Free Republic

No. I think there has been far too much of shutting up unpopular views. I have always opposed speech codes and political correctness. They are shallow and don't solve the problem. I think in open debate there is at least a chance that errors will be exposed and misinformation replaced by good information. I am guardedly optimistic that in the marketplace of ideas, bad or false ideas will get weeded out. I don't think truth has anything to fear from open debate.

I'd be inclined to reverse this: put us in power and you will have to think harder than ever. I'm not just blowing smoke here. This is the way I approach my students. I tell them they should never let anyone (certainly not me!) do their thinking for them, because we all stand to suffer if our beliefs are wrong. We should no more let others do our thinking for us than we should let others chew our food for us. When we discuss things in my class, we all work under the same set of rules. No view is above criticism or beneath contempt. We demand reasons and evidence from everyone, and it is fair game to criticize my views or the views of the textbook. Everyone has to make their case.

I don't think the problem is the people. I think for the most part, we are all doing the best we can. But I think there is room for improvement, and we can help each other do better. Let me be specific. Cass Sunstein has written a book "Why societies need dissent" where he makes the claim that when conservatives or liberals have large enough majorities that they can ignore the opposition, they behave badly. He give evidence! But the point is our critics do us valuable service by forcing us to consider questions and evidence we and our friends may have overlooked. Answer objections forces us to be clearer on our reasons, more objective about the validity of our reasoning--and that makes our deliberations and choices better. I believe that. That's why I am here, to learn from you about my blind sides. I have some challenges from the liberals I engage with at another website. They raise some good questions. But over here, you have a different set of questions for me. And it is good for me to hear those questions and think about those objections.

I can't really answer those questions for you. My point is to use Popper as a starting point for thinking about what is in need of attention in our own society. I support some of what Soros is trying to do, but again, I didn't come here to defend Soros. He's a smart guy--he can defend himself! My point in this thread is to talk about how we can be more rational in our approach to institutional reform, and wean ourselves from magic thinking. People who would substitute faith healing for going to a doctor, ought to be persuaded to keep praying, but see the doctor anyway. We have lots of evidence that in the old days when doctors had little to offer besides sympathy that many children routinely died from diseases that we can effectively prevent or cure now. I think some of the refusal to believe we are doing environmental damage is based on magical thinking--the idea that God would not let us destroy the planet because there is nothing about it in the Bible. I can respect someone who takes the Bible seriously, but cannot respect this as a reason to ignore the evidence that human actions have changed important ecological cycles, and are affecting climate. I have said before, and I repeat here--I don't have all the answers. I may not even be asking the right questions. But I do think we should be much more demanding than we are about what will count as an acceptable answer. And I think we should be more disciplined in the way we search for and evaluate possible answers.

It is not simply government that has a hard time listening. This is true of institutions across the board. There is something like institutional inertia, continuing to do things the way they have been done in the past, notwithstanding evidence that the old ways did not work as well as we would like or perhaps need change in the light of new realities. And what is worse are changes inspired not by evidence, but by ideology. Do I have specific examples? You betcha!

When sex education is replaced by abstinence only counseling, nobody asked for evidence that this is more effective in reducing teen age pregnancy or incidence of STDs. We just 'knew' the old ways were better. This was a values issue, not an issue where statistical evidence was sought.

When research on stem cells was all but halted, no one was asked to present evidence that such research was harming anyone, or that is was a waste of resources. It was halted because it was inconsistent with someone's conception of the value of life, even at the unformed embryo stage. It was claimed to increase abortions-but no evidence was given that it did so.

Regulations on securities were scaled back, and the staff for the SEC cut, on the claim that regulation increases the cost of business (no doubt it does) and that markets worked more efficiently without regulation. As a result, we got Enron and a number of other cases of corporate bad behavior that cannot, on anybody's list be counted as victories for free enterprise. In Enron, management managed to simultaneously cheat shareholders, employees, and consumers (Californians paying outrageous prices for energy because of market manipulation by big players like Enron). This was predictable--deregulation gave a window of opportunity for cheaters to cheat with impunity. That is why such protections were put in place back in the thirties in the first place.

