NEW PRESENTATION
Created by Me
Created by Me
"Adoption Markets"
March 11, 2017
Austrian Economics Research Conference 2017
March 11, 2017
Austrian Economics Research Conference 2017
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me and Others
Written by Me and Others
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW PRESENTATION
Created by Me
Created by Me
"Parental Obligations"
March 22, 2014
Austrian Economics Research Conference 2014
March 22, 2014
Austrian Economics Research Conference 2014
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
Written by Me
NEW ARTICLE
EQUIVOCATION
FEBRUARY 15, 2014
Written by Me
Bioethics commentary in an article entitled "Toward Improved Understanding of the Ethical and Clinical Issues Surrounding Mandatory Research Biopsies", published in the January 1, 2013 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, reinforces the truth that imprecise language muddles the minds and, consequently, the pronouncements of the intelligentsia in every human profession. Though the author of the aforementioned essay presumably believes the contentious issue he — Jeffrey Peppercorn, MD MPH at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina — illuminates is the ethical status of mandatory versus optional research biopsies, the actual controversy concerns the use of equivocation by the opponents of mandatory research biopsies. This error, a notorious logical fallacy, is strangely common in non-libertarian and libertarian circles and is the root of much philosophical mischief.
What is equivocation? Wikipedia defines equivocation as “the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)”. The offending passage in this bioethical example of equivocation occurs in the third paragraph of the article:
“Opponents of mandatory research biopsies do not dispute the need for research biopsies in some settings. However, they argue that linking consent to a biopsy to trial participation is at minimum unfair, and at worst coercive. Access to promising, if unproven, experimental therapy within a trial is viewed by many as an important component of quality cancer care. It is clear that patients in some settings feel that they will be harmed, through loss of access to the experimental intervention, if they fail to pursue trial care. This arguably creates a sense of coercion that violates the principle of voluntarily informed consent to the research biopsy.”
In this excerpt, the author lists an argument (used by the opponents of mandatory research biopsies) that exhibits equivocation by cleverly equating two different senses of the word coercion. Logical evaluation of this allegation must begin with a precise definition. What does the word coercion mean? Dictionary.com lists the following three definitions of coercion:
1) the act of coercing,
2) use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance, and
3) force or the power to use force in gaining compliance as by a government or police force.
With these versions of the definition of the term coercion in mind, do the opponents of mandatory research biopsies engage in equivocation in this instance? The answer is yes. They initially use the word coercion in a context (“linking consent to a biopsy to trial participation is at minimum unfair, and at worst coercive”) consistent with the second portion of the second version of its definition — use of intimidation to obtain compliance — which is not a form of aggression. Then, they use the word coercion in a context (“arguably creates a sense of coercion that violates the principle of voluntarily informed consent to the research biopsy”) consistent with the first portion of the second version of its definition — use of force to obtain compliance — which is a form of aggression. Thus, they link two different versions of the definition of the word coercion, thereby equating non-aggression and aggression, which is a contradiction of absurd proportions.
The purpose of this equivocation appears to be an attempt to manipulate the emotions of readers in the hope that they will be persuaded to join the opposition to mandatory research biopsies. This tactic fails. Libertarian readers note the logical fallacy and dismiss any conclusion derived from the false premise.
Equivocation and coercion are further discussed by Stephan Kinsella in his 2011 Mises Academy “Libertarian Controversies” course. Other terms prone to equivocation, specifically by libertarians, include government, aggression, state, justice, property, self and scarcity. Precise language is the antidote to equivocation irrespective of the perpetrator’s ideology.
In conclusion, all versions of coercion are not equal, irrespective of the assertions of the opponents of mandatory research biopsies. Equivocation, misleading the reader by ambiguously switching back and forth between the different senses of a word with multiple meanings, is a fallacy that should be avoided by all those interested in logical argumentation. This error is particularly harmful when it creeps into the theory and practice of liberty, for its use can lead to support of rather than opposition to aggression.
What is equivocation? Wikipedia defines equivocation as “the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)”. The offending passage in this bioethical example of equivocation occurs in the third paragraph of the article:
“Opponents of mandatory research biopsies do not dispute the need for research biopsies in some settings. However, they argue that linking consent to a biopsy to trial participation is at minimum unfair, and at worst coercive. Access to promising, if unproven, experimental therapy within a trial is viewed by many as an important component of quality cancer care. It is clear that patients in some settings feel that they will be harmed, through loss of access to the experimental intervention, if they fail to pursue trial care. This arguably creates a sense of coercion that violates the principle of voluntarily informed consent to the research biopsy.”
