Bailouts, Bonuses, and the Greatest Magic Show on Earth

Are you angry about the AIG bonus payouts? I assume you are aware if you are reading this, but just in case. Basically, between September of 2008 and today, American Insurance Group has received roughly $175,000,000,000 (I'm using the full number for effect here) from the Federal government because it had decided that AIG was 'too big fail'. I'm not going to claim the knowledge or precognition to say that AIG was or was not so large and connected that a failure would have caused a cascade right across the economy and crashed everything. I will point out that Congress has no power to provide such funds nor to grant the power to do so to any body, public or private. Though that is not what is in discussion today you should keep it mind.
Last week, it was announced that AIG is paying out about $165,000,000 (or >0.1%) in contract bonuses to around 75 workers in its financial products devision. I have three immediate reactions to this news. First... How can I get me some that? I'd love to be a millionaire,and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Second, AIG was very, very stupid to pay these bonuses out without at least trying to find a way around it. And finally, so what?
Now, I'm sure that if you are angry about the AIG bonuses, you have to wonder why I am not. I do pay taxes, I often complain about government waste, and one would think that I wouldn't want a private company spending my money recklessly. And in all three cases you would be correct. However, please consider my counter arguments:
1) AIG was contractually obligated to pay those bonuses. Period. Thanks to the Federal governments inane choice to waste our money on a failing company rather than having that company go through a bankruptcy is the root cause of this issue.
2) Our government was aware that these bonuses were in AIG's employee contracts. In fact, language was inserted into both 'rescue' packages to protect bonuses just like these.
3) Are you seriously going to get upset over AIG spending $167,000,000 when our government has ransomed our futures to the tune of $3,400,000,000,000 this year alone? Just so you know, the 2008 pre-bailout budget was 2.7 trillion dollars. That 3.4 trillion in the current budget? Doesn't include nearly 2 trillion in 'rescue' we've had so far.
So yeah, my initial reaction to the whole AIG situation is a big 'so what?'. My reaction to the reactions of our so called leaders? The same phrase keeps going through my mind,'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.' That's the phrase I keep hearing, but it doesn't really describe what our leaders are doing to us.
So, I've got a different question for you. Have you ever been to a magic show? You'll find that all magic shows have two things in common. First, they have a very attractive assistant in a skimpy outfit. Second, they have a bright white glove on their left hand. These two things are what makes the magic show work. They provide the misdirection.
You see, misdirection is the center of a magic show. The performer doesn't want you to really see what he (or his right hand) are actually doing as he sets up the trick. We play along when we watch the show; we're there to be entertained and that assistant really is very attractive. We all know that magic shows are illusion, we can't get upset when the magician tricks us. It's all in good fun and for entertainment. When we agree to being suckered, we can enjoy it. But I don't recall signing up for this magic show.
Now, I've been making the case that our so-called leaders are engaged in an act of misdirection. But from what are they trying to distract us? Therein lies the question. The answers differ depending on about whom you are speaking.
Congressman Barny Franks wrote the laws that created the sub-prime mortgage industry. He has reaped the benefits from such companies as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. He was payed to keep looking the other way as these companies mortgaged our futures.
Senator Chris Dodd also wrote the laws that created the sub-prime mortgage industry. He also has reaped the benefits from such companies as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. He is even the one who added the language protecting the AIG (and other) bonuses.
President Barack Obama has submitted a budget which doubles the size of the Federal deficit for the next year and will double the size of the Federal debt within ten years. These numbers are only accurate as long as you accept his accounting tricks that show reductions (such as claiming Iraq spending at 2007 levels for the next ten years, then canceling them to show savings). He has pushed through a $675,000,000,000 'down payment' on socializing medicine. He refuses to address the economy destroying unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare. He is trying to push through a cap-and-trade program that, irregardless of its costs, will put the Federal Government fully in charge of the energy back-bone of this country, and essentially in charge of the whole economy.
This is called fascism folks. Funny me, I seem to remember a war a couple of generations back. It was a big one, too. And the enemies in that war were fascists. And this is why your government is providing you with the greatest magic show on earth.
To keep you distracted from the real threat; complete and total take-over by the Federal Government. Now, you might be okay with this while Barack Obama and his ilk are in charge. But Federal power has a tendency to hang around, and who will we have after President Obama? And honestly, if he's willing to use straw-men like Rush Limbaugh and AIG to keep you distracted from his agenda, what else is he willing to do?

Another victim in the War on Personal Freedom

Michael Phelps was caught kissing a bong. I say 'kissing a bong' because that's all the picture of him smoking actually shows, and even then it's questionable if it's actually him. Doesn't really make much difference, as he did admit it was him and has issued his apology. So far, he's lost a sponsorship and won a three-month suspension. The local sheriff is under pressure to bring charges as if Phelps were just any other man.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of millions of political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year. While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.

