Ideas and the State
What do the following disputes — running the cultural gamut — have in common?
In education: Should creationism or evolution be taught in public schools? In science: Should we form de facto boards of inquisition to maintain the government-funded consensus on global warming? In arts: Should we support “diversity” in the form of the “Piss Christ”? Or should we engage in social engineering by funding art “that would show support for Obama’s domestic agenda”? And in a sad mixture of religion, politics, and science: Should taxpayers continue to support NASA with an annual budget of $19 billion so that it can pursue its new mission to “engage … with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science”?
The answer? Each seeks to determine which ideas taxpayers must fund and support. In so doing, each contributes to making modern politics more acrimonious and fractious than ever.
For the impact of resolving these questions goes well beyond their monetary costs. Ideas matter because they represent our personal grasp of the world and thereby shape our most intimate values. Hence, when we’re forced to support ideas we consider false and inimical to our views, the experience can be intellectually and emotionally eviscerating.
Yet in our current mixed economy, the result of any of the disputes listed above, and of countless others, is that the winner takes all. Whatever the outcome, lawmakers and politicians impose a certain course of action on everyone, whether or not they agree. Take, for instance, the issue of teaching creationism in public schools.Whichever camp loses is subject to, and forced to pay for, ideas they find loathsome.
But, we’re told, such conflicts are inherent in the very nature of a democracy. So they are. This is precisely why the Founders explicitly rejected democracy (a.k.a. mob rule) to form a constitutional republic — one whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights.
In such a system men are left free to decide for themselves which ideas to accept and support. No one is able to forcibly impose their ideas on others. The rationale is the same as for the separation of church and state: People must be free to hold a conclusion because they deem it reasonable. Forcing them to support ideas against their own judgment constitutes an acute violation of their freedom of conscience. (For an example of these types of arguments, see Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance,” in particular points 1, 9 and 15.)
But if people are to choose and support ideas for themselves, they must retain the means to do so. That is, private individuals must be the ones deciding where their own money goes without state interference. Accordingly, there’s simply no room for an NEA, NSF, NASA[i] or even public education[ii]. Instead, funding ideas becomes a question of trade and (rational) persuasion. Educators present parents with explanations for their choice of curricula. Scientists explain the potential value of their research to investors or benefactors. Artists demonstrate the merits of their work. Religious groups preach to congregations who attend and tithe voluntarily.
In the process, it’s no longer winner takes all. Funds are distributed in many directions, each according to customers’ and patrons’ personal decisions.
But the case for separating ideas from the state doesn’t rest solely on abstract arguments. It also works[iii]. Why? Because under freedom, good ideas — by virtue of conforming to reality — can succeed and support themselves. Conversely, bad ideas, when left alone, tend to wither and fail.
This corporate propagandist wants to establish a tyranny where the corporate agenda will go unchallenged and unopposed, at the price of not merely the enslavement of the working class, but the destruction of the biosphere itself. All scientists not bought and paid for by big oil testify to the absolute truth of global warming and how it will kill us all if the oil machine causing it is not crushed. If corporations take complete control; how will we even know what is happening as we all die of starvation and heat exhaustion as Gaia finally takes her vengence against human greed?
If it was not for the NEA, the entire art world would be nothing but corporate propaganda to keep the working class docile and submissive, or, failing that, to channel their anger at non-whites whom the corporate overlords want the average White Man to belive will steal their only can of beans?
Excuse me, but…you are being sarcastic, are you not?
No I don’t think “throbin robin” is kidding. He sounds like he is a student who repeating something his pony tailed teacher told him.
He must be pulling our chain nobody can be off their meds for that long without the staff noticing.
In one short paragraph you manage to fall victim to junk science and play the race card. Neither of which works with intelligent people. Welfare is slavery, both corporate and private. If the working class wants to keep working they need to find a way to make a good product or provide a valuable service at a competitive price. Subsidies do not produce results just waste, with one exception. True scientific methods can result in vast advances in our society in unintended ways if allowed to follow the path of discovery and not manipulation for monetary compensation the way the global warming crowd has reacted. An example or two of useful discoveries in areas totally unrelated to the original research are the microwave and the Teflon coating used to reduce friction on mechanical parts as well as to make non stick cookware.