Generous corporate CEO compensation and corporate downsizing were hailed as the road to productivity. No evidence was demanded for such claims. Now, with studies by people like Wayne Cascio, we have reason to doubt that downsizing is always a good idea. In Fortune 500 companies, there is no evidence that corporations that have downsized are more profitable than those that have not. And there is no evidence that companies that pay CEOs well, without tying pay to performance, do any better than companies that pay less generously.

There is a movement in medicine called evidence-based medicine. Cochrane and others started the movement. The simple premise is this: test out drug or surgical therapies by random clinical studies or at least epidemiological studies. It turns out some widely accepted practices among physicians don't have any clear evidence of their effectiveness. Hormone replacement therapy for women has been stopped. Circumcision is no longer routinely done, unless requested. I think this is the model I'd like to see institutionalized. Check the evidence to see if what we are doing is really effective. Pay attention to signs that things are not working and do not push forward in the faith that things will just straighten themselves out.

We had speech codes on campus. The intention was good. No one wants to condone disrespectful behavior, racism, ethnic slurs, sexism. But my take on political correctness is that it is a superficial attack on a deep problem. It drives the attitudes underground rather than challenging them. I think letting racists air their views makes them subject for debate. We have a chance to show just how little can be said in defense of such views once they are openly debated. Do I have evidence for that? No. But wouldn't it be interesting to put the matter to a test? Have campuses try alternative strategies for combating racist views and see what evidence there is of effectiveness.

There are some people who want creationism taught along with evolution. I once was one of them. I was a high school valedictorian, national merit scholar, the best science student in school--and a fundamentalist Christian who defended creationism in Sunday school. So I think I understand why somebody would care about this issue. There is some thought that our culture is hostile to religion, that science in particular leaves no room for God, and that non-Christian values are being fostered under the guise of science. But the trouble with all this is that no one is ever asked to produce evidence that such harms are caused, or that teaching creationism will remove those harms. Do we have any evidence that creationism produces better scientists or more moral people? I think it is unlikely that the evidence would support the claim that we are producing better scientists or scientific literacy in non-scientists. In fact, I'm willing to bet, if the evidence ever is examined, that we have a weakening of respect for scientific theory, the scientific method, for experiment as a way at getting at truth among those who opt out of classes in evolutionary biology and substitute a class in intelligent design or flood geology. Whether we create more moral people this way is also in doubt. My guess is that the people attracted to such course revisions are already religious, and as moral as they are going to get. And if the bargain leads to contempt for the true scientific spirit of hypothesis, experiment and revision of theory--I don't see how that should count as a victory for morality. I can see a place for respectful treatment of religion in the curriculum, but not as a competitor to science.

Welfare reform. Let's look at that one. Do we have evidence that welfare fosters dependency and cutting welfare forces people to work? Actually, what evidence we have suggests that most people on welfare do work (not all; there are some comfortable with handouts), but are not making enough to support themselves or their families. Christopher Jencks wrote about this in his book "Rethinking Social Policy".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060975342/qid=1104950140/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-5860905-6547155?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The problem seems to be that some work does not pay enough for people to stay above the poverty line. Part time, minimum wage jobs with no benefits--even a couple of these jobs strung together, often do not generate enough money for food, rent, clothing, child care, medical care, etc. What was not studied during the clamor for welfare reform was what alternative ways of solving this problem were available, and what was the likelihood any of them could fix the problem. The point is not to defend a particular government program. The point is to find an alternative that does a better job of solving the problem. And the point is to demand evidence, not faith, even faith in free markets.

Tax cuts. Let's look at that one. We have been asked to believe that tax cuts are good for: reducing surpluses, ending recessions, job creation, deficit reduction. Is it plausible to think that one solution can solve all those problems? Is it probable? Consider the analogy of another complex system--the human body. Surgery is good for some diseases, but not all. Any doctor who recommends the same cure for every disease is a quack. The sources of bodily problems are multiple, and no one solution works for all diseases and injuries. Similarly, the problems in an economy have multiple sources, and no one measure will solve them all. I believe tax cuts are sometimes a good idea, when done in the right circumstances and in the right way. But to believe that tax cuts are always the right idea, no matter what the problem, is to believe in magic, and I don't believe in magic. If the goal is to shrink the size of government, there are alternative, more direct ways to do that. But those too should be based on good evidence that we don't need those parts of government to do the tasks we expect of it. As for taxes, I believe we have no idea what the right level of taxes is until we first are clear on what we expect government to do for us, and what a reasonable cost for those things might be. Until then, we don't know if our taxes are too high, too low or just about right. I think we need to be more rational on tax policy. We should throw money at problems (hey, I don't want my money wasted either!), but neither should we beggar the government so that it cannot meet the obligations we have imposed on it.

