaps especially conservatives. For radical individualism , as the National Review understood well, is contrary to good living. Her radical individualism is also contrary to true Christianity - which makes American conservatives who define themselves both as "individualists" and religious out to be philosophically and spiritually scizophrenic. My favorite excerpt from this article highlights the fact that Rand was just as unmotivated by a business-oriented life-style as any intellectual. The point is that she criticized intellectuals as being "anti-business". My point is not that business is bad or shallow, but that it is not a deep moral or spiritual way of life that Rand arbitrary asserts it to be. Another quote which makes the relevant point: "Yet while Rand took to wearing a dollar-sign pin to advertise her love of capitalism, Heller makes clear that the author had no real affection for dollars themselves. Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done. It is the act of an intellectual, of someone who believes that ideas matter more than lucre. In fact, as Heller shows, Rand had no more reverence for the actual businessmen she met than most intellectuals do. The problem was that, according to her own theories, the executives were supposed to be as creative and admirable as any artist or thinker. They were part of the fraternity of the gifted, whose strike, in “Atlas Shrugged,” brings the world to its knees. Rand’s inclusion of businessmen in the ranks of the Übermenschen helps to explain her appeal to free-marketeers — including Alan Greenspan — but it is not convincing. At bottom, her individualism owed much more to Nietzsche than to Adam Smith (though Rand, typically, denied any influence, saying only that Nie­tzsche “beat me to all my ideas”). But “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” never sold a quarter of a million copies a year. " 31 Oct 2009 23:30:14 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html?em 0ECB97D7-428D-47AF-BF2C-3AE8A827EE6C November 9th is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was felt at the time that this was a victory of capitalism. But as is usual when one side in an argumen thinks they have the whole truth on their side, it turns out that the other side was partly right as well! It also looks like the decline of the Soviet Union may have been bad for the world in general and the US in particular. 25 Oct 2009 18:36:21 GMT http://submit.nytimes.com/berlin-wall-falls?hp 2D336200-7805-42FB-9439-984A9A7EB65B Because Americans have made freedom the highest moral value, we are unable to prevent the situation describes in this article: Hundres of thousands of homeowners, including many in Louisiana, have toxic dry-wall from China. The worst thing is: no one can be held responsible, due to the relevant free-trade agreements. The free-market philosophy espoused by the American right would not allow the national government to have any authority over legal agreements between "private" firms, e.g. very wealthy American traders and their Chinese counterparts. Free-market fundamentalists are wrong: When economic freedom is the only value guiding policy, ethics must take a hit. It is not true that free markets alone lead to ethical decision making, and it is myopic or fanatic to assume that regulations are not needed once we begin trading with cultures that have lower or no ethical standards. Here's an excerpt from the article linked: Mr. Morgan, like many other American homebuyers who tell similar tales of woe, is blaming the drywall in his new home — specifically, drywall from China, imported during the housing boom to meet heavy demand — that he says is contaminated with various sulfur compounds. Hundreds of lawsuits are piling up in state and federal courts, and a consolidated class action is moving forward in Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon of Federal District Court, who will begin hearing cases in January. Three hundred cases have been filed in Louisiana alone, many with similar complaints from homeowners — a noxious smell, recurrent headaches and difficulty breathing. In Florida, the health department has received over 500 complaints with such symptoms. 8 Oct 2009 04:16:22 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/business/08drywall.html?_r=1&hp AD1EB9EF-96DB-48EA-A758-186721BAA898 Excerpt from Thomas Friedman's op-ed piece in the Times on September 30th titled "Where Did ‘We’ Go?". The American political system was, as the saying goes, "designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system. Those factors are: the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians. I would argue that together these changes add up to a difference of degree that is a difference in kind — a different kind of American political scene that makes me wonder whether we can seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest. 30 Sep 2009 20:02:33 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html 0BE351FB-F524-4EDF-B01D-3E448F0C4354 Here's the primary economic issue Americans confront today in a nutshell: Globalization and the free-market fundamentalism preached as a religion by the American right, a force which has never admitted it was wrong about anything going back to the Vietnam War and McCarthyism, threatens to leave us in a situation where the "few strong" once again have power to set the rules of the game. The United States has enjoyed prosperity and relative stability since the Great Depression mostly because the latter created the political will to establish clear rules of the game in the form of robust regulations of finance/banking. (See