Free speech in Germany

Apparently there is no free speech in Germany. You can face a fine or a short time in jail for swearing at someone. Here, a Left politician faces such penalty for referring to Thilo Sarrazin as an ass. Thilo Sarrazin is the best-selling author of an anti-immigrant book.

A country in which you cannot call a racist an asshole without suffering penalties from the state is not a free country.

the mundane sex trade

Here's a story from an English language German news website I found, The Local.

While some prostitution has become concentrated in large high-end “wellness” brothels such as Berlin’s Charlottenburg district Artemis – which boasts a pool, sauna and buffet – other establishments are focusing on the controversial practice of “flat-rate” prices.

Still other prostitutes, such as Klee herself, focus on providing sex for seniors in retirement homes or for the disabled – an area the BSD spokeswoman said she expects to grow swiftly as Germany's population ages.

One director of a Berlin retirement home told the paper she would like to create a “room for intimate encounters,” but is still in discussions with the religious organisation behind the operation.

Even large brothels such as Artemis have recognised this potential, making their facilities barrier-free.

“It’s important for us to show that Artemis is outfitted for the disabled,” the company said, touting wheelchair friendly changing rooms and showers, in addition to helpful personnel.

And while such companionship isn’t covered by public health insurers, the terminology, Sexualassistenz, or “sexual assistance,” is already well-known in bureaucratic "insurance German," the paper said.

First of all, why did no one tell me Germany legalized prostitution in 2002? Second, I think this story illustrates just how uninteresting the sex trade can and should be. Sex workers are not inherently sketchy or criminal any more than are masseuses or fitness instructors. Sex workers, like most of us, are concerned with improving accessibility for the handicapped or infirm. Sex workers, like the rest of us, respond to market signals; some of them with that extra entrepreneurial spark even start businesses. Likewise, those who seek out sexual services for hire are just like the rest of us. They include widows and grandparents, the terminally ill and even the merely curious.

Also, the word Sexualassistenz. We need to import that.

social technology

In an effort to reintroduce myself to blogging after my long absence (because I was busily completing my thesis!) I thought I would briefly comment on a Will Wilkinson piece from last week. In discussing the inevitability of regulatory capture in the specific case of financial regulator Peter Orszag accepting a gold-plated private sector finance position, he writes:

The classically liberal answer is to make government less powerful. The monstrous offspring of entangled markets and states can be defeated only by the most thorough possible separation. But public self-protection through market-state divorce can work only if libertarians are right that unfettered markets are not by nature unstable, that they do not lead to opressive concentrations of power, that we would do better without a central bank, and so on. Most of us don't believe that. Until more of us do, we're not going far in that direction. And maybe that's just as well. Maybe it's true that markets hum along smoothly only with relatively active government intervention and it's also true that relatively active government intervention is eventually inevitably co-opted, exacerbating rather than mitigating capitalism's injustices. Perhaps the best we can hope ever to achieve is a fleeting state of grace when fundamentally unstable forces are temporarily held in balance by an evanescent combination of complementary cultural currents. This is increasingly my fear: that there is no principled alternative to muddling through; that every ideologue's op-ed is wrong, except the ones serendipitously right. But muddle we must.

Maybe it's obvious that no single ideology gives the right prescriptions for all circumstances, though one would hope if it were obvious we would more effectively internalize the fact. Less obvious is that even in principle no self-contained ideology *can* be "right" because of the continuous coevolution of policy, political opinion, and individual and collective action. Maybe we can think of social policies and institutions as technologies, and technologies have the property of using existing technologies as infrastructure. Like a physical technology, policy or institutional changes can bring on as many or more problems as they solve, though "problems" might also be called opportunities. We have no choice but to muddle through as we slowly, imperfectly adapt social technologies to the ever-changing social environment.

New Atheism and the Evolution of God

I've been basically supportive of the New Atheism, but Robert Wright's new book, the Evolution of God, really made me reconsider. There seem to be three broad pushes in New Atheism. The first is proselytizing, and I think this is perfectly healthy. I think a lot of modern, sensitive atheists have taken "live and let live" too far, and have sought some sort of moral high ground by attempting to not be like the religious folks in trying to convert other people to their beliefs. But this attitude, besides acquiescing to a double standard, implicitly grants religious folks one of their most nefarious weapons, the notion that religion is "special", and off the table for rational discussion. But it should be no more off the table than politics or any other ideology-fraught topic. Of course rules of engagement need apply, namely the Don't be a dick rule.

The second push is PR and consciousness raising, and this is great. From Richard Dawkins' insistence that people stop referring to children as "Catholic" or "Hindu" children to Hemant Mehta's really powerful perceptual tool of replacing "atheist" with "Jew" or "Christian" in any statement about atheists to see if it would still pass muster with common tolerance norms. For instance, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' statement that "Atheism leads to brutality" does not jar the typical American brain the way "Judaism leads to brutality" does, and this needs consciousness raising.

