David Brooks: Lost In Space

by hilzoy

David Brooks outdoes himself today:

"Karl Rove has his theories about what separates liberals from conservatives and I have mine. Mine include the differences between Jeffrey Sachs and George Bush. (...)

Sachs is a child of the French Enlightenment. At the end of his new book, "The End of Poverty," he delivers an unreconstructed tribute to the 18th-century Enlightenment, when leading thinkers had an amazing confidence in their ability to refashion reality so that it would conform to reason. (...)

The Bush folks, at least when it comes to Africa policy, have learned from centuries of conservative teaching - from Burke to Oakeshott to Hayek - to be skeptical of Sachsian grand plans. Conservatives emphasize that it is a fatal conceit to think we can understand complex societies, or rescue them from above with technocratic planning. (...)

Conservatives appreciate the crooked timber of humanity - that human beings are not simply organisms within systems, but have minds and inclinations of their own that usually defy planners. You can give people mosquito nets to prevent malaria, but they might use them instead to catch fish."

First of all, Brooks is wrong about the Enlightenment. While many writers in the French Enlightenment thought it was possible to improve society somewhat, and that reason could help us to figure out how, most of the major figures of the Enlightenment (French or otherwise) did not have a lot of confidence in their ability to refashion reality so that it would conform to reason. (Montesquieu? Diderot? Voltaire? Rousseau?) The closest thing to a major figure in the French Enlightenment who did think this was Condorcet. But people who cite Condorcet in support of this idea generally overlook the fact that the work in which he most clearly comes down in its favor was written in 1790, when he was in hiding from the Terror, and is therefore more likely to be a desperate statement of hope against all odds than a simple statement of what he believes.

Sorry. I just had to say that. It's an error that annoys me, since one of the reasons I love the French Enlightenment is their rich and dark view of human nature and its complexities. (And for the record: when Brooks refers to 'the crooked timber of humanity', he is of course quoting Kant, a member of, you guessed it, the Enlightenment.)

More obviously, though: what on earth is this business about Bush and his advisors having "learned from centuries of conservative teaching -- from Burke to Oakeshott to Hayek -- to be skeptical of Sachsian grand plans"? Huh? Is Brooks talking about some other George Bush -- one who, when confronted by the possibility of remaking Iraq by force, responded with skepticism? Who refused to invade Iraq until his administration had really thought through the problems of reconstituting Iraqi society after the fall of Saddam, because he had learned from Oakeshott that any such undertaking would be difficult and perilous? Who decided not to try to remake Iraq along conservative economic principles that it had never known before, on the grounds that a Burkean gradualist approach would be preferable to recreating the Iraqi economy from scratch as a sort of Heritage Foundation theme park? Who asked his advisors, at every turn: how can we be sure that this attempt to bring freedom to Iraq will go the way we want it to? Are we sure we will be greeted as liberators? Don't human beings have minds and inclinations of their own that usually defy planners? Have we paid enough attention to the ways in which our plans could go wrong?

Maybe this skeptical George W. Bush is alive and well in some alternate universe. Maybe in that far-off galaxy he is cautiously leading America from strength to strength, and from victory to victory. But the George W. Bush who is running our country is about as far from the conservative, gradualist, skeptical vision of Burke, Oakeshott, and Hayek as it's possible to be.

Comments

[cleek]

maybe he's thinking of the George Bush of campaign 2000 - the "No Nation Building", "Not The World's Policeman" Bush - i hear Brroks has a pinup of that Bush on inside of the door in his locker at the Kool Kids locker room.

he probably thinks the guy who ripped off his mask in early fall 2001 to become New American Century Bush is an imposter sent from the Bizarro World to confound all those rugged individualist paleo-cons - "Choose! Your party or your ideals!" "My Party! My Party! A thousand times, my party!"

[Toadmonster]

Sachs is a child of the French Enlightenment. At the end of his new book, "The End of Poverty," he delivers an unreconstructed tribute to the 18th-century Enlightenment, when leading thinkers had an amazing confidence in their ability to refashion reality so that it would conform to reason.

Whereas the Bush administration has an amazing confidence in its ability to refashion reality so that it will conform to unreason.

Thank you and goodnight!