a great article in First Things - a conservative quasi-scholarly journal on the willful refusal of the American government to properly regulate banking in the last decade - http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/the-rule-of-law-and-the-wealth-of-nations). This political will has been eroded by the few who exist in all societies in all times that these rules were intended to protect us from: those who simply want freedom to earn more money. It is a clever lie to insinuate that any argument against radical freedom is "socialist" or "Marxist", but these desperate assertions heard today are spiritually empty and materialistic to a degree that no actual socialist ever was. The point is not that earning or creating wealth is bad, but that ethical values must be applied by the society as a whole to economic activity, specially in the realm of finance due to the ease of transport of money (=fungibility). The greatest source of INSTABILITY in our time comes from Anglo-American economic culture, which has become excessively laissez-faire in the economic realm and remains so one year after Obama has been elected. The "dark side" of this culture has gained more of a foothold in our nation in the last 15 years especially. The dominant forces in this culture today assume that they have the moral right and ability to assert that the profit motive alone should guide society. The American left/liberals need to learn how to argue effectively for the rule of law and reasonable regulations. To allow this kind of belief in radical freedom to dominate is a guarantor of increasing economic instability and lower quality of life for all Americans - including the wealthy themselves - most of whom are not looking to diminish government's ability to act as a refferee or rule-maker. We see the LIMITS of this free market "philosophy" as soon as we start trading with other cultures that have LOWER ethical standards. (Shrimpers in LA. losing their jobs so we can get bad quality cheap shrimp from Thailand and China!) If Freedom is the highest moral value for a society, then OTHER CULTURES which have lower ethical standards MUST gain power and wealth, while those with UNENFORCED higher standards must decline in power and wealth. The winners are the few who profit from this freedom of trade. (Saving $1 on shrimp cannot be argued to be a right or a moral value when it costs a human being close to home his livelihood. To really believe this is heartless and nasty and implies a world no one would want to live in if they took a moment to think clearly. The same goes for all the other low-skilled/low technology jobs lost to free trade.) Free trade must be carried out within a framework that ROBUSTLY enforces ethical standards, the radical relativism and nihilism of the American right notwithstanding. For the latter, all that matters morally is the desire and ability of "the individual" to earn and create wealth. Do I see a glimmer of hope coming out of Pittsburgh this week regarding this issue? The article below suggests the US and other nations may actually allow each other to act as a "check" on their own dark side - as should any healthy society. This is most significant for America - which has tremendous psychological insecurity about being open in this way - an insecurity which masks itself behind truly myopic talk about economic freedom. Just as in a healthy relationship we are open to criticism and feedback, today more than ever American civilization for its own benefit ought to challenge itself to become more open to the influence of others - especially concerning the role of the profit motive and the assumption that "freedom always works out for the best". Regulations and rules of the game are essential for long-term economic well being for "all men". The latter is not a moral ideal, but simply a means by which we more efficiently create wealth for more people. While the American right today claims it cares about the "little man", it is obvious that their rhetoric - a rhetoric which not coincidentally always supports private corporate action - increases the wealth of a very small percentage of the society - which harming stability for all of us. Economic freedom does not exist for the sake of a few, although it does make it possible for a few to become wealth. There is no problem with the latter. There is a very serious threat to civilized society when the argument is made by corporate-backed talk radio and TV that the PURPOSE of freedom is to allow "the individual" to earn great wealth. The American right - which today is functioning much like the "Know Nothing Party" of old, continues to fail to understand this distinction at their and our peril. Speaking up is an essential today. Leaders of G-20 Vow to Reshape Global Economy http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/26summit.html?_r=1&hp Excerpt with emphasis added: The ideas are not new, and there is no enforcement mechanism to penalize countries if they stick to their old habits. But for the first time ever, each country agreed to submit its policies to a “peer review” from the other governments as well as to monitoring by the International Monetary Fund. That in itself would be a big change, given how prickly national leaders have often been toward outside criticism of their policies. American officials, who pushed for the plan during weeks of negotiations before the summit meeting, argued that governments were so shocked by the economic crisis that they were willing to rethink what was in their self-interest. “I’m quite impressed,” said Eswar S. Prasad, an economist at Cornell University who had initially been skeptical about the proposed “framework” for stable growth. “A commitment by the U.S. to take the process seriously is a potential game-changer that would give the framework some credibility.” 