President Obama and the Current Crisis

Congratulations are in order. To President Obama, I give my congratulations freely and openly. It was a hard-run campaign against tough and seasoned opponents. You not only won; you did so decisively and mostly honorably and for that, I honor you. Know that until such time as you step down, I will hope you are a good and strong President, that you lead this country with honor, integrity, and intelligence, and that your time as President is successful, not in the political sense, but in the governmental.
To those closer to my own political ideology; we owe our President full faith and loyalty, even when we disagree. Even though we do not agree with our President on many things, we should take pride in what he, and this county, have managed to accomplish. President Obama is not just the first black President. He's the first minority to be elected to the highest office in any country, anywhere, in the history of the world. For that, we can all be proud. Perhaps we are finally turning the corner away from our past and towards a better future when it comes to race relations. While most of us have long sense abandoned the immorality of racism, some of us have not and we need to move past the assumption. Much of that now falls on the President's shoulders, and how he approaches his unique position. Some of that falls on our shoulders, and how we express our disagreements and our difficulties.
I would like to say that I now have hope for the future. I didn't particularly like President Bush's style, his communication, or many of his policies. He grew the size of our government more than any president before him, increased spending without actually paying for it, and involved us in two foreign wars without the necessary increases in military force to provide for them. He continued the long standing policy of ignoring our boarders, at a time when security alone demanded strong attention. Yes, I could sit here for a long time and discuss what President Bush did wrong. But at least he tried to maintain the mostly free-market economy which provides this country with all of its power, political, economic, and military.
With President Obama, I have no such hope. He's already working towards increasing the level of government involvement in healthcare. That's one sixth of the economy. He talks about pushing some form of cap and trade or carbon tax, affecting the energy back-bone of our economy. His tax policies clearly demonstrate a desire to cripple the production of this country. Then we have this despicable 'stimulus' package.
The first problem is that we do not have an economic crises. I know, we are in a recession. Large amounts of wealth have been lost, but it's not real wealth. Homes are still standing, property is still available, and production moves along briskly. People are being laid off as business struggle for the capital to maintain previous business levels, but all of these are temporary situations.
What we have is a government crises. The very source of this mess isn't in the private sector, and it isn't going to be fixed until that source is acknowledged. Government intervention is what has caused the crises. As with most things, it started with good intentions, but as the desire to good things no matter the real world costs increased, so did the possible damages that would occur when things finally fell apart. Most people tend to think of the Free Market as a theory, or an idea. In this they are incorrect. The Free Market is a force, like gravity or nuclear forces. It does what it does. We can mitigate, control, and effect, but we cannot control. As we grow to better understand the nature of that force, we can plan on it and we can turn it to our advantage, but we still will not have actual control.
To help illustrate my point, allow me to use a metaphor. Think of the Mississippi river. The whole of it's banks are levied, there are locks and controls all along its length to try and mitigate flooding. Most of the time they work fine, because most of the time the force of the river is well understood. It's a function of the amount of water currently being drained into the river. When rain fall is unusually heavy however, the levies cannot hold the banks. One of my strongest memories of my childhood comes from flying out of St. Louis in '94. The whole of the city was under water, the heavy storms having flooded the banks.
While the levies work great upriver, downriver can be a very different story. Levies may control flooding, most of the time, but they also increase the amount of force behind the river, causing it to flow faster the more the shores are levied. This is illustrated by the trouble Baton Rouge has with flooding. There are several rivers in and around the city, the largest being the Mississippi itself, but several tributaries are near the city and empty into it close by. Even the smallest rainfall can create flooding throughout the city in a very short amount of time. These factors almost certainly contributed to the massive flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina a few years ago.
The levies are necessary, as people live all along the banks and without them, the Mississippi would return it's normal meandering path and fill its floodplains, making life there impossible. Yet understanding the effect of the levies can help us understand how to plan and prepare for when they fail. Understanding market forces is no different.
While my metaphor is imperfect, it can help to understand how the current crises is not one caused by the market. Just as levies were built to try and focus the Mississippi, government policy was enacted to try and focus the market towards politically desirable ends. What were these policies? They were primarily the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and later revisions to that act, and the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in
conjunction with other rules such as the mark-to-market rule
What do these policies do, and why are they the main cause of the current crises? Again, it starts with good intentions. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 established by law that a loan could not be refused due to the location of the borrower and that lenders had to provide services to anyone within their sphere of business. In short, no 'redlining' and removing whole neighborhoods out of your range of service. This has minor impact on the lending business, forcing them to accept greater risk. However, the lending market was able to absorb this greater risk and things went along fine. The earlier establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with their congressional orders to increase home ownership, further mitigated the dangers of this greater risk. Yet they increased the danger downriver. By having large organizations absorbing the greatest level of risk, it concentrated the risk that one of these would eventually falter due to defaults. Starting to sound familiar yet?
Enter the mark-to-market rule. Again, it starts with good intentions. The mark-to-market rule requires companies to mark all assets at their current market value. Just like the levies on a river, during normal times this allows for better transparency, more honest reporting, and an easier time understanding a company's true worth. But what happens when the rains come? When the value of a particular type of asset, such as a mortgage, begins to plummet, the market cannot provide a value and the asset must be marked as a full loss. The property may still be there, the borrower may still be paying in full every month, and the property may still be of the same monetary value in resell, but the holder of the mortgage must write it down as a full lose because the asset has no value in the current market.
Rivers flow into one another. When the Mississippi is filled with water from heavy rains, it has less room for the waters from its tributaries. The further downriver one moves, the more effect this will have. While the Missouri may be able to empty easily into the Mississippi, the Red River will have more problems, and its level will also rise in response. The market is not much different. As financial companies struggle to determine their current assets, they are unable to provide loans to other companies. Credit begins to freeze, other companies struggle to pay their bills, provide production, and meet demand. Some companies are forced to release some workers, and others become worried, cutting down on spending and thus cutting back on demand. This cuts into more businesses, creating more lay-offs and a higher demand for credit to try and keep current production . . . And thus the levies created to protect us from the river break and it all comes spilling out.
Under this light it becomes apparent that any stimulus is probably not going to work without first addressing the underlying causes of the problem. And our political leadership has yet to try and address these underlying problems. In fact, this so-called leadership has yet to even acknowledge the effect of these policies on our economy.
Then there are the problems with the bill itself. It's filled with fluff spending projects. Support for the arts, community action groups, and many more of the usual dredge of useless government programs that will have little to no effect. Even the Congressional Budget Office has published findings that most of the money will not work itself into the economy for years, so how much immediate stimulus can it actually provide?
Further more, from where is the money going to come? Despite apparent popular belief, government does not create wealth. Its budget of 1.6 trillion dollars is all raised from taxes on the economy as a whole. Before it can spend anything, it must first get that money from somewhere. It can raise it through taxes, which will fall as the economy shrinks, it can borrow, or it can print more money. Any money raised in taxes is pulled from the economy, borrowed money creates a greater debt to be paid later, increasing the demand for taxes later, and printing more money creates inflation, eroding whatever effect spending it would have in the first place.
Pay close attention to the numbers here. The federal budget is 1.6 trillion dollars. That's all of its current spending projects, including so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The federal fiscal year runs from October through September. That means that the stimulus plans passed this fiscal year already account for more than 1.5 trillion dollars, or very near the whole of the budget. In order to pay for all of this, the federal government is going to have to borrow, tax, or print money equal to its entire budget. How badly will that effect the future economy?
I sit here and I watch this slow-speed train wreck, wondering if there is anything I can do. Am I to be a modern Cassandra, to watch the destruction of our future, to call out against it, yet to go unheard and unbelieved? What am I to do?
The short answer is that there is nothing I can do. I can look out for myself, do what I can to ensure my own survival, but little more. I will continue to put my voice out there to be heard by those who wish the hear it, and maybe it will be enough. I highly doubt it, but still I can try. And, I can give my thanks to the House Republicans and their Democrat colleges who voted against this slow suicide. You men and women are true heroes on this day. Others may degrade you, others may ask why it took you so long.
For this American, I cannot find the desire to care why it took so long. You men and women stood for principle this day, and you did what you could. Keep up the good work. For the 244 of you who voted for this monstrosity, I hope you are voted out next term. You deserve greater punishment for your attempt to destroy my children's futures.

Please, trouble me with too much freedom.

Here's another nice little quote from Franklin. He was asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention what had been wrought. “A republic, if you can keep it.”
I'm also going to borrow from Jefferson real quick. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it”
Keep in mind also the quote from Franklin on liberty and security.
All three of these quotes can be seen as warnings from the two men most responsible for the philosophy and arguments that lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin was advocating more freedom and liberty from a very young age, and Thomas Jefferson was the foremost legal mind of his time. It was his arguments on the nature of Law and the British government that provided the Colonies with their philosophical and legal legitimacy.
Mike tells us to consider the Constitution in full. The purpose of the Constitution was to bring the many States of America together into a stronger Federation to ease trade and provide for the common defense. It was not a philosophical document, as was the Declaration, it was a legal one. It gave the enumerated order under which the States would be United into a true Federation. This is one of the major reasons that when speaking philosophically on the nature and purpose of Government, I'm likely to fall back on the Declaration or other works by Jefferson (and sometimes John Locke, Jefferson's inspiration) and not the Constitution.
Now, here a few questions that should probably be answered. Just what do we mean by 'republic?' A republic, in it's most basic form, is a form of government where the deciding body is meant to provide representation of the society as a whole, and the individuals of that body are representing particular sections of that society. I'm sure that most people, right here, are wondering just how that might differ from democracy. In a democracy, all governmental decisions are done through the whole of the population of citizens. In ancient Athens (the only known pure democracy I can remember right now) this was done by calling a meeting of the Senate, in which the group was the first people there up to a certain number. Day to day functions were carried out by offices chosen by lottery. The other major difference between democracy and a republic is that in a republican government, the government provides a check against the passing desires of the people to help ensure that all laws passed are good for the current and future society. This necessitates that the government itself is controlled through some action so as to not aggregate power to a particular person or body, or to the government in general. A country can call itself a 'Republic' very easy. But only when the government is in constant check against power aggregation can it be said to be an accurate statement (I'm looking at you, China).
So, what then does Franklin mean when he says that a republic has been wrought if we can only hold on to it? Franklin's meaning is quite clear: do not trust the government to keep itself in check. Don't give it an inch, for it will take a hundred miles (and desire a light-year). Yes, I mean that even the smallest power given to the government for the sake of 'order' (or 'the good' or 'the children') will lead to an ever increasing aggregation of power at the expense of our freedoms.
This leads me to the quote from Franklin on freedom and security. Mike calls it 'one of the most foolish things he ever said', and argues that because an amount of security is necessary to provide for freedom (true) it only follows to reason that some freedom be 'trimmed' such that security can be provided. However, he misses Franklin's warning. The trading of essential freedom for security provides the government that inch it needs, and so the taking begins. I'll use an example to express my meaning: the registration of sex offenders.
Seems like a good idea, right? Let people know that there is a serial pedophile in the neighborhood so that the people can protect themselves and their children from his perverted ways. I'm going to ignore for the time being the illogic of releasing a person that is still such a danger to society and others that his freedoms must be restricted in such a fashion. This is about government expansion, not about government incompetence. It started with serial pedophiles. Then serial rapists (okay, still good...) had to register. Then came those convicted of a single rape (uh...). And now? Now we're threatening twelve year olds with being put on the lists without trial or conviction because they swatted a female classmate's butt in play.
Want another one? Let's talk taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment confirmed that Congress could tax income at it's discretion (Congress had already attempted to do so and got struck down by the Supreme Court) in 1913. Originally, it was a set, flat tax of 4% on all earnings over $4,000. I don't know all the steps involved, but by the 1970s we had top tax rates at over 80%, and even today we have a single volume of law that counts over 66,000 pages and is enforced by the largest single agency of the United States government. This agency is so powerful that it can operate completely separate from judicial oversight, needs provide no evidence to charge, investigate, and begin prosecution for tax evasion. Not only that, but if an agent of the IRS provides you with incorrect tax advice, you, the citizen, are held accountable and can still be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
How about welfare? The first welfare program (still in effect, anyway) was the Families with Dependent Children program. It was designed to provide extra money to widows of World War II servicemen who had children. Today? Entitlement speeding totals over 1.7 trillion dollars, or about 62% of the Federal budget of approximately 2.9 trillion dollars. (That figure includes Medicare and Social Security, which total around 1 trillion and make up the bulk. This wouldn't be nearly so bad if we actually had a SS trust fund the way we were promised back in the '30s.)
This is exactly what Franklin's dual warnings are all about. We're loosing our republic because we allow power aggregation for the 'good' and for 'order'. And as we loose the republic, or freedoms go with it.
And with our freedoms, our security.
Please, trouble me with too much freedom.