A great example of fraudulently created science is global warming. Large amounts of data have been manufactured by means that will affect the results in ways deemed appropriate by the individuals that will benefit the most from doing so. The system in place now is akin to placing the arsonist in charge of the fire department. Just for the record do you really think that the folks that discovered Greenland would have called it that if it was covered with ice when it was discovered?
There are a great many more holes in the support for MMGW if you would just think instead of being duped. There is also an old saying if it does not make dollars it does not make sense. The main accomplishment of the global warming agenda is to create an alternate currency that will be used to transfer wealth from the people that are creating it to people that are stealing it through an alternative currency called carbon credits. If you actually were working and made your own money you would not want this to happen unless you are very easily deceived.
Greenland was called Greenland because a viking wanted his newly discovered land to prosper by bringing other people to it, not necessarily because it was green. Likewise, America was not originally named “Land of Infidels and Savages”. Nobody would have wanted to come here, and the discovery would have been a waste of time and resources.
Great essay! Two points in particular stood out for me:
1) I very much like the idea of “separation of ideas and state”. The government should no more be picking intellectual winner or losers any more than it should be picking economic winners or losers.
2) I also like how the author identified a unifying theme underlying several seemingly disconnected cultural-political trends and tied them to basic principles of freedom.
Thank you for another fine article, Amit!
A fine, clarifying article. Ghate notes at the end: “See Daniel Yergin’s The Prize for the sordid story of Western governments encouraging petroleum companies to develop oil in the Middle East and then failing to protect them when the sheiks decided to nationalize their property.” The sheiks were not the only ones to nationalize oil company property. Venezuela and Mexico were among the first. Every member of OPEC seized American, British and French oil fields and crude refining facilities. In the Middle East, after World War I, Western governments promoted the still-nomadic sheiks, who had been butchering each other’s tribes for at least 1,400 years atop oil rich sands, to “world-class” political entities to checkmate Turkey and Soviet Russia. This was pragmatism in action, and we are reaping the consequences today, one of which is Islamic jihad.
Here in Canada, we see conflicts of this kind all the time, due to an even more invasive, omnipresent state. Thanks for explaining the phenomenon and its solution.
As if on cue, “Throbbin Yobbin” provides an illustration of the very “bad ideas” which would fade away in a free market of ideas. Note how he acknowledges that without gov’t subsidy they would. It’s a rather pathetic confession which he’s incapable of recognizing for what it is.
Amit Ghate once again offers a brilliant and thought provoking analysis of an important issue.
I for one greatly appreciate that PJM offers him the opportunity to express it.
There is nothing “free” about the so-called free market. That is especially true in the realm of ideas. A “free market” does not value truth, but only what serves the greedy interests of the corporate class. The ideas that fade away in a free market are those that demand justice for the working class and challenge the greedy pigs at the top to share their ill-gotten loot.
Notice how the corporate media bombards us with images of African-Americans robbing, raping, and murdering and Muslims bombing things and flying planes into buildings. This is to induce racist bigotry in the White working class that keeps them hating non-Whites. This distracts attention from the greed of the corporate plutocrats who live in mansions and dine one caviar while giving the aforementioned working class nothing. It is no wonder White workers so desperately cling to their guns peering out their windows watching for people of color they think will steal the only can of beans their bosses allowed them. They have no way of knowing their real enemy are the plutocrats who barely give them enough to survive, and, when they are no longer useful, “downsize” them to a cruel fate of death by exposure, starvation, and treatable medical conditions since food, housing, and health care are not rights in the United States.
Now, in the age of environmental devastation it is not only just but essential for the survival of humanity that corporate media power be crushed. Big oil propagandists deny global warming because they don’t want scientific facts standing in the way of their bosses’ greed. The scientific truth of global warming would be censored in a free market becuase it challenges the corporate power structure. If the corporate noise machine of global warming deniers is not crushed, crucial action to save the planet from corporate pollution will not be taken, and mankind will become extinct due to mass starvation due to an overheated planet.