But the third push of New Atheism is intolerance of believers. Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris especially harp on the idea that in a world of nuclear weapons and means of large scale destruction, we can't afford to tolerate irrational belief systems. Atheists (not just New) spend a lot of time finding ridiculous and/or evil passages in holy texts, passages where the deity in question commits genocide or encourages his (almost always 'his') followers to slaughter a people wholesale in his stead, advocates stoning or other brutal punishment for homosexuality or menstruating on the sabbath or whatever, or describes reality in some way modern science has rendered fanciful, to put it generously. The atheists are obviously right in these criticisms, but they're wrong in the "Ha! I've got you now!" that follows.

This exercise usually seems to be used more to persuade other atheists just how crazy believers are. It would fail to persuade most believers even if they deigned for a moment to listen. One reason, I think, is that they don't believe whatever absurd scriptural story you just regaled. How could they? You've probably just pointed out that they'd never heard it before in an attempt to prove their ignorance of their own revealed Truth. When they see for themselves it really is right there in the scripture (call it the Bible, say), they might claim they believe it, because they think they should (because it's right there in the Bible!), but they won't understand why they should. It will be something like a symbolic belief. And chances are they won't try very hard to integrate these uncomfortable stories into their belief systems, because they like their belief system just the way it is thank you very much, and anyway listening to some atheist isn't their preferred method of learning moral and spiritual truths. 

And do you really want them to incorporate these stories into their worldview? There's a great gotcha here. You've just shown an inconsistency. They say they believe everything in the Bible and you've demonstrated 1) there's something in Bible they've never even heard of and 2) they can't integrate the whole scripture into their worldview. But you already knew this, because you already knew what a hodgepodge, multi-author, contradictory mess the Bible was. What was the point again?

The far more interesting question Robert Wright tackles in his book is why you had to point out the ugly Biblical tale in the first place. These darkest bits of the Bible are left out of sunday school classes, and pastors and priests leave them well alone. In many Christian churches in the west, the ridiculous and awful passages about women are quietly retreating into obscurity. The Roman Catholic church, among others has accepted the reality of biological evolution. (About time, I know). This doesn't excuse anything, certainly not the sexism, homophobia, other bigotries, and anti-science stances that persist in different pockets of the religious world. But clearly progress is possible, and it's interesting to ask how it happens.

This kind of rhetoric coming out of the New Atheism, rhetoric I've been guilty of in the past, suggests a certain scriptural determinism. That is, believers are liable to behave in the ways they do because they take their scriptures literally, just as they claim they do. So whatever darkness dwells within the pages of the holy text will manifest in the actions of the believers. This is suspect in principle, because as atheists unceasingly point out, scriptures offer contradictory advice. Believers simply must project prior preferences onto their religion. But more importantly, empirically it just doesn't seem to be the case that people get their world view from their religious texts.

Wright takes the Judeochristian faiths as his example, and plots out the way the stories, translations, and interpretations evolved against what was happening to real people at the time. He argues, I think persuasively, that people changed their God to fit their experiences down on earth, rather than fitting their experiences to the prior desires of their God. So when the Israelites were incorporated into the Persian empire and began to trade peacefully with similarly subjugated former foes, Yahweh started describing these old enemies as not so bad, even human and worthy of respect and fair treatment. Or now, as more religious people realize they actually know and like a homosexual or two, they're less inclined to persecute them, and consequently their God is much less likely to command such persecution. God evolves to fit circumstances.

The point, finally, of this rambling post is that the intolerance of believers coming from the New Atheists is counterproductive in the extreme. If the vilest excesses of religious belief can be tamed by positive-sum interactions between peoples, as they have in most of the developed world, then such interactions should be pursued. Sowing hostility, as many of the New Atheists do, indeed by dehumanizing believers as shallow zombies capable of any bloody act mentioned in a book, will never change beliefs, because that's by and large just not how beliefs change. Instead, it creates a zero-sum atmosphere between believers and non-believers. God will evolve accordingly. This is not to say that faith and absurd beliefs shouldn't be challenged; they should. But the most effective way to neuter faith, and bring about a world where weapons of mass destruction are less likely to be used regardless of irrational beliefs, is to build bridges, and act in such ways that make it as easy as possible for the faithful to humanize the rest of us. God is infinitely adaptable; steer her in a benign direction.

the moral imperative of economic growth

I haven't been following the brouhaha over the Cordoba House/Park 51 very closely. In part this is because when the issue came up I thought some people would say some stupid things and then we would all get on with our lives. But people keep talking about it, from Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats opposing its construction to Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin making some shockingly disgusting utterances. And the opposition to mosques and Muslims is not limited to Lower Manhattan, as this Yahoo story discusses:

Public protests against three planned mosques have made news in the past week: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin joined others in opposing the building of a mosque a few blocks from the World Trade Center site. Hundreds demonstrated against a proposed mosque in a small town in Tennessee (pictured above). And some residents of Temecula, California, are opposing the local Muslim community's plan to build a bigger mosque, saying it could become a hotbed of radical Islam.

And something like two-thirds of Americans polled oppose the building of the Cordoba House.

