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.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Return to the Debate
To my readers, how you few you may be, I apologize for my long absence. I must admit that I gave into despair shortly before the election. I know that without regular posts, I cannot expect regular readership, and thus cannot expect to have any effect.
I will now make it a point to publish at least once a week, and if I see any additional long-term absences forthcoming, I will try to give good warning. So, let's get things started once again, shall we?
I will now make it a point to publish at least once a week, and if I see any additional long-term absences forthcoming, I will try to give good warning. So, let's get things started once again, shall we?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Open Letter to Congressman McCaul, 10th District, Texas
I doubt you remember me, Congressman, but we did meet a few months ago when you came down to [my employer] with Congressman Smith. I tell you this so hopefully you'll realize that I'm a serious observer and I have been paying attention to what you've been doing up there on our behalf. I've reviewed your record, looking into past action. Congressman, you are a good and honorable public servant. And this coming from a man generally suspicious of government and politicians.
And let me just say that your recent action against the bailout bill was right. You did the right thing in voting it down. It's not just the price tag involved, although that is a major factor. If our Congress wishes to spend 700 billion dollars it does not have, let it send it to the people. Seriously, break it down for every American over 18 and send it out. That will solve the problems with solvency as much as giving it people who have proved their incompetence. More importantly, our government is not empowered by the constitution to take this action. No economic situation grants the Congress a power not enumerated in that document. Any bailout action is wrong, no matter the reasons or the fail-safes or guards. Let those institutions that have pushed themselves over the limit fail. It will hurt a lot of people, but all of us are on the line in this bailout and if the government goes insolvent, then it all comes crashing down. Not only that, but any bailout will only encourage further inappropriate and stupid action on the behalf of those institutions you are trying to help. And that will cost this country further pain.
Now is not the time for rash action. Now is not the time for extraordinary measures but extraordinary courage. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a man tied to public opinion to vote against a measure that so many call our only chance. But you must stay the course and show the leadership I know you are capable of showing and bring as many of your colleagues along with you as you can. We, the American People, need you and your colleagues to show courage in the face of hard times. We need you to be willing to risk your positions and vote down this bill once again. Keep it down. Kill it. Make it clear that government will not be stepping in and doing what it always does, throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away. We need real solutions, Congressman, not pretty promises and more debt to foreign countries. Or hadn't you noticed that bad debt is what got us into this situation in the first place?
Once you have killed this bill, we need more courage. We need someone, anyone, to stand up and start talking about what really caused this problem. You and those of your colleagues who have the courage need to talk about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its effects. Especially in how it was utilized by certain organizations and how it was enforced by regulatory agencies. We need people to stand up and talk about the actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with their implicit government backing and control. We need to looking into the origins of the subprime mortgage market, how it was used, and why it was created. We need our leaders to talk about the effect of the mark-to-market rule which is causing banks to write down perfectly good loans as losses. We need our leadership to lead and admit the failings of Sarbanes-Oxley and how that piece of over-regulation has contributed to the current crises. These are the cause of our problems. We need brave Congressman and others willing to stand up and explain why this is not a failing of the free market and why this is the failing of the government to execute its powers correctly.
I am asking you, Congressman, please show some leadership this week. Don't follow an hysterical mass into more failure. Lead an intelligent and capable people out of this darkness. Have the courage to uncover and talk about the truth on this issue. Have the courage to lead your colleagues into making better decisions based around the facts and the truth. Have the courage to take hard truths to the American people. We can handle it. We can accept it. All you need to do is give us the chance.
I certainly hope that this reaches you, Congressman. I hope that you personally read this message and you consider what it says. I also wish to inform you that I have a personal site at changethedebate.blogspot.com where I will be posting this as an open letter.
My e-mail should be included on this message.
I remain your friend and supporter,
Charles Campbell
And let me just say that your recent action against the bailout bill was right. You did the right thing in voting it down. It's not just the price tag involved, although that is a major factor. If our Congress wishes to spend 700 billion dollars it does not have, let it send it to the people. Seriously, break it down for every American over 18 and send it out. That will solve the problems with solvency as much as giving it people who have proved their incompetence. More importantly, our government is not empowered by the constitution to take this action. No economic situation grants the Congress a power not enumerated in that document. Any bailout action is wrong, no matter the reasons or the fail-safes or guards. Let those institutions that have pushed themselves over the limit fail. It will hurt a lot of people, but all of us are on the line in this bailout and if the government goes insolvent, then it all comes crashing down. Not only that, but any bailout will only encourage further inappropriate and stupid action on the behalf of those institutions you are trying to help. And that will cost this country further pain.