The Patriot Act. Let's talk about that. Do I want sleeper cells in the US figuring out how to do the most damage to us? No. Do I want turf wars between law enforcement agencies to prevent sharing of information that can help stop terrorists? No. So there was need for reform in the way we admit and track people in our country, and the way we enforce the laws. But the Patriot Act was thrown together in a hurry, driven by fear, never carefully studied or debated, and goes much too far in shutting down basic civil liberties that protect law abiding citizens against unreasonable search and seizures, surveillance, arbitrary arrest and detention. It was used to locate dissenting Texas lawmakers who had no other way to protest a gerrymander but to deny the majority a quorum. It led to Arab Americans being held without charge or counsel. It led to women having their hospital records seized for having abortions. There were worries about seizures of records of book sales and library usage. There were undercover agents investigating peace groups. This all ignore the principle I have repeated here several times--the principle that in a liberal society, we have an obligation to look for the least restrictive alternative. That is, if we need to search more people to check for weapons, we need to do so in the way that restricts liberty the least.

The upshot? My point? We can have good reasons for thinking our standard ways of doing things are not working as well as they should, and we should have good reasons for the new ways we adopt in their place. That is what I mean by rational reform. It is not centralized. It is not done by a government that is wiser or more moral than we are. It should be done by all of us, in all institutions. Yes, government can play a useful role in adjudicating conflicts between institutions, or between institutions and persons. And when government does this, we should find ways to ensure it is done in a wise and moral fashion. But we should insist on that in the private sector as well. We should insist on ethical practice in business, law and education. We should insist on evidence for effectiveness. And insofar as we can ensure voluntary compliance without regulation, or with minimal regulation, we have saved money and energy for other things.

I am not personally associated with the Open Society Institute, although I wouldn't mind working there. I agree with their aims. As for Soros, I know he is disliked for having weighed in with the Democrats this election. He was trying to be a kingmaker. But their are billionaires trying to be kingmakers for the conservatives as well--Scaife, for example. In my opinion, there is far too much of this going on. When money has this much influence in politics, democracy does not fare well. I think McCain and Feingold have the right idea, although I don't think their bill put more than a speed bump in the soft money pouring in to campaigns.

Still, back to Soros. Soros grew up in Hungary and saw both the Nazis and the Soviet Communists. I think his distaste for totalitarianism is sincere and his desire to help societies (like Russia) democratize ought to be taken at face value. He is a flawed individual (as am I) who is trying to do the right thing. The academic impenetrability of the prose at his website notwithstanding, I think he is trying to do some good things.

Good advice. Thanks.

I am trying to be careful in distinguishing problems government can and should solve from those it cannot or should not. We may disagree on what goes in which pile, but we are agreed there are problems government cannot or should not solve.

I am also sympathetic with the reminder that government is we the people. The whole matter is complicated by the fact that we delegate some of the decision making to elected representatives. I'm not out to make this easier than it is is. And I am in favor of much more public debate and active participation in the decision making process at all levels than we currently have. But we have to start somewhere. We have to start with the government we have, not the one we'd like to have. I'd like government to do a better job of listening to us than it does, and yes, I apply that across the board, to democrats as well as republicans, and at all levels of government. I'm not saying we should govern by polls, but if government is going to represent our interests, they should listen to what those are.

Or this one:

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

My point is a simple one: having government make decisions for the common good is not my idea, it is the Constitution.

There are good reasons to have government do these things. Under the Articles of Confederation there were problems between the states. Different currency, duties places on good produced in one state--even the prospect of states going to war against each other. (I live in Michigan and am from Ohio--those two states actually went to war with each other once.)

Why do you assume privately built roads would be publicly available? We don't have privately built peers publicly available. For that matter, why should people allow others to use what they have built with their own money?

Equal opportunity is not equality of outcomes, and nothing I have said suggests otherwise. Infrastructure is there for everyone to use, and government involvement in building hydroelectric dams, canals, and roads is entirely appropriate. Whether government should be involved in redistributing wealth is another matter and requires separate arguments.