26 Sep 2009 23:09:13 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/26summit.html?_r=1&hp DE2A5656-3BDF-405A-9BB3-AAEDDC2F6BAC As I repeat every so often, a weakness in free market ideology is the notion that the market by itself out for the best. Once a nation begins to interact and trade with another nation that has lower ethical standards - standards that can be discussed and clarified by clear moral philosophy - we find that globalization means that those cultures with the lowest ethical behavior must win in a free-trade regime. John Locke and Adam Smith did not foresee a situation in which transport technology made it cheap enough to move products around the world and still make a profit. In short, in usual Anglo-Saxon fashion, they did not take into account that other cultures may not have the same high moral standards. In this article, we see how European companies have an incentive to export their trash to the 3rd world where there are no regulations. They make a profit, but in the process harm children in these other countries where no regulations exist. The same thing has happened in reverse: Americans have allowed toxic wall board into the country from China because it is cheap, and in the process getting sick from it. Quote below from article. " There, electronic waste and construction debris containing toxic chemicals are often dismantled by children at great cost to their health. " 26 Sep 2009 20:14:50 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/science/earth/27waste.html?_r=1&hp 4373EAEA-FAB2-48E3-8031-E0E85E5795DC Is there some movement by U.S. on re-regulating bank activity? Two Quote from NYTimes: "...rather than focusing on the specific amount employees are paid, Fed officials will be scrutinizing whether the structure of compensation, like the use of bonuses based on the volume of loan origination, encourages excessive risk-taking." "The Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, has long maintained that his primary concern has been the structure of incentives rather than the absolute amounts of compensation. " One year after the banking crises, I still haven't seen any serious regulations put in place to address the dysfunctional incentive structure that has been developing since the 1980s'. Perhaps this wait is reasonable, but I have my doubts. The argument is simple even as the relevant business mechanisms are complex: Incentives shouldn't be allowed to be operative that motivate individuals to take actions that may well benefit themselves individually but have a significant chance of harming the corporation or the nation as a whole. There is no justification for the system as it currently stands, a system which allows some individuals to make huge sums of money in the short run, e.g. 1 - 2 years, even while their actions significantly increase the risk to the firm and/or the financial system as a whole. In a country as stable as the US, with a strong political tradition, two reasons must always be given to explain the kind of systemic corruption we've seen since the 1990s in particular. The first component of corruption since the 1980s is an actively cultivated philosophical justification for excessive de-regulation. The cause: activist treatment of freedom as a moral absolute, animated by the belief that the free market system exists in order to enable single individuals to get wealth. In the case of individuals in real estate and banking being motivated to take action which do harm at the micro and macro level, the quite unthoughtul "arguments" being put forth now by free market radicals, neo-conservatives and conservatives generally were intended to both undermine present regulations and to prevent re-regulation of the current broken system. These movement activists oddly define themselves as “for the little man”, but are uptopian and abstract in their thinking in a way not too different from traditional communist ideologues back in the 1960s. Much like a drug addict comes under the influence of a chemical, it is a fact in the West that some fall under the influence of disordered philosophy. The symptoms of this disorder are moral fanaticism and the treatment of particular political values as if they are deep moral values. In this case, the value is “economic freedom”. These activists and intellectual types are not bad people. In a way similar to the process by which an individual in the middle ages fell under the influence of the Crusades and becomes fanaticized, or dare I refer to middle eastern fanatics today, these individuals have been philosophically corrupted. I anticipate some responding by saying the counter-examples involved violence, while laissez-faire capitalism does not involve violence. Puritanism, or Calvinism generally, can only be adequately understood when we grasp the manner in which it sublimates violence. The moral heart of a puritan culture, such as America has, manifests sublime moral claims whose moral content is so subtle as to be unnoticed by their proponents. There is a subtle violence in this form of morality. One of the great tasks of American civilization at this point in time, after bin Laden has awoken the underlying violence in the heart of American Puritanism, is to get clear on the violence in our own hearts. This violence is hard to see because it does not manifest in the same way traditionally violent movements do. This is because the violence is directed