2011年11月26日星期六
The evolving FDA -- The intended motivation of FDA’s establishment and its ramifications
To achieve my goal, I have organized my paper into three sections. The first section tries to explore the historical context of the FDA establishment. Why was it established, and how was it functioned? The second section of this paper will emphasize the consequence of modern FDA expansion, and the unexpected ramifications sprung from the centralization of FDA and other regulatory agencies. The third section is reflection. I will discuss the new findings, and how will it change my mind.
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION
In February 1906, a sensational political novel The Jungle, written by journalist Upton Sinclair, reveals some horrifying inside stories about the revolting meat production process. For example, Sinclair describes vividly that “they would die, and then rats, bread, and meat would go into the hoppers together”. (Sinclair, 308) The new middle class in cities was shocked by his investigation, so did the incumbent president Theodore Roosevelt. The exportation of food industry declined significantly due to the publication, and a sense of distrust spread throughout the whole country.
“After The Jungle revealed that meat was often processed from diseased animals and tainted water, Congress worked with lightning speed to pass laws regulating the food industry”. (Dobie, 84) The Food and Drug Act was passed by the congress in response to the public furor, and the inspection responsibility was given to the USDA Bureau of Chemistry, which is the prototype of the FDA.
The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act signed by the president Franklin Roosevelt substantively expanded and clarified the power of the FDA, and FDA's “right to conduct factory inspections, and control of product advertising, among other items” was corroborated. The legislation actually was an immediate response to public anger due to the Elixir sulfanilamide tragedy in 1938. A chemist made sulfanilamide available to patients who were unable to take capsules, and the lethal combination of the sulfanilamide caused hundreds of casualties.
In 1968, the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions were added to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation (DESI) was formed in that year. This expansion was a considerable structure reform which gives the FDA more power to tackle the public health and safety issues. The series of recombination and consolidation of FDA was ascribed to various scandals including the Thalidomide disaster in Europe and series publications written by environmental activists like Rachel Carson.
In the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the FDA was given the authority to require nutrition labeling of foods regulated by the Agency; and to require that all nutrient content claims and health claims meet FDA regulations.
In conclusion, the speed of expansion of FDA is gradual rather than precipitous. And every expansions of FDA were strongly connected to the special historical context and events.
CRITICISM & IMPLICATIONS
Initially, the regulatory role which the FDA played is very limited. Unlike nowadays, the emphasis of the legislation rested on the regulation of mislabeling rather than pre-market approval. And the primary concern of FDA is about safety rather than efficacy of drugs. During the past 100 years, the FDA is much respected given the alleged fact that millions of people are protected by the FDA from contaminated food and potential dangerous drugs which are detrimental to human body. However, nowadays, the FDA has evolved from a small government branch into a giant gorilla which possesses near 10, 000 employees with an annual budget of 2.5 billion. As a sub-agency of United States Department of Health and Human Services, the scale of the FDA is very striking.
The criticism of FDA grows gradually in tandem with the steps of FDA’s expansion. The most noted criticism comes from world renowned libertarian economist Milton Friedman, in the book Free to Choose: a Personal Statement, Friedman argues that the FDA should be abolished because it stifles innovation and competition, and the potential damage caused by FDA oppression is much greater than superficial benefits. He states that “considerable evidence has been accumulated that existing firms and existing drugs are protected from competition. New entry is discouraged, Research that is done will be concentrated on the least controversial, which means least innovative, of the new possibilities”. (Friedman, 209)
In an interview conducted by Hoover institute, Stanford University, Friedman refutes my early conclusion that a central agency like FDA is necessary when confronting with “market failure”, in Friedman’s opinion, the food safety can be guaranteed by free market, independent judiciary system and free speech. Because free market requires food safety as a prerequisite in order to compete with other rivalries given the fact that consumers don’t like contaminated food by nature. Moreover, an independent judiciary system makes class action suit available for consumer who suffers from poisoned food, and the high cost of class action suit settlement makes food factories less inclined to produce inferior products. Last but not least, free speech is the cornerstone of food safety because negative media exposure will definitely deter the bad behaviors.
Last but not least, the largest negative side-effect of centralization and consolidation of federal agencies like FDA is corruption. The latest episode of a popular drama in the United States, The Good Wife, sheds some light on the details of political corruption and professional lobbying. United States Department of Agriculture has the sway upon congress in the design of food guide, as a result, various interest groups, likes dairy and vegetable associations, have to hire lobbyists in order to influence the final decision of food guide adoption. This process makes the federal government become the hotbed of corruptions. A research paper published in 2002 on American Journal of Political Science found that FDA constantly approves some drugs faster than others, and the positive correlation between “the wealth of the richest organization representing the disease treated by the drug” and the speed of approval by the FDA is quite revealing.