[liberal japonicus]

You can give people mosquito nets to prevent malaria, but they might use them instead to catch fish.

Given that anti malaria mosquito nets are for beds, this is a pretty amusing comment. Pathetic, but amusing.

[Anderson]

Where have the David Brookses of the world even heard of the Enlightenment? Did they even get that far in The Closing of the American Mind?

Evidently in DB's case it's from dustjackets of Isaiah Berlin?

[Anderson]

Oh, we've missed the best part of Hilzoy's quote:

At least when it comes to Africa policy.

So, Bush et al. are sophisticated conservatives. When it comes to policy areas that they don't actually care much aboout. Like that continent full of black people. Where they don't really want to spend much money in the first place, needing it for the stuff they DO care about, like transfering large sums of money from the U.S. Treasury into the pocketbooks of their donors, I mean, of the contractors bringing freedom to Iraq.

I wish DB would go rescue some African prostitutes and STFU about George Bush, Hayekian.

[Craig]

I think you misunderstand what what the enlightenment was all about. These "Sachsian" grand plans you speak of are utopian. The assertion that conservative teachings of at least the last 100 years that the idea of building utopian societies is both impractical and misguided is completely accurate. I fail to see how you can have a problem with that statement. You think the neocons are UTOPIANS? You think the Bush administration is went into Iraq to try and build a utopia there?

Or is it that you don't really understand what the enlightenment was all about? Sometimes, people get educated beyond their ability to comprehend, I guess.

[Jackmormon]

I'm not sure Brooks is aware that he's quoting Kant. I rather suspect instead that he once browsed around a bit at Crooked Timber and rather liked their masthead.

[liberal japonicus]

You think the Bush administration is went into Iraq to try and build a utopia there?

Hard to tell, given that they have succeeded in creating a working dystopia. If we simply judge them on results, there is no way anyone would think they were trying to build a utopia. However, it is possible to think that you are going to do one thing and end up doing the opposite.

[Bernard Yomtov]

If an aversion to grand plans, a focus on incremental progress, attention paid to detail, and a results-based attitude makes one a conservative, then I am astonished to find that I am quite conservative. And of course Bush is anything but.

Iraq proves it, but consider also his approach to domestic policy. He is much given to large-scale plans, devised with no thought to underlying details, consequences, or implementation issues. Social Security of course is a prime example. And he is quick to sneer at those who introduce troublesome nitpicky matters like arithmetic into the debate. Remember "fuzzy math?"

In this context, I also find it odd that alleged conservatives criticize the Democrats for a lack of big ideas and an obstructionist attitude toward the Administration. Shouldn't those be positive attributes?

[Charles Bird]

Reminds me of something I wrote:

Jeffrey Sachs was been thinking along similar lines in his treatise on eradicating global poverty, proposing the Big Five development interventions: boosting agriculture, improving basic health, investing in education, bringing power, and providing clean water and sanitation. I would add a sixth: bringing freedom and democracy to the squalid countries. Without it, there is no guarantee that the Big Five would take. All too often, the resources get misallocated, squandered and pilfered when the presiding government does not respect civil liberties and political rights. Sachs underlying premise is that global instability is the result of poverty. There may be quite a few nations that need a leg up, but to me the underlying instability is the result of fundamentally unstable governments and the contempt they have for its subjects.

Without reforming the African governments, there's no assurance that the aid will go where it should or that it will help. What's gonna happen when a huge bundle of money goes to Mugabeland to pay for the Big Five? Think that's going to help? Brooks is right, whether or not you agree with him on the enlightenment or crooked timbers.

[bob mcmanus]

"Or is it that you don't really understand what the enlightenment was all about? Sometimes, people get educated beyond their ability to comprehend, I guess."

That's pretty funny.

Me, I get confused between the English Enlightenment, the French Enlightenment, and Kant, who was an Enlightenment unto himself. Locke and Hume and Smith do seem to be searching for the limits of reason in order to make reason a more useful tool. I get confused by the French Enlightenment because I have never read those guys, which makes them more difficult to comprehend.

On the other hand, David Brooks never confuses me.

[bob mcmanus]

"Without reforming the African governments, there's no assurance that the aid will go where it should or that it will help. What's gonna happen when a huge bundle of money goes to Mugabeland to pay for the Big Five?"

