Villains of Korra

I recently marathoned the last two seasons of the Legend of Korra. While I understand that it is a kids show on Nickelodeon, I still think that some of the ideas could have been explored better. There is not enough time given to develop the ideas of the villains, or examine what makes the villains wrong, either in their methods or ideology. If you want to watch the series, this contains some spoilers, so I would recommend not reading.

I personally didn't think that much of the first two seasons. The second was so disappointing that I stopped watching, until I heard that the last two seasons were much better. Well, I think one of the reasons that I found the second season so lackluster was that the villain in it had no reasonable justification, or at least as one that I picked up.

The political side of this is that in the first, third, and fourth seasons showcase different political ideals. The first season tries to explore the idea of equality. The equality movement ends up going too far, but the political questions that they raise are not really answered satisfactorily. They end up discrediting the movement by revealing that the leader of the equalists is actually a bender, and therefore a hypocrite. This is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, the first of which, for me, is that it doesn't remove the objections that were raised by other characters.

The equalists do bring up valid points about being ruled by benders, and how benders have power over them, but they cross the line by taking away peoples bending by force. It should certainly be acceptable to resist benders who try to impose their will on non-benders. This aspect is something that I don't think is explored quite enough, since they end up spending time on rushed romance and pro-bending. One thing that was not mentioned that the benders were getting less relevant in terms of actually using bending in day to day activities. Technology was gradually replacing benders in that respect. The modern civilization also limits what benders can legally do, since it is easy for them to destroy property, which is expensive and has to be fixed.

If people are unequal because of birth, whether it is elemental bending, wealth, good genetics, or any other factors, it doesn't give other people the right to take that away, whatever that is. It is not okay for one group to impose their will through violence or threats of violence, regardless of which side of the have and have-nots they are on. If we take away the abilities that make people extraordinary, all that we are left with is a poorer world.

Skipping ahead to the third season, we have anarchists who are trying to free people from oppressive governments. I find that I can agree with them on some things, but definitely not the way that they go about it. I think that part of the problem is that when they espouse the downfall of governments, they don't make a distinction between government and law or cultural practice. This is a common mistake, but they anarchy that they propose is what is usually thought of as the Hobbesian state of nature.

The fourth season is in some sense the flip side of the anarchist argument, though it is not really portrayed that way. The villain in this season showcases what I would consider some of the dangers of Nationalism. There is some value in a united country as opposed to a fractured one, but for it not to be oppressive, it requires the consent of the governed. Unification through force is not only oppressive, but is also causes war, which is one of the worst things that people can do. Nationalists place the nation as more important than the individuals in the nation. The national interest is used as the excuse, but it is just what the leaders view as the most important.

I would have liked it more if Legend of Korra had expanded a little more on the philosophy of the villains, since for three of the seasons, the villains had philosophy that can't be dismissed out of hand, and even for a kids show, we should try to show that ideas could still be good, even if the way that the villains went about it was definitely wrong.

The Dangers of Nationalism

Something that I see a lot implicitly in the media and the culture is the value placed in the nation as an entity. It is something that I think goes unquestioned, more than most. We often take pride in our nation (though sometimes to satirical extremes, as in 'America, Fuck Yeah!'), but I think that this pride and assumption of the nation state can be dangerous to the health of the citizens.

Over the summer, Russia annexed part of Ukraine, and a big fuss was made about it, talking about how a war might break out over it. Then, there were parts of Ukraine that started fighting to leave and join Russia, though whether that is legitimately Ukrainians wanting to leave, or Russians who are seizing the area, I don't really know or care, and it doesn't matter. The problem is that people are framing the question wrong.

We generally assume that a government is made legitimate by the consent of the governed. Let us assume this to be true. This is a principle that can also be embodied by the idea of the self determination of peoples. Okay, so lets suppose that all people within their national borders are consenting to be governed by that nation, more or less. Clearly in this case, Russia has no claim to invade or annex the people in Crimea, as they have consented to be governed by Ukraine, and not Russia. But suppose those people don't care? They would consent to be governed by Russia or Ukraine? If they are indifferent to who is sovereign, why should the outside world care?

Now let us suppose that they are not indifferent, and would rather be Russian than Ukrainian. In this case, does Ukraine have any right to claim sovereignty over that area after Russia takes it? Sure, Ukraine had it before, but if the people in that region want to be Russian, not Ukrainian, then by the self determination and consent of the governed, they should be allowed to stay Russian. Similarly, if another portion of Ukraine's population wishes to leave Ukraine, what claim does Ukraine have to keep them in Ukraine? If the people derided as 'separatists' withdraw the consent to be governed, then isn't government action against them illegitimate?