In this excerpt, the author lists an argument (used by the opponents of mandatory research biopsies) that exhibits equivocation by cleverly equating two different senses of the word coercion. Logical evaluation of this allegation must begin with a precise definition. What does the word coercion mean? Dictionary.com lists the following three definitions of coercion:
1) the act of coercing,
2) use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance, and
3) force or the power to use force in gaining compliance as by a government or police force.
With these versions of the definition of the term coercion in mind, do the opponents of mandatory research biopsies engage in equivocation in this instance? The answer is yes. They initially use the word coercion in a context (“linking consent to a biopsy to trial participation is at minimum unfair, and at worst coercive”) consistent with the second portion of the second version of its definition — use of intimidation to obtain compliance — which is not a form of aggression. Then, they use the word coercion in a context (“arguably creates a sense of coercion that violates the principle of voluntarily informed consent to the research biopsy”) consistent with the first portion of the second version of its definition — use of force to obtain compliance — which is a form of aggression. Thus, they link two different versions of the definition of the word coercion, thereby equating non-aggression and aggression, which is a contradiction of absurd proportions.
The purpose of this equivocation appears to be an attempt to manipulate the emotions of readers in the hope that they will be persuaded to join the opposition to mandatory research biopsies. This tactic fails. Libertarian readers note the logical fallacy and dismiss any conclusion derived from the false premise.
Equivocation and coercion are further discussed by Stephan Kinsella in his 2011 Mises Academy “Libertarian Controversies” course. Other terms prone to equivocation, specifically by libertarians, include government, aggression, state, justice, property, self and scarcity. Precise language is the antidote to equivocation irrespective of the perpetrator’s ideology.
In conclusion, all versions of coercion are not equal, irrespective of the assertions of the opponents of mandatory research biopsies. Equivocation, misleading the reader by ambiguously switching back and forth between the different senses of a word with multiple meanings, is a fallacy that should be avoided by all those interested in logical argumentation. This error is particularly harmful when it creeps into the theory and practice of liberty, for its use can lead to support of rather than opposition to aggression.
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
PERSONAL MOTTO
September 27, 2012
Vive non gladio: Live not by the sword
DISCLAIMER
August 02, 2012
The content I have contributed to this site is my own. The content does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of my Employer. I am not a spokesperson for my Employer.
NEW ARTICLE
EMMA GOLDMAN, A WOMAN WITHOUT FEAR
February 14, 2012
Guest Post by Allison Lane
When the average person thinks of the early anarchist movements in North America, an image of a female leader doesn’t come to mind. However, one of the most important characters of this movement was a woman.
Born on June 27, 1869, in Kovno (then part of the Russian Empire, now Kaunas, Lithuania), Emma Goldman immigrated to New York City in 1885. When she first arrived in the United States, Goldman was not a practicing anarchist. However, after the Haymarket Affair of 1886 (a rally for striking workers that turned deadly), Goldman became interested in the North American anarchist movement.
Although Goldman is known for her role in supporting and spreading the anarchist philosophy through speeches and writing, she is also known for her activism in women’s rights and support of birth control.
Goldman was a nurse, so she was very much aware of the importance of educating women about contraception. She viewed abortion as a negative consequence of poor social conditions and believed birth control was a better alternative and could prevent abortions. In addition to birth control, Goldman believed in the idea of “free love” and was strongly against marriage.
As a tactic for change, Goldman believed in the use of targeted violence and saw it as a way to encourage the masses to revolt. She was imprisoned several times throughout her life, usually for inciting riots and distributing information about birth control. In 1917, Goldman and her lover, Alexander Berkman, were sentenced to two years in prison for conspiring to “induce persons not to register” for the draft. After their release, they were immediately arrested again and deported to Russia. During the Spanish Civil War, Goldman traveled to Spain to take part in the anarchist movement there.
In addition to anarchism and women’s rights, Goldman also believed that capitalism was detrimental to freedom, that the criminal justice system was un-just and that homosexual love was OK. She had many admirers and gave several speeches and lectures to audiences in the thousands. Goldman was also an atheist.
After deportation, Emma Goldman returned to Russia. However, she did not remain there. Moving from England to France to Canada, Goldman died in Toronto, Ontario, on May 14, 1940, from a stroke.
