prior probability

Note: Below I review Chapter 4 (pp. 24-35) of Philip K. Howard’s new book, Everyday Freedom: Designing the Framework for a Flourishing Society, available here (Amazon).

In my previous post, I restated Philip Howard’s tautological definition of freedom (“People must have ‘everyday freedom’, by which I mean the individual authority … to act as they feel appropriate, constrained only by the boundaries of law and by norms …“), and I then posed the following key question: where should such boundaries be drawn? For his part, Mr Howard finally gets around to addressing the line-drawing problem in Chapter 4 of his book, so without further ado, here, in his own words, is Howard’s three-part answer:

1. Law should define boundaries safeguarding against unreasonable acts and enclosing an open field of freedom on which people can interact without fear of abuse or legal ramifications;
2. The legal boundaries should be defined mainly using broad principles, not detailed rules;
3. Law should restore clear lines of authority to interpret and enforce these legal principles. When norms are in flux, someone in authority must draw the line.

Howard 2024, p. 27

Alas, this supposed framework, to borrow a British idiom, is too clever by half, for instead of actually answering my line-drawing question, Mr Howard merely restates it! Simply put, he pulls out another rhetorical rabbit from his grab-bag of sophistic tricks. Take, for instance, item #1: “law should define boundaries …” (p. 27). Yes, but where? Specifically, what is “unreasonable”? Or item #3: “someone in authority must draw the line” (ibid.). Again, same reply: yes, but where? Circular reasoning, anyone?

Worse yet, putting aside Mr Howard’s tautological attempt to sidestep or avoid the all-important line-drawing problem, a strong case can be made that the remaining item on his list — item #2 — is flat-out wrong. In his excellent book Simple Rules for a Complex World, for example, Richard A. Epstein explains why simple rules are better than general standards. Alas, Mr Howard not only fails to cite Professor Epstein’s work; he also fails to engage with Epstein’s “simple rules” argument, let alone refute it, in any meaningful way.

Despite these glaring weaknesses, Howard does make some excellent points in the next chapter of his book, Chapter 5, which I shall review in my next post…

File under: “Sorry, not sorry!” For the record, according to this NATO Press Release, only one-third of the countries in the NATO alliance are spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on their defense. The remaining two-thirds NATO members are not.

I will be reviewing Mr Howard’s new book Everyday Freedom: Designing the Framework for a Flourishing Society in the days ahead; in the meantime, here is his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Howard

By some accounts (see, for example, this one), the modern-day origins of Saint Valentine’s Day go back to the 14th Century, and according to this report in The Scotsman, this amorous occasion was celebrated in Scotland as far back as medieval times. As it happens, during the pandemic I set out to investigate whether the great Scottish moral philosopher and political economist Adam Smith, the author of two of the most influential works in the English language and a lifelong bachelor, had ever fallen in love. My full report on this matter, which is titled Adam Smith in Love, is available here. (For a summary of my researches, see my blog post “Adam Smith’s lost loves“.)

Down below, on sidewalks, in fallen leaves, and across the forest floor, a covert invasion is taking place. Ant colonies, revered and studied for their complex collective behaviors, are being infiltrated by tiny organisms called myrmecophiles. Using incredibly sophisticated tactics, various species of butterflies, beetles, crickets, spiders, fungi, and bacteria insert themselves into ant colonies and decode the colonies’ communication system. Once able to ‘speak the language’, these outsiders can masquerade as ants. Suddenly colony members can no longer distinguish friend from foe.

Hölldobler & Kwapich 2022

Thus far, I have featured several new books authored or edited by faculty at my home institution, the University of Central Florida (UCF). Today, however, I want to showcase my favorite work: The Guests of Ants: How Myrmecophiles Interact with Their Hosts (Belknap Press, 2022), which was co-authored by my colleague and new friend Christina L. Kwapich, a biologist at UCF who specializes in the behavior and ecology of ant societies, and Bert Hölldobler, a behavioral biologist at Arizona State who specializes in myrmecology. The excerpt quoted above is from the dust jacket of their beautiful book.

This weekend, I showcased two new books authored or edited by faculty at my home institution: Ty Matejowsky’s Smothered and Covered: Waffle House and the Southern Imaginary (University of Alabama Press, 2022; see here) and David Head and Timothy Hemmis’s A Republic of Scoundrels: The Schemers, Intriguers, and Adventurers Who Created a New American Nation (Pegasus Books, 2023; here). Today, I want to single out for honorable mention Peter L. Larson’s historical case study of two rural parishes in County Durham in northeastern England, which is titled Rethinking the Great Transition: Community and Economic Growth in County Durham, 1349-1660. Professor Larson, a historian at my home institution, the University of Central Florida, is now the Associate Dean of UCF’s College of Arts and Humanities.

I hate to be that guy, but why do celebrities who fly on private jets like to lecture us little people about climate change? Exhibit A: Taylor Swift, who has called climate change one of the most “horrific situations that we find ourselves facing right now.” But at the same time, Ms Swift’s “carbon footprint” puts even Al Gore’s to shame! According to the Associated Press, for example, “Traveling 19,400 miles [i.e. from Tokyo to Las Vegaas] on a Dassault Falcon 900LX, one of Swift’s jets, could release more than 200,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions …” Call me cynical, but no wonder why she wants to keep the movements of her private jets a secret!

Mark my words, very few people will remember this — not even the ads! — two years from now. I’m with these guys: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/10/584757764/there-is-a-competition-to-avoid-learning-who-won-the-super-bowl-for-some-reason