So Charles, spend the money in ways you would actually find useful, whatever that might be. But Bush is actually just claiming the credit for good intentions in Africa while spending the money elsewhere. The African people are not deceived.

[liberal japonicus]

I get confused by the French Enlightenment because I have never read those guys, which makes them more difficult to comprehend.

You may be putting Descartes before the horse.

[ral]

We are now definitely into Python territory:

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

[hilzoy]

Craig: "Or is it that you don't really understand what the enlightenment was all about? Sometimes, people get educated beyond their ability to comprehend, I guess."

I'd be happy to debate the Enlightenment with you whenever you want. Pick a figure, and we can start right away.

Brooks' criticism of the Enlightenment is that, and I quote, "leading thinkers had an amazing confidence in their ability to refashion reality so that it would conform to reason." I deny that that's true of the major Enlightenment thinkers, though it's true of some minor ones. If you dispute this, fire away with some specifics.

Bush also defends Bush, or at least "the Bush folks", on the grounds that they are "skeptical of Sachsian grand plans", and know that it is a "fatal conceit to think we can understand complex societies, or rescue them from above with technocratic planning." I claim that the Bush administration has tried to reform Iraq with precisely such a grand plan, and that this contradicts their supposed Burkean/Oakeshottian/Hayekian wisdom.

I will also claim now that I do not think it is possible for someone to have fully appreciated the lessons of those thinkers and so spectacularly fail to apply them in other obvious cases; and therefore that any of the "Bush folks" who have responsibility for both Iraq and Africa have, I believe, failed to learn those lessons. Possibly the undersecretary of state for Africa has fully absorbed his Burke, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al have not.

[Bernard Yomtov]

"Genghis Khan, but Immanuel Kant."

[Chuchundra]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant.

[hilzoy]

No! No! Any moment now we're going to start talking about the Humean condition, and then my head will explode.

[Bernard Yomtov]

No! No! Any moment now we're going to start talking about the Humean condition, and then my head will explode.

I agree. We should Locke this up immediately.

[Bill Gardner]

Charles Bird wrote "What's gonna happen when a huge bundle of money goes to Mugabeland...?"

Sachs recognizes the problem of corruption and is committed to close monitoring of aid. Whether Sachs' proposal will work will depend on the details of who receives the aid and how its use is monitored. It's those details that we should be debating. The evidence that Bush is right in practice is what, exactly? The report card on Bush's plan is that so far, almost nothing has gone out through his Millenium fund, while billions have gone to oh-so-democratic Egypt and Pakistan.

Charles, do you have evidence that the UN's Millenium fund plans to send aid to Mugabe? That's an important fact, it is true.

[Anarch]

I agree. We should Locke this up immediately.

We should, but we Kant!

[Jesurgislac]

If you're going to talk like that, I'm going to pick up my toys and go Hume.

[Dantheman]

"If you're going to talk like that, I'm going to pick up my toys and go Hume."

Wearing your Burke-nstocks?

[kenB]

What the Hegel is wrong with you people and your bizarre sense of Hume-r??

[Barry]

"What's gonna happen when a huge bundle of money goes to Mugabeland to pay for the Big Five? Think that's going to help? Brooks is right, whether or not you agree with him on the enlightenment or crooked timbers."

Posted by: Charles Bird

You've got a point, Charles. IIRC, we've seen $300 billion US go to Iraq, just to screw things up. And that's the stated cost; there's probably that much more in hidden costs. Plus the costs which will come from giving Al Qaida their Afghanistan II, which (hopefully) will amount to (only!) a few hundred billion more dollars.

[Charles Bird]

But Bush is actually just claiming the credit for good intentions in Africa while spending the money elsewhere. The African people are not deceived.

Bush has committed more aid for Africa than in any other administration in history, bob.

[Mark]

Charles, could you please break that down for us into money promised, money obligated, and money spent?

[hilzoy]

Here's a start: the GAO report (pdf) on the Millenium Challenge program. "For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, Congress appropriated nearly $1 billion and $1.5 billion, respectively, for MCC; for fiscal year 2006, the President is requesting $3 billion." As of April 27, when the report was published, $110million had been obligated, and none had been spent.