If you really believe what you’ve written, I’m utterly at a loss to understand why you don’t move to a “Worker’s Paradise” like North Korea. There is no capitalism there. There is a single TV channel and it most assuredly doesn’t endorse the capitalist plutocrats. It would seem to be an ideal environment for workers.
Yet, strangely enough, they have no problem with illegal immigration on any of their borders; the only traffic crossing their borders is trying to get OUT of North Korea. Perhaps they don’t like having to subsist on grass – or less – while their government uses all of its available resources to build its armed forces ever bigger.
North Korea, like Iran and Cuba, are victims American-based corporate economic terrorism that has impoverished their people. After seeing how the Bush genocidal war machine mercilessly slaughtered the people of Iraq, the North Koreans have no choice but to expand their military to counter a similar event if another Republican ever occupies the White House. The people of North Korea are being squeezed not by the compassionate ideology that they stand for, but rather by the sanctions Washington has placed on them. Their refusal to bow down to the golden calf of corporate greed has caused the D.C establishment to try to starve them into submission. They may be poor, but they are still proud and free!
I think that “Throbbin Yobbin” is definately playing a joke on us.
No one could possibly be that stupid as to actually call the North Koreans “Free”.
Come on Throbbin — tell us your real name –it’s you, isn’t it — Baracky. Come on Baracky, Baracky Obammi …
There is nothing “free” about the so-called free market.
Freedom is Slavery!
Ignorance is Strength!
War is Peace!
The Separation of Ideas and State. Thank you for identifying it in this way. Freedom of ideas (and their expression) without the artificial pull and sway that government backing provides (whether intended or not) is crucial to the well-being and happiness of everyone. I think “separation of ideas and state” will be a helpful way for me to explain my thinking to others.
I loved the article Amit — it clearly demonstrates why ideas matter, and just as clearly shows why the government of a free society has no business determining which ideas are right or wrong, including “legislating morality”.
This article should resonate with conservatives who stand against the ideas of modern liberals, but in response attempt to impose their own idea of what is right, rather than advocating for more fundamental principles in a free republic: the protection of individual rights.
Ghate’s article eloquently makes the case for the separation of state and ideas, the fundamental principle underlying the idea of separation of church and state, already accepted by our legal system. The forceful support of ideas has no place in a free society. While sadly most people still reject this principle (for example, most people still support the idea of compulsory public education), it is important to work to convince people otherwise so that eventually the system can be phased out. Science, education and for that matter religion, can only benefit by being private and not state supported.
I particularly enjoyed the idea that Islamic ideology will not survive without Western aid. The best weapon Islamic fundamentalism/totalitarianism has is the sanction of the victim (US). Withdraw our federal support and it will necessarily crumble.
Another nice article from one of PJM’s best authors. This article clearly integrates many tough themes into a clear, concise argument.
Hey Throbbin, how does a corporation attain it’s wealth? maybe they produce a good, or provide a service that people decide willingly is worth the price they are asking. You are a joke. I dont understand why people like you believe that “greedy” corporations are swindling people out of their hard earned money. If a corporation did not “value truth” and did what they pleased, who would buy their product? In a competetive free market the truth is the equalizer. Any educated consumer who seeks value will object to false advertising, and manipulation.
The phrase “educated consumer” destroys your entire argument. Consumers are influenced, if not brain-washed, by false advertising. The few conscious consumers there are stand no chance against the corporate world. Even if consumers are educated, how is one supposed to stop Home Depot from running out the local hardware stores? People just don’t care enough to fight that big a fight.
The phrase “educated consumer” destroys your entire argument. Consumers are influenced, if not brain-washed, by false advertising.
And you aren’t embarrassed by making such a confession in public, consumer?
Speak for yourself, buster.