REFLECTION
After this research, my opinion toward government regulatory agencies like FDA has changed significantly. The early conclusion that the presence of government enforcement is necessary in the milieu of market failure is unfounded. Every government existence and involvement in every domain in our life should be scrutinized, and the public should not take the government presence for granted, even it is democratic. The famous Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek, has argued in his book The Road to Serfdom that “By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable”. (Hayek, 119)
The Economist once argues that there is a clear tendency that government is taking care of its citizens in every social domain and arbitrating what is the appropriate behavior. The magazine calls this tendency “soft paternalism”. Undoubtedly, this kind of new tendency is dangerous: “A new breed of paternalists is seeking to promote virtue and wisdom by default. Be wary”. The nutrition labeling ordered by the FDA is a perfect example of “soft paternalism”, because the government wants to influence what should we eat by concocting the right and appropriate labels silently.
One of the founding fathers of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, once incisively argues that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Everyone should bear this sentence in mind.
Works Cited
"FDA History - Part I." U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. U S Food and Drug Administration, 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Origin/ucm054819.htm>.
Friedman, Milton. "Uncommon Knowledge: TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism." Hoover Institution. Stanford University, 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936>.
Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Friedman. Free to Choose: a Personal Statement. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990. Print.
Roberts-Dobie, Susan. "IowaPast Perfect: Out of "The Jungle"" NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 292.3-4 (2008): 84. JSTOR. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.
Sinclair, Upton. The Jungle. Cambridge, MA: R. Bentley, 1971. Print.
"Soft Paternalism: The State Is Looking after You | The Economist." The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. The Economist Group, 6 Apr. 2006. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <http://www.economist.com/node/6772346>.
Carpenter, Daniel P. "Groups, the Media, Agency Waiting Costs, and FDA Drug Approval."American Journal of Political Science 46 (2002): 490-505. JSTOR. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.
Jackson, Richard, and Benjamin Franklin. An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania [sic]. New York: Arno, 1972. Print.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von., and Bruce Caldwell. The Road to Serfdom: Texts and Documents. London [u.a.: Univ. of Chicago [u.a., 2010. Print.
2011年11月13日星期日
Why Is There a Euro Crisis? - Philipp Bagus - Mises Daily
Why Is There a Euro Crisis? - Philipp Bagus - Mises Daily
On Thursday, October 28, 2011, prices of European stocks soared. Big banks like Société Générale (+22.54%), BNP Paribas (+19.92%), Commerzbank (+16.49%) or Deutsche Bank (+15.35%) experienced fantastic one-day gains. What happened?
Today's banks are not free-market institutions. They live in a symbiosis with governments that they are financing. The banks' survival depends on privileges and government interventions. Such an intervention explains the unusual stock gains. On Wednesday night, an EU summit had limited the losses that European banks will take for financing the irresponsible Greek government to 50 percent. Moreover, the summit showed that the European political elite is willing to keep the game going and continue to bail out the government of Greece and other peripheral countries. Everyone who receives money from the Greek government benefits from the bailout: Greek public employees, pensioners, unemployed, subsidized sectors, Greek banks — but also French and German banks.
Europeans politicians want the euro to survive. For it to do so, they think that they have to rescue irresponsible governments with public money. Banks are the main creditors of such governments. Thus, bank stocks soared.
The spending mess goes in a circle. Banks have financed irresponsible governments such as that of Greece. Now the Greek government partially defaults. As a consequence, European governments rescue banks by bailing them out directly or by giving loans to the Greek government. Banks can then continue to finance governments (the loans to the Greek government and others). But who, in the end, is really paying for this whole mess? That is the end of our story. Let us begin with the origin that coincides with beneficiaries of the last EU summit: the banking system.
The Origin of the Calamity: Credit Expansion
When fractional-reserve banks expand credit, malinvestments result. Entrepreneurs induced by artificially low interest rates engage in new investment projects that the lower interest rates suddenly make look profitable. Many of these investments are not financed by real savings but just by money created out of thin air by the banking system. The new investments absorb important resources from other sectors that are not affected so much by the inflow of the new money. There results a real distortion in the productive structure of the economy. In the last cycle, malinvestments in the booming housing markets contrasted with important bottlenecks such as in the commodity sector.