It is amazing to know that Emma Goldman lived the life she lived and proclaimed the beliefs she had without harm. During this time, many people were killed by governments for being outspoken about their different opinions. Although I do not share the exact philosophy as Goldman, I still deeply respect her courage and objective to prove that freedom can never be whole with overbearing government.
More information about Emma Goldman can be read in the following books:
-“Red Emma Speaks: Selected Writings and Speeches.” New York: Random House, 1972.
-“Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years; Volumes 1 and 2.” Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003 and 2004.
About the Author: Allison Lane owns the website MPA Programs and enjoys writing guest blog posts on various topics of interest.
Born on June 27, 1869, in Kovno (then part of the Russian Empire, now Kaunas, Lithuania), Emma Goldman immigrated to New York City in 1885. When she first arrived in the United States, Goldman was not a practicing anarchist. However, after the Haymarket Affair of 1886 (a rally for striking workers that turned deadly), Goldman became interested in the North American anarchist movement.
Although Goldman is known for her role in supporting and spreading the anarchist philosophy through speeches and writing, she is also known for her activism in women’s rights and support of birth control.
Goldman was a nurse, so she was very much aware of the importance of educating women about contraception. She viewed abortion as a negative consequence of poor social conditions and believed birth control was a better alternative and could prevent abortions. In addition to birth control, Goldman believed in the idea of “free love” and was strongly against marriage.
As a tactic for change, Goldman believed in the use of targeted violence and saw it as a way to encourage the masses to revolt. She was imprisoned several times throughout her life, usually for inciting riots and distributing information about birth control. In 1917, Goldman and her lover, Alexander Berkman, were sentenced to two years in prison for conspiring to “induce persons not to register” for the draft. After their release, they were immediately arrested again and deported to Russia. During the Spanish Civil War, Goldman traveled to Spain to take part in the anarchist movement there.
In addition to anarchism and women’s rights, Goldman also believed that capitalism was detrimental to freedom, that the criminal justice system was un-just and that homosexual love was OK. She had many admirers and gave several speeches and lectures to audiences in the thousands. Goldman was also an atheist.
After deportation, Emma Goldman returned to Russia. However, she did not remain there. Moving from England to France to Canada, Goldman died in Toronto, Ontario, on May 14, 1940, from a stroke.
It is amazing to know that Emma Goldman lived the life she lived and proclaimed the beliefs she had without harm. During this time, many people were killed by governments for being outspoken about their different opinions. Although I do not share the exact philosophy as Goldman, I still deeply respect her courage and objective to prove that freedom can never be whole with overbearing government.
More information about Emma Goldman can be read in the following books:
-“Red Emma Speaks: Selected Writings and Speeches.” New York: Random House, 1972.
-“Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years; Volumes 1 and 2.” Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003 and 2004.
About the Author: Allison Lane owns the website MPA Programs and enjoys writing guest blog posts on various topics of interest.
NEW ARTICLE
THE VIRTUES OF CHRISTIAN ANARCHISM
November 22, 2011
Guest Post by Marcia Colgar
Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who they believe to be the Messiah sent by God. By dying and rising from the dead three days later, Jesus redeemed the human race by giving them salvation from their sins. Christians consider the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.
Anarchists generally believe that governmental authority is immoral and should be replaced by free associations among individuals.
Christian anarchists, therefore, reject earthly authority of man while accepting the heavenly authority of God through Jesus’ teachings. Here are some of the virtues of Christian anarchism.
1. Christian anarchists are pacifists.
Christian anarchists believe that God should be the center of their lives, and that He represents love and all things good. Since love is a tenant of non-aggression, anarchists Christians follow Jesus’ greatest commandment in loving their neighbors as themselves. Similarly, Jesus taught his followers to “turn the other cheek” when someone strikes them (Matt. 5:39). This provides the basis for their belief in non-violence.
2. Christian anarchists are critical of Church dogma and its rituals.
Most Christian anarchists believe that Christians should be primarily concerned with following Jesus’ teachings and practices rather than performing rituals and preaching theology. Jesus never claimed to the founder of an institutional religion and actively opposed legalistic religious leaders such as the Pharisees. Christian anarchists also oppose hierarchy within the Church, instead considering God as the one true authority. There are a few exceptions, such as the Catholic Worker Movement.
3. Christian anarchists advocate voluntary poverty.
Christian anarchists often follow Jesus’ teaching of voluntary poverty as practiced by the early Church in the book of Acts. They may also do this in order to reduce taxable income and give the government as little as possible.