Now is not the time for rash action. Now is not the time for extraordinary measures but extraordinary courage. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a man tied to public opinion to vote against a measure that so many call our only chance. But you must stay the course and show the leadership I know you are capable of showing and bring as many of your colleagues along with you as you can. We, the American People, need you and your colleagues to show courage in the face of hard times. We need you to be willing to risk your positions and vote down this bill once again. Keep it down. Kill it. Make it clear that government will not be stepping in and doing what it always does, throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away. We need real solutions, Congressman, not pretty promises and more debt to foreign countries. Or hadn't you noticed that bad debt is what got us into this situation in the first place?
Once you have killed this bill, we need more courage. We need someone, anyone, to stand up and start talking about what really caused this problem. You and those of your colleagues who have the courage need to talk about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its effects. Especially in how it was utilized by certain organizations and how it was enforced by regulatory agencies. We need people to stand up and talk about the actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with their implicit government backing and control. We need to looking into the origins of the subprime mortgage market, how it was used, and why it was created. We need our leaders to talk about the effect of the mark-to-market rule which is causing banks to write down perfectly good loans as losses. We need our leadership to lead and admit the failings of Sarbanes-Oxley and how that piece of over-regulation has contributed to the current crises. These are the cause of our problems. We need brave Congressman and others willing to stand up and explain why this is not a failing of the free market and why this is the failing of the government to execute its powers correctly.
I am asking you, Congressman, please show some leadership this week. Don't follow an hysterical mass into more failure. Lead an intelligent and capable people out of this darkness. Have the courage to uncover and talk about the truth on this issue. Have the courage to lead your colleagues into making better decisions based around the facts and the truth. Have the courage to take hard truths to the American people. We can handle it. We can accept it. All you need to do is give us the chance.
I certainly hope that this reaches you, Congressman. I hope that you personally read this message and you consider what it says. I also wish to inform you that I have a personal site at changethedebate.blogspot.com where I will be posting this as an open letter.
My e-mail should be included on this message.
I remain your friend and supporter,
Charles Campbell
Sunday, August 24, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Freedom, Justice, and Order
This gets us into the prickly question of freedom. With the sole exception of anarchic libertarians, Conservative and Libertarians do agree on this premise. The primary function of government is to keep the peace, defend against foreign enemies and powers and maintaining justice. When the State goes beyond these, it falls into quickly difficulty, because not only it was not “designed” to cover the many facets of life, it is incompetent when it tries to do so. In fact, the more the State tries to shepherd, the less well it performs in its primary functions. So far, so good. Yet even here, our agreement is only on the surface.
History shows that Libertarians and Conservatives mean different things when speaking of peace, defense and justice. This is no small thing in itself—worth a book or two at least. It goes, however, even deeper than that. Toward what end are these tasks aimed? Assume our hypothetical government did its duty in keeping the peace, defending the realm, and upholding justice, exactly what is this State doing these for?
The Libertarian has no doubts what the answer is. The chief function of government should be to defend and protect his liberty. In fact, this is pretty much what the Libertarian believes is what the Constitution’s aim is all about.1
But, if one optimistically follows this notion to its logical ends, does it produce for a good and humane society? To put it somewhat sentimentally, what kind of world does it leave for our children and those who come after us?
Libertarian literature is paradoxical on this point. Many will respond to effect that it is not their burden to worry and be concerned for a good society nor should it be. Freedom is its own blessing and inheritance to our descendents. As we have flourished, our children will follow to their own maturity and harvest of their endeavors. A country of free men will in turn produce its own “good society” secured by the superior virtue of liberty.
This is certainly attractive; but it has something uneasy about it. At least to a Conservatives ears, to say that a good society strictly speaking is not a Libertarian’s obligation strikes of ingratitude at its worst or gullibility its at best. To ingratitude, what is it to depend of the blessings of one’s society or one’s government and then turn to say you owe it nothing? To gullibility, where in human history do we see this transmission of “Libertarian” liberty into a good, humane culture?
Libertarians typically return that this is where Conservatives misunderstand the Founding. What Conservatives consider abuse in fact is the very liberty the founders risked their lives and treasure. It is freedom’s privilege that the only morally valid obligations are those one choose’s for himself and by no other. The Libertarian believes the Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul—and to the extent their original intentions were carried out demonstrates liberty’s “invisible hand” in building “that most excellent empire”.
To say the least, Conservatives could not disagree more.
The assertion that the “Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul” is one Conservatives dismiss out of hand. If the Founders singular concern was liberty, the Articles of Confederation would have served quite well. Under its terms, America would indeed have a weak central government. But the Founders found the Articles deficient and the Philadelphia Convention (constitutional convention) was called. More was needed. In addition, Conservatives maintain that every individual is born with obligations and that the Founders could scarcely be thought to believe otherwise.
As one might expect, Conservatives object and counter that the Constitution was written and born of Conservative2 structure. It is not that Libertarians are totally wrong. It is that they do not see the Constitution and its conventions in full.