Or this one:

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

How do you read this clause:

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Thanks. BTW one of my closest friends in high school went on to be a public defender. You guys do good work, and I for one am glad you are helping make the legal system work the way it should, with equal protection of the law for everybody.

You are right. They could be, but rarely have. I think the reason is worth thinking about. Suppose two groups could not agree on where to build a road, or had competing road projects? There is a need for coordination. I think this is why we usually decide these things at the community level, and why government is the appropriate body to make such decisions. If we could coordinate our efforts and resolve our conflicts without violence, we would not need government. But that is not the world we live in.

There is one further reason to think about. If roads were only built by voluntary subscription, the wealthy would have roads and the poor would not. Given our commitment to equal opportunity, it makes sense to have a neutral authority like the government arrange for the building of roads so that the roads are available for all, not just some. No concern about free riders. All may use the roads.

Government does build roads. Those roads would not be built without government involvement. I agree there needs to be public discussion about what we want government to do and what we don't want it to do. But I don't think what a government should do is written in stone. It is up to us, the people, to decide what services we think government should provide, and why government should do it rather than the private sector.

I think some of the motivation for suburban flight was the desire for more space--the same thing that drove settlers over the Appalachians westward. Some of the motivation was racism-white flight. But at least some of it was because we could. The motor car made travel reasonably cheap and quick. But I think no one ever intended urban sprawl. It is something that result from a bunch of intentional actions that had unintended results. I think much of our lives are like that. Cities exploded in the early 1900s because of the waves of immigrants coming in needing housing. Much of the building occurred without any real planning, and the congestion followed as an unintended result.

Now we have the reverse problem of gentrification. Poor people have to move into the housing they can afford, but then they are helpless when landlords and local government collude to drive them out to build condos or stadiums. I believe the rule of eminent domain can and has been abused. This is a concern.

Thanks. I agree. If we value liberty, we need to pay attention to the impact of our policies on liberty, and make sure we choose the alternative that restricts liberty the least. If we can actually enhance liberty, so much the better.

I agree. I think our constitutional framework is flexible enough that a lot of the fixes we would want to implement would occur within its present scope, without need for amendments. The point is to admit we have problems that need to be solved rather than go into denial. Then we can go on to evaluate alternatives that have some chance of fixing the problem without causing worse problems of their own.

Popper quotes in his chapter ten of volume one, parts of a speech by Pericles. This is a really good speech, I I had never read it in its entirety until yesterday. I'd like to quote part of it at length from a translation of Thucydides "The Peloponnesian War" by Rex Warner, because it gets at some of the important features of an open society. Please forgive the length of this post; there is a point to its length:

"Let me say that our system of government does not copy the institutions of our neighbors. It is more the case of our being a model to others, that of our imitating anyone else. Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in he hands not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses. No one, so long as he to be of service to the state is kept in political obscurity because of poverty. And just as our political life is free and open, so is our day to day life in our relations with each other. We do not get into a state with our next door neighbor if he enjoys himself in his own way, nor do we give him the kind of black looks which, though they do no real harm, still do hurt people's feelings. We are free and tolerant in our private lives; but in public affairs we keep the law. This is because it commands our deep respect.

"We give our obedience to those whom we put in positions of authority, and we obey the laws themselves which are for the protection of the oppressed, and those unwritten laws which it is an acknowledged shame to break.

"And here is another point. When our work is over, we are in a position to enjoy all kinds of recreation for our spirits. There are various kinds of contests and sacrifices regularly throughout the year; in our own homes we find a beauty and a good taste which delight us every day and which drive away our cares. Then the greatness of our city brings it about that all the good things from all over the world flow in to us, so that to us it seems natural to enjoy foreign goods as our own local products.