Amit Ghate has provided a wonderful statement of the underlying meaning of “Freedom of Religion” or “Freedom of Speech: as much as these principles mean protection from a state *outlawing* certain ideas, they also mean protection from a State extorting money from its citizenry to *promote* anyone’s agenda, whether by regulation that suppresses certain points of view (via vehicles like campaign finance laws), public schools that propagandize controversial ideas (like Global Warming or environmentalism in general), or even government advertising campaigns to promote righteous behavior (“This is your brain on drugs… [picture of fried egg]“).
More people need to take notice that the protection of individual rights (the only proper function of any State), if it means anything at all, means protection from the State in all forms of advocacy. Not just protection from the State putting a gun directly to your head to do something — but protection from a State indirectly forcing you to pony up your hard-earned cash so they can put you — or your kids — into a locked room, strap you into a chair, clamp your head in a vice, tape your eyelids open, and force you to look straight ahead at a screen projecting a stroboscopic kaleidoscope of caricatures of humanity screaming their “message” with the sound system cranked wide open into an incoherent din.
That is the ultimate expression of and real meaning of a State that doesn’t separate itself from the promotion of ideas — legalized brainwashing.
Here’s an exercise: over the next week count the number of times you are subjected to some kind of government advocated point of view — ie, a point of view promoted by some advocates who have seized control of the government.
– Count the number of “Ad Council” ads on TV, for instance. (If you watch 20 hours of TV a week and come up with less than 20 government ads, you’ve fallen asleep.)
– How many times did you scan past NPR on the radio while they condescendingly promoted their contempt of capitalism by nothing more than a sneer at all businessmen from a guest who never earned an honest buck in his life?
– Or maybe Barack Obama just preempted your favorite TV show for a 2 hour speech on his notions of subsidized health care.
– Maybe you were prohibited from eating some kind of food at a restaurant because of all those publicly funded “public interest research groups” (CalPIRG, MPIRG, US PIRG, Iowa PIRG, etc, etc, pick your flavor — who get much of their funding from federal grants and automatic “donations” by students at state-run schools);
– or, less obvious, you ate something containing an ingredient promoted by government farm subsidies, which made it impossible for alternatives to be made available.
– or you couldn’t get salt on a meal because of Michael Bloomberg’s never-ending quest for moral supremacy and power.
– Maybe your kid was required to have a flu shot to attend class (are flu shots necessary or good or even safe? That’s an idea);
– Or did your kid just come home with a math problem about recycling or conserving energy?
– But it might have just been those obnoxious NEA brochures sent home with your kid to promote “diversity” — meaning, cultural relativism; meaning, relativism; meaning, all ideas are equal — meaning, no ideas are better than any other; meaning, there’s no truth or falsehood, right or wrong, good or bad — meaning, *your* ideas are wrong and bad because you don’t have the power (or income) to promote them, and *their* ideas are right because they seized the power: a union granted a government monopoly over every public school in the nation by legislative fiat, with government funding to oppose the emergence of any competition (ie, charter schools, vouchers, or, best of all, tax credits for tuition).
It’s endless.
Then estimate how much money was spent to promote those points of view — multiply by 52 — and divide by 300 million. There’s your share of the cost to pay for your own destruction — if you didn’t agree.
It’s time to get the government out of the propaganda business. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the purpose of government is protect rights, not to control the intellectual life of this country.
Which of the following items does not belong in the group ?
1) Climbing nut
2) Throbbin Yobbin
3) Undescended testicle
Jose Ortega Y Gosset described in ‘The Revolt of the Masses’ the
modern revolt against the truth that some people, and their ideas,
are better than others, a revolt made possible only because those
better ideas had made life so much easier that the bad ideas of the
masses no longer got them killed on a regular basis:
Excellent article Amit. The Separation of Ideas and State – what a perfectly succinct statement to express an absolutely critical concept.
The author successfully integrates so many seemingly separate issues, for instance–the Western support of Soviet Russia, and the Founding of United States as a constitutional Republic. I’ll recommend this article to anyone bewildered by the ever-expanding Nanny State.