4. Christian anarchists do not pay taxes.
Some Christian anarchists refuse to pay taxes altogether, citing many examples from the Bible in which Jesus calls tax collectors sinful and unrighteous. They do not want to support government corruption or fund activities that they believe to be immoral, such as war.
Challenges
The most commonly cited passage from the Bible used to challenge Christian anarchism is Romans 13:1, which states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Many Christian anarchists interpret this verse as a call for non-violence in the same bent as “turning the other cheek.” As a result, they refuse to support or participate in the state. Others simply ignore the teaching because it was written by the apostle Paul, who they claim was a part of the Church’s deviation from Jesus’ true teachings.
Another challenge is that a stateless society is simply impossible, due to the sinful nature of man. However, Christian anarchists cite the nation Israel in the Old Testament. For about 450 years, the Israelites did not have kings or rulers, but rather leaders or judges who would make decisions when necessary. For example, Judges 4 tells the story of Deborah, a prophetess who acted as an arbitrator of disputes when people came to her for guidance. Such judges sought wisdom from God, believing that He was the only ruler over the people.
Writings
For further information on Christian anarchism, you may wish to consult the following books:
Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre. Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. (2010)
Ellul, Jacques. Anarchy and Christianity. (1988)
Lipscomb, David. On Civil Government. (1866)
Tolstoy, Leo. The Kingdom of God is Within You. (1894)
Marcia Colgar owns the site<a href=http://www.onlinechristiancolleges.com>Online Christian Colleges</a>. She writes articles about Christian education.
Anarchists generally believe that governmental authority is immoral and should be replaced by free associations among individuals.
Christian anarchists, therefore, reject earthly authority of man while accepting the heavenly authority of God through Jesus’ teachings. Here are some of the virtues of Christian anarchism.
1. Christian anarchists are pacifists.
Christian anarchists believe that God should be the center of their lives, and that He represents love and all things good. Since love is a tenant of non-aggression, anarchists Christians follow Jesus’ greatest commandment in loving their neighbors as themselves. Similarly, Jesus taught his followers to “turn the other cheek” when someone strikes them (Matt. 5:39). This provides the basis for their belief in non-violence.
2. Christian anarchists are critical of Church dogma and its rituals.
Most Christian anarchists believe that Christians should be primarily concerned with following Jesus’ teachings and practices rather than performing rituals and preaching theology. Jesus never claimed to the founder of an institutional religion and actively opposed legalistic religious leaders such as the Pharisees. Christian anarchists also oppose hierarchy within the Church, instead considering God as the one true authority. There are a few exceptions, such as the Catholic Worker Movement.
3. Christian anarchists advocate voluntary poverty.
Christian anarchists often follow Jesus’ teaching of voluntary poverty as practiced by the early Church in the book of Acts. They may also do this in order to reduce taxable income and give the government as little as possible.
4. Christian anarchists do not pay taxes.
Some Christian anarchists refuse to pay taxes altogether, citing many examples from the Bible in which Jesus calls tax collectors sinful and unrighteous. They do not want to support government corruption or fund activities that they believe to be immoral, such as war.
Challenges
The most commonly cited passage from the Bible used to challenge Christian anarchism is Romans 13:1, which states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Many Christian anarchists interpret this verse as a call for non-violence in the same bent as “turning the other cheek.” As a result, they refuse to support or participate in the state. Others simply ignore the teaching because it was written by the apostle Paul, who they claim was a part of the Church’s deviation from Jesus’ true teachings.
Another challenge is that a stateless society is simply impossible, due to the sinful nature of man. However, Christian anarchists cite the nation Israel in the Old Testament. For about 450 years, the Israelites did not have kings or rulers, but rather leaders or judges who would make decisions when necessary. For example, Judges 4 tells the story of Deborah, a prophetess who acted as an arbitrator of disputes when people came to her for guidance. Such judges sought wisdom from God, believing that He was the only ruler over the people.
Writings
For further information on Christian anarchism, you may wish to consult the following books:
Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre. Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. (2010)
Ellul, Jacques. Anarchy and Christianity. (1988)
Lipscomb, David. On Civil Government. (1866)
Tolstoy, Leo. The Kingdom of God is Within You. (1894)
Marcia Colgar owns the site<a href=http://www.onlinechristiancolleges.com>Online Christian Colleges</a>. She writes articles about Christian education.
MISES INSTITUTE HIGH-SCHOOL SEMINAR IN INDIANAPOLIS
Sponsored by Me
MISES CIRCLE IN CHICAGO
Sponsored by Me
NEW ARTICLE
Written by Me
ANARCHIST SYMBOL
Loading