Even assuming the legitimacy of all nations, I think these ideas of self determination of peoples and consent of the governed call into question the 'legitimacy' of any civil war, and any nation that engages in such a war. When any portion of a population of a nation withdraws its consent to be governed, waging war against them to keep them in the nation is wrong, by these principles. What ends up as the problem of nationalism is when the people in the rest of the nation support this kind of military action for arguments for national health or power. When we encourage pride in the nation over the consent of the governed, then we lay the ground work for needless civil war.

Why Economic Inequality Should Not Matter

I see a lot of liberal rants about the 'growing economic inequality' and the 'top 1%,' but I think that they are missing the fundamental issue. While it is a nice thought that wealth will be distributed more evenly, so that everyone can enjoy private planes and mansions, we should not be judging society by what the rich can have and the rest can't, but rather by what the normal person can afford. Perhaps it is because humans are a jealous species, but it strikes me that the rich being rich doesn't in any way hurt me.

Consider the case if we take inequality to an absurd extreme. The rich people own planets and have their own private space ships to travel between them. The poor people are stuck on Earth in the state that they are in now. The rich in this case are vastly wealthier than the rich are now, while the poor are just as poor as they are now. So why would the inequality make the difference in social good? Because the poor are more jealous of the rich for having access to more resources?

Contrast this case with a completely equal society with no wealth. There are no rich, only poor, but the income inequality is zero, since no one is making anything. This is where everyone is basically subsistence farming or hunting and gathering, working 12 hours a day to eat, and clothe themselves. This is a situation that is not unlike where humanity started. I think it should be fairly uncontroversial that we have made some progress since then, and I think it is somewhat uncontroversial to say that it is better to be living now, with the large inequality, than 10,000 years ago with less inequality.

What I think should be somewhat clear from my examples is that what is important is not the inequality between the rich and poor, but rather the condition of the poor themselves. If we are concerned primarily about poverty, then what we want is a society where the poor are getting better off the fastest. What happens to the rich should be mostly irrelevant. While the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor might sound like a way to fix the problems of inequality, in the long run, this ends up harming the poor more than it helps. In situations with attempted large scale redistribution, such as in the communist states or in other dictatorships (Zimbabwe comes to mind), the poor end up being worse off, eventually to the point where the system collapses, which hurts the poor the most.

As the saying about capitalism goes, a rising tide raises all boats. There are some objections to this from liberals who think that the system that we live in is pure free market capitalism, but there is no other system that I'm aware of that has led to a larger increase of the standard of living of the poor.

So, the election happened. And all my liberal friends are upset.

Well, as predicted in many places, the election results favored the Republicans, and gained them control of the Senate. My Facebook feed has been full of people bemoaning how terrible this is, and questioning how the country could be so apathetic/stupid. I think that there is a little bit of arrogance and a bit of cognitive dissonance in that sentiment.

First, there is an arrogance in saying that people who vote Republican are stupid. While it may be true (and I certainly don't care to argue that point), if stupid people are not allowed to vote for who they want, who are they allowed to vote for? In a democracy, the entire point is to be governed by the leaders and representatives selected by the people. Stupid people need to have representatives too. And maybe it is not just question of intelligence, maybe the other voters value different things, or have a different worldview.

I think another aspect of this liberal view is that the Republicans don't care about the poor, and are unempathetic or indifferent to the lives of other people. At the same time, these liberals are unwilling to really examine the views of Republicans and Conservatives, and show empathy for their positions. It seems to me that liberals are often too busy accusing conservatives of not caring that they don't consider that maybe they care in a different way.

Lower voter turnout also is thought to have helped the Republicans, which means that there are a bunch of people who would have voted Democrat, but they stayed away from the polls, for some reason. This is probably because people care less about local elections. Why is this? I think part of that is because we have been tending to aggregate more and more power in the federal government, so people have started to think that only the office of the President matters. And it appears that the majority of the people with this mindset are more liberal.

Additionally, we still have a Democrat as a president, so it is not like the country is in a significantly different place than last year. The Republicans don't have a veto-proof majority, so anything that they do will still need the President's signature. The only thing that might have changed would be they might send more bills to the President to sign.

I think that the next couple of years will be the Republicans sending Obama bills to sign, and him not signing them, followed by each side accusing the other of not compromising. I don't think that there will be a significant change from before.

A Contradiction in Modern Liberalism

Something that I've noticed from my outspoken liberal acquaintances (Facebook friends), is a tendency to indulge in a scary little doublethink. They rightfully oppose the actions of the police in cases like Ferguson, but then at the same time advocate for giving the state, and therefore agents of the state, additional power to regulate various enterprises. In essence, they are simultaneously advocating increasing the bullying power of the police, while trying to stop the police from bullying. The problem with this position is that giving a group more power is going to have the reverse incentive, and will encourage more bullying.