"Then there is a great difference between us and our opponents in our attitude towards military security. Here are some examples: Our city is open to the world, and we have no periodical deportations in order to prevent people observing or finding our secrets which might be of military advantage to the enemy. This is because we rely, not on some secret weapon, but on our own real courage and loyalty. There is a difference too in our educational systems. The Spartans, from their earliest boyhood, are submitted to the most laborious training in courage; we pass our lives without all these restrictions, and yet we are just as ready to face the same dangers as they are. Here is proof of this: When the Spartans invade our land, they do not come by themselves, but bring all their allies with them; whereas we, when we launch an attack abroad, do the job by ourselves, and though fighting on foreign soil, do not often fail to defeat opponents who are fighting for their hearths and homes. As a matter of fact, none of our enemies has ever yet been confronted with our total strength, because we have to divide our attention between our navy and the many missions on which our troops are sent on land. Yet if our enemies engage a detachment of our troops and defeat it, they give themselves credit for having thrown back our entire army; or if they lose, they claim they were beaten by us in full strength. There are certain advantages, I think, in our way of meeting danger voluntarily, with an easy mind, instead of with laborious training, with natural rather than state-induced courage. We do not have to spend our time practicing to meet sufferings which are still in the future; and when they are actually upon us we show ourselves just as brave as these others who are always strict in training. This is one point in which our city deserves to be admired. There are others.

"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of things of the mind does not make us soft. We regard wealth as something to be properly used, rather than something to boast about. As for poverty, no one need be ashamed to admit it: the rel shame is in not taking practical measures to escape from it. Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well: even those mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics--this is a peculiarity of ours: we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all. We Athenians, in our own persons, take our decisions on policy or submit them to proper discussions: for we do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the worse thing is to rush into actions before the consequences have been properly debated. And this is another point whee we differ from other people. WE are capable at the same time of taking risks and estimating them beforehand. Others are brave out of ignorance; and when they stop to think, they begin to fear. But the man who can most truly be accounted brave is he who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.

"Again, in questions of general good feeling there is a great contrast between us and most other people. We make friends by doing good to others, not by receiving good from them. This makes our friendship all the more reliable, since we want to keep alive the gratitude of those who are in our debt by showing continued goodwill to them: whereas the feelings of someone who owes us something lack the same enthusiasm, since he knows that, when he repays our kindness, it will be more like paying a debt than giving something spontaneously. We are unique in this. When we do kindness to others, we do not do them out of calculations of profit or loss: we do them without afterthought, relying on our free liberality. Taking everything together then, I declare that our city is an education to Greece, and I declare that in my opinion each single one of our citizens, in all the manifold aspects of life, is able to show himself the rightful lord and owner of his own person, and do this, moreover, with exceptional grace and exceptional versatility. And to show this is no empty boasting for the present occasion, but has real tangible fact, yo have only to consider the power which our city possesses and which has been won by those very qualities which I have mentioned. Athens, alone of the states we know, comes to her testing time in a greatness that surpasses what was imagined of her. In her case alone, no invading enemy is ashamed at being defeated, and no subject can complain of being governed by people unfit for their responsibilities. Mighty indeed are the marks and monuments of our empire which we have left. Future ages will wonder at us, as th present wonders at us now. We do not need the praises of a Homer, or anyone else whose words may delight us for the moment, but whose estimation of th facts will fall short of what is really true.For our adventurous spirit has forced an entry into every sea and into every land; and everywhere we have left behind us everlasting memorials of good done to our friends or suffering inflicted on our enemies>"

excerpt from Pericles's funeral oration, fifth century BC in Thucydides "The Pelopponesian War", trans. Rex Warner. Penguin, 1959. pages 117-120

BTW, while conceptual analysis is rather dry and abstract, I don't believe it is either pointless or empty. I come here having read George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics" where he tries to come to terms with why liberals and conservatives talk past each other. His take is that we are working with different models of 'family' when we think about the nation as a family. Lakoff is a liberal linguist who is engaged in research about how people think as evidenced by the metaphors they use to understand the world. How much is there to this? I'm not sure. But it is an interesting hypothesis. If it is true, however, it means we will have to pay some attention to the concepts we are using to frame this discussion. Otherwise, we will misunderstand each other because we will interpret what each of us says within our preferred frame.

I am flagging this as a possible source of misunderstanding because I have several times been labeled a 'socialist' here, in spite of my claims to the contrary. I don't think liberals are socialists. We believe in a mixed economy. If that looks to some like a halfway house to socialism, perhaps that is because we are working with a too impoverished palette. Our constitution allows the government to intervene for the common good, and taxes us to do its job. With government bonds and central banks (thanks to Alexander Hamilton!), and the constitutional powers to coin money and appropriate land to build infrastructure (roads, canals, etc.) our economy has always been mixed. That is not a creation of the New Deal, although the New Deal is usually where we look when we are talking about the mixed economy. And I think countercyclical policies in government can take the edge off the business cycle and help growth. Governments can do some things well. Some jobs only government can do. For the rest, liberals are quite comfortable with leaving matters to private initiative. I am serious when I say I have no problem with people getting a profit for their investments. I agree with you about the need for incentives (although I do think we define motives too narrowly when we reduce them all to monetary terms. I think there are other motivators as well.)

