The Fetishization of Insensitivity

Germain Greer (source)

Liberation feminist Germaine Greer recently sat down for an interview in which she discussed her views on transgender women--her view being that they're not real women at all. When asked by the interviewer if she understood why some people might find her view offensive, her response was pretty straightforward: "I don't care!" Greer's attitude toward trans women is pernicious and ubiquitous enough to deserve its own discussion, but her attitude toward those who might find her statements upsetting is the perfect epitome of an awful new trend. She doesn't care if some people find what she says hurtful or upsetting, because why should she? It's not like other people's feelings matter.

And this is an attitude that's all too easy to find. What can we say about Charlie Hebdo, the winners of the PEN Freedom of Expression Courage Award, except that they don't seem to care at all about whom they upset or offend? They've just published cartoons that essentially make a joke out of the Russian plane crash that killed 224 people, even going so far as to feature a talking skull--presumably from one of the deceased--in one drawing. Nor is this a new turn for the magazine; previously, they've had a cartoon featuring a man being shot to death through a Qur'an--referencing Egypt's military coup and massacre of protestors--with text reading, "The Qur'an is shit. It doesn't stop bullets." The legions of supporters who rushed to the magazine's defense after its own journalists were similarly massacred showed their solidarity with Charlie's total insensitivity by holding "Draw Muhammad" days, serving little discernible purpose other than to show Muslims worldwide that they don't care if they're offended (after all, it's hardly making a statement in favor of freedom of speech to use that freedom to be callous toward a largely disliked, relatively powerless minority).

From Al Jazeera

Obviously, no one should keep from speaking an important truth just because it might upset some people. Nor should art that actually carries some real meaning be made to avoid rubbing anyone the wrong way. In fact, deliberately offending people can even serve a purpose; sometimes, offending people is the first step to getting them to think twice about ideas they've taken for granted. Certainly, it was offensive to many white racists to preach the idea that blacks should be viewed as equals. There have been plenty of people who have been offensive, even deliberately so, in ways that helped push society in the right direction--Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Marilyn Manson.

But there's a difference between being willing to offend, and even intentionally offending, people in order to make some sort of important statement, and being callous and insensitive gratuitously, because those attributes are seen as a virtue. Getting a society to reexamine its taboos and its norms when they may very well be outdated or dangerous is a purpose easily worth offending people over. But, even if we assume Greer believed she was speaking some important truth with her transphobic comments, what's the point in displaying cavalier disregard for the feelings of people whose great sin is trying to make their bodies match how they've always felt about themselves? What was the point of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons mocking the Russian plane crash or the Egyptian massacre? What's the point of Bill Maher's mockery of Muslims and contribution to the idea that they have some unique tendency to commit terrorism?

From The Electronic Intifada

Just by arguing this much, I certainly open myself up to the accusation of being some sort of whiny, oversensitive, crybaby PC social justice warrior who's getting offended just because people refuse to censor themselves. But I'm not asking that people avoid saying or doing anything that anyone might find offensive--that would be utterly ridiculous, and I can't stand the sort of political correctness that really does push toward that sort of mentality. I'm asking that people actually care about each others' feelings. I have no interest in catering toward the moralistic, self-indulgent outrage that many people will display over anything that offends their sensibilities (I've even written an entire post criticizing it), but the examples I've cited here (as well as innumerable others) don't just elicit moral outrage, but rather feelings of alienation emotional hurt. Transgender people go through enough without some bigot like Greer showing a total apathy toward whether what she says bothers them. Certainly, the friends and relatives of those who died in the plane crash have suffered enough without their dead loved ones being made into some kind of grisly punchline by Charlie Hebdo. And God knows that Muslims deal with enough hatred and prejudice without Maher's "comedy" and Draw Muhammad Day.

What I'm asking is, is it really necessary to make people feel belittled and unimportant for the sake of comedy or whatever else? Is it that hard to avoid pointlessly upsetting people? And, if nothing else, can we at least stop applauding the people who display this insensitivity, often toward already-marginalized groups, as somehow being admirable by openly showing that they don't care if they hurt other people's feelings? As co-inhabitants of this planet, we have to find some way to get along, and stepping on each others' toes just for the fun of it doesn't seem like the best route.

Alternatively, if we accept this new standard of insensitivity as being a sign of courage and honor, perhaps we should reevaluate some things that have happened throughout history. How about minstrel shows, for instance? After all, the performers didn't care if black people found it upsetting to be portrayed as laughably stupid. How brave of them! How about the American Nazi Party? Doesn't one just have to admire how little they care whether Jewish people and ethnic minorities find their slurs and propaganda offensive?