A little more on inherent rights

“A bill of rights is what the people need against every government.” Three guess who said that. Yeah, I know you'll get the answer in two lines, but stop reading and take a guess or three.
It was Thomas Jefferson, author of the Deceleration of independence and original Republican (Those who we would now call Federalist, but opposed the Constitution until amended, and thus labeled by their opponents and history as Anti-Federalists. This only proves that historians do not appreciate irony.).
Two quick points. Jefferson's state, Virgina, was the first State to ever publish a bill of rights, and the first State to ever adopt a written constitution. And when I say first State, I mean exactly that. In the whole of human history, no government had ever before adopted a written constitution nor a bill of rights.
Second, doesn't that statement just scream inherent rights for you? Does a 'bill of rights' grant you rights, or does it protect them?
I think that Jefferson's position is clear.

Political Alignment

In my introduction, I talked about the fact that I feel the left versus right meta concept that pervades current political discussion is inadequate. And the main focus is on left versus right, even though these terms are generally undefined and don't provide for a good, solid understanding of someone's general political stance. I think a new system is in order, and it will be one I will be using in the future. First though, let me be clear about something. I am not making this alignment system up out of whole cloth. It is very similar to the political compass found at The Advocates for Self Government. A quick plug, take their test and see where you show up. It will be close to the system I'm about to outline below.
The other influence on this system comes from the original fantasy role playing game, none other than Dungeon and Dragons. In D&D characters have a moral/social alignment system that runs on two axises, Good versus Evil, and Lawful versus Chaotic. I'm not going to outline their system here, suffice to say that each axis has three 'settings'. These are 'Good, Neutral, and Evil' and 'Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic'. This makes for nine possible alignments, and gives any player a good, if rough, idea of how their character approaches moral choices.
Therefore, I suggest a similar approach to determine a person's political alignment. In this system, we're actually going to separate social views from governmental views, allowing us to closely examine someones over-all political ideals. Again, I'm going to use two axises, one for social views and one for governmental. Each axis will have three settings. The social axis is 'Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal' while the governmental axis will be 'Libertarian, Moderate, and Progressive'. For maximum precision, we should define these terms.
Libertarians are those who believe in small government, under correct Federalist structure. They will be strong supports of individual and state's rights. They will believe that the maximum amount of freedom comes when the state is as uninvolved as possible, and will general look to private action to handle most, if not all, of society's needs.
Progressives are those who believe that correct government policy can create for a better society. They will support large, intrusive government which makes many decisions. They will be strong supports of the federal over state and local government, and will generally believe that government is the only reasonable way to provide for society's needs.
Conservatives will believe in maintaining traditional values and institutions. They will tend towards being religious, and believe in strong religious institutions to provide for a stable society. They will also take the view of Man as a flawed creature, born into imperfection and thus needing strong social structure to curb man's greater tendencies to harm each other.
Liberals will support the use of reason and thought over traditional values and institutions. They will tend towards the secular, and will generally view religious organizations as suspect if not down-right dangerous. They will view Man as being born perfect, and that it is social values being impressed upon this otherwise perfect being being the source of man's troubles.
Moderates along either axis will have attributes of both in some mix. For purposes of ease, I will always put moderate first if someone falls along those lines, and refer to someone who is moderate on both axises as 'total moderate'. Otherwise, I will put the social alignment before the governmental.
As I have said before, I would self identify on this system as a conservative-libertarian. Though not particularly religious, I do believe that strong social structure provides for a better society, that Man is inherently flawed, and that religious institutions have a place in society. I also believe that our government should be primarily in the realm of the individual, and in a proper Federalist structure with strict adherence of the enumerated powers as listed in the Constitution.
So, what about some famous politicians? I'll do the presidential candidates:
John McCain – Moderate-Conservative. Sen. McCain has always spoken as a religious, if not particularly devout, man. He's generally supported conservative social positions and has a consistent voting record to support that. He's often spoken as being a Federalist, and has often supported positions and actions that would confirm this. He usually suggests that some things belong with States, and that the Federal government shouldn't get involved. However, he has also supported laws and actions that increase the influence and power of the government, and tends to speak and act as though government can create for a better society. While I think he does lean towards the Libertarian stance, he's still a little too Progressive to really count.
Barak Obama – Liberal-Progressive. Sen. Obama also tends to speak as a man of faith, but his record and actions suggest that he doesn't allow his faith to influence his political views. With support of increased abortion freedom, same sex marriage, and many other similar positions he demonstrates a weak, if non-existent, support for traditional social structure. As a supporter of greater welfare, Medicade, Medicare, and Social Security spending, coupled with an increase involvement of government in energy production and over-all higher taxes (especially on business and capital), he is clearly a Progressive.

If you disagree with these, let me know. I know the system has its flaws. For one, the terms could be unwieldy, especially in spoken conversation. However, it is precise, and precision is my goal here. So, tell me, do you think my identification of the presidential candidates is wrong? If so, please tell me why, and tell me where you think they would fall on this two-axis system.

The Politics of Marriage

Last night's forum asked both candidates for President to define 'marriage'. A good question, and the definition of such has been a major contention of debate here in the United States for some years now. It mostly centers around the question of the 'right' to get married, and why such a 'right' is denied to those of homosexual persuasion. Some have claimed homosexuality to be a life-style choice, and use this as a justification to argue against same-sex marriage. I'm not going to be discussing homosexuality at all, so I'm not going to go into any further depth. For the purpose of this post, sexual attraction as being preset or a choice is irrelevant.
The simple fact is, you do not have an inherent right to get 'married'. By the same token, the State has no business granting or denying marriage licenses. This whole argument is going to be about semantics, but I will also tell you that the whole political debate on marriage is about semantics. And dealing with the specific question of marriage in America is nearly impossible to make an easy determination about what constitutes a 'traditional' marriage because the institution of marriage throughout history has gone through many permutations and changes. And it's impossible to pin down what exactly might be the best way to determine how we should approach this issue, at least with a low-level research of the subject. History is so filled with conflicts and changes on the subject, that one can simply pick and choose the facts one wants to support their arguments. So I say, toss history, or at very least, remember the traditions and use some proper reason.
Here are some things we can know. Christian tradition and doctrine has a great deal to say about marriage, including the definition of such as being a union between man and woman before the eyes of God. I've stated before that inherent rights are the gift of our Creator and it would stand to reason that if Christian doctrine defines marriage as a union between man and women before God, then we should have the inherent right to marriage. Well, yes, but only if one assumes the Christian tradition as the final word on all things Divine. I do not confuse the Church with the Divine. The church is still man-made organization (even if it is divinely inspired, it is not divinely run). Along with the traditions found in most religions supporting marriage, we can safely put marriage as a mostly religious institution. This is not to deny the tradition and evidence of it being a social and civil institution in the past, but it is important to realize past influence of religion on civil society, and to understand that it is only after the Enlightenment that civil government and religious influence began to truly separate. Indeed, it appears that most of the earliest marriage laws in America, passed in the 19th century, were primarily designed to prevent interracial marriage, and not to sanctify the practice.
At this point, let me be clear what inherent right you do have. You do have the inherent right to form a union of mutual commitment with whomever you choose. The government has the responsibility to recognize this union. This also includes the right to enter into polygamous or polyandrous committed unions. And yes, I'm using committed unions in place of the term civil unions. A civil union is recognized by the government, the ruling civil authority. Where the real question comes in is what interest the government might have in such things. The answer is very little. Government has no role of society, let alone determining the relationships of the individual. It's only question comes in taxation, and it can set its rules as it desires there.
Now, I said this was going to be all about semantics. And it has been. Marriage is the holy union of a man and a woman before God, and thus the realm of the Church and not the government. Civil unions are the place of the government. It is not up to the government to determine with whom you can or cannot form such a union. That determination is your right, and the government's job is to protect that right, not regulate it. And as long as the government continues to push itself in where it shouldn't be, namely in granting marriage licenses, then it will continue to either destroy a traditional institution or create a dual level of citizenship, where on group (homosexuals, in this case) will not be have the same rights as another group. And we do have a word for this, it's called discrimination.

Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency: First Impressions

Okay, so it's another current events post. But this is important. This article assumes that you have watched the forum or have read a transcript. I think it's understandable without having done so, but having watched the forum will provide a better understanding.

First, some general observations on the format. I loved this format. It provided clear contrast between Sens Obama and McCain, and the extra time provided to each candidate really gave us a clear insight into each one. We need more forums like this. Not necessarily before religious congregations, but in a plethora of venues. Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with questions that were over-all neutral. Maybe not in the particulars, some questions were better for one than the other, but over-all, it was a fair and honest attempt to provide the candidates with time and space to express themselves.
Second, who did better? Over-all, I think that Sen. McCain did a great deal better. If we want to talk about a winner as in a normal debate, Sen. McCain would be it. This will be clear as I move into the direct contrast in answers.

General contrast:

Both candidates seemed very relaxed, got several laugh and applause lines, had a good chemistry with the moderating pastor, and gave good answers most of the time. It should be obvious by now that McCain is very comfortable in forums where he is being surprised by questions and is more free-form. It should also be just as obvious that Sen. Obama is not as comfortable in these forums as he is with more set-piece engagements. At no point has this contrast between the two candidates been more clear. Sen. Obama gave 'filler words' on almost every question, lots of 'uh' and 'um' as he was thinking about how to answer the question. Sen. McCain gave a few of these as well, but not nearly as many. And while Sen. Obama paused after almost every question, Sen. McCain answered quickly, occasionally even before Pastor Warren had finished his question. And I also think that Sen. McCain's answers were, generally, far more direct and straight forward than Sen. Obama's. Sen. Obama seemed to want to answer with a great deal of straddling, trying to express a desire to hear or consider 'both' sides of an issue. Sen. McCain, on the other hand, often answered with direct 'yes' or 'no' answers, then backed those up with reasoning and anecdotes.

I think that we can draw some important conclusions from this general contrast. These statements are my observations on thinking based off of observing the behavior in this forum; I do not claim to speak for, or know the actual thinking of, either of the Senators. What I see is one Senator, McCain, who knows what he believes in and will govern from that philosophy, and one Senator, Obama, who isn't so assured of what he believes and will rely more on advice and reason than on centered ideals.

Now for some specific contrasts:

First, on the question of the definition of marriage. Both senators gave the same definition, between a man and a woman, and also made it clear that rights shouldn't be denied to homosexuals. Neither candidate specifically mentioned this group, but we all know that it was to whom they referred. They were speaking, of course, about the right to form civil unions or legal contracts. However, the major contrast to me is in their choice of words. Sen. Obama said that he is secure enough in his faith and marriage to 'afford those rights' to others. Sen. McCain, on the other hand, said that they have these rights and shouldn't be denied. I cannot stress how important this difference is. While it might seem that the difference is simply semantic, or choice of words, it does make for a serious look into the thinking of the candidates. Both of these men are politicians, they are the deciding force in our government. Which would you rather have? A politician who recognizes your rights as existent, or one who is 'willing' to provide them?
When it came to the question on the existence of evil and what should be done, I think both candidates provided solid, well reasoned, and well spoken answers. I also think that both candidates could learn a little from the answer of the other. Sen. Obama gave some good specific examples, such as referencing the current genocide in Darfur, but he also talked about the evil occurring right here in the United States. I think this was a good answer overall, especially considering the evil committed here in the US. However, McCain did make a transcendent moment. Again, with a straight forward answer he said 'Defeat it.' and paused for the applause. He then followed this up with a discussion of Al Qaeda and Islamic Fundamentalism. While not quite an Evil Empire statement a la President Reagen, it was still more than President Bush has really done and defined the Islamic Fundamentalist movement overall as an evil movement. We need more politicians in this country and internationally willing to do this.
Both candidates gave some pretty standard answers about taxes and the rich from an ideology/party stand point. Sen. Obama did define rich as anyone making over $250,000, and stated that he feels the tax code should be used to create a fair, balanced income status. This is standard Democrat fare. Sen. McCain refused to actually define 'rich' from an income standpoint. He made a good point about small businessmen and women working 16 hours a day and some (probably a reference to Sen. Obama) would consider rich. He also said that he doesn't want to raise anyones taxes, and what's really important is lowering government spending. While as Sen. Obama tried to justify higher taxes by talking about schools and roads and other such things, Sen. McCain made clear that spending is the problem by talking about a couple of pork-barrel spending items. Also, while I don't think Sen. Obama gave any 'gaffes' in his answer here, I do think Sen. McCain made a gaff when said 'five million' would be a good number. He clarified his remark well, by first saying that we cannot really give an income value to the term 'rich'. But this answer will be used against him.
When Pastor Warren asked about Supreme Court justices was a defining moment in the forum. Obama talked about Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts. He claimed that Thomas was not sufficiently experienced for the position, not a strong enough thinker and jurist at the time of his nomination. He might be right here as I am not aware enough of Justice Thomas to argue against it, but I think Charles Krauthammer of Fox News gave a good point when he said Sen. Obama should not be talking about experience needed for high office. However, his objections to Justices Scalia and Roberts were specifically political, and in their view of the role of government. Sen. McCain spoke specifically against all four of the Justices generally called 'Liberal' and the current court. However, he backed this up with good reasoning. He stated that the Justices should be nominated and confirmed based on their Constitutional views, and specifically on the strict interpretation of the Constitution. Here, he is absolutely correct. An odd statement from Obama was when he said that the Court's primary function is to protect the Courts and Legislator from Executive encroachment. He's kind of correct here, but misses the point. What about the Court protecting the people from Government encroachment of individual rights?
Finally, I want to talk about their answer to their great moral failures and America's. Sen. Obama provided, for himself, a fairly 'light' answer about drug and alcohol use. He justified this answer talking about selfishness and how it lead him astray for a true moral path. I call this a light answer because, while honest, I think that he could find a better answer and provided a more introspective, and less well reported, failing. Perhaps even a couple of things he should admit to be failings, but hasn't as yet? Sen. McCain stated the failing of his first marriage was his greatest moral failure. Considering that this man has admitting to providing the North Vietnamese at least some American secrets while being tortured, this was such an honest and wonderful answer that I almost cried. I myself am a divorcée and can agree with him here. He also didn't provide any excuses for his actions. The answers on America's moral failings were even more illuminating. Sen. Obama talked about a failure to support those who are in lower incomes, and called this a failure because he suggested that equal opportunity isn't there. Facts do not support this conclusion, as most people and families in this country move quickly from the lower income levels to at least middle, if not upper, incomes over time. Sen. McCain talked about a failure to engage in issues greater than our own self-interest. I think we was talking both about us as individuals (a common theme with Sen. McCain) as well as the United States taking action in some cases where the government felt our national interest was involved while not taking action in other, similar situations where the government did not feel our national interest was at stake.

