David McElroy

Why do people remain in situations in which they’re unhappy? Why do people hate their jobs, but remain there? Why do people in miserable marriages remain, frequently producing children to join in the dysfunction? And why do people who see the sickness of a failing political system remain loyal to it rather than look for alternatives?

I suspect it’s largely because people have trouble dealing with uncertainty. They might be miserable with what they have, but they’re unwilling to give it up until they have proof that the alternative is better. They’re scared to step out into the uncertainty of taking a chance and they’re scared to have faith that they can build something better.

It’s uncertainty that makes people terribly uncomfortable with certain situations and even certain art. In the work of M.C. Escher, we see a perfect example. Instead of painting normal and understandable things in the world around us, this brilliant Dutch artist created works that feel uncomfortable to many people, because much of it feels contradictory and uncertain, such as the example above. (Which way is the water flowing, anyway? How can what you’re looking at even exist?)

Keep Reading

We all know that nationalism and worship of a government is bad, right? I mean, we’ve seen chilling film footage of Germans who joined Adolph Hitler in those nighttime rallies at Nuremberg and Russians and Chinese singing their communist anthems in the days of the Cold War. Those are scary, right?

On the other hand, we all know that patriotism and love of the good ol’ USA is one of our highest values. That’s how we can appreciate the freedom we have, right? We pledge loyalty to our flag and promise allegiance to “the republic for which it stands,” but those are good things. Right?

In case you get confused, just remember that it’s nationalism when people in other countries get caught up in national pride — and indulge in blind loyalty about their country being the best ever — but it’s just good ol’-fashioned patriotism when it happens here.

Where do rights come from? That’s a foundational question for anyone who advocates individual freedom. If “unalienable rights” exist, every action that would conflict with them should be legally constrained. If rights don’t exist, they’re merely pragmatic rules of a game that can be changed at someone’s whim.

On this day in the United States, we celebrate the pronouncement by the Founding Fathers that the 13 colonies were joining together to declare political independence of Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence is one of the most important documents in the history of classical liberal thought, because it not only asserted a right to break away from the controlling political entity binding those people at the time, but it laid out the philosophical case for why people had the right to be free. (Read the text and think about what it’s really saying. It’s quite well-written, even if your history or civics teachers bored you to death with it at the time.)

When it comes to the question of rights, the text says the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Thomas Jefferson’s original wording said, “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable,” and it was Benjamin Franklin who suggested the change to “self-evident.” To me, that says that they, too, were struggling to figure out how to explain something that they understood intuitively. (I’m not going to get into the issue of their personal contradictions because of their failure to see women and those of other races as equal, but let’s acknowledge that that blind spot was huge.)

Keep Reading