Not surprisingly, this standard of "who cares if it offends or upsets other people?" seems to magically vanish when the tables turn on the most vehement promoters of this standard. Bill Maher's critics are just mean-spirited bullies, he'd have us believe, who don't care about how their mean words make him feel. Germaine Greer has accused people who deviate from her transphobic views as being misogynist. And defenders of Charlie Hebdo's Islamophobia were predictably infuriated when Marilyn Manson called the magazine's continued Muslim-mocking cartoons a "dumb idea". Cavalier disregard for their feelings or views is, of course, unpardonable.

As I've said, we certainly shouldn't be too afraid or reluctant to offend other people. When it comes to genuine artistic self-expression or pushing for important causes, let people be offended if that's what they decide to do. But, as usual, there's a balance to be found. Not wanting to be oversensitive to the point of self-censorship is not the same as embracing the idea that other people's feelings should be irrelevant. But, while the advocates of insensitivity are convinced they're under attack and the culture is being overrun by political correctness, I fear that their attitude of callousness and disregard for others may be what's truly taking over. If that's so, it's just one of many ways in which the future could be a very grim affair.

The "Small Government" Fraud

Watching the recent Republican debate, the third so far of the season, one is reminded of one the Republicans' favorite things to do: attack the size of the government. In that debate alone, you can find numerous examples of candidates talking about how much they just hate the federal government while the Democrats love it.

When asked about his plan for climate change, Chris Christie started off by saying "Well, first off, what we don't do is do what Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Barack Obama want us to do, which is their solution for everything, put more taxes on it, give more money to Washington, D.C., and then they will fix it." Carly Fiorina told the moderators that "every time the Federal Government gets engaged in something it gets worse." Jeb Bush said that "It's always a solution of the left to create more Government from the Federal Government. It is broke, it is not working."

This sort of rhetoric has a long tradition in the Republican Party, going back at least to Ronald Reagan, who regularly derided the government and talked about his desire to shrink it, famously quipping, "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

Ronald Reagan (source)

But here's the thing: the Republicans don't hate the government, federal or otherwise. By and large, they love it. Let's start with Reagan. As president, he invaded another country, ramped up military spending, ushered in a draconian new era of the War on Drugs, and helped pave the way for the modern surveillance state. Somehow, that doesn't quite sound like the record of someone who hates the government.

The big-government Republican legacy continued and expanded in the Bush era, when we got the invasion of Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, the prison in Guantanamo Bay, and a prescription drug plan for Medicare that prohibits the government from negotiating for a better price on the drugs it's paying for. That's a quite a few holes for the government to pour taxpayer money into, and quite a few abridgements of the individual rights that the Republican Party claims to be so intent on protecting from big government.

The people standing on the stage at the latest debate were no different; Jeb Bush wants to expand our offensive against ISIS and loves the NSA's surveillance programs, Carly Fiorina wants to expand military programs and conduct exercises to intimidate Vladimir Putin, and Chris Christie wants a federal crackdown on marijuana usage. All three of them, and many of the other candidates, clearly love big government. It just has to do the things that they personally want.

So why this facade about wanting to shrink the federal government? Simple: the Republicans have a long history of rolling back welfare programs and federal regulations, that goes back to--surprise!--the Reagan era. It's a pretty tough sell to argue that spending money to help poor people is bad, but giving it to big corporations is good; it's not much easier to convince people that banks and big corporations should be free to do as they please, but everyday people should see their rights eroded. America has a long history of distrust toward the government, as one can see just by looking at quotes from some of the Founding Fathers. Thus, it's easy to exploit this distrust to push for an agenda of cutting regulations and aid to the poor, while just ignoring the fact that other programs you're pushing for would actually expand the government.

The Republicans have mastered what George Orwell termed "doublethink:" holding two contradictory ideas to be true, simultaneously. So at the same time that the government can't do anything right, it needs to act more aggressively against ISIS and Russia, do more to prevent terrorism, and protect our children from the toxic influence of marijuana. While the elites probably know that this small-government crusade is a hoax, their propaganda campaign has had the interesting effect of creating legions of people who are honestly sure they hate the government, but then turn around and support strict laws against abortion, constitutional prohibitions on gay marriage, city-wide bans on mosques, and any other number of blatantly big-government policies.