Defining Moments, and not necessarily good ones:

Actually, it was talking on the same issue, if not the same question, where I felt both candidates had their defining moments of this forum. I think that for Sen. McCain, his moment was positive, but for Sen. Obama it was negative. The issue was energy, but again, it was at different questions.

For Sen. McCain, it came when asked about a position held ten years ago but now abandoned. For McCain, he immediately said 'Off-shore Drilling'. His total answer was why it was defining, but it was using this question to provide it that makes it so positive. Because he both admits to it being a change, and because he makes it clear that it's a change of understanding rather than being a political move. And his follow-up, expanding on off-shore drilling and general energy policy. Explore every option, move forward on all fronts, and provide the United States with more energy, and cleaner energy. He also made a good point that off-shore drilling is a national security issue. Replacing possible domestic sources with foreign sources causes a large amount of American capitol to be moved off-shore, and often to countries that are ideologically, politically, or morally dangerous to the United States. Sen. McCain's statements here were spot on, well delivered, and had evident passion.

For Sen. Obama, it came with his very last question. He was asked what he would say if there were no repercussions. Sen. Obama gave a long winded answer, talking about getting everyone together and making sacrifices to create a more energy-efficient economy. This man really just doesn't get how dangerous these kinds of statements can be. America is about freedom. I'm not opposed to sacrificing for others, for the greater good, or for freedom. But government mandated energy conservation is an attack on freedom. Every American individual and business has the self-interest in conserving as much energy as possible for simple economic reasons. We don't need our government coming in and rationing energy use, which is precisely what any government mandated attempts to greater conservation. However, I do think that Sen. Obama's statements to the previous question about what to tell people opposed to the venue (a religious congregation) were pretty good. Especially when he talked about the forum being necessary to provide better insight into the candidates, and his knock against negative politics was brilliant.

There was so much to this forum, that I couldn't hope to cover all of it. I seriously hope that we see more of these both in this election, and in future ones.

Children Of The Enlightenment

To set all this in a larger context a few words about Conservatism might be useful. It is often said that Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo or even a return to the past. This can be true but it misses the point. We are all children of the Enlightenment and all but the very few wish to erase the Enlightenment and forgo its benefits. Nevertheless, Conservatism arose as a response to what it saw as the excesses of the Enlightenment1. This sometimes results in it being saddled that unfortunate title “The Counter-Enlightenment”—something on the model of The Reformation and The Counter-Reformation.
Conservatism sees Libertarianism as a direct descendant of some of those excesses. While we often agree on a host of challenges from the Left, much of the time it for different reasons. In the last century, we generally have had friendly relations but sometimes we get impatient with each other.
It is said Conservatism has a “tragic” view of the human condition. That is to say that human nature is not malleable. The Left has a quasi-utopian impulse in which under the right “conditions” they believe man can and will change and a more perfect society will emerge. They believe that these visions of a more perfect society by themselves give them the mandate to command change—often in spite of the wishes of their own countrymen. This is highly dangerous and ultimately inhumane. As the 20th century well shows, the road to the “perfect society” is paved with the skulls of millions. As cruel as these “reformers” were, all believed reason and history were on their side.
It is said Conservatism is the politics of reflection, experience and prudence. Society simply doesn’t just happen as Liberals assume. They grow organically often taking considerable time. The Conservative “project” is not a perfect society but a more humane one. It is a task of preserving the hard won wisdom, nourish that in which men and women can flourish without destroying the “glue” that holds society together. Liberty, as great as it is, is simply not enough to bind a people to together. Seen in another way, Conservatives depend on the experience built across generations to preserve what has worked and discourage what has damaged actual human beings. This calls for judgment and caution. Men of good will may disagree. But we must remind ourselves that we are only fallible people. Like Jesus’ parable of the man contemplating the costs of building a tower, we must ask ourselves just how much “justice” we can afford.
Tradition is a much sounder foundation than 'metaphysical abstractions.' Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. Any existing value or institution that has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Man is unable to understand the many ways in which inherited behaviors influence their thinking, so trying to judge society “objectively” is futile and potentially treacherous.
However, Conservatives do not reject change. As Burke wrote, "A State without the means of change is without the means of its Conservation2." But they insist that further change be organic, rather than revolutionary. An attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society, for the sake of some doctrine or theory, runs the risk of running afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences. Burke advocates vigilance against the possibility of moral hazards. For Conservatives, human society is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 This is important to note. Conservatism—especially Anglo-American Conservatism—arose out of the Enlightenment rather than existing prior to the Enlightenment
2 Often quoted as saying “A government unable to change will soon be a government unable to govern.”
-A quick note from Charles: As I cannot disagree with most of what Mike say's here, I will not be posting a response. Stay tuned, Debators. And join in!

Political Morality

After asserting that we should not attempt to legislate morality, it probably seems odd that I would speak about anything which I would define as 'political morality'. Perhaps I would do better to state that we should not attempt to legislate personal morality. And the reason that I say this is because the attempt to legislate personal morality creates heavy restrictions upon the individual in the name of the State (or the people, take your pick).
Political morality, on the other hand, takes into consideration the actions under which a government can still be considered a good, liberal government.1 I submit for consideration a simple means by which we can make this determination. A good, liberal government passes laws and enforces them in such a way as to provide for the greatest level of individual freedom while still protecting the individual's inherent rights.
It is under this consideration that I make the following statement:
“[I] would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society.”
To make clear the reasoning here I will go from a to d. A: The rapist has no inherent right to commit his action, but the victim has the right not to be violated. B: Defending a rapist against his victim protects the individual's inherent right against violent attack. C: Therefore, defending the victim is a just act. D: Because the individual has the inherent right not to be violated, the laws against rape are also just.
Now, lets talk about vigilantism versus policing power. As I stated in Rights in Conflict, one of the primary functions of government is to provide a neutral arbitrator when rights come into conflict. This naturally assumes that policing power of government is generally preferable over vigilantism as mediator of justice. This only works, however, as long as that government continues to work in such a way that protects the inherent rights of all. The very danger of vigilantism is as Mike has put it, that it will bring innocents into the conflict and become a matter of revenge versus a matter of justice. It is protecting 'kith and kin', as Mike puts it, that allows for a government to provide for a free and secure society and insure that individuals, and only those individuals, are held responsible for individual action.
And again, I will say that none of these arguments work well against the availability of abortion. Let me try and sum up my whole problem with the abortion debate. First, I find abortion morally indefensible. There can be no more innocent or defenseless life than that of the unborn. My problem with legislating against abortion, however, is when it comes with the State trying to assert itself as de-facto decider of the unborn. A blanket law against abortion provides the State with the power to determine if a particular woman will bring her child to term. Considering the general tendency for government to expand its powers (more on this later) then how long before the government decides it can order life to be created? When the ability becomes available, what is to stop the government from deciding that the life created must follow particular ideals? Our government already states we must buckle our seat-belts to protect ourselves. What's to stop them, once in conjunction with right to determine the fate of possible future citizens, to tell all parents that they must remove all genetic markers for the tendency towards obesity? Or homosexuality? Or aggressiveness? All of these would be 'good' things and would protects us, wouldn't they? Yes, all of these traits are influenced, though not completely controlled, by genetics.
While this argument may seem fantastical or paranoid, consider this: government power rarely decreases. Our government already attempts multiple laws for 'our own good'. The technology already exists to change the genome of a eucaryotic cell. The human genome has been mapped and new genes are being identified at a quick pace. The US court system has already provided mixed results on your rights over your own tissues and genetics (see whoownsyourbody.org). Really, how paranoid am I to worry about the government asserting its power over the unborn?
1. Liberal government here is used as a government that supports basic freedom and expression, this is not a reference to the Liberal political ideology.

“Authority Exchange?”

