Wisdom from Readers
Pithy comments on two Bastiat's Window essays. Plus, free music from little-known composers.
Over the past week, readers have posted loads of really insightful comments to several recent installments of Bastiat’s Window, and I wanted to call out a few of the ones I found most interesting. If you have the time and desire, other comments beneath these two articles were numerous and especially engaging. My sincere thanks to everyone who shared endorsements of and criticisms of my writings and who extended the conversations in unexpected directions.
“No, I’m Not a Eugenicist”
[1] In this essay, I strongly criticized the message of Diana Fleischman’s “You’re Probably a Eugenicist,” posted on her Substack—. My essay opened by saying that she had:
written a long, thoughtful, informative, and provocative piece on eugenics. The only thing wrong with it is its central thesis, which I think is dead wrong.
The rest of my column was mostly devoted to explaining why I thought she was wrong. To my great pleasure, Diana posted a comment that began with:
Very charitable and thoughtful rebuttal. And a delight to read. Thank you!
That was followed by four pithy questions from Diana, which I strove to answer. Furthermore, she quote-tweeted my piece on Twitter, calling it, “A good faith and thoughtful rebuttal … even though I vehemently disagree.” Another tweeter (Jason Scott) said of Diana’s words:
I would love to one day live in a world where I can read a sentence like, “a delight to read, even though I vehemently disagree”, and not be as moved by the intellectual honesty & emotional maturity on display, simply because it’s the norm. Today is not that day, so I’m smiling.
I couldn’t agree more. Diana’s willingness to engage in polite and civil discourse is a trait that is vanishingly rare these days. I’ve happily subscribed to her substack and recommend it to readers of Bastiat’s Window. I look forward to vehemently disagreeing with some of what she writes—and agreeing at other times. :)
[2] My “Eugenicist” column cited a creepy doggerel poem (“Mendel’s Law: A Plea for a Better Race of Men.”) It was written by Joseph DeJarnette, a high-ranking medical official in Virginia who, in 1934, pleaded with the legislature to expand the state’s mandatory sexual sterilization program because “the Germans are beating us at our own game and are more progressive than we are.” Reader
wrote:DeJarnette's poem is typical. He praises the livestock and vegetables of the farmer based on their shapes and colors, then condemns the farmer's children based on their shapes and colors. Nothing about their intelligence, creativity, charity (in which he is sadly lacking) or anything else but appearance.
Genetic variation is valuable and necessary. Without it, a species or a society would have little chance of surviving any significant stress. No one is perceptive enough to judge these things, especially in a creature as complex as a man. Even after a man is dead and appears to have lived a pointless life, who can say that if there had been other circumstances, it might not have been different.
If any of the *good* eugenics ideas are actually of value, they should be able to be justified on other grounds.
[3] I also had a lengthy exchange with reader on Down Syndrome and the nature of personhood. I leave it to you to read it, if you're interested.
“The Foibles of Flexner”
[1] Reader recommended that I read her own article, "Abraham Flexner: Academic Medicine's Favorite Scapegoat." I responded:
Your article is, indeed, excellent. I read it shortly after it was published, and it was one of the pieces that influenced me to rethink Flexner. In fact, it's such a good piece that I regret not linking to it in my article. (I'll try to correct that in a future piece.)
Prior omission hereby corrected.
[2] Readers Larry Sarner and schooled me on the history of the term "allopathy" and "allopathic medicine." As a result, I'll issue not a correction, but, rather, a clarification. In my piece, I wrote:
Pre-Flexner, American medicine was a chaotic stew of allopathy, osteopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, eclecticism, etc.—with many schools lacking even a modicum of scientific rigor. After Flexner, American doctors were all allopaths, trained in standardized medical schools, well-versed in science, and bound by its strictures.
Larry and Linda both noted that in Flexner’s time, “allopathy” was a pejorative, invented in the 19th century by Samuel Hahnemann, a homeopath. In response, I told them:
in 2001, the [World Health Organization] defined allopathic medicine as “the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, evidence-based medicine, or modern medicine.”
So, somewhere in the course of the 20th century, the term “allopathy” shifted from an insult by homeopaths to a synonym for “M.D.” While Flexner and his colleagues rejected the term “allopath,” the variety of medicine that he advocated has been retroactively rechristened with the term they reviled.
This exchange was a reminder that language lives and mutates. There have been numerous claims over the centuries that some British monarch(s) referred to Christopher Wren’s magnificent St. Paul’s Cathedral as “awful,” “artificial,” “amusing,” and “pompous,” because each of those words was a compliment in Wren’s time. (“Awful,” for example, meant something that inspired awe.) There is some truth to these tales. As I noted to Larry and Linda, the word “capitalism” was coined as an insult but, over time, those who opposed socialism essentially concluded, “Fine. We’re capitalists,” and wore the name on their t-shirts.
[5] Mark Buchanan recommends a recent article, “Managing the Moral Expansion of Medicine,” by Bjørn Hofmann. I’ll write more about this piece in a future read, but I’ll heartily recommend it here. The subject is the expansionism and mission-creep of modern medicine, where:
an elite group wants to correct all the ills of society while seizing ever-greater control of public discourse and institutional power.
Mark summarizes the piece:
Hofmann identifies 3 patterns of expansion
1. from targeting experienced phenomena, such as angina, to controlling non-experienced phenomena, such as elevated cholesterol
2. from addressing present pain and suffering to preventing potential future suffering, as with screening for cancer and heart disease
3. from reducing negative wellbeing to promoting positive wellbeing. I quote the preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization (Yes, they really do have a Constitution… I think they hold these truths to be self-evident.) "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
Hofmann’s warning, Mark says, is:
These expansions create and aggravate problems in medicine: medicalization, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, risk aversion, stigmatization, and healthism. Moreover, they threaten to infringe ethical principles, to distract attention and responsibility from other competent agents and institutions, to enhance the power and responsibility of professionals, and to change the professional-beneficiary relationship.
There were lots more worthy comments recently, but these were the ones I particularly wanted to call out. Keep commenting, folks. It’s appreciated.
Lagniappe
Intellectual Property and Music
In 2014, I attended a lecture by Tom W. Bell, a law professor at Chapman University, who had just published his book, Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good. He argued that, counterintuitively, copyrights and patents were designed for the benefit of the public, and not for the benefit of writers, composers, artists, inventors, etc. When the Constitution was written in 1787 (with its provisions for copyrights), the market for music, he said, was such that, without copyrights, very little music would have been composed and distributed—to the detriment of the public good. Today, in contrast, the internet, the sheer volume of composers, and other factors have made it such that even without copyrights, the world would be awash with fine music.
I’m privileged to belong to several Facebook composers’ groups, where I often share my own compositions. I am struck by the great quality of some of the creators—all sharing their compositions for free. Many are amateurs, and most are not household names, though many ought to be. Here are three fine examples:
Nicola Rossetti: “Impro One”
This reminds me of Rachmaninoff’s work, or Richard Addinsell’s “Warsaw Concerto” (which was itself a Rachmaninoff homage).
Alexander Rosenblatt’s sonata “Kristina”
This Gershwineque piece is performed by Kristina Miller, for whom the piece was composed.
Alex Orfaly, “Danzón Luna”
Stunning percussion piece. Certain segments remind me of Lalo Schifrin’s theme from “Mission Impossible.”
Wisdom from Readers
Especially enjoyed the music, thank you!