I'm certainly not the first person to observe this, which I'm well aware of, but it's a cognitive dissonance so stunning it's hard not feel as if you're being beaten over the head with the absurdity of it. Unfortunately, I think many liberals have failed to adequately address the situation, instead trying to argue that big government is a good thing. That's a strategy that, for reasons I've detailed before, is doomed to failure. The simple truth is that there are policies that the government can enact which will help people and make things better, and then there are policies that will simply waste money and/or restrict personal liberties. Of course, we can debate which policies fall into the first category and which fall into the second. But first everyone has to have the intellectual integrity to admit that there are some government policies they like (that includes you, libertarians) rather than pretending they are consistently opposed to everything the government does or can do--virtually no one actually is. That's particularly the case with modern "conservatives," who have done a lot to expand the influence of government in negative ways. But, unsurprisingly, that admission doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

America's Culture of Violence

"America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes. They just created two new ones when they plastered those dip-shits Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' pictures on the front of every newspaper. Don't be surprised if every kid who gets pushed around has two new idols."

Marilyn Manson, being interviewed by Michael Moore
(Dog Eat Dog Films, taken from Business Insider)

So wrote Marilyn Manson in a 1999 Rolling Stone article, responding to dishonest attempts to blame the Columbine massacre on his music. In the 16 intervening years, regrettably, little has changed in this area. Chris Harper-Mercer, the perpetrator of the shooting in Oregon on October 1, commented of Vester Flanagan,

I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are... A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.

 Flanagan, as a reminder, was the perpetrator of yet another shooting earlier this year.

The response to the Umpqua shooting has largely been a call for increased gun control. Understandable, and important. But not the only thing we should be examining.

Bobby Jindal, a man still laboring under the delusion that he may be the next president, blamed the shooting on a culture of violence, giving the familiar examples of video games, TV shows, and music. But if he wants to see the real ways in which our culture desensitizes us to violence, perhaps he should look to his fellow presidential hopeful Ted Cruz. A few weeks ago, Cruz stated that "we may have to help introduce [the Ayatollah of Iran] to the 72 virgins," meaning, of course, kill him. Or perhaps Ben Carson, who's polling second to Donald Trump, and has tacitly endorsed allowing war crimes.

When Chris Harper-Mercer was thirteen, the United States invaded a country that posed no threat to it. By conservative estimates, one hundred thousand civilians would die as a result. Even in the recent Democratic Party debate, the worst any candidate could say about the Iraq War was that it was a "blunder." Perhaps some of them wanted to condemn it more strongly. But by the rules of "decency," one can't accuse their political opponents of committing major war crimes.

"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example," wrote Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Timothy McVeigh would later use that quote in explaining his actions. Somehow, those who are concerned with the pretend violence in video games and music are less concerned with the all too real violence that has been normalized in society.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that mass murderers achieve such a level of celebrity. Once society has accepted and even glorified violence on the part of the state, it's easy to see how at least some degree of fascination or admiration for the violence of private citizens may follow. Given the frequency of mass shootings, each shooter can't expect much more than the metaphorical fifteen minutes of fame. But they'll certainly get more media attention than they would for volunteering at a homeless shelter or donating to charity.

Rolling Stone's cover featuring Tsarnaev
(Taken from The New Yorker)

In a society with such an untenable double standard in regards to violence, it's not surprising that the media ends up glorifying mass murderers, perhaps without even realizing they're doing so. Take Rolling Stone's controversial cover with Dzokhar Tsarnaev, one of the two Boston Marathon bombers. The subtitle refers to him as a monster, but a person who hadn't followed the news closely could, upon a brief glance, be forgiven for thinking he was some up-and-coming star. By helping to set off a bomb, Tsarnaev earned the right to appear on the same magazine cover that innumerable celebrities, and even the current president, have been featured on. Is there not some degree of glamour to that?

It's understandable that, as a sort of morbid curiosity, people want to understand the thinking and the personal history of killers and other criminals. But there's a difference between investigating those facts and lavishing attention onto the killer, transforming them into some sort of celebrity. Perhaps the line between "good attention" and "bad attention" could be a bit clearer to society if only it had a more consistent stance on violence. As it is, it's hard to see how people who cheer for war and capital punishment can be taken seriously when they turn around and warn about the pernicious effects of violence in the media. Nor is it surprising when the same media that deliberately glorifies "approved" forms of violence ends up doing the same even with the kinds we supposedly shun.

Should There Be a Right to Die?