You make a curious, related Statement (forgive me for saying so) I find nearly opaque:
“To return to my example, I have no doubts Mike that you, as I, would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society.”
By this I take it that if presumably we would not stand in the way of the unfortunately raped girl, then we should not ask the State to do what we would not do ourselves. Where does this notion come from? It is not at all established that the State must follow one individual’s example. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this principle, which individual or hosts of individuals is the State to take its dictates? Even in relatively small populations this is unworkable. Plus, if I were you, I wouldn’t be so sure to think what I or someone else would do. But more importantly, I believe Libertarians may be misconceiving the dynamics on the ground.
In fact, we demand the State to do all sorts of things we cannot or will not for a variety of reasons do ourselves. We often charge the State with police powers to act as the presumed authority to impose due process in place of vigilantism. Vigilantism is a real hazard and destructive to society; yet citizens often resort to acting outside the law when the State cannot or will not impose order during grave frictions among fellow citizens.
Well, the police can’t be everywhere, so absent the gendarmes, would I assert my brute strength and stand in the way of our hypothetical rape victim? No, but not for the reasons you might imagine.

Societies of Law and Societies of Vendetta

I would not do so for the respect of the “rule of law”. The rule of law is an inheritance from the days of the Roman Republic. It is largely true Rome’s observance of this principle was spotty at best. Yet the idea comes down to us. Before, justice was a matter of vendetta and blood feud. Insults and injuries to a family were settled by vengeance—an act which may come immediately or (worse) plotted to take place in the open future. Of course, this often meant weaker individuals and families (it has to be remembered crimes against one person also meant a crime against kith and kin.) could not take even this justice. This also meant that vendettas jeopardized peaceful transactions and community trust for one another as both friends and associates may find themselves unintentionally under the umbrella of vengeance.
The rule of law meant the transfer of seeking justice and vindication to the State in a variety of judgeships. This held individuals responsible rather than kith and kin. It provided for the exoneration of the innocent. It also put in safeguards that punishment was meted out so that the guilty are punished no more than they deserved. The key is that the actions of all parties were placed under restraint in submission to civil authority.
Under our system of the rule of law, the young woman may proceed to her transgression under the protections of the State under our current liberalized circumstances. As the Pro-Life community presses on to persuade and convince the majority of its case, someday this may not be the case. Until that time, the Pro-life community is bound to the societal moral duty of restraint.1 Under the regime of vendetta, on the other hand, this same young woman will be bound to honor the customs of her fellow tribal members. Should she fail to honor those expectations she may be held captive. But if she indeed was allowed to walk the path leading to the “Satanic Mill”, in vendetta she could well find her abortionist swinging hanged at the nearest tall tree.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 This is a hard devil’s bargain for the Pro-Life community. Restraint from civil violence sometimes leads to slurs from the Pro-Choice folk to the effect that if abortion really is the equivalent to the Holocaust then how come Pro-Lifers don’t do something decisive about it? This, of course, is a rude accusation of hypocrisy. But it is the judgment of the Pro-Life movement that failing to preserve a civil society poses a much greater threat. In edition, no forum will emerge out of chaos and disorder to make their case. “Decisive” action simply isn’t on the table.

A quick note on race

As my next post will be dealing with an issue surround race, I wanted to quickly put up a couple of things about how I feel on the whole 'race issue' currently in this country.

Now, I consider myself basically color-blind. White, black, yellow, red, blue, or purple... it really makes no difference to me. And yes, I'm aware that we have yet to discover any people who could be considered blue or purple. I'm using those words to make a point.
What should be important about a person is that quality that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made clear in his now famous speech. It should be about action, content of heart, and how one treats fellow people, not about the color of their skin.
With that being said, I hold no appreciation for the politically correct terms of hyphenated-Americans. Unless someone has personally emigrated to the United States, they are an American. The birth land of their ancestors doesn't change this in any fashion.
I'm also not trying to suggest that one shouldn't be proud of their heritage. I'm rather proud of my Celtic and Native heritage both, but you'll never find me referring to myself as either Celtic-American or Native-American (even though I have enough Chickasaw blood to receive Federal funds). I see no reason to refer to people by one of these terms. Nor do I mean any disrespect to anyone by not using them. Outside of this post and any quotes I may use, don't expect to see those words in my posting.

Freedom and Security

In my last post, I put up a quote by Benjamin Franklin. Actually, it was a slightly paraphrased quote of his. Franklin's original quote goes 'They who give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.' Although the quote I gave before adds to this concept, I don't think it detracts from the original meaning. And indeed, this idea is also central to the American debate.
Safety, or security, is the natural desire of all people. Indeed, every living thing has a desire for safety so that it can feed and reproduce in peace. I even said on many occasions that providing for a safe society is the primary function of government. So then, if safety is necessary for a free society, why would it seem that one would give up any freedom to increase security?
This question becomes very important, especially in times of war. Actions taken by the Bush Administration after the attacks of 9/11, while hardly measuring high against actions taken by previous presidents, pushed this question to the fore front of the American debate. The NSA's wiretapping program, when brought to light, made many people question if an essential liberty, of privacy, had been sacrificed for greater security. But why did it not occur to people to question other essential liberties that have been sacrificed in the name of security?
I'm not going to go into a discussion of the NSA wiretapping program. I'm doing this for two reasons. First, the long-range impact of the program is still being seen and it's best to consider these things after the fact. Second, while I disagree with the action itself, I fully understand the reasons why it was done, and accept them as valid.
No, instead I'm going to discuss other things where essential liberties have been taken from the American public in the name of greater security. Lets take the essential liberty of freedom of movement. While our government currently makes no pretext to try and prevent you from living or working where you choose, it does attempt to limit your freedom of movement. Consider what our government calls your 'driving privileges'. What should be a basic right so that you may practice your freedom of movement, to do your business when, where, and how you choose, has already been co-opted by our government and instead they've managed to convince all of us that this right is instead a privilege simply because our constitution, written long before the invention of the automobile, doesn't recognize it as it does other rights, such as speech.
First, it becomes a privilege. Then arbitrary requirements are set forth so as to control it. This isn't an argument against licensing per se, but rather the requirements of insurance and registration of vehicles. The only valid argument for registration of vehicles is to provide for proof of ownership, and this can be done easily through the dealer. There's no need for government involvement. This is also not to say that government cannot provide for general traffic-control laws, but rather that slavish enforcement and their use for fund raising constitutes an abuse of power.
And I'll be doing a whole post about the abuses that constitute the War on Drugs. For now, take some time to consider how or government is taking more and more liberty with our freedoms. And all in the name of our security. Come to your own conclusions, then remember those conclusions when you here someone talking about doing something for our 'security'.

Operative Principles

While Mike may not have been attempting to do so, he did hit upon the major theme of my blog. This blog is exactly about operative principles. What is the principle under which our government (or more accurately, elected and appointed officials) functions? Is this principle correct? Should it be changed, and if so, how?
As I should have made clear in earlier posts, I contend that there are major ideas present within the political debate that are based on false premise. The major one of these being the idea of constitutional rights. Mike is mostly correct that my first operative principle is that freedom only comes with a lack of restraint from the State. He is close to being correct. Freedom only comes when the State maintains its correct role, in preserving freedom and not attempting to control it. Am I wrong to think this way? Am I misinterpreting Franklin's idea? “Any society which trades a little Freedom, for a little Security, would lose both and deserve neither.” I think, in fact, that this principle is also the very idea upon which this country was founded. And I would like to see some solid evidence to suggest that our Founding Fathers thought otherwise.
Now, Mike also suggests that my second operative principle is an 'almost pacifist response' to the use of violence. Here, he is totally incorrect. I have a moral repulsion against the use of violence, which is not the same thing. I understand the need for violent action. But it is the States responsibility to ensure that it uses this action only to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to practice their inherent rights as is possible. This naturally leads to the idea that the State should be as restricted and limited as possible, because when the state attempts to order the lives of its people, then it becomes detrimental to the practice of inherent rights.
Conservatives often use the 'slippery slope' argument. The idea being that if we accept what seems a small concession, then that concession will be used to justify a larger one, and then a larger one. Do they never stop and see how this in turn can be used against their positions? I ask them, where do we draw the line? What level of government involvement is correct? I know my answer, it is is minimal. I'm not saying this simply as a matter of personal belief. This is based off of the writings of our Founders and the Constitution itself.
Oh, and to Mike's Conservative 'anthropology'. I don't disagree with you. Evil, violence, and war are not aberrations of human behavior. Were we diverge is our understanding of government. The power of government is going to be a natural attractor to those whom would abuse that power and this would result in evil, violence, and war. Most importantly, because these people, attracted to and corrupted by the natural power of government, have the ability to influence the lives of millions of people... should we not want our government as restricted as possible?
To conclude:
This all started around the subject of abortion. And I will be the first person to acknowledge that my arguments can easily be used to further the idea that the law of this country should be anti-abortion. How better to support the idea of inherent rights than to ensure them for the unborn? I cannot argue against this. I'm very ambivalent about abortion. As a practice it abhors me. I cannot imagine a more brutal act of savagery other than perhaps child-rape. And yet, there is my practical side that acknowledges that sometimes it is necessary. Just as I acknowledge the need for violent action by the State, I acknowledge the need for people to make their own choices, even when I think that choice would be morally wrong.
Also, I am currently working on researching the history of anti-abortion laws in this country. I recently came across an article that suggested that they were not what they are sometimes suggested to be. After my research is complete, I will be posting.