[hilzoy]

And I forgot to add: I think Bush originally promised to ask for something like $5billion a year, but hasn't.

[Jesurgislac]

Charles Bird: Bush has committed more aid for Africa than in any other administration in history, bob.

Bush has committed no new money to Africa. He's only committed money already appropriated by Congress for poverty relief - in short, his headline-grabbing aid to Africa means other anti-poverty projects elsewhere will be shorted.

Also: link

And while the G-8 nations have agreed to a new debt cancellation deal for Africa, it is only a small step, worth about $1.5 billion a year of the additional $25 billion a year that Africa needs. The Bush administration said the United States would offset its share of the cost - around $150 million a year - by cutting other aid.

...explain the truth to the American people about the small level of U.S. aid to Africa. Of the $3 billion or so in American assistance this year, most pays for emergency food aid and for American salaries [emphasis mine]. Aid for actual investments, such as fighting malaria and promoting safe drinking water, isn't very much. It translates to perhaps $1 of aid for each African and a $2 contribution per American.

Bush isn't - or shouldn't be - competing with past Presidents. The problems of Africa should not be treated as a PR gift. To argue that "Bush is doing more" can doubtless be finagled out of the figures, but who cares? The fact is that, proportionate to GDP, the US does less than any other industrialised country.

And the way in which international aid is targetted isn't usually altruistic.

[liberal japonicus]

the President is requesting $3 billion." As of April 27, when the report was published, $110million had been obligated, and none had been spent.

If they had spent that money, they would have been trying to set up a utopia! Just say no to that ole debbil Enlightenment!

[Charles Bird]

Charles, could you please break that down for us into money promised, money obligated, and money spent?

Read the words I actually wrote, Mark.

McQ has a good">http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2006">good piece on African aid and the elephant in the room. Also, a good follow-up here.

ou may remember a remarkable PBS interview I highlighted here in which African professor George Ayittey pointed out that the problem with Africa isn't too little aid from Western democracies, but the mismanagement of that aid by corrupt African governments:

And also we all know the big elephant in the room. The big elephant in the room is African governments. Africa has been totally mismanaged and misruled in the past decade, but nobody wants to talk about that because of political correctness. Africa's begging bowl leaks horribly. As a matter of fact, the African Union itself estimated that every year corruption alone costs Africa $148 billion. If African leaders could cut that in half, they'll find more money than what Tony Blair is trying to raise for them.

Citing political correctness as the reason this topic has been avoided, Ayittey said that nothing was going to change or get better in Africa until this problem was addressed and fixed.

Today, an article in The Telegraph points to the scale of the problem Ayittey highlights in just one African country:

The scale of the task facing Tony Blair in his drive to help Africa was laid bare yesterday when it emerged that Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused £220 billion.

That is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the continent.

The aid went nowhere. It lined the pocket of corrupt rulers. It ended up precisely where George Ayittey said it was ending up. And yet, despite this evidence, there are those here and around the Western world, who fault leaders such as Blair and Bush for not throwing more money down the rat hole of African aid (or into the pocket of rats in African governments).

[Anarch]

Blockquote begone!

[hilzoy]

The thing of it is, Charles, that while Nigeria has been one of the most corrupt countries in the world for as long as I can remember, there are other African countries that are doing their best to manage things well. Almost everyone, on all sides of this debate, agrees that any money that's sent should be sent to those countries that will actually use it well, and should be carefully monitored. But I don't see how pointing to the existence of corruption in, of all places, Nigeria excuses promising a lot of aid to Africa as a whole and then delivering next to none.

[Anarch]

And on topic:

Read the words I actually wrote, Mark.

Could you maybe answer the question he actually asked, since it's more than a little relevant to the matter at hand? hilzoy and Jesurgislac have done the heavy lifting for you already; with that context, I'm curious to see how you justify crowing about Bush's "commitment" when it's so manifestly all hat with nary a cattle in sight.

[Anarch]

The thing of it is, Charles, that while Nigeria has been one of the most corrupt countries in the world for as long as I can remember...

It's been a while, but I think Nigeria and Indonesia used to compete for the coveted title of "Most Corrupt Nation on Earth" every year for the past few decades. Bribery's so endemic in both places that I've heard both countries offers receipts on sufficiently large bribes which can then be expensed, although that could be apocryphal.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Charles,

I think the point here is that you are making contradictory arguments.