Quite recently, California--the most populous state in the nation--legalized physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients of sound mind. This provides an opportunity to discuss a controversial issue that's been debated for quite some time now, so I thought that I might as well weigh in while the issue has re-entered the spotlight. To state the obvious, the "right to die" is a difficult issue that's likely to raise strong emotions on both sides. And I understand both sides, as my position on the issue has changed over time. So, as in my blog post on the death penalty, I'll try to make an argument based on rationality rather than emotion.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, noted advocated of
assisted suicide (photo taken from here)

According to critics of assisted suicide, it runs against the idea of the sanctity of life. They aren't wrong; it certainly means that we have embraced the idea that society has a more fundamental cause than keeping alive the largest possible number of people. In my view, though, that's a reasonable idea. If we required everyone to stay inside and away from physical contact with other people at all times, and simply delivered food and other necessary supplies to everyone (assuming this was a practical idea), perhaps that could increase human longevity. But it's not exactly anyone's idea of a great society.

A premise more fundamental, in my view, than the idea that human life should be protected (even against those to whom the life in question belongs) is that each person should have autonomy--that is, the right to make decisions about their own body. This principle has also been referred to as self-ownership, although I've previously voiced my problems with that term and concept. Why should autonomy be such a valuable concept? Because it's the central nature of human existence--the ability to make decisions and act accordingly. Certainly, when those decisions impact other people, it's justifiable to restrict or regulate them. But when those decisions impact only the actor themselves? That, in my view, is far less justifiable.

Ultimately, to restrict someone from stopping their heart from beating and their brain from functioning does not seem to me, in principle, any different from telling them what food they are allowed to eat, or requiring them to exercise a certain amount of time each day. In practice, of course, restricting one's ability to take their own life is far less authoritarian than either of those examples. That's because of how infrequently one seriously wants to take their own life compared to how frequently those regulations would impact a person's behavior. But, in my view, all are impermissible because of the same principle--the principle of autonomy.

In fact, I wouldn't restrict one's right to take their own life simply to cases in which they're terminally ill. Rather, any person of sound mind should, in my view, be allowed to kill themselves. By sound mind, I mean any person who has the mental capacity to rationally make their own choices, is not suffering from a treatable mental condition that is likely to be affecting their decisions, and who has not had some event in their life that is likely clouding their judgment (such as the death of a close friend). These conditions, of course, would exclude many of the people who take their own lives, which is a good thing. However, there are some conceivable circumstances--aside from terminal illness--that could lead to someone deciding to commit suicide. They could be suffering from a non-terminal but severely painful condition that has drastically reduced their quality of life, for instance. Or they could want to make a political statement, a la the self-immolating Buddhist monk. Ensuring that everyone who is given permission to commit suicide is of sound mind is a different matter; but if we can do so with a high degree of accuracy, then I would support the legalization of suicide for anyone who meets that standard.

Certainly, this right could be abused; even people of sound mind could make decisions based on bad information, or with total disregard for their friends and family. But, ultimately, neither of those reasons override the importance of autonomy. People are free to make potentially harmful decisions based on bad information, and free to do things that upset others, and rightly so. In my opinion, there's no reason for those factors to trump the importance of autonomy here if they don't elsewhere.

To anyone concerned that my proposal would lead to some massive societal disregard for human life or the normalization of suicide, I would like to strongly argue that it will not. It is a fundamental, natural urge to stay alive; of course, it can be overpowered by other urges--the urge to escape suffering, for instance--but it is, in a healthy person, a very strong urge. Perhaps my proposal could even help reduce the rate of suicide, by encouraging suicidal people to come forward in order to be evaluated (since, if they are determined to be of sound mind, they will be given permission to commit suicide in, ideally, a near-painless and surefire way), detecting those who are suffering from mental disorders (as many suicidal people are),
and helping them get appropriate treatment.

To some, the involvement of doctors in the suicide question is an issue, because of the maxim that a doctor should do no harm. But harm is quite subjective--we already acknowledge that if someone is dying naturally and wants to be allowed to die, a doctor would not be permitted to force them to stay alive through extraordinary means. How different, then, is it for a doctor to help a person to die? Further, if a doctor were to perform a surgery on a person who didn't want it, that would certainly be considered a form of harm, but it is entirely permissible to do so on a person who does want it. What constitutes "harm" comes down to the desires of the patient. Certainly, no doctor should be forced to be involved with assisted suicide. But those who are willing to do so, in my view, are not contradicting the principles of medicine.

As I said before, I fully understand the rationale of people who oppose legalizing assisted suicide, and I invite anyone, agree with me or disagree with me, to comment on this post. The concern that assisted suicide would devalue human life is certainly a comprehensible one to me, even if it's not a concern that I share. So are concerns about the impact on family and friends, and whether the decision will always be made wisely--those concerns I do share, in fact, but they're not enough to change my position. I will openly acknowledge that, as usual, my opinions on this issue are far outside the mainstream, and I don't expect everyone to agree with them. And I can certainly respect the opinions of those who disagree with me. But hopefully my opinion and rationale is of some use on this issue.