Separation of religion and state, economics and state, education and state, medicine and state, ideas and state–all of these can be thought of as the preservation of individual choice in VALUES. It is through the freedom to choose and pursue one’s own values which preserves man’s right to life in a social context. Thank you Amit for pointing out one more key aspect of properly limiting the role of government to the protection of individual rights.
Fantastic essay, Mr. Ghate. Yet more ammunition for those of us who oppose tyranny. Thank you for your efforts.
Nice article, well done.
Amit Ghate pinpoints a threat to a free society more serious than simple wealth redistribution. Government funding is intellectual tyranny, intended or not. As another good example of what Mr. Ghate is talking about, I would point to Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids gender “discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”. Title IX has led to the imposition of Egalitarian dictates on private colleges and universities, almost all of whom are now dependent on Federal dollars. This has led to destructive actions against men’s sports, which often must be cancelled to bring college athletics gender percentages into line with the overall student body.
Egalitarianism – the doctrine that views individuals as interchangeable members of a human ant colony – is not just wrong, but evil, in my view. Yet, my moral objections notwithstanding, I am forced to financially support it. This violates the spirit of the First Amendment “Establishment” clause and the core American principle of unalienable individual rights, and has no place in a free society. Such is the un-American nature of tax-funded “investment in education”.
Government financing is not just the means of empowering the Title IX juggernaut, but the wedge of statism into the field of ideas generally, as this article makes clear. It’s a perfect example of the intricate connection between intellectual, political, and economic freedom, all of which must be protected, if any of them are to survive.
Good job of highlighting this important issue, Mr. Ghate.
This is an excellent article by Mr. Ghate. I am particularly impressed by its observation that the separation of church and state is merely an aspect of the wider principle that ideas and state should be separated, and that this is essential for preservation of individuals’ freedom to think and the justice of allowing them to support only ideas they consider to merit support.
Surely you jest! “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” “You are the slave of him you choose to serve”. The parable of the one talent servant. The lynch mob and, “Let’s hang him now!”- Later regret when that idea turned out not to be so hot, will not bring him back to life. This comment smacks of the Coward’s Creed; a liberal mantra. “We can’t adopt your conservative solution because it is not a panacea- if it won’t solve every problem in the universe its no good.” Or, “Yes, Virginia, I do hear noises from downstairs at two AM, but it can’t possibly be a burglar”.(Because I am a coward and have no intention whatsoever of dealing with burglars). Your son reports that his typing teacher attempted to seduce him, and you take no action, because “bad ideas die of themselves”?
Sonny. don’t roll over, or he’ll do you again.
He shouldn’t give up his day job.
Practical application of his silly “thinking”: Lets ignore the threat of Islam and maybe it will just go away. When? After it has enslaved and murdered for a few hundred years?(As it has already done!). After it has raped the Mediterranean Circle and almost engulfed all of Europe? After it has acquired nuclear weapons and destroyed the planet in favor of a “heaven” filled with whores and alcohol? After its contemporary proponents implement their declared intentions to destroy western civilization, beginning with Israel? Wake up, you dumb clucks! The moslems are going to eat us alive while y’all cowardly pretend that you can’t hear ‘em coming!
Exactly. Just look what the Christians were allowed to do. If only someone had stopped them!
white tiger -
You are reading far too much into Mr. Ghate’s editorial.
The context here is the marketplace of ideas, which means those forums in which ideas can be discussed and debated freely — election campaigns, newspapers, schools, universities, etc. All of that goes out the window when physical force is introduced. That, in fact, is the crucial point to understand: government is needed for protection against the latter, but it is wholly inappropriate for government to be involved in the former.
Amit, That was SMOKING! Undoubtedly the most rational treatise I have read in a long time. I am adding you to my blogroll. Thanks again. P.S. No wonder it raised such an ire with the irrational ideologue who attempted to feed here.
Good grief! Next thing you know, they will be teaching evolution in science classes or teaching mathematics to females, both of which I am culturally opposed to. Cease and desist, immediately.