The Sanity Project

Flavors of populism   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged ethics philosophy on by

Nailing down populism is difficult. Merriam-Webster says it’s “a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people especially against the Establishment.” The idea that “the people” should rule sounds left-wing, but we tend to think of populism as right-wing. It sounds like another way of saying “pro-democracy,” but that doesn’t get to its core.

Cas Mudde’s idea hits the target better. It’s as an ideology that divides society into two antagonistic camps, the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.” The elite isn’t necessarily the party in control of the government. The MAGA movement is populist, even though Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. What it sees as the corrupt elite is the academic institutions, the news media, the entertainment industry, all those who deal with information on a large scale. The “purity” of the people also plays an important role; immigrants and children of immigrants don’t count, at least until they’ve undergone a purification process of many years.

Another form of populism in the US comes from the left. It emphasizes “the people” above all else, stressing the first three words of the Constitution rather than the “inalienable rights” of the Declaration of Independence. It sees the elite establishment as one of wealth, often claiming an “oligarchy” runs the country while the president and Congress are just their pawns.

Populism is opposed to liberalism because it takes the Will of the People (or what it claims is their will) as the highest standard. People have no rights that the People can’t legitimately take away. When populists succeed, they establish their own ruling elite, directing the economy, and above all controlling information. It’s called “socialism” or “fascism” depending on which side runs it, but there’s little difference. It’s almost always illiberal because it places the popular will ahead of individual rights. Liberal democracy regards the democratic process as a tool for keeping any single faction from dominating the government and suppressing minorities; populist democracy treats the will of the “pure people” as an end in itself, entitled to stomp on outsiders and minorities.

In principle, populists should yield if they think the majority opposes them. In practice, they think the majority always supports what they want. We’re all inclined to overestimate the number of people who agree with us, because we talk to such people so often. Populist leaders, though, need to shape the popular will to match their own. This means using their power to promote their views and suppress opposing ones. Populists are rarely big on free expression for anyone but themselves.

Today we’re caught in a battle between the left populists and right populists, and the liberal alternative often has a hard time getting heard. This doesn’t bode well if either side ultimately gains full power.

A customs surprise 1   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Personal and tagged books taxes on by

Back in June, a friend mentioned interest in a limited-edition book called 8 Missions in Ukraine but said she wasn’t planning to order it. Ukraine is an interest of hers, so I decided to order the book for her from Rehi. It arrived in a few days, and she got the book. Then, just last week, I got an invoice from FedEx for $18.50 in customs fees. I couldn’t figure out what I was being billed for, so I wrote to their dispute address. I got a response a couple of days later with more documents, letting me figure out it was that book purchase.

Just a few problems. Rehi hadn’t told me I was ordering from outside the US or would be subject to customs charges. According to the documentation, it was shipped from Estonia. Second, I thought books weren’t subject to customs. Not long before that, I ordered Walter Moers’ novel Qwert from the UK, and so far no one’s charged me customs for that. Third, $18.50 is over 50% of the price of the book! Are customs fees really that high? That seems exorbitant even for Trump.

I’m trying to get this straightened out. An Internet search shows I’m far from the only person being billed for surprise customs fees, and some of the reports predate last year’s tariff blitz.

Update, July 20:

Just this morning, I got a followup reply from Fedex.

Dear Valued FedEx Customer,

Thank you for contacting FedEx Disputes.

Our records show that the duty amount in question is less than $20.00.

If you wish to proceed with an entry correction, please note this may be subject to a $90-$150 processing fee for correction US Customs & Border Protection if deemed customer caused (No additional fee may apply if it a FedEx/customs cause)

Kindly confirm whether you would like to continue with the correction process under these terms.

Seriously. It could cost me $150 to get a charge of $18.50 removed. I’m better off just refusing to pay.

The shifting meaning of “enslave”   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged language usage vocabulary on by

If you’ve done much reading on the Internet about slavery and abolitionism, you must have noticed that a lot of writers and websites avoid the word “slave.” They prefer expressions like “enslaved person.” The idea seems to be to remind people that slavery is an externally imposed condition and, at least in principle, is always subject to change. That’s understandable, even if it seems clumsy. Are there other nouns of status that people are replacing with phrases for similar reasons? We still speak of “prisoners,” “servants,” and “refugees” without circumlocution. Maybe there’s less of a tendency to treat those conditions as permanent.

The phrasing has had an unfortunate side effect, though. The word “enslave,” according to Merriam-Webster, means “to force into or as if into slavery.” It’s now widely used to mean “to hold in slavery.” Dictionary.com gives the additional meaning of “to hold (someone) in slavery or bondage.” Bringing a person into slavery is a more active evil than holding someone in slavery, and the distinction is worth keeping. When a change in usage becomes widespread, there’s no stopping it, but sometimes the language is poorer for it. This is shaping up to be one of those cases. I expect that Merriam-Webster will soon add the new definition, and the watering down of the word will be official.