Some commitments of liberals are in the direction of encouraging personal responsibility, work ethic, teaching individuals to think for themselves (rather than dependence on authority). No liberal is demanding the end of private property, the nationalizing of industry, or making everyone a ward of the state. We share with the libertarians an emphasis on personal liberty and autonomy. We part company with some who might call themselves cultural conservatives, who want laws against things they consider offensive, or harmless wrongdoing (e.g., pornography, gambling, cursing, prostitution, teaching evolution and sex education in schools). For the most part, we hold the line at actions that cause demonstrable harm to others (not speculative ones, like depravity of the soul, but demonstrable ones like violence to person and damage to property).

So I do believe in some restrictions to liberty (and so do you), but please note the qualification I have made several times in this thread: we need to choose the least restrictive alternative. If we have the choice of two policies which would achieve the same good, we ought to choose the one that involves the fewest restrictions on personal liberty. So, if the concern is about drunk drivers and underage drinking, we have the options of outright prohibition or special restrictions on the age of drinkers, and activities the drinker may engage in. In a liberty-protective society, we choose the latter, more complicated regulations to the former, simpler prohibition. It makes our laws more complicated, but it leaves us freer.

Again, to say some things are not a matter of law does not mean we do not care about them. Law has a moral basis, but does not and cannot do the job of morality. Some moral matters must be left to persuasion and social sanction rather than the police. We can't pass laws against racism, but we can against discrimination. Racism involves attitudes; discrimination involves overt acts. But that doesn't mean the attitudes are acceptable. We can and should hold racists in contempt, and find ways to persuade them, if we can, of their errors.

Thank you. This is a reasonably specific topic: what is the best approach to crime? And in your role as public defender, you have said you would like more emphasis on prevention, where possible. I agree. In fact, I'd like to go one step further. I think at least some illegal drugs should be made legal, and that we should attack the problem of drug abuse by education rather than law enforcement.

Let me explain. I think smoking marijuana is a bad idea. It kills motivation. It impairs judgment. But I think with the exception of when people are operating heavy equipment or driving, it is behavior that affects the user and not anyone else. I don't think the law should be protecting us against our own poor judgment. And, for the most part, it doesn't. People who want to waste their time on video games can. People who want to be sexually promiscuous can. Not smart behavior, but not criminal either. It think we might have more cost effective methods of reducing marijuana use in education and treatment. The war on drugs has people serving absurd sentences for possession, in some cases more than murderers and rapists (the book "Reefer Madness" is a good one on this.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618334661/103-2928903-8986211?v=glance

This punitive approach has not reduced drug use, but has treated much of the population as criminals. I think sex education may be a more cost effective way of dealing with the problem of teen pregnancy. I think abstinence is a good idea. But I also think most kids will ignore it. I think we are better off if we give kids a sound understanding of teens get pregnant, and how to prevent pregnancy. That would reduce the abortion problem, because fewer people would get pregnant by accident.

Since teenage pregnancy and drug use are contributory factors to poverty and unemployment, just by sensible approaches to those two problems, we will have increased employability. By means of an education that gives people a knowledge of cause and effect, in particular, the connection between human actions and their consequences, we enable people to make better choices. This encourages people to be more responsible with their lives, gives them incentives for good behavior (and not just punishment for bad behavior)-and it works.

It is one reason I favor secular education that focuses on science. It is one reason I worry about proposals to tell young people to pray rather than use condoms. When I attended seminary, I belonged to the same conservative Presbyterian church as C. Everett Koop, and was there when he accepted Ronald Reagan's appointment to surgeon general. Koop caught a lot of flack for saying condoms save lives, but I think he was absolutely right.

I understand your frustration. I am pitching my discussion at the level of concepts, and the discussion is pretty abstract. It is possible at this level it is hard to disagree, like saying one is in favor of good behavior and not bad. Who could disagree with that? But of course, when we get down to cases, there may be considerable room for disagreement over what counts as good and bad behavior. I agree with you, we do need to get down to specific cases.