The Natural Linguist

I have seen some very disturbing trends in the last few weeks that prompted some vague misgivings at the time. It is only recently that the issue has become very clear in my mind. A question from my daughter has prompted me to answer in this public fashion. We are seeing the beginnings of a new and terrible form of discrimination and I would consider it an act of cowardice if I did not speak out in the strongest terms possible. Certain churches have theological tenets that prevent them from extending to gay people the full benefits of participation in their organization. This is perfectly within their rights since people are free to associate with those churches or not. But now those churches would like the government to create laws that allow them, based on the principle of free exercise of religion, to extend the reach of their theological tenets outside the walls of their church buildings and to impose them on other people. This is wrong. It is antithetical to the very foundation o...

What is Freedom? I always thought I knew: my right to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose. While it is difficult to know who originally formulated this thought, it is nevertheless a pithy expression of the concept of boundaries. The problem with this statement is that it only easily applies to things whose ownership is clear and unambiguous: property, persons, patents, etc. When the boundaries between meum and tuum are less clear, that's when things get interesting. Let us take the case of vaccination as an example. Much has been written on this topic and so I will not attempt a detailed excursus of the various schools of thought. Indeed, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter so much who is right or wrong. The question exercising me is how individual liberty relates to the public weal. The mathematician John Nash showed how our self interest depends not only on our own choices, but also in interesting ways on the choices of other people. The question ...

What is evil? What is the nature of evil? My first impulse was to say "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it." But I realized that's a cop out. So let's say Lawrence Krause is right and the universe is a spontaneous creation from nothing. Before consciousness evolves, can evil even exist? I don't think so. If an asteroid crashes into a planet, it's just following its trajectory. If there was no life on the planet, the needle on the Evil-O-Meter(TM) doesn't even twitch. If there was life, and the asteroid's impact killed it all, still no evil. After all, the asteroid was a rock whose trajectory had been determined eons before. It was just a chance meeting in space. So clearly evil requires life, consciousness, and intent. Let us stipulate for the purposes of argument that God doesn't exist. Because then we avoid The Big Cop Out. I think a good place to start from here is the intentional infliction of suffering on another....

Many people are concerned about the long-term societal effects of altering the definition of marriage, so I thought it would be useful to put my two cents out there with this little discussion. Marriage has been used for many purposes at various times and places: to get money and land, to consolidate political power, to control behavior, to ensure good breeding. What we are defending as "traditional marriage" is neither very old nor very widely practiced in the world. If it is God's definition, then he either has changed his mind a lot over time or he has just recently started to care about enforcing it. In any case, the main motivations for same sex couples wanting marriage equality are not religious, but legal, financial, and social. We are willing that homosexual people should put themselves in harm's way defending our country in the military, serving in law enforcement, or protecting people as fire fighters or EMTs. We accept their tax dollars. We require they ...

The recent Supreme Court decision involving the Hobby Lobby company has sparked a lot of commentary. With lots of friends and acquaintances all over the political spectrum, it has been interesting to read everyone's varying reactions. This has got me thinking about freedom on this day where we celebrate our freedom. The famous quote by the less-famous judicial philosopher Zechariah Chafee is a common refrain: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Some days it seems like everybody is worried about freedom. In the Hobby Lobby case, for example, those with a conservative viewpoint consider it a victory for religious freedom. Many people who identify with the liberal perspective see it as an ominous precedent, ultimately detrimental to personal liberty. To name another perennial hot-button topic, the debate about gun control is often phrased in terms of rights and freedom. On one side, people want to be free to carry a gun while others are...

I have decided that I'm not a Cyclist. I just like to ride my bike. There's a difference. Cyclists are serious. They've got the fancy duds. They've got the expensive wheels. They've got the cool equipment. They roam in large packs. I'm just a dilettante, a dabbler. I wear gym shorts and an old JavaOne t-shirt. I ride an inexpensive bike. Also, I'm a fair weather cyclist only. I have no interest in enduring pain and fatigue or sacrificing all my time for the sake of The Sport. And as for money for fancy equipment...well, let me just paraphrase Tolkien by saying that bringing up young Hobbits takes a great deal of provender. My only concession to fashion is a helmet. After all, one may be indifferent to the admiration or scorn of Serious Cyclists, but one still has one's pride; there's no need to be a pariah. In the end I guess I'm just a hedonist. Riding my bike is for the solitary pleasure of enjoying the sunshine, the breeze, and the movement. I...

I've always thought it was right and proper for individuals to base their decisions primarily on self-interest. After all, who better than oneself to know one's own needs and wants? We invented and have been tinkering for millennia with this idea of government to try and find a way so that my self interest can exist harmoniously with yours. Or even better, that our self interests can complement each other's. In the US, as is the tendency of democracies, some are more equal than others and can, in the pursuit of their own self interest, gradually appropriate for themselves a disproportionate share of control over the levers of government and wealth. This is a failure of our checks and balances hiding mainly behind the Shield of Personal Freedom. I think this is why we have in some measure lost sight of our shared responsibility to try to cultivate a society where quality health care and education are attainable by all ordinary people and where no exceptional mind need ever g...