1. You praise Bush for his large commitment of funds to Africa.

2. When it is pointed out that little of this commitment has been met you argue that financial aid to Africa is largely wasted, so what difference does it make.

But if #2 is true then Bush's commitment is foolish, not praiseworthy. And if #2 is false then the failure to meet the commitment is dishonest.

[liberal japonicus]

Geez, it would be nice if you actually made an effort to know why Nigeria has a debt problem before you use it, as Bernard has pointed out, to contradict yourself. The bulk of the debts were accrued under military dictators, who then refused to pay (try it with your credit cards and you can see how it works). Check out this Brookings Institute policy brief to understand what is at issue.

from Chas' link
The good professor is right, and, given its assets in oil reserves, Nigeria at least has the capability to pay its debt. It may need to be restructured, but it shouldn't be cancelled as it is a perfect example of all that's wrong in Africa.

It's interesting how observations about the historical basis of problems suddenly get turned into evidence for 'political correctness' which then justifies a tough love kind of treatment. You may want to look at the Economist piece or this Financial Times piece. Or, keeping in mind your constant exhortions about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, this article makes the following points:

Reclassification would also strengthen the case for Nigeria receiving an immediate write-down of a large portion of its debt to bilateral donors (along the lines of concessional Naples terms for IDA-only countries), which we argue is critical to any hope that the current government’s economic and political reform efforts can be sustained. The creditors have good reason for supporting such a change as part of a broader strategy for encouraging progress in Africa’s most populous country, and one that is key to stabilizing a region where internal conflict and Islamic radicalism create threats to global security.

Make up your mind. Do you want cite rants at political correctness concerning Africa or do you want to alleviate the conditions that permit someone like Bin Laden to buy loyalty in Sudan and Afghanistan? Cause you can't do both.

[Charles Bird]

I think the point here is that you are making contradictory arguments.

No, Bernard, the war and foreign aid are separate issues, so there's no contradiction.

But I don't see how pointing to the existence of corruption in, of all places, Nigeria excuses promising a lot of aid to Africa as a whole and then delivering next to none.

Hil, there is a long history of aid being misused and embezzled by kleptocrats, with little or nothing to show for results. Africa is as squalid as it ever was. If the underlying systems are not addressed, then it's just history repeating itself. Problem not solved. The way to fix it is too attach a whole bunch of strings and tie the money to performance. Sachs is woefully short on addressing that issue, playing cheerleader to an African version of the Great Society.

[Jesurgislac]

Charles, I find it interesting that you chose not to quote the part of Hilzoy's comment that you evidently agreed with - since you repeated it yourself in slightly different words - there are other African countries that are doing their best to manage things well. Almost everyone, on all sides of this debate, agrees that any money that's sent should be sent to those countries that will actually use it well, and should be carefully monitored.

I also find it interesting that while Hilzoy sees this as a reason for action, you see it as an excuse for inaction - since you appear to support wholeheartedly Bush's inaction.

[liberal japonicus]

No, Bernard, the war and foreign aid are separate issues, so there's no contradiction.

Does the term Freudian ring a bell?

Sachs is woefully short on addressing that issue, playing cheerleader to an African version of the Great Society.

I fear that you have only read the Times excerpt (which is the first chapter) rather than the actual book.

[McDuff]

What about Malawi, or Ghana?

Using Nigeria and Zimbabwe as blanket examples of "Africa" is like talking about the USA while only referencing DC, or Europe while only referencing Italy.

[tonydismukes]

Charles,
I just re-read the thread, but I'm confused by your last response to Bernard.
He said:
"I think the point here is that you are making contradictory arguments.

1. You praise Bush for his large commitment of funds to Africa.

2. When it is pointed out that little of this commitment has been met you argue that financial aid to Africa is largely wasted, so what difference does it make.

But if #2 is true then Bush's commitment is foolish, not praiseworthy. And if #2 is false then the failure to meet the commitment is dishonest."

and you responded:
"No, Bernard, the war and foreign aid are separate issues, so there's no contradiction."