Nitpick on top of the nitpick: You can argue that when slaves had children and their masters registered the children as property, that was “enslaving” in the proper sense. It hasn’t been automatic through US history that children of slaves were slaves. If we accept that people are born with the right to be free, then treating a newborn as a new slave is an act of enslavement.

Tangentially related: I don’t say that people “own” slaves. The basis of all property is that people own themselves. People can force others to do things, but they can’t have ownership rights to them, and any law that claims otherwise is based on a falsehood.

Speech limits on your property

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged ethics SanityProject on by

The First Amendment applies only to governments. You are free to banish people from your property if you don’t like what they say, provided the law otherwise allows it. That doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea, though.

A few years ago, some stores posted announcements that they’d banish customers who expressed racist ideas. This was a bad idea, and it’s rare today. Untrained employees would have to eavesdrop on conversations, and they could easily misunderstand what they overheard. And once you start going down that road, is there any reason to stop with just one idea? Banning people for expressing socialist ideas would make as much (or little) sense. Best not to try to police people’s opinions. People can still be kicked out for being disruptive or harassing people, regardless of what opinions motivate them. It’s bad business to 86 customers for their ideas.

In your home, you have more leeway, but courtesy imposes some limits. If someone expressed ideas I strongly objected to, I might explain why I thought they were wrong, or I might say that I don’t want to have that discussion here. If the visitor persisted, I might have to say, “Drop it or take it outside,” and follow through if necessary. Be careful about debating such people. A well-prepared person with lots of memorized arguments can often out-debate a more reasonable person who doesn’t have a stock of comebacks and citations at hand.

I’d object less strongly to abstract ideas than to proposals for violence. Anyone who advocates direct violence except for defensive purposes will be lucky to get a warning from me. Supporting racial pseudo-science in the abstract would annoy me, but I’d be more polite about it.

On the Internet, I can block, mute, or ignore people who say disgusting things. I make frequent use of this option, though I try to remember that letting them see what I say may lead them to better thinking. My own peace of mind has to come first, though.

Sloppy rhetoric kills credibility 5

This entry was posted in Censorship and tagged books censorship liberty New Hampshire SanityProject on by

The ACLU of New Hampshire has taken a position against New Hampshire SB 434, which it characterizes as “a bill to create avenues to ban books in New Hampshire.” As the word “ban” is normally understood in the legal sense, it means to categorically prohibit. A banned book is one that it’s illegal to own or distribute. The bill may be a bad one, but that’s not what it would do.
Bluesky screenshot from ACLU of New Hampshire

Governor Ayotte has vetoed the bill, so the issue is effectively dead for now. An override is possible but unlikely. What I’m writing about here is how the NH ACLU framed the issue.

The bill would have created a mechanism by which parents or guardians can challenge a book that’s available in a public school as “obscene and harmful to minors.” Successfully challenged books would not be “banned in New Hampshire”; anyone could still get them through the usual markets. Arguably it makes it too easy to challenge books based on little or no knowledge of their content, but schools already can and do exclude books. In most cases, it’s just that they can’t get every book that’s in print, but sometimes it’s because the books are badly written garbage. If intentionally excluding a book is “banning,” then every school already “bans” books.

There’s legitimate concern that making challenges easier would lead to the exclusion of books that have real value. But the point is not that schools should indiscriminately carry any and all books, or that any policy that excludes some books “bans” them.

In her veto statement, Ayotte correctly framed the issue as one of policy: “As a parent, I understand and appreciate the concerns parents have about their children being exposed to age-inappropriate or objectionable materials in schools. At the same time, existing New Hampshire law already requires school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s determination that the material is objectionable.”

In its call for action, the NH ACLU claimed, “The right to free expression includes the freedom to read whatever we choose. Yet our state government is attempting to make it easier to ban books right here in New Hampshire.” You have the right to read whatever you choose, but not the right to get it for free. It isn’t “banning” to say you have to pay for something out of your own pocket.

How schools select books is an important issue. A challenge procedure that encourages moral panics could be very bad, pushing schools into carrying only the safest books. But it’s a policy issue, not a rights issue. The real threats to free expression are growing: intimidation and even arrests of people who criticize officials, groundless lawsuits against news sources backed by threats of executive action, proposals for Internet censorship. If people who are already skeptical see library policies called “book bans,” they won’t pay as much attention to the real dangers to liberty.

There has been real book banning in the United States. The Comstock Act criminalized mailing “obscene” material, such as information on birth control. It’s never been repealed, though court rulings have greatly narrowed it. The owners of a bookstore in San Francisco were arrested and prosecuted for carrying Howl and Other Poems by Allan Ginsberg, eventually winning a landmark case. Such prosecution is rare today, but it could come back.

It’s especially bad when a chapter of the ACLU trivializes the concept. When individuals, even well-known ones, abuse the language, it mostly reflects on them personally. When a civil liberties organization does it, it damages the cause of civil liberties.