The Real Distortions Trigger a Financial Crisis
In 2008, the crisis of the real economy triggered a banking or financial crisis. Artificially low interest rates had facilitated excessive debt accumulation to finance bubble activities. When the malinvestments became apparent, the market value of these investments dropped sharply. Part of these assets (malinvestments) was property of the banking system or financed by it.
As malinvestments got liquidated, companies went bust and people lost their bubble jobs. Individuals started to default on their mortgage and other credit payments. Bankrupt companies stopped paying their loans to banks. Asset prices such as stock prices collapsed. As a consequence, the value of bank assets evaporated, reducing their equity. Bank liquidity was affected negatively too as borrowers defaulted on their bank loans.
As a consequence of the reduced bank solvency, a problem originating from the distortions in the real economy, financial institutions almost stopped lending to each other in the autumn of 2008. Interbank liquidity dried up. Add to this the fact that fractional-reserve banks are inherently illiquid, and it is not surprising that a financial meltdown was only stopped by massive interventions by central banks and governments worldwide. The real crisis had caused a financial crisis.
Conditions for Economic Recovery
Economic recovery requires that the structure of production adapt to consumer wishes. Malinvestments must be liquidated to free up resources for new, more urgently demanded projects. This process requires several adjustments.
First, relative prices must adjust. For instances, housing prices had to fall, which made other projects look relatively more profitable. If relative housing prices do not fall, ever more houses will be built, adding to existing distortions.
Second, savings must be available to finance investments in the hitherto neglected sectors, such as the commodity sector. Additional savings hasten the process as the new processes need savings.
Lastly, factor markets must be flexible to allow the factors of production to shift from the bubble sectors to the more urgently demanded projects. Workers must stop building additional houses and instead engage in more-urgent projects, such as the production of oil.
Bankruptcies are an institution that can speed up the process of relative price adjustments, transferring savings and factors of production. They favor a rapid sale of malinvestments, setting free savings and factors of production. Bankruptcies are thus essential for a fast recovery.
A Fast Liquidation Is Inhibited at High Costs
All three aforementioned adjustments (relative prices changes, increase in private savings, and factor-market flexibility) were inhibited. Many bankruptcies that should have happened were not allowed to occur. Both in the real economy and the financial sector, governments intervened. They support struggling companies via subsidized loans, programs such as cash for clunkers, or via public works.
Governments also supported and rescued banks by buying problematic assets or injecting capital into them. As bankruptcies are not allowed to happen, the liquidation of malinvestments was slowed down.
Governments also inhibited factor markets from being flexible and subsidized unemployment by paying unemployment benefits. Bubble prices were not allowed to adjust quickly but were to some extent propped up by government interventions. Government sucked up private savings by taxes and squandered them maintaining an obsolete structure of production. Banks financed the government spending by buying government bonds. By putting money into the public sector, banks had fewer funds available to lend to the private sector.
Factors of production were not shifted quickly into new projects because the old ones were not liquidated. They remained stuck in what essentially were malinvestments, especially in an overblown financial sector. Factor mobility was slowed down by unemployment benefits, union privileges, and other labor market regulations.
Real and Financial Crisis Trigger a Sovereign-Debt Crisis
All these efforts to prevent a fast restructuring implied an enormous increase in public spending. Government spending had already increased in the years previous to the crisis thanks to the artificial boom. The credit-induced boom had caused bubble profits in several sectors, such as housing or the stock market. Tax revenues had soared and had been readily spent by governments' introducing new spending programs. These revenues now just disappeared. Government revenue from income taxes and social security also dropped.
With government expenditures that prolong the crisis soaring and revenues plummeting, public debts and deficits skyrocketed.[1] The crisis of the real and financial economy led to a sovereign-debt crisis. Malinvestment had not been restructured, and losses had not disappeared, because government intervention inhibited their liquidation. The ownership of malinvestments and the losses resulting from them were to a great part socialized.
Sovereign-Debt Crisis Triggers Currency Crisis
The next step in the logic of monetary interventionism is a currency crisis. The value of fiat currencies is ultimately supported by their governments and central banks. The balance sheets of central banks deteriorated considerably during the crisis and with them the banks' capacity to defend the value of the currencies they issue. During the crisis, central banks accumulated bad assets: loans to zombie banks, overvalued asset-backed securities, bonds of troubled governments, etc.