NOTE: Originally in the fifth paragraph I had said the conditions I specified would exclude the vast majority of people that kill themselves; I changed this to reflect the varying estimates of how many suicides are related to mental illness.

New Atheist Spokesmen Look Like Jerks, Part One Million

Perhaps I would stop bashing the New Atheist movement if only they would stop giving me so many reasons to do so. Let's start out with some background: Ahmed Mohamed, a fourteen-year-old Muslim in Texas, brought a home-made digital clock to school to show a teacher. He was treated with suspicion, as faculty thought it might be a bomb, and ended up in handcuffs even after it was determined not to be, on the grounds that it was supposedly a hoax bomb. Since then, people from President Obama to Mark Zuckerberg to the folks at NASA have come to his defense.

For many like myself, Ahmed's arrest is a reminder of the unfair prejudices against anyone brown-skinned and/or Muslim in the United States. Predictably, other people have had different reactions. The ever-vapid Sarah Palin and her equally brainless spawn have both weighed in with predictably idiotic responses that are not worth anything more than a brief mention here. No, my purpose here is to focus on a couple people who should know better.

Ahmed Mohamed (LM Otero/AP)

First, Bill Maher. We'll give him some credit: he says Ahmed deserves an apology, which is worth something. That's overshadowed a bit by the fact that he absurdly claims this has nothing to do with skin color and then justifies profiling Muslims on the basis that young Muslims all over the world are "blowing shit up." Maher states that "for the last thirty years, it's been one culture that has been blowing shit up over and over again." That's right, it's just one, apparently. Nevermind the fact that right-wing terrorists have actually killed significantly more people than jihadists in the US since 9/11, the person in the last thirty years who killed the most people in the US by "blowing shit up" was Timothy McVeigh, a lapsed Catholic, and the US government has been pretty busy blowing shit up in the last thirty years, too. Maher conveniently ignores (or is unaware of) the fact that Ahmed was arrested after it was clear his clock was not a bomb. 

More heinouswas Richard Dawkins's response. For starters, Dawkins accuses Ahmed of fraud for claiming to have "invented" the clock when, according to Dawkins, he just reassembled it from already existing parts. 

If the reassembled components did something more than the original clock, that’s creative. If not, it looks like hoax http://t.co/bBcaWoJpbd

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 20, 2015

. @smenor @MhaskarChief He didn't only claim to have built it. He claimed, on Youtube, that it was his INVENTION.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 20, 2015

He also insinuates that maybe Ahmed was trying to get arrested. Right. Because clearly a fourteen-year-old Muslim in Texas would just think "Hey, I bet if I bring a clock into school, they'll mistake it for a bomb, arrest me, and then a bunch of people will rally behind me." Really, who hasn't had that thought before?

He then caps it off with this absurd pseudo-apology:

Sorry if I go a bit over the top in my passion for truth. Not just over a boy's alleged "invention" but also media lies about J Corbyn.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 20, 2015

 Gee, humblebrag much? Since I've started writing this post, he's doubled down with tweets like this one:

Cool invention. Send this genius an invitation to the White House. Brilliant short film, says it all. https://t.co/I2015I6We0

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 21, 2015

And then, ridiculously, commented:

I'm amazed ever & anew by how the Internet fosters escalating levels of vitriolic, vicious abuse we'd never dream of inflicting face to face

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 21, 2015

This shows how thoroughly anti-Muslim animus permeates Dawkins's and Maher's minds, and is yet another illustration of how farcical the claims that they're not Islamophobic are. To be honest, I don't know how much I can actually say here because I don't know what needs to be said. Sadly, though, if you look at the responses to Dawkins's tweets and the comments on the articles I've linked, many of them are supportive of Maher and Dawkins.

On a positive note, not every voice in the New Atheist community echoed these gross sentiments. Popular YouTuber TheAmazingAtheist put out a video supportive of Ahmed and criticized Dawkins and Maher via Tumblr:

Indeed. It's pathetic to see people tripping over themselves to justify how Ahmed was treated, and particularly disgusting to see an esteemed evolutionary biologist make a spectacle out of himself by accusing a fourteen-year-old of fraud for calling a clock his invention, and insinuating that he actually wanted to be arrested (I'm sure that was such a great experience for him and his family). 

And since I brought up Maher, I'll take the opportunity to make a note here that I've wanted to for a while. Several times I've said good things about Bill Maher: I've stated that "I like Bill Maher" and that "he's smart, and funny" and "witty and eloquent." I take all of that back now, as I've wanted to for some time. Bill Maher now strikes me as nothing more than a loudmouth who voices his ugliest and most unenlightened opinions in the name of comedy and political incorrectness. He might think he's George Carlin, but the dirt under Carlin's fingernails was a better comedian than Maher. 