The first item to consider is the Preamble. The Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre, holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility3, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare4, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity5, do ordain6 and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founders had much more in mind that the single pursuit of liberty. The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris—men who had fundamental differences. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
Of these James Madison is commonly claimed to be a Libertarian. Even if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Madison’s role as the “Father of the Constitution” is somewhat exaggerated7. Thomas Jefferson is also one claimed to be one of Libertarian’s own. Again, if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Jefferson was not a Framer. He was not there at the Philadelphia Convention. Instead, he was out of the country serving as minister to France. While both Jefferson and Madison had a great affinity with one another, in must be noted that they worked in opposition to Hamilton and Washington—two men who were also prominent at the Philadelphia Convention.
But we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. We will have more to say about the Founding later. But here I wish to return to our main subject of freedom, justice and order.
Be that as it may, a society must have three elements to be good, humane, and a nourishing of life. Those constituents are justice, order and freedom. Without each, no home can be called good. But among these three, order is the most important. This is so because without an endurable order justice and freedom soon will not exist. Without order, it can be said one can have the freedom of a fugitive or a savage can be said to have freedom. The fugitive always lives with the threat of discovery and the savage, while he hunts, always fears being the hunted. In either case, nothing is predictable or secure. To some, this is the epitome of adventure, but it counts as no freedom to those who wish to live in the open. Such “freedom” would truly be reduced to the Hobbesian “all against all” making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
It is reliability certain that Benjamin Franklin is to have said “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. We can quibble about what the modifiers “essential” and “temporary” mean, but in the limited sense Franklin was quite correct. But in the main, it was one of the more foolish things he ever said. To make “freedom” the solitary absolute principle in our lives together undermines both justice and order. If we make “freedom” the whole end of our civil social order events will undo freedom itself. Indeed, to maintain such a “neat” “organizing” principle that determines all else does not describe men as they are and certainly is too inept to govern them.
Libertarians answer in kind stating that the Conservative insistence on “order” in fact opens the door for all sorts of mischief by the State. It may even serve as an open door for governmental sponsorship of Conservative mischief. Such a notion has been expressed to me in several ways without bringing Conservative nuisances into it. Some Libertarians have stated:
“By making freedom, justice and order important in deliberations it makes it so that none of them will determine anything.”8
It my limited experience, nothing will drive a libertarian to ire or drink (and sometimes both) as when it is said that the need for order may necessarily trim freedom’s sails in many instances. Part of the problem is with the word “order”. As it often appears, the word has a vaguely “Nazi” odor. In any event, for Libertarians, “order” doesn’t sound anything like minimal government.
It is not that there isn’t something to the Libertarians’ concern. “Order” without justice and freedom isn’t anything that recommends anything to anybody9. The Conservative answer is that it is by the collected wisdom, experience, and moral imagination that we keep order, justice and freedom in balance. Order, justice and freedom provide a three-point contact to which they may be balanced. Catholicism maintains that, in the realm of Christianity, three elements called revealed truth, reason and tradition form the basis for the rule of faith such as the three legs of a level and steady stool. Each in their measure supports the other. Don’t get caught up the citation from Catholic theology involved in the illustration. It is a mere example of the form of thought of what makes for a humane society. In balancing order, justice and freedom, freedom can be exercised at its fullest.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 Although, it must be pointed out, nowhere in the actual text of the Constitution does it make any such claim.
2 The word “conservative” itself did not come into use until well into the 19th century.
3 One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states. The Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution precisely because they had sympathy for such revolts as the Whiskey Rebellion for which Washington would crush with disproportionate force with the army.
4 Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. Despite Liberal insistence, this is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. By “general welfare” the Constitution was referring to the “commonweal”—the common good of all. Indeed, the “general welfare” was the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
5 By this, the Founders meant future generations.
6 To order by or as if by decree, from the Latin; ordinaire, to organize
7 Even the “Bill of Rights” owes more to George Mason’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights” as well as the original “English Bill of Rights” than to James Madison. No small part is owed to Patrick Henry and his insistence that he would not sign the Constitution unless a “bill of right” was included.
8 From personal correspondence with self-identified libertarian
9 According to C.S.Lewis, in the human world of “masters” and “slaves”, some men are indeed only fit to be slaves. But no man is fit to be a master to another.
See http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html for a Constitutional directory.
History shows that Libertarians and Conservatives mean different things when speaking of peace, defense and justice. This is no small thing in itself—worth a book or two at least. It goes, however, even deeper than that. Toward what end are these tasks aimed? Assume our hypothetical government did its duty in keeping the peace, defending the realm, and upholding justice, exactly what is this State doing these for?
The Libertarian has no doubts what the answer is. The chief function of government should be to defend and protect his liberty. In fact, this is pretty much what the Libertarian believes is what the Constitution’s aim is all about.1
But, if one optimistically follows this notion to its logical ends, does it produce for a good and humane society? To put it somewhat sentimentally, what kind of world does it leave for our children and those who come after us?
Libertarian literature is paradoxical on this point. Many will respond to effect that it is not their burden to worry and