In order to support the banking system during the crisis and to limit the number of bankruptcies, central banks had to keep interest rates at historically low levels. They thereby facilitated the accumulation of government debts. Consequently, the pressure on central banks to print the governments' way out of their debt crisis is building up. Indeed, we have already seen quantitative easing I and quantitative easing II enacted by the Fed. The European Central Bank also started buying government bonds and accepting collateral of low quality (such as Greek government bonds) as did the Bank of England.
Central banks are producing more base money and reducing the quality of their assets.
Governments, in turn, are in bad shape to recapitalize them. They need further money production to stay afloat. Due to their overindebtedness, there are several ways out for governments negatively affecting the value of the currencies they issue.
Governments may default on debts directly by ceasing to pay their bonds. Alternatively, they can do so indirectly through high inflation (another form of default). Here we face a possible feedback loop to the banking crisis. If governments default on their debts, banks holding these debts are affected negatively. Then another government's bailout may be necessary to save the banks. This rescue would likely be financed by even more debts calling for more money production and dilution. All this reduces the confidence in fiat currencies.
Conclusion
After crises of the real economy, the financial sector and government debts, the logic of interventionism leads us to a currency crisis. The currency crisis is just unfolding before our eyes. The crisis has been partially concealed as the euro and the dollar are depreciating almost at the same pace. The currency crisis manifests itself, however, in the exchange rate to the Swiss franc or the price of gold.
When currencies collapse, price inflation usually picks up. More units of the currency must be offered to acquire goods and services. What had started with credit expansion and distortions in the real economy, then, may well end up with high price inflation rates and currency reform.
Instead of allowing the market to react to credit expansion, governments increased their debts and sacrificed the value of the currencies we are using. The remedy to the distortions caused by credit expansion would have been the fast liquidation of malinvestments, banks, and governments. As the innocent users of the currencies are paying for the bailouts, it is difficult not to be a liquidationist.It is now easy to answer our initial question: Who is paying for the mutual bailouts of governments and banks in the eurozone? All holders of euros, via a loss of purchasing power.
On Thursday, October 28, 2011, prices of European stocks soared. Big banks like Société Générale (+22.54%), BNP Paribas (+19.92%), Commerzbank (+16.49%) or Deutsche Bank (+15.35%) experienced fantastic one-day gains. What happened?
Today's banks are not free-market institutions. They live in a symbiosis with governments that they are financing. The banks' survival depends on privileges and government interventions. Such an intervention explains the unusual stock gains. On Wednesday night, an EU summit had limited the losses that European banks will take for financing the irresponsible Greek government to 50 percent. Moreover, the summit showed that the European political elite is willing to keep the game going and continue to bail out the government of Greece and other peripheral countries. Everyone who receives money from the Greek government benefits from the bailout: Greek public employees, pensioners, unemployed, subsidized sectors, Greek banks — but also French and German banks.
Europeans politicians want the euro to survive. For it to do so, they think that they have to rescue irresponsible governments with public money. Banks are the main creditors of such governments. Thus, bank stocks soared.
The spending mess goes in a circle. Banks have financed irresponsible governments such as that of Greece. Now the Greek government partially defaults. As a consequence, European governments rescue banks by bailing them out directly or by giving loans to the Greek government. Banks can then continue to finance governments (the loans to the Greek government and others). But who, in the end, is really paying for this whole mess? That is the end of our story. Let us begin with the origin that coincides with beneficiaries of the last EU summit: the banking system.
The Origin of the Calamity: Credit Expansion
When fractional-reserve banks expand credit, malinvestments result. Entrepreneurs induced by artificially low interest rates engage in new investment projects that the lower interest rates suddenly make look profitable. Many of these investments are not financed by real savings but just by money created out of thin air by the banking system. The new investments absorb important resources from other sectors that are not affected so much by the inflow of the new money. There results a real distortion in the productive structure of the economy. In the last cycle, malinvestments in the booming housing markets contrasted with important bottlenecks such as in the commodity sector.
The Real Distortions Trigger a Financial Crisis
In 2008, the crisis of the real economy triggered a banking or financial crisis. Artificially low interest rates had facilitated excessive debt accumulation to finance bubble activities. When the malinvestments became apparent, the market value of these investments dropped sharply. Part of these assets (malinvestments) was property of the banking system or financed by it.
As malinvestments got liquidated, companies went bust and people lost their bubble jobs. Individuals started to default on their mortgage and other credit payments. Bankrupt companies stopped paying their loans to banks. Asset prices such as stock prices collapsed. As a consequence, the value of bank assets evaporated, reducing their equity. Bank liquidity was affected negatively too as borrowers defaulted on their bank loans.