After 09/11/2001 I remember there was a great fear that there would be some dreadful backlash against Muslim-Americans and, at least to my recollection, it just didn't materialize. What's going on now seems like some nine year delayed reaction. One big difference that springs to mind about our relatively enlightened reaction to a terrorist attack (at least in terms of our behavior to Muslims within our borders, if not our foreign policy or surveillance apparatus) nine years ago compared to our current reaction to a building explicitly devoted to interfaith dialogue is the normal state of low unemployment and economic growth then and our high unemployment and stagnant growth now.

Our less-than-generous attitude to immigrants now, in a time of decreased immigration rates, compared to just a few years ago, when prominent politicians from both parties could be found to advocate immigration reform, is another example of the same phenomenon. In times of economic expansion, we appear to be more gracious with one another. In times of stagnation, we're less so. This is the argument Benjamin Friedman apparently makes in his book, The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth (which I would know if I'd read it, but it's reviewed here by Brad DeLong).

It's striking to me how all these issues are related. High unemployment is not just an issue narrowly for the sake of creating employment for those unemployed; it's an issue broadly for the sake of the rest us. We will become better people again when the economy resumes more robust growth and employment returns to normal. And for those of us concerned about the plight of immigrants, about the religious freedoms and property rights of Muslims, and about our moral growth generally, perhaps the surest way to return to sensibility is to return to prosperity.

on Mehserle

I don't have strong feelings on the verdict of this case. I haven't been following the case in detail. I understand the defense claimed Mehserle meant to grab and use his other potentially lethal weapon while Grant was face down on the ground. Mistakes can be made very easily in high stress situations. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to give the benefit of the doubt in such conditions.

However, benefit of the doubt in uncertain, high stress conditions should be given to more than just police officers. Another example of uncertainty and high stress that could possibly lead to honest mistakes is when police bust down a door unannounced in the middle of the night, shooting every dog in sight. A sleepy resident might be confused, frightened, and unprepared as to the best way to react, possibly leading to violence by mistake. But non-police are not always given the same benefit of the doubt.

If anything, the police should be held to a higher standard, given their training and their status as bearers of the public trust. But really, it would just be nice if the law applied to police and non-police civilians with the same presumptions and the same force.

the ethical emigrant

On a gut level, I really loathe the argument against expanding immigration (in this case specifically for skilled immigrants) that it will result in a brain drain for the poorer sending country, hurting that society by removing its top talent. Counter-arguments point to the role of remittances; the often temporary nature of the migration, as in the case of education; and possibly the value to the sending country of expanded networks and further global integration. But regardless of the economics, the argument bothers me because this should be the choice of the individual migrant, based on her own wholly personal motivations, whatever they may be. The idea that receiving nations would adjust their immigration policies based on such considerations is disturbing, the mirror image of the Berlin Wall.

And yet, from that individual's perspective, there are ethical considerations. One of the main reasons I support more open migration policies worldwide is because I like the idea of a world where people can vote with their feet, where they might travel the world not only for work or fancy but also to shop around for public goods jurisdictions to their liking. An aspiring migrant might want to leave a really bad situation, like a totalitarian regime. The enlightened emigrant's departure from a particularly benighted realm will make that realm marginally more benighted. Of course the negative effect on the country of one departing migrant would be minuscule compared to the benefits accruing to that migrant, but they shouldn't be discounted from an ethical calculation altogether. After all, the same argument could be made for any private, voluntary effort to correct for negative externalities or majoritarian ethical hiccups; doing what you can to reduce your greenhouse gas footprint in the absence of a price on carbon dioxide comes to mind.

I've been thinking of this because lately I've been in an uncharacteristically anti-American mood, almost certainly because I've been reading too much Glenn Greenwald. Really though, the American government in the last ten years has launched two aggressive wars, killed God Knows How Many innocent human beings in Predator drone strikes in foreign countries we're not even at war with (not that the USA has officially been 'at war' since WWII), locked up GKHM innocent human beings in cages without any kind of due process, tortured GKHM innocent human beings, and asserted the authority to assassinate American citizens, again, without due process. This is all sold as necessary to win a phantom conflict against an idea. And these abrogations of the rule of law join the police militarization, weakening of the Fourth Amendment, and racist horror resulting from our drug war (another war on a concept) that has resulted in America earning the dubious distinction of imprisoning more of its citizens, by both percentages and naked numbers, than any other nation.

While I realize that if I die in Canada, I'll die in real life, it does not seem unreasonable to consider getting up and leaving as an appropriate response. After all, I'd prefer to live in a place where the government, after determining an individual has been wrongfully caged and tortured for eight years, gives him an apology and a cool $8 million, rather than a place where the government does everything in its power to deny him his day in court.

Finding much of the American government's activities unconscionable, the eager young Enlightenment idealist might consider leaving its jurisdiction, only to remove her positive influence and have the vacuum filled with the likes of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. On the other hand, from the cosmopolitan perspective, the important thing is only that the Open Society flourishes somewhere for its ideals to remain alive; in the end it doesn't matter if America succumbs to its worst demons. Well, it does matter for the people affected, which is why the ethical emigrant might consider sending back moral remittances, money sent back to liberal institutions fighting the good fight, like the ACLU.

Perhaps it's not a thorny question after all. I think in the end this post was just a vehicle for grievance airing.