... which seems to me like a total non sequitur. As far as I can see, Bernard wasn't saying anything about the war. He was responding to your 9:56 am comment stating "Bush has committed more aid for Africa than in any other administration in history, bob." (corresponding to his point #1) and to your multiple comments pointing out the folly in spending money in Africa which may be scooped up by corrupt kleptocrats (corresponding to his point #2). I don't see what either point has to do with the war.

As stated by Bernard, his two points do seem to a) be contradictory and b) reflect what you actually said. In response, you might argue that his points a) don't really reflect the nuance of what you said, or b) don't really reflect the nuance of what you meant to say, or c) aren't really contradictory. To argue such a point, you should probably use some sort of detailed explanation rather than making some sort of totally unrelated statement.

Or am I missing something?

[Barry]

"Bush has committed more aid for Africa than in any other administration in history, bob."

Posted by: Charles Bird

Charles, that's beneath you. A politician's promises?

[Tad Brennan]

Oh, sure, our policies involve taking billions from working tax-payers and giving them to corrupt kleptocrats.

But that *should* lead to a better standard of living for even the poorest citizens, shouldn't it?

After all, that's exactly how "trickle-down" economics worked in Reagan's America, wasn't it?

[Charles Bird]

Excuse me, I misread Bernard. Sorry about that.

[Charles Bird]

To answer Bernard's question, the plan for the $15 billion includes monitoring for results:

The President’s Emergency Plan will establish measurable goals for which we will hold ourselves and our partners accountable. In the focus countries and throughout the world, effective monitoring and evaluation systems will identify successful models for scaleup and poorly performing programs for revision or termination.

And so forth. Sachs is heavy on the Big Five but light on how the massive wealth transfer is going to be applied. The same principles apply to the Millenium Challenge Accounts.

[Barry]

Charles, that may all be true, but the plan for Iraq was rice, flowers, cakewalk, and on to the rest of the Middle East.

[Jesurgislac]

Charles Bird: The same principles apply to the Millenium Challenge Accounts.

The plan for the Millenium Challenge Accounts:

At the Inter-American Development Bank on March 14, 2002 President Bush called for “a new compact for global development, defined by new accountability for both rich and poor nations alike. Greater contributions from developed nations must be linked to greater responsibility from developing nations.” The President pledged that the United States would lead by example and increase its core development assistance by 50 percent over the next three years, resulting in an annual increase of $5 billion by FY 2006. These funds will go into a new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). Because sound policies are an essential condition of development, the President announced that the Millennium Challenge Account will be “devoted to projects in nations that govern justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom.” cite

The reality of the Millennium Challenge Accounts:

Jan 28, 2005: Officials at the Millennium Challenge Account are quick to list the countries that, through good governance, have qualified for the aid program. They are not as quick to list the countries that have received a dime: there aren't any. Still, Paul Applegarth, chief executive of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, assured us last week that President Bush's program is "really moving at an extraordinarily quick pace." cite

The realit

[napoleon dolemite]

Funny how Craig disappeared after being confronted by hilzoy. Somebody put out an Amber Alert, quick!

[washerdreyer]

Bob:But Bush is actually just claiming the credit for good intentions in Africa while spending the money elsewhere. The African people are not deceived.

Charles:Bush has committed more aid for Africa than in any other administration in history, bob.

Mark:Charles, could you please break that down for us into money promised, money obligated, and money spent?

Charles:Read the words I actually wrote, Mark.

I read this exchange as Charles acknowledging that his response to Bob was purposefully designed to not deal with Bob's complaint, but rather to shift the direction of the discourse. Bob's point was that Bush has said he is sending a great deal of aid and not doing it, Charles responded by noting that Bush has "committed" more aid than any other President (serious questions: is this inflation adjusted? is it comparing the amount of aid Bush has committed to the amount other President's have committed, or to the amount they actually gave?). When Mark noted that if Charles was just using the word "committed" to mean the same thing Bob did by "claiming" then Charles was not answering Bob's criticism at all, Charles appears to have agreed with this.

[Chris]

Can Brooks, or anyone else who believes that Bush and co. have taken a realistic approach to Africa explain the abstinence-only and related provisions they require for certain types of financial aid? Is the reality they are perceiving here that abstinence prevents the sexual transmission of AIDS, or the one in which people have sex even if you tell them they shouldn't?