As a consequence of the reduced bank solvency, a problem originating from the distortions in the real economy, financial institutions almost stopped lending to each other in the autumn of 2008. Interbank liquidity dried up. Add to this the fact that fractional-reserve banks are inherently illiquid, and it is not surprising that a financial meltdown was only stopped by massive interventions by central banks and governments worldwide. The real crisis had caused a financial crisis.
Conditions for Economic Recovery
Economic recovery requires that the structure of production adapt to consumer wishes. Malinvestments must be liquidated to free up resources for new, more urgently demanded projects. This process requires several adjustments.
First, relative prices must adjust. For instances, housing prices had to fall, which made other projects look relatively more profitable. If relative housing prices do not fall, ever more houses will be built, adding to existing distortions.
Second, savings must be available to finance investments in the hitherto neglected sectors, such as the commodity sector. Additional savings hasten the process as the new processes need savings.
Lastly, factor markets must be flexible to allow the factors of production to shift from the bubble sectors to the more urgently demanded projects. Workers must stop building additional houses and instead engage in more-urgent projects, such as the production of oil.
Bankruptcies are an institution that can speed up the process of relative price adjustments, transferring savings and factors of production. They favor a rapid sale of malinvestments, setting free savings and factors of production. Bankruptcies are thus essential for a fast recovery.
A Fast Liquidation Is Inhibited at High Costs
All three aforementioned adjustments (relative prices changes, increase in private savings, and factor-market flexibility) were inhibited. Many bankruptcies that should have happened were not allowed to occur. Both in the real economy and the financial sector, governments intervened. They support struggling companies via subsidized loans, programs such as cash for clunkers, or via public works.
Governments also supported and rescued banks by buying problematic assets or injecting capital into them. As bankruptcies are not allowed to happen, the liquidation of malinvestments was slowed down.
Governments also inhibited factor markets from being flexible and subsidized unemployment by paying unemployment benefits. Bubble prices were not allowed to adjust quickly but were to some extent propped up by government interventions. Government sucked up private savings by taxes and squandered them maintaining an obsolete structure of production. Banks financed the government spending by buying government bonds. By putting money into the public sector, banks had fewer funds available to lend to the private sector.
Factors of production were not shifted quickly into new projects because the old ones were not liquidated. They remained stuck in what essentially were malinvestments, especially in an overblown financial sector. Factor mobility was slowed down by unemployment benefits, union privileges, and other labor market regulations.
Real and Financial Crisis Trigger a Sovereign-Debt Crisis
All these efforts to prevent a fast restructuring implied an enormous increase in public spending. Government spending had already increased in the years previous to the crisis thanks to the artificial boom. The credit-induced boom had caused bubble profits in several sectors, such as housing or the stock market. Tax revenues had soared and had been readily spent by governments' introducing new spending programs. These revenues now just disappeared. Government revenue from income taxes and social security also dropped.
With government expenditures that prolong the crisis soaring and revenues plummeting, public debts and deficits skyrocketed.[1] The crisis of the real and financial economy led to a sovereign-debt crisis. Malinvestment had not been restructured, and losses had not disappeared, because government intervention inhibited their liquidation. The ownership of malinvestments and the losses resulting from them were to a great part socialized.
Sovereign-Debt Crisis Triggers Currency Crisis
The next step in the logic of monetary interventionism is a currency crisis. The value of fiat currencies is ultimately supported by their governments and central banks. The balance sheets of central banks deteriorated considerably during the crisis and with them the banks' capacity to defend the value of the currencies they issue. During the crisis, central banks accumulated bad assets: loans to zombie banks, overvalued asset-backed securities, bonds of troubled governments, etc.
In order to support the banking system during the crisis and to limit the number of bankruptcies, central banks had to keep interest rates at historically low levels. They thereby facilitated the accumulation of government debts. Consequently, the pressure on central banks to print the governments' way out of their debt crisis is building up. Indeed, we have already seen quantitative easing I and quantitative easing II enacted by the Fed. The European Central Bank also started buying government bonds and accepting collateral of low quality (such as Greek government bonds) as did the Bank of England.
Central banks are producing more base money and reducing the quality of their assets.
Governments, in turn, are in bad shape to recapitalize them. They need further money production to stay afloat. Due to their overindebtedness, there are several ways out for governments negatively affecting the value of the currencies they issue.
Governments may default on debts directly by ceasing to pay their bonds. Alternatively, they can do so indirectly through high inflation (another form of default). Here we face a possible feedback loop to the banking crisis. If governments default on their debts, banks holding these debts are affected negatively. Then another government's bailout may be necessary to save the banks. This rescue would likely be financed by even more debts calling for more money production and dilution. All this reduces the confidence in fiat currencies.