In our system, this is somewhat mitigated by having multiple government agencies which compete for various legal playgrounds. Police departments have Internal Affairs, which are supposed to bully the bullies. The courts are supposed to ensure that the police can only punish people when they follow the rules. The problem with this is that the legal system is complicated and expensive, so even the threat of legal action can be a deterrent for most people. This means that the police can threated innocent people with lengthy court proceedings, or government inspections, as a means to bully. Even if the police department cannot directly enforce the regulations introduced, they can threaten to contact the agency that does enforce the regulations.

If liberals found a way to end police aggression, and solve the problems of police brutality, then I don't think that this would be a huge problem. I have not seen a good solutions from liberals on this particular front. There is an idea that in a democracy, we can just vote some one in or out, and that will solve the problem. And this is true to some extent, but we don't vote on individual police officers. We don't vote on the policies which govern the police directly. In the current system, we have to rely on elected officials appointing people who understand these problems and institute policies which can help mitigate the systemic incentives. I'm not particularly hopeful in this regard.

Thoughts on Feminism

With Emma Watson's recent speech to the UN, and starting a campaign #HeForShe, I think now is a good time to express some of my thoughts about feminism. By dictionary definitions like the one that Ms. Watson recited in her speech, I am a feminist. I support equal rights, privileges and responsibilities for men and women, and all people generally. I don't usually take the label of feminist, though, because I don't think the definition she cited is the only, or the most accurate definition. Even in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there is a second definition: "organized activity in support of women's rights or interests." Feminism is not just about equal rights.

Something I see fairly frequently in feminist rhetoric is language that excludes men from concern or consideration. For example, on the HeForShe website, we have the following text introduction:

"A solidarity movement for Gender Equality. The movement for gender equality was originally conceived as a struggle led only by women for women. In recent years men have begun to stand-up in addressing inequality and discrimination faced by women and girls. Now it’s time to unify our efforts. HeForShe is a solidarity movement for gender equality that brings together one half of humanity in support of the other half of humanity, for the benefit of all."

The commitment statement is as follows:
"Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls."

So gender equality is not only a women's issue, but we are only taking action against violence and discrimination faced by... women and girls. So I guess it is a women and girls issue? This is just the latest example of feminist rhetoric that is poisoned by being too specific, while claiming to be supporting everyone. Even HeForShe admits it "...brings together one half of humanity is support of the other half of humanity, for the benefit of all." Wait, so only one half of humanity gets support? In an equality movement?

I would be much more inclined to support, at least nominally, these campaigns if they, at least nominally, were willing to correct the gender of these statements:
Gender equality is not only a women's issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.

Thoughts on Ferguson

This is not the most timely of posts, but at this point, nothing on my blog is timely. I've been mulling over what to write about this for a little while, and the additional time has allowed the emotions to run down.

As far as I can tell, the two major camps on this issue are as follows:
Opinion 1: A Ferguson cop shot an innocent, unarmed black kid for walking in the street.
Opinion 2: A Ferguson cop shot a black thug who had just robbed a store, and was charging him.

These two opinions as stated here are obviously the simplified forms of the longer narrative, but I think that they serve as a useful distillation. There are also a few facts that both sides (except for the most extreme) can agree on. The Ferguson police officer did shoot an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, six times. There was at least one shot fired inside the car. Michael Brown had just previously robbed a store.

These facts are not really disputed at this point, but the real story is definitely the aftermath. The initial statements and evidence did not include the information about the robbery, or any forensic evidence of where Brown was shot, just leaving the shooting of an unarmed black teen. This instigated protests against the police, using the phrase 'hands up, don't shoot' as a rallying cry. Some destructive individuals decided to use these protests as a jumping off point to loot and vandalize some local stores. This lead, somewhat predictably, to a larger police response.

In some ways, I think the police response is the bigger story, and it has highlighted something that Libertarians have been talking about for years: the militarization of the police force. Suddenly the mainstream press started to care about the use of military equipment and resources by the police. In a most ironic twist, the people who were saying that we need more gun control, and that self defense with a gun is not needed because of police, were now saying that the police are brutal and should not be trusted, but protested.

There has also been a lot of discussion about the race aspect of the conflict. The population of Ferguson is mostly black, and the police are mostly white. I think that certainly plays a part in this, but I think that the power of the police is more significant. We should not be trusting a police force just because they share skin colors with the people that they are supposed to be policing. We should be holding them accountable.

One measure that I think is reasonable for the police (or any public official) to take is personal cameras. While I can understand that some operations (undercover, for example) would require the removal of the camera (assuming that you consider those necessary, which I'm not sure if I do), I think that police should have to wear cameras and microphones that record all of their activities. While it would be a breach of privacy for the officers on duty, it is a sacrifice that should come with having legal power over others. The citizens that are interacting with the police are already at risk of legal action, but this would mean that the officer would have to tell the truth about any incident they report, rather than being able to embellish or fabricate the scenario.

Some police departments are experimenting with this already, like in New Orleans. I hope that this particular trend continues so that we can better hold law enforcement accountable.