Frank's Musings

Humans need myths in order to make sense of the world.  Not all of us are motivated to guide our behavior in ways that benefit the welfare of others, or of those who will be living after we die.  History implies that billions of humans have existed before us, from which we conclude that many more will exist in the future.  But we would not expect to witness that as a reality unless we were convinced of an irrational, personally unobservable presumption:  the world continues to exist after our physical consciousness is permanently extinguished.

Anyone who doubts that postulate can be a threat to society’s order.  However, generalizing that presumption requires a common belief, or suspension of disbelief, in the existence of a reality that cannot personally be observed.  Such a belief can be arrived at through independent analysis, or it can be instilled or imposed by trusted or autocratic authorities.  The ancient world was most commonly ordered by a variety of mythologies.  In the modern world, the most widespread spiritual orders are either religions or secular philosophies.   Some of us rely solely on autonomous humanitarian principles.  

There is a remainder of mankind that unashamedly acts in their own short-term interests--carpe diem.  Ultimately, it is impossible for this to be a universal lifestyle; but apparently its promise of personal advantage can tempt unthinking people to abandon the long-term welfare of the community.  Consequently, political leaders have often shared power with religious philosophers in order to maintain control in the simplest way, without demanding deep philosophical thought.  Religions inspire the population to place borders on their self-interest.

In one perspective, there are two kinds of people:  critical thinkers and self-aggrandizers.   The former believe in abstract values by which they live their lives; the latter determine their actions solely on the basis of what they believe is in their personal best interest, regardless of the ultimate impact on others. 

This contrast also divides humanity between conservatives and liberal democrats (or progressives).  The liberals welcome change, in the conviction that things can always get better; and that they are part of a community from whose general welfare they benefit.  They try to analyze their situation objectively, in part because by doing so they may benefit the entire community.  The conservatives are risk-averse; they try to protect their current situation and prevent it from getting less advantageous.  This explains their resistance to immigration, their limited creativity, their racism, gender narrowmindedness, their isolationism, etc. 

Liberals are convinced that the difference between them and the conservatives can be reduced by education; the conservatives believe that people who don’t agree with them have been indoctrinated by “elites” who, like them, are trying to promote their own personal interests. 

Indians (Indigenous Americans) were commonly slaughtered in colonial and Westward Expansion times.

Regarding Eara Klein's opinion piece in the 5/14/2022 NYT institutions mediate values and norms. Liberalism accepts or even promotes changing norms,but does not necessarily discount the value of institutions. A liberal may use institutions to achieve his goals.

The EU requires platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc. to monitor the content of posts on their websites and at least to flag those that are politically incendiary, hateful, or otherwise intentionally and maliciously disinformative. The parallel in how print, electronic and other licensed media are regulated is that guidelines have been adopted that qualify the content they publish even though it may be attributed to outside sources, e.g. OpEds and letters to the editor,

The easy access to those platforms that the Internet affords makes social media vulnerable to manipulation by determined influencers.  Demagogues, sexual  predators, bigots, and other malefactors are allowed to take advantage of the enormous audience that social media platforms enjoy because of society’s fostering of the World Wide Web. Therefore, it is appropriate for countries to authorize their regulatory arms to protect the welfare of the community by setting and enforcing adherence to standards of communications behavior.

Of course, this is a slippery slope. The regulators themselves will have effectively to be kept in conformance with the common culture, which, naturally, is not universal.  Therefore, uniform enforcement of international web access standards will not be possible without damaging the Web’s freedom of access worldwide.  A likely method successfully to protect the world from corrupt influencers on the Web will be investment in vigilant counter-intelligence measures funded by concerned private and public agencies.  The U.S. Congress may usefully expand the mandate of the January 6 investigation committee to cover this subject, as well.

The USSC may overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis that it is unconstitutional. If it does, re-establishing a national right to an abortion will not be a simple matter. Codifying it would only invite another SC challenge and the law would probably be overturned on the same grounds as Roe may be.  In any case, if the Democrats lose control of the Senate, codification would be impossible anyway.  Actually, such a bill would likely be filibustered and would require a 60% majority in order to pass.

Another tactic some suggest would be for a Democratic President to try to pack the Court. This again will not be possible without at least a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.  Moreover, legislation authorizing an expansion of the Court would also probably be filibustered in the Senate; so, 60 votes would be necessary.   Therefore, the surest way to assure the Right to Choose is to amend the Constitution. Of course, that will require 2/3 Right to Choose majorities in both the House and Senate. Good Luck!

The 2022 inflationary spike has not been caused by an overheated economy. If it were, an interest rate hike would be an appropriate remedy.

The pandemic has caused a slew of stresses on the worldwide economy, similar to a catastrophic weather event or astrophysical disaster. The appropriate government response to that sort of non-human strain or Act of God is to loosen regulatory restraints on society—allowing civilization to devise whatever coping strategies it can come up with.

Penalizing commerce and industry with large interest rate hikes will only exacerbate the dilemma that COVID-19 created. Even more than 14 years ago, Quantitative Easing is what the Fed should be doing.  Otherwise, our central bank will surely force us into a Depression.