Conclusion
After crises of the real economy, the financial sector and government debts, the logic of interventionism leads us to a currency crisis. The currency crisis is just unfolding before our eyes. The crisis has been partially concealed as the euro and the dollar are depreciating almost at the same pace. The currency crisis manifests itself, however, in the exchange rate to the Swiss franc or the price of gold.
When currencies collapse, price inflation usually picks up. More units of the currency must be offered to acquire goods and services. What had started with credit expansion and distortions in the real economy, then, may well end up with high price inflation rates and currency reform.
Instead of allowing the market to react to credit expansion, governments increased their debts and sacrificed the value of the currencies we are using. The remedy to the distortions caused by credit expansion would have been the fast liquidation of malinvestments, banks, and governments. As the innocent users of the currencies are paying for the bailouts, it is difficult not to be a liquidationist.It is now easy to answer our initial question: Who is paying for the mutual bailouts of governments and banks in the eurozone? All holders of euros, via a loss of purchasing power.
2011年11月11日星期五
Josephus and The Jewish War
It is impossible to see through a historical figure exhaustively; consequently, all the four characteristics mentioned in the question above are proper descriptions of Josephus if viewing him through different prisms.
He can be counted as a patriot, since his opposition to rebellion against the Roman Empire in order to keep the Jewish community in Jerusalem from Roman invasion can be interpreted as a sign of patriotism. He can be viewed as a traitor for the same reason, especially under a populist circumstance that most Jewish people support the rebellion. He can be regarded as an opportunist, since he defends the Roman authority in The Jewish War, “you should flatter, not provoke, the authorities”, and eventually he became a Roman citizen after the Jewish War. He can be perceived as a pragmatist, because the argument he makes in The Jewish War is very pragmatic. For example, he enumerates many empires that are conquered by the Romans, such as Gaul, Germans and Spain, in order to illustrate the murky scenario of rebellion against Roman Empire, “Almost every nation under sun bows down before the might of Rome”. Moreover, he points out that Jews have no allies other than their own God, and God is not on their side.
The perspective to see through Josephus certainly will matter our reading for the Jewish Wars, because it is widely accepted that every historical narrative is biased, if Josephus adopts any one of the four ideologies (that is patriotism, treachery, opportunism and pragmatism), the validity and reliability should be questioned because his own biased values will have an impact on his writings such as The Jewish War.
Further reading:
Did hundreds of Jews really commit suicide at Masada? Historian Shaye Cohen compares Josephus' account with recent archaeological evidence.
From "Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus" by Shaye Cohen Journal of Jewish Studies: Essays in honour of Yigael Yadin Vol. XXXIII, pp. 385-405 Spring-Autumn 1982
Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/masada.html#ixzz1dP7544tI
2011年11月10日星期四
Pact of Umar
NEWS: Iran officials pressure pastor to convert
History: Medieval Sourcebook: Pact of Umar, 7th Century?
The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule
After the rapid expansion of the Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the "dhimma", or "protected person". The Dhimmi were required to pay an extra tax, but usually they were unmolested. This compares well with the treatment meted out to non-Christians in Christian Europe. The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a "pact" which formed the patter of later interaction.
We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."
from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
(c)Paul Halsall Jan 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."
from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
(c)Paul Halsall Jan 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
2011年11月7日星期一
WRT assignment--gun-control law
The article called “Controlling Legal Gun Ownership Does Not Reduce Crime” is a convincing argument which pertains to the sensitive gun-control issue in modern American society. Some members of the left side of American political spectrum consistently and repeatedly argue that federal government should reinterpret the second amendment of the constitution, because they believe that the pervasive crime in some regions of the United States should be ascribed to the second amendment of the US constitution, which guarantees people’s right to keep and bear arms. The article is eloquently written by John R. Lott Jr., a professor from the University Chicago Law School, as a response to the gun-control assumption made by the left. The crux of this essay is trying to convey the key proposition that legal gun ownership regulation by the federal government will not reduce the crime rate, and just the opposite, controlling legal gun ownership by the government regulation eventually will give rise to rampant crime rate in the United States. Lott extensively and successfully uses empirical evidence to illustrate his proposition.