Perhaps a bit of good can come out of this, in that intelligent and decent people recognize the shamelessness of Maher and Dawkins and recoil from them in disgust. They've gotten away with petty, immature behavior for a long time, but for Dawkins in particular, this tops it all. Honestly, if this doesn't turn people off of Dawkins and Maher, I don't know what will. But I'm sure they'll find some way to sink to a new low. They always do. 

Why I Oppose the Death Penalty

After a long period of time during which it was disturbingly uncontroversial, capital punishment in America is once again becoming a high-level issue. Opposing the death penalty is one of the few issues that I've been consistent on throughout my young life, though my rationale has varied. There are certainly religious and moral arguments against capital punishment, but I'd like to lay out as rational a case as I think can be made against it.

The most convincing argument in favor of capital punishment, in my view, is deterrence--that by executing murderers, we will save innocent lives by deterring future murders. So why doesn't this argument hold up? For one thing, because there's no evidence that the death penalty does actually have a deterrent effect any greater than life imprisonment. But, in my view, even if the evidence were that such a deterrent effect did exist, capital punishment would still be unjustifiable. 

There are certainly circumstances we can come up with where killing a person would be uncontroversially justified, such as in defense of the life of an innocent. Obviously, it makes sense for the government--or agents thereof, such as the police--to have the authority to kill a person in a situation like that, as we would give that degree of authority even to a private citizen. In the case of capital punishment, though, we are talking about killing a person who often poses no threat to anyone else (given that they're being held in prison and can be held in solitary confinement if they pose a danger to fellow inmates) and may even be genuinely contrite for the crime they committed. Why should the government have the authority to kill a defenseless person? To give the government such a right is fundamentally totalitarian; there is, in fact, no more totalitarian power the government could have than to decide who lives and who dies. Even if the death penalty did save lives, that would not justify giving the government this power; should we give the government the power to detain anyone who even looks suspicious if that, too, saves lives? Perhaps we should start executing traffic offenders; after all, highway accidents take lives, and after one or two executions no one would dare to go one bit over the speed limit.

An anti-death penalty protestor at St. Louis University College 

Church (CNS/St. Louis Review/Lisa Johnston)

Secondly, in order to have a genuinely good society--that is, a society that secures to the greatest extent general well-being--certain values are important. Unlike many social conservatives, I certainly don't support punishing anyone who acts contrary to these values, but the government should at least abide by them. One important value, in my view, is to wish at least a minimal amount of well-being for each member of society, no matter how despicable they are. The United States is one of the only First World countries to still have the death penalty, and it also takes exceptionally bad care of its citizens compared to other First World countries. One of the other First World countries with the death penalty, Japan, has an unusually high suicide rate and serious cultural issues when it comes to respect of women. On the other hand, countries like Denmark and Norway, which consistently rank very highly in all regards, particularly human happiness, not only have no death penalty, but Norway doesn't even have life without parole for murderers. 

I'm not saying that it's because of the death penalty that the United States and Japan have such serious issues, and because of the lack of it that Norway and Denmark rank so highly, but rather that Norway and Denmark have done a better job than the US or Japan when it comes to embracing the idea that everyone should be entitled to some level of decency in their existence, even if they're despicable people--and that embracing this principle leaves one no choice but to eliminate the death penalty, as it runs contrary to that idea. One cannot systemically kill defenseless people and maintain respect for the idea that everyone should enjoy some minimal level of comfort.

But, again, there is no evidence for the idea that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, so while theoretically significant, these arguments aren't even necessary to argue against the death penalty. Once we've set aside the deterrence argument--for either its lack of factual support, the reasons I put forward, or for any other reason or combination of reasons--we begin to come to arguments that are much less convincing, in my view. One of those is that the punishment fits the crime. I think that this appeals to a particularly crude sort of morality. If we want to be different than murderers, and have any grounds from which to condemn them, we cannot embrace a punishment for the very reason that it's just like the sort of thing they would do. And we shouldn't base criminal justice off of some mere instinct about what criminals "deserve;" there are certainly actions that one could fairly argue deserve some kind of punishment--betraying a friend, deliberately spreading misinformation, saying things just to upset people--that getting the criminal justice system involved with would be absurd. 