Legislation and Morality

Okay, so I'm taking to long to respond. I do apologize for this, and will try to do better in the future.
So, on to the response....
While it is true that our governments consistently attempt to legislate moral code, the center point of my statement is not if it is possible to legislate morality, but if we should. Perhaps I would have done better to say we shouldn't legislate morality. One piece of conservative wisdom that I always find particularly amusing is the idea that the bases of our legal code is in the Ten Commandments. This argument is often used to support maintaining a copy of them in some courthouse or other government building. While I have no problems with displaying the commandments, I suggest we take a close look at them and ask... just how many of these commandments are written into our legal code? The first five have entirely to do with ones relationship to God. And of the other five? Only two make it into our legal code, do not kill and do not steal. And while I would not suggest that living by these ideas is a bad thing, it's important to realize that we do not cast them into law for a reason. One, they would be very difficult to enforce. Second, while laws against murder and theft are necessary for a safe society, the rest are only additional. Good ideas for people to get along and to live a good life, but not necessary for a safe society. Insulting your mother may be a sin the in eyes of God, but it does not harm anyones inherent rights.
You claim, Mike, that the separation of political and personal morality is a moral world view. I would disagree, as it is not a moral world view, but rather a philosophical view upon the nature of morality. I choose to live my life based on the morality of Judeo-Christian tradition, I do not believe that our country should attempt to govern on the same set of beliefs. I am a charitable person, but do not think our government should be so charitable. I do not believe in taking a life in revenge, but I also agree with and fully support the death-penalty. The government is not a person, it has additional rights and responsibilities, why should it's morality be the same? Or even similar?
I've written before about inherent rights. And as I said before, the state should not be in the business of legislating morality. The law is not about what is right or what is wrong. Read through our constitution, there is no mention of doing what is morally right. There is only what is right for the government, and what is right by the people. And providing for the most individual freedom is what is right for the people. There is no single ideal that better expresses the American tradition. The whole problem, exactly what is wrong with this country, is this foolish and destructive idea that government is suppose to codify someones idea of how we should live our lives. It doesn't matter where you find yourself on any particular 'issue' of the day. If it doesn't involve the direct violation of someone's inherent rights, it's of no business of the government. The law is there not to tell us how to live. It's there to keep us free and safe. And that includes being safe from an over-active and involved government.

Second 'Operative' Principle

The Power of the Sword

This gets me to the other unspoken, operative principle. You seem to have an almost pacifist repugnance toward the threat of harm—implied or otherwise1.
"We must remember that the power of the State is the power to utilize violence to achieve its ends. Behind every law is the implicit threat of violence. It is this understanding that separates the Libertarian from the Conservative. "
Oh, no. To the contrary. Conservatives are well aware of the coercive menace behind law. I fail to see how you think Conservatives don’t know this. Neither do I see why the “implicit threat of violence” in itself is so dispositive toward the open availability of abortion.

Conservative “Anthropology”

Perhaps part of our differences on this score is Conservative “anthropology” —that is the Conservative observation on human nature2. Men are not just a rational being—not even primarily a rational creature. He is also an emotional and instinctual being. He does not live in two different modes. Instead, he is all of this in one whole in every instant. In surveying actual human historical behavior, Conservatives do not think violence, conflict and war are aberrations. Instead, violence and war are inevitable. The miserable fact is the world is ruled by the aggressive projection of force or threat of same3.
Especially after taking stock of human history, Conservatives believe in the existence of radical evil—a malevolence that cannot be appeased nor reasoned with. Others, while not evil in the extreme, will harm and steal from the weak, defenseless and peaceful if they can extract some advantage for themselves without challengers. Therefore, to preserve civil peace and maintain justice, force and the threat of violence are unexceptionally necessary for self-defense and coming to the aid of another. To protect civil society and punish crime, Conservatives do not mind occasionally showing the bloody axe.
1 Surely this can’t be right. It doesn’t seem all together likely that the Libertarian ranks are filled with pacifists. If a Libertarian society ever were established, how would such political régime be preserved? How would the Constitution be upheld and defended? Something, some qualifier, is missing here.
2 There is no denying that “Conservative Anthropology” is decidedly Augustinian. It should be noted that no Conservative believes this violent world is the way it should be nor should it be the way anyone should want. What we have is a tragic state of affairs. It’ not the way we want it; but there it is.
3 The mistake many of us make is thinking we share the same interests. Nation states rarely do. Even in the hope for “world peace”, such a goal exists in different priorities among countries. That is to say those interests are frequently asymmetrical. Nation States have their own internal logic in seeking and then pursuing their national interests. For “Machiavellian” reasons, international unrest may serve a nation better than stability.

Morality and Legislation

The rest of your post is a well reasoned, cogent, and persuasive defense for a viewpoint I do not share. By my lights, one of the most injudicious pieces of folk wisdom we share is the notion that we can’t legislate morality1. Legislate morality? Admittedly, Conservatives have some ambivalent thoughts on the matter—mostly in the particulars under any consideration. But it inescapable that morality is the thick stuff of public life. Not only can morality find its place in the law, the reality is we do it everyday. Every law and piece of legislation no matter how minimal reflects moral choices our representatives have made. We may employ whatever “legal fiction” we like but there is no such thing a morally neutral or “agnostic” law. It is simply a fact of governance that in ordering our lives together we are discriminating between what is good and what is bad and what we count as justice among us.
In choosing or even in not choosing, somebody’s “idea” is being codified as to how we live our lives. (Ironically, the Libertarian notion to separate “personal morality” from “political morality” is a moral worldview you would oppose on a public not so inclined) We even go so far as to “constitutionalize” particular notions of what arrangements benefit us as a free and self-governing people. And, yes, the State uses the power of the sword to back it up. Argument and reason, yes, by all means. But we are men and not angels. It is a mistake to think we can do all the time what in fact we can only do some of the time. Much of the time we like to think of ourselves as philosopher kings. But reason is only a tool and we can reason our way into some pretty strange conclusions. Thus the law is there as a teaching authority for the thoughtful, the modestly gifted, and willful alike. The power of the sword is there when reason falters and malice prevails.
As to your hypothetical 16 year old rape victim:
“Tell me, Mike, would you stand before a 16-year-old rape victim, gun in hand, and demand that she not abort the child that is the result? Would you demand, on pain of violence, that she allow the child to come to term, even if she in turn gives the child up for adoption?”
Mr. Campbell, I am as close to an absolute abolitionist2 as you could get. I have no trouble using force to stand for justice toward the weakest among us—the unborn—whom I must point out suffer lethal violence in their “termination”3. What the Pro-Life movement advocates is nothing less than a “Copernican” revolution on the entire
question. A revolution that is every bit as political as it is “social”. There is no more public question than who we count as one of us and to whom we extend our protections4.

-Writen by Crabby Apple Mike Lee

1 If you mean that simply passing a law will not make a people virtuous then I agree with you. But it doesn’t appear that that is your point. I agree we have too many laws and the state attempts to regulate our lives way too much. But that is a subject for another day.
2 I am also a political realist. However logically inconsistent it may be, in our time the American people simply will not accept any prohibition against abortion without exceptions for rape, incest and the endangered health of the mother. It is not the “best”; but to climb out of the “worst” we’ll take the “better”. We can continue to make our case from there.
3 A rather cold, analeptic, and clinic term. A more accurate word would butchery.
4I think we should make a clean breast of it and recognize that what is obvious. One can certainly debate this in the abstract; but when, opponents abject to the “social issues” crowd, nine times out of ten what they are really mean is the single issue of abortion. What is often referred to as “blue blood” Republicans claim that economic freedom is the only thing the party should be about. Whatever the merits of being an “economics” party, at least as far as the Republican Party is concern, it is blatantly ahistorical. The Republican Party began as a anti-slavery party. As opposed to the present time, Republicans for at least half is existence was not a “free trade” party.