As far as I am concerned, the purpose of this article is trying to debunk the stubborn and entrenched faulty assumption, which has not been demonstrated scientifically and logically, that gun-controlling law implemented by government mandate will reduce crime. The second amendment of the constitution of the United State clearly states that “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The founding father of the United States, John Adams, once incisively pointed out that facts are stubborn things. “Whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence”. Many notions and ideologies are believed by the public and academia simply because they have been asserted repeatedly, such as the assumption that gun-control law is a prerequisite of low crime rate. It is very dangerous that repetition has been accepted as a substitute for empirical evidence, which is true in a lot of current public political debates in the United States. In my opinion, Lott simply wants to reveal the gun-control fallacy that has had harmful effects on the well-being of millions of people in the United States. “The very size and strength of our results should at least give pause to those who oppose concealed handguns.”
Lott develops a sophisticated analytical structure to crystallize his major points. First, in the beginning, He simply describes a specific event. In the first paragraph, Lott mentioned the Democratic Party gun-control convention in 1996. During this convention, James and Sarah Brady tried to convince the audience by their suffering story that gun-control law is necessary to reduce the crime rate in the United States. The purpose that Lott mentions this story in the first paragraph is very clear: evoke the curiosity and sympathy of the potential audience of this article. It is very natural to deduce that gun-control law works when confronting high crime rate, and the author wants to exploit this natural reasoning of common people and foreshadow his empirical reasoning based on solid statistics in the following refuting paragraphs.
The author uses a plenty of comparisons and contrasts between intuitive reasoning and factual scenario in the article to convey his ideas. For example, In the third section “women are empowered”, the author mentioned that former president Bill Clinton played up his proposed expansion of the 1994 Brady law based on the presumption that the implementation of the Brady Law will shrink the high crime rate in some US cities, but the various empirical evidence suggests that the Law’s implementation is associated with more aggravated assaults and rapes. In essence, Lott concluded that “guns are the great equalizer between the weak and the vicious”, and “Mrs. Brady’s exaggerated estimates of the number of felons denied access the guns in her speech are a pool measure of the Law’s impact on crime rates”.
Moreover, Lott clearly uses a lot of numbers—statistical evidence to construct an argument based on scientific reasoning. The purpose of the numbers is to boil down the abstract conception and plain facts into scientific and cogent statistic evidence. The strong empirical evidence is the best instrument to undermine the fallacies which are indoctrinated by simple repetition. For example, according to Lott, the analysis of the FBI’s crime statistics for all 3,054 American counties from 1977 to 1992 indicates that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. Numbers can be very pervasive when dealing with crime issues.
Lott makes a pretty strong argument about the sensitive gun-control issue. I can’t agree with him more. The constitution of the United States guarantees that bearing weapons is an unalienable right which is endowed by the creator for American people to avoid the danger of dictatorship. And the government does not have the authority to limit law-abiding citizen’s access to weapons in order to defend themselves from dictatorships or other high crimes. The issue is very sensitive in American political arena, and from now and then, this issue is often exploited by some politicians as their own political capital. Lott successfully makes a solid argument which defends the legitimacy about bearing guns based on solid empirical evidences.
2011年7月25日星期一
Extra Credit Assignment #1
Extra Credit Assignment #1
Concept: freedom of the press
Organization:
measurement of media freedom
Idea: Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones for the survival of modern democracies. Empirical evidence and observation suggests that democracy grows in tandem with the ever-expanding freedom of the press.
Idea: Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones for the survival of modern democracies. Empirical evidence and observation suggests that democracy grows in tandem with the ever-expanding freedom of the press.
Concept: freedom of the press
Organization:
In my opinion, freedom of the press has three basic indicators. A country with freedom of press should satisfy all the following requirements:
1. No existing de facto law, regulation or censorship agency should make media succumb to prior restraint
2. Basic laws or constitution protect free speech (political) and they are actually enforced
3. Media should not be largely (50% or higher) state-owned
1. No existing de facto law, regulation or censorship agency should make media succumb to prior restraint
2. Basic laws or constitution protect free speech (political) and they are actually enforced
3. Media should not be largely (50% or higher) state-owned
First, prior restraint is a classic indicator of freedom of the press. The supreme court of the United States established this legal precedent in Near v. Minnesota, which recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent cases. I hold the opinion that this prior restraint test is very significant and effective in restricting government control over media. Under prior restraint rule, government does not have any excuses to establish censorship institutions such as propaganda department to pre-screen media content.
Second, rule of law is a basic safeguard which is designed for political liberty protection. And a confirmation in the constitution or basic laws that guarantees political free speech is the prerequisite of the freedom of the press, which can effectually limit government power abuses in subsequent punishment, if any.