Then we have the argument that we should kill murderers so we don't have to use taxpayer money to support them. This is particularly offensive to anyone with any sort of respect for human life, considering that it argues that sometimes saving money is worth killing people over. Furthermore, given the appeals involved when a person is sentenced to death, it's doubtful that capital punishment even does save money.

The worst argument that I've heard, though, is that murderers should just be viewed as undesirables and killed because we have no use for them. We may have little use for murderers, it's true, but it's pure totalitarianism to think that it's the job of the individual to be "useful" to society and that they can be disposed of if they fail to do the job.

It's important to keep in mind that people are the products of both genetic factors and personal circumstances. No one who has committed a murder is the same both genetically and in terms of personal circumstances as a normal, murder-abhorring person; they've either been dealt a bad hand genetically, environmentally, or both. This isn't to try to stir sympathy for murderers or claim that they aren't responsible for their actions, but rather to emphasize that the factors that lead someone to choose to murder another person are largely out of their own control, and that none of us can honestly say that if we had the same genetic code and personal history as a murderer, we wouldn't make the same decisions he or she did. 

And, crucially, we have to recognize that we, too, are murderers if we kill defenseless people. That we think the people we kill are despicable and deserving of death means nothing; those are the exact justifications many murderers have had for killing their victims. And, of course, if we are murderers, we are in no position to declare that murderers deserve death, unless we plan on mass suicide.

NOTE: This post was corrected from earlier version, which stated Denmark doesn't have life without parole for murderers; in fact, it does. 

Ten Myths About Socialism

Bernie Sanders
(Nigel Perry/New York Magazine)

Without a doubt, socialism is one of the most slandered ideologies in the United States. It's commonplace for people to accuse policies they don't like of being socialist when it's clear that they don't even know what the term means. Now that Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, is running for president and even gaining on Hillary Clinton in the polls for the Democratic primary, it's as good a time as any to dispel some common myths about socialism. In no particular order, here are ten commonly believed "facts" about socialism that just aren't true.

Redistribution of wealth is socialism.
While socialism does necessitate redistribution of wealth, given that it's about putting resources into common ownership, by no means does that mean that any and all redistribution of wealth is socialist. The main idea behind socialism is that the people as a whole, rather than a small elite, should own and democratically manage the resources within a society, so it's inaccurate to describe a system as socialist just because it attempts to redistribute wealth. In the 1930's, the prominent populist Huey Long was planning to run for president (before he was shot) with a plan he called "Share Our Wealth," which proposed a one hundred percent tax rate on top earners. Socialists like Norman Thomas (the perennial candidate for the Socialist Party) attacked Huey Long's program, because Long claimed it would make socialism unnecessary. So just because someone wants to redistribute wealth by no means makes them a socialist.

Socialism is a big government ideology.
Despite the talk about "big-government socialism," as if socialism and big government go hand in hand, socialists' attitude toward the government is widely varied. Some want to get rid of it altogether (most anarchists, in fact, are socialists). Karl Marx, probably the most famous socialist in history and the man whose name is basically synonymous with socialism in many places, had a complex attitude toward the government, wanting to democratize it and eliminate some of its coercive elements (such as a standing army) so it could be used as a tool to transform society, but believing after that transformation was complete, the government would be obsolete, leading to a stateless society. Other socialists take a less radical approach, such as Bernie Sanders, who believes in making the government more democratic and less corporate-influenced, and expanding social welfare programs. While this does mean the government is "bigger" in some sense, Sanders (and many other socialists) also support eliminating programs like the NSA surveillance dragnet, because they see them as intrusive on individual rights. So even socialists who support the government running social welfare programs don't see "big government" as being some worthy goal, they simply think the government can do some good if it adopts the right approach.

Socialism is atheistic and/or anti-religion.
While some socialists, such as Marx, hold a negative view of religion, others are religious themselves; Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party of America's six-time presidential candidate, was also a Presbyterian minister. In fact, enough socialists have been Christian that Christian socialism is recognized as its own branch of socialism. There are other religious branches as well, such as Islamic socialism and Buddhist socialism. For many socialists, far from being opposed to it, religion is the justification for their socialism.

Only cranks and nutjobs support socialism. 
The right wing in particular would like to give people the impression that if you support socialism, you're either crazy, jealous of rich people, or some leech who won't go out and get a job. The facts don't support this. Not only are socialist parties exceedingly common in other countries, often as major parties (just look at this list of political parties that are members of Socialist International), widely admired historical figures like George Orwell and Martin Luther King, Jr. voiced support for socialist policies.