First “Operative” Principle

Mr. Campbell, when faced with your moral dilemma in choosing between allowing an evil such as abortion or using the coercive power of the State to prevent it, it appears to me there are two choices: 1.) Refrain from using the power of the State and permitting abortion or 2.) End abortions by using the law and law enforcement. Your solution is to allow abortion and then use the power of personal persuasion to curtail it—essentially choosing option #1 and then attempt to change our social ”ecology” by changing the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens1 2. But why? How did you get there? In what line of reasoning or criteria is your solution the best resolution of the dilemma?
If I may venture a guess, after reading your entire response, your argument rests on two “axioms” you may believe are obvious but for the most part are unarticulated—at least it appears so among non-Libertarians.. I don’t think you were being deceptive by any means. We all make arguments time to time assuming we share common ground and assumptions when that isn’t necessarily so.
In graduate level mathematics, one has left the realm of ordinary physics calculations into a highly theoretical analysis. The texts are extremely specialized and quite expensive as only a few hundred may sell in any particular year. Both to save money and the expectations that students in graduate school should not need to lead around by the hand, theorems and proofs are presented in an abbreviated form with the expectation that students should be able to work their way from point “A” to point “L”. In much the same way, Libertarians sometimes argue in this fashion. But there is a problem even for those exposed to a fair number of Libertarians during his lifetime. Unlike mathematics, one cannot be certain where to begin. As many Libertarians advise, they are a varied and independent bunch and so it is not safe to non-Libertarians to assume that we necessarily understand each one’s argument. The premises a particular Libertarian may be working from may not be shared by others.
Thinking through your presentation, if I may presume, I would say your first “operative” principle is to preserve and defend as much liberty and independence from the State as possible (“[the] ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority”). Libertarians have a prejudice (in the best sense of the word) against the State controlling our choices for us. I believe this in part is how you come out where you do. There seems to be another “operative” principle you involve which I will take up in a later post.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee.
1 As a side note, it is commonly said that abortion is a private matter between a woman and her physician. I can tell you it is not. I worked as a technician in surgery for fifteen years. I never participated in an abortion although I was in an uncomfortable proximity. The truth is that it takes a great deal of social cooperation and involvement by others so that abortions may take place—especially on the scale abortion takes place in our country. From the manufacture of specialized equipment, the sharing and education of technique, and the use of general medical facilities and medical personnel to support and enable abortions—not to mention the medical documentation that must be done—we are not talking about a matter which takes place between two consenting adults in a hidden cave outside of town. Without this support system, many physicians simply would not risk performing abortions.
2 It should be remembered that in the 1960’s that one of the “promises” assured by those advocating the open availability of contraceptives was that they would virtually eliminate abortions. In fact, the sea change went into the opposite direction. I am not arguing against contraception, mind you. What I am pointing out is that there is already a history of unintended consequences on the subject of abortion.

Opening the Debate

To reiterate (for those of you reading from the top down) this is a continuation of debate started on The American Spectator online. See previous post for outline and links and how to contribute to the debate.
This posting will depart from my usual theme of avoid contrast between Liberal and Conservative ideals as well as focusing on a single issue to provide illustration of the general ideas.

Mike, I must refute your assertion that I do not answer my rhetorical question of how to choose between the immorality of abortion and the immorality of using police power to force our ideals onto another. I clearly state in my original posting that we must legally allow the practice while we teach against it from a moral stance. Yes, this is 'my' suggestion, arrived at through the trying to chart a moral course through two positions I find equally abhorrent.
Tell me, Mike, would you stand before a 16-year-old rape victim, gun in hand, and demand that she not abort the child that is the result? Would you demand, on pain of violence, that she allow the child to come to term, even if she in turn gives the child up for adoption? I apologize for the use of such a crass argument, but it cuts directly to the center of my point. I know that I could not take such an action, and I have my doubts that you would. Would you instead turn such an action over to the state? We must remember that the power of the State is the power to utilize violence to achieve its ends. Behind every law is the implicit threat of violence. It is this understanding that separates the Libertarian from the Conservative. I have no doubt, Mike that you, like me, when faced with this hypothetical young rape victim that you would use every moral and reasoned argument you could find to convince her to bring the child to term, even if only to give to adoption. We can both realize that we should not take vengeance on the unborn for the actions of the immoral father. It is the understanding of this situation which makes me say we must allow the practice. This is not an argument to allow abortion for just rape victims, this is instead to help illustrate that we cannot know the whole of a situation, and therefore we cannot make blanket laws.
Please realize, Mike, the central argument of Libertarianism. It is not that societal rules be abandoned, we leave that to Liberals. We advocate that you cannot legislate morality, which is a very different stance. Because of the implicit threat of violence behind every law, we must be very careful in every law that we pass. We must ensure that the law itself is moral, not in the sense of personal morality, but in the sense of political morality. And here is where the argument of forcing your view point onto others comes into play. Once you realize and understand the power of the state is the power to police, the utilization of violence, then you must realize that some laws cannot be allowed because they are, in effect, the utilization of violence to force your ideas onto another. You may disagree with my reasoning, but I hope you can at least understand how I come to think this way.
To return to my example, I have no doubts Mike that you, as I, would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society. We trust in the State to provide for a free and just society, and to ensure that our society remains that way we must in turn carefully examine each and every law with the understanding that we are making an implicit threat of violence.
This in turn provides the reason for saying that our country was founded on Libertarian ideals. Our Founding Fathers were men of rare wisdom, and even rarer morality. They understood the power of government, and sought to limit where the government could act. This idea of limiting government is what makes someone a Libertarian. I've said it in many of my writings to the Spectator; we cannot argue against Liberals utilizing government to advance their agenda only to turn around and have Conservatives utilize government to advance their agenda. Instead, we must choose the harder road, the road of longer work and less reward. We must stand together and defend the moral traditions of our forefathers because they are right, because they represent the collective wisdom of thousands of years of human experience. But we must do this through argument and reason, and not through the implicitly violent threats of the State.Please, Mike, understand that many people claim the title of 'Libertarian.' Most of the time, they do so in error and misunderstanding. Often you have a Liberal trying to make himself look better by calling himself Libertarian. But what separates the Libertarian from both the Conservative and the Liberal is that a Libertarian is talking about the role of government, not the role of morality. It can be easy to misconstrue my arguments as a case of moral relativism. They are not. I am not saying that having an abortion, or not, is the same in moral terms. I unequivocally state that having an abortion is immoral. But I also state unequivocally that using violence to stop someone from having an abortion is also immoral. My suggested solution is the result of my reasoning on how we handle a difficult moral quandary. I also would say that this understanding, the practice is immoral but must be allowed in a legal sense, is but the first step to creating a more just society where we can see the rate of abortion start to drop to include only extreme circumstances. Finally, let me close with my thanks to Mike for both your compliment to the reasonability of my previous arguments and giving me so much practice to further hone my arguments and writing skills. And also, Mike, my apologizes. First, for your apparent dislike of Libertarians. I assure you, good sir, that on deeper reflection you may find that we do not disagree as much as you seem to think, but only on methods and means. Also, I make no claim to having a monopoly on reason, even if some Libertarians do. Most of us will argue for the sake of argument because we enjoy the debate, and it is only through constant questioning of our assumptions can we come to understand if they are correct or not. And second, my apologizes for appearing to equate abortion with lying, adultery, and other such actions. I was not trying to argue a moral equivalence, but rather a legal one. It was a poor choice in presentation and misleading. And in true closing, let me just say this: While some Libertarians may give the impression that we think we have a monopoly on reason, some Conservatives give the impression that they think they have a monopoly on morality. Let us both avoid the Liberal's mistake of painting each other with too broad a stroke, eh?