Third, media ownership is also an crucial indicator of freedom of the press. Hayek's proposition in The Road to Serfdom is very incisive when explaining the side-effect of state monopoly, which also applies to state-owned media. State's direct involvement and bias in the media industry will crush the natural competitiveness in free market and eventually it will impinge on the freedom of the press.
I hold a minimalist view of freedom of the press which classify media freedom only in regard to its observable institutional procedure and ownership rather than some specific violation cases and outcomes. A minimalist view is more objective and reliable. I also hold a dichotomous view toward the freedom of the media. If a country does not satisfy all three indicators, then it will be classified as not free. If a country meets all three indicators, then it will be classified as free. There is no middle zone in my method. As a result, the measurement level in my standard is nominal measure.
About validity, reliability and replicability:
First of all, three indicators rely on each other and every one is indispensable. Without prior restraint this specific practise requirement, the definition of free speech will be too ambiguous. Without the guarantee of free speech, prior restraint restriction will be meaningless because state can implement subsequent punishment anyway. Without free media market, in state monopoly media do not have incentive to practise their freedom so that the preceding two requirements will be futile. So as far as I am concerned, my measurement is valid.
All my three indicators are based on subjective observation rather than objective speculation. Related fact and statistics can be found in pertinent laws, regulations and media reports, and my measurement is not specific-case-violation oriented. So my measurement is reliable and replicable.
Second, rule of law is a basic safeguard which is designed for political liberty protection. And a confirmation in the constitution or basic laws that guarantees political free speech is the prerequisite of the freedom of the press, which can effectually limit government power abuses in subsequent punishment, if any.
Third, media ownership is also an crucial indicator of freedom of the press. Hayek's proposition in The Road to Serfdom is very incisive when explaining the side-effect of state monopoly, which also applies to state-owned media. State's direct involvement and bias in the media industry will crush the natural competitiveness in free market and eventually it will impinge on the freedom of the press.
I hold a minimalist view of freedom of the press which classify media freedom only in regard to its observable institutional procedure and ownership rather than some specific violation cases and outcomes. A minimalist view is more objective and reliable. I also hold a dichotomous view toward the freedom of the media. If a country does not satisfy all three indicators, then it will be classified as not free. If a country meets all three indicators, then it will be classified as free. There is no middle zone in my method. As a result, the measurement level in my standard is nominal measure.
About validity, reliability and replicability:
First of all, three indicators rely on each other and every one is indispensable. Without prior restraint this specific practise requirement, the definition of free speech will be too ambiguous. Without the guarantee of free speech, prior restraint restriction will be meaningless because state can implement subsequent punishment anyway. Without free media market, in state monopoly media do not have incentive to practise their freedom so that the preceding two requirements will be futile. So as far as I am concerned, my measurement is valid.
All my three indicators are based on subjective observation rather than objective speculation. Related fact and statistics can be found in pertinent laws, regulations and media reports, and my measurement is not specific-case-violation oriented. So my measurement is reliable and replicable.
Existing concepts and measures:
In Press Freedom Index issued by Reporters Without Borders, there are 6 indicators that reflect media freedom:
1. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
2. NUMBER OF JOURNALISTS MURDERED, DETAINED, PHYSICALLY ATTACKED OR THREATENED, AND ROLE OF AUTHORITIES
3. INDIRECT THREATS, HARASSMENT AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
4. CENSORSHIP AND SELF-CENSORSHIP
5. CONTROL OF MEDIA, JUDICIAL, BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRESSURE,
6. INTERNET AND NEW MEDIA
The Press Freedom Index is more based on subjective individual perceptions, and there are often wide contrasts in a country's ranking from year to year. So the reliability of this Press Freedom Index is questionable. In my opinion, my measurement has succinctly included these indicators and more based on objective observation.
In Press Freedom Index issued by Reporters Without Borders, there are 6 indicators that reflect media freedom:
1. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
2. NUMBER OF JOURNALISTS MURDERED, DETAINED, PHYSICALLY ATTACKED OR THREATENED, AND ROLE OF AUTHORITIES
3. INDIRECT THREATS, HARASSMENT AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
4. CENSORSHIP AND SELF-CENSORSHIP
5. CONTROL OF MEDIA, JUDICIAL, BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRESSURE,
6. INTERNET AND NEW MEDIA
The Press Freedom Index is more based on subjective individual perceptions, and there are often wide contrasts in a country's ranking from year to year. So the reliability of this Press Freedom Index is questionable. In my opinion, my measurement has succinctly included these indicators and more based on objective observation.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)