Socialism is un-American 
This idea is barely worth addressing, since un-American is basically just an epithet to be used against anything one doesn't like. But it's pretty hard to maintain that socialism could be un-American when one looks at all the Americans who have been socialists. Along with King--whom we have a national holiday for--there's Francis Bellamy, who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance; there's Helen Keller, who has been featured on a postage stamp and the Alabama state quarter; and, while Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet "Common Sense" helped start the American Revolution, didn't identify himself as a socialist (the term didn't really even exist while he was alive), he seems pretty socialist when you look at his actual ideas.

Socialism is based on "from each according to ability, to each according to need"
While this is more reasonable than many other myths about socialism, it's also wrong. The key tenet of socialism is that the people as a whole should democratically control the resources of society, rather than a capitalist class. Communism, as Marx promoted, operates on the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" and while communism is certainly one form of socialism, it's by no means the only one; other systems reward people based on the amount of work they've done, and socialism like Bernie Sanders espouses mostly just aims to ensure everyone gets enough to have a decent living standard and not have to live in poverty.
 
Socialism doesn't work.
Bernie Sanders's brand of socialism, social democracy, is currently the system of the Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which are all countries that are ranked as having some of the highest standards of living on Earth. As for the more radical varieties of socialism, while they haven't been given too many opportunities to prove themselves, they've generally performed admirably. Take, for instance, during the Spanish revolution, when many areas were controlled by anarchists and socialists; rather than everyone becoming lazy, as is supposed to happen under socialism, productivity went up significantly, and, rather than collapsing by themselves, these areas had to be conquered by force in order to end the successful socialist experiment.

Socialism is undemocratic.
While I've heard plenty of people contrast democracy and socialism, and libertarian capitalist guru Milton Friedman claimed that capitalism was a necessary prerequisite for democracy, the idea of socialism as being incompatible with democracy is the literal opposite of the truth. Rather, socialism is based on subjecting the resources within society to democratic control, meaning it is an extension of democracy. In fact, without at least some degree of public control of a society's resources, any democracy would have to be considered incomplete. After all, it's of limited importance who we elect if they're not even able to ensure we have the necessary resources to live a decent life.

Communist countries represent socialism in action.
Despite the fact that, of course, Communist countries claim to be socialist, actual socialists tend to disagree. George Orwell, for instance, commented that "Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism." Noam Chomsky agrees with this critique, calling the idea of the Soviet Union as being socialist a "mammoth lie." In Communist countries, the state runs the economy, but this doesn't equate to socialism. As Friedrich Engels notes, "if [any state ownership] is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism." While Communist countries openly proclaim themselves to be socialist, they also claim to democratic and run for the benefit of the people, which are claims that we all can agree are false. The claims of the USSR (back when it existed) and other countries in its mold of being socialist are about as honest as the routine claims made by the US government that it's spreading democracy and freedom across the world.

And for the final myth:

President Obama is a socialist.
While I haven't heard it so much recently (though I don't doubt it's still routinely claimed in certain circles), it used to be popular among right-wingers to call Obama a socialist. This is pretty reminiscent of the situation in France that Karl Marx wrote about in this passage: 

Whether it was a question of the right of petition or the tax on wine, freedom of the press or free trade, the clubs or the municipal charter, protection of personal liberty or regulation of the state budget, the watchword constantly recurs, the theme remains always the same, the verdict is ever ready and invariably reads: "Socialism!" Even bourgeois liberalism is declared socialistic, bourgeois enlightenment socialistic, bourgeois financial reform socialistic. It was socialistic to build a railway where a canal already existed, and it was socialistic to defend oneself with a cane when one was attacked with a rapier. 

Norman Thomas said about the allegations of socialism against FDR: "there is nothing Socialist about trying to regulate or reform Wall Street...There is nothing Socialist about trying to break up great holding companies...There is no socialism at all about taking over all the banks which fell in Uncle Sam's lap, putting them on their feet again, and turning them back to the bankers to see if they can bring them once more to ruin." And Obama is no FDR. Probably the most liberal piece of major legislation he's signed, his healthcare law, keeps in place private health insurance companies and gives them taxpayer dollars to do the job they should have already been doing--providing health insurance. While it's nonetheless an improvement on the previous system, it's far from socialism, just like everything else he's done. In fact, he's avoided anything even remotely socialist even when the opportunity was ripe; he came in when we were facing an economic meltdown, and the economy is still as privately controlled as ever.

I will emphasize, in closing, that this is not a complete list. More lies and nonsense have been spread about socialism than almost any other ideology in America, and it would likely take an entire book to cover them all. But these are some of the biggest and most pervasive myths about socialism that I've heard, and while I'm no position to single-handedly erase them from the public consciousness, hopefully this post can do some small amount of good in that area.