first at a presumed “sin” within. The unbearable weight of this sin inclines the members of the group over time to project this sin onto others. In America, one of the forms this projection takes is the admixture of intense moral claims into economics. The Protestant work ethic is a short –hand way of beginning to get at this violence. This is a violence that takes no responsibility for the various forms of social degradation that comes out of laissez-faire capitalism, from environmental harm to negative social values and mundane violence being aired on public airwaves in a way not seen in non-Puritan cultures. Free market ideologues, whose roots lie Puritanism, tell themselves that FREEDOM is the only moral value we as a society should care about, and that this MORAL VALUE justifies any behavior of any individual to make as much money as they can, so long as they don't prevent anyone ELSE from doing the same. (This is pretty much the form of argument given by free-market ideologues. I know, as I was one of them in the 1980s.) The bizarre treatment of economic freedom by American conservatives as a moral value on the level of a sacred religious belief is so far from any tradition, including Catholic, as to put it in a wholly new category of ideology, a uniquely American one. This may be a rare time in history when a movement has based itself on values that have no linkage to any traditional moral philosophy or religion! CLAIM: The philosophy that "the individual" should be able to make as much money as he can and that THIS is the REASON for the existence of the free market has taken such strong roots in our time that I believe it will continue to largely determine the rules of the game, or the lack thereof. Contrary to the hype on the right, the Democratic Party has very little power today to shape economic rules of the game. This lack of power on the left of center is a product of culture and philosophy - not politics. American individualism and the heavy stress on freedom in the US inclines citizens to be more swayed by arguments on the right than on the left. This is just the way it is. Traditional education and rigorous thinking for ones' self is the solution to the problem of a closed ideology influencing more Americans today than ever before. The second reason for the largely unchallenged philosophical corruption of the American economic system has more to do with the influence of money. Once you get rid of good regulations, you create a whole new class with great wealth that has an incentive in keeping the system as it is. In our case, we have allowed the cultivation of rules of the game that motivate individuals to make economic decisions that they know will harm the group. This class of individuals gives money to Congress. We may need to have totally public financing of elections, though this may create other structural problems in in system of incentive at play. PREDICTION: In a post 9/11 world, the efforts by the newly invigorated economic Puritans to PREVENT reregulation will largely succeed and as a consequence we will experience another banking crises. My claim is that there will be changes in the regulatory schema, but it will be too weak to have the needed effect on significantly changing banking behavior. Our government will not be doing its job, and will be representing the interests of the classical "few" rather than the nation as a whole. At this point the violence of Puritanism will have been displaced by the members of the movement onto the larger society. This displacement of felt guilt is always the goal of any movement made up of fanaticized individuals. As a result of the culture resonance of this movement; as a result of the fact that American civilization has not come to terms with its own ‘bad faith’, any new regulations will be piecemeal and largely leave the current incentives in place, allowing a few to make great sums at the expense of everyone else. SECOND PREDICTION: I have begun to argue that those who are motivated by money and status and who act on this motive WITHOUT CONCERN for the well being of the larger society or their own firms are diagnostically similar in makeup to traditionally defined addicts. Individuals who let themselves take actions with the knowledge that their actions will harm the firm or nation on the basis of the claim that "the system lets me do it" are no different than more traditionaly anti-social individuals who steal to get their next drug fix. We say these individuals are not bad people trying to become good, but sick trying to get well. We never use moral categories in judging them, but neutral behavioral terminology. These individuals are hooked on an income that they will never use and don't need, and for some to claim that "they have the right to earn it" is irrational and immoral. The PHILOSOPHY of FREE MARKETS might SAY they have this right, but that does not mean they DO have this right. No traditional political philosopher, including John Locke, would make this kind of claim. A civil society, one we want to bring our children up in, cannot let a system of incenctives remain in place which motivates the kind of anti-social behavior we have been witnessing since the 1990s. Terence Hoyt 19 Sep 2009 22:06:36 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/business/economy/19pay.html?_r=1&hp ED274ED0-FB03-4CF7-B2F9-2A46C7E9AFB8 Given the entrenched radical free-market philosophy, I have not been surprised at how little has changed on Wall Street and in American banking. Until regulations are put in place that prevent incentives from coming into play that motivate individuals to make financial decisions that benefit them personally even as they create excessive risk or are simply void of benefit to society, the United States will continue to be at risk. 12 Sep 2009 03:45:56 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/business/12change.html?_r=1&hp 8BA230E3-931D-4A62-B3CB-377A63D74661 I haven't been saying much about American politics lately, but this speaks for itself. 11 Sep 2009 22:48:34 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/11vitter.html?ref=politics 718E5AC2-0B50-4B8B-AB79-25A7B33F12B8 Good article in the "Atlantic Montlhy" giving a detailed explanation of how American health care needs to be reformed. The problem lies in what I've sometimes referred to as the "structure of incentives". There are all sorts of incentives built into our current system that have the effect of making prices rise well beyond the level of inflation. According to the writer, this problem is not being addressed by either party right now. 2 Sep 2009 04:37:13 GMT http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care 4777690A-2409-4E61-844D-FF6AD38CB764 The free-market mania that we are living under continues to reveal it's dark underside. Currently, banks are able to administer mortgages without owning the loan. Who thought of this scheme, and why didn't anyone spell out the obvious: that this is a recipe for the creation of a loan regime which will desire foreclosures! Why is this? Why is it that since the 1990s, the private profit motive so often fails to work for the benefit of the average person? When a mortgage holder falls behind in payment, the bank earns money in the form of late fees. If the loan if foreclosed, the bank earns more money. Because the bank does not own the loan, they don't lose any money if the mortgage holder eventually forecloses. What this means is that banks have an incentive to NOT help mortgage owners stay in their homes, and they DO have an incentive to keep them on the ropes if they do begin to have problems. The law needs to be changed to require the same entity that administers the mortgage to have a stake in the well being of the mortgage holder. This could take the form of requiring the bank to own at least 25% of the loan. 24 Aug 2009 16:21:54 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30services.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bank%20foreclosure%20late%20fees&st=cse 757C9A59-A8E4-4025-86C8-030097191818 1. Magnolia (1999) For the best expression of the way in which American civilization cultivates both addictive ways of living and avoidance of looking inward as a necessary step towards spiritual living. 2. The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) 2006. For the best expression of the transformation of an individual who assumes that being a 'good man' is defined by following the expectations, rules and norms of the being a 'good citizen', but learns the "way" to becoming a truly good man can force one to sacrifice living as a 'good citizen'. 3. American Beauty (1999) - For the way in which the film makes use of imagery to underscore and critique the dominant quality of American civilization - to over-stress "beautiful images" and thus avoid going within as a prerequisite to true spirituality. 4. Little Children (2006) - For a profound look into the subtle forms psychological and spiritual "lostness" take in our time, with a glance at the theme of sin and redemption. 5. The Matrix: Reloaded (2003) - For the highest level of philosophical discussion of the connection between reason, freedom and morality in Western civilization in a popular form. 6. The Hours (2002) - For it's excellent expression of the deepening psychological movement in American society. 7. The Life of David Gale (2003) - See Romero. 8. Romero (1989) - For it's portrayal of the life of a man who confronts the limits of grounding is moral identity in being a 'good citizen'. As such, the film evokes Aristotle's distinction between the two modalities we seek to live out of - the 'good man' and the 'good citizen'. 9. The Big Fish (2003) - For it's portrayal of a way of truth telling that is not based on empiricism and the scientific spirit. As such, such a film helps point us in a direction I argue we would do well to move in. 10. Ordinary People (1980) - For it's best portrayal to the move in the deep psychology, the gift of the 1970s. This movement will radically deepen in Hollywood starting around 1993. 11. The Deer Hunter (1978) - This film powerfully expressed the end of American willful innocence as well as, contrariwise, a turn towards the patriotism of the 1980s. 12. Deliverance (1972) - 1972 and 1973 are turning points in the way America looks at itself through Hollywood's "Dream-image making" "machinery". This is the time when we begin to look at reality as it really is. 13. Into the Wild (2007) - this film portrays a real-life character as a peak-type without expressing American individualism. 14. The Reader (2008) - for it's representation of a pre-Socratic/pre-Judeo-Christian basis of moral judgment 15. Doubt (2008) - for it's representation of the tension between doubt and faith today. 16. The Razor's Edge (1946 version) - for it's representation of the life of a philosopher-type in America 17. The Gay Divorcee (1934) - for dance scenes. 18. Now Voyager (1942) - for it's romanticism 19. Mr. Skeffington (1944) for it's representation of a Christian moral ideal. 20. The Mission (1986) - for it's representation of a moral-spiritual transformation 23 Aug 2009 17:29:13 GMT http://www.practicalphilosophy.net/practicalphilosophyrss.xml C433EEAE-DDA6-4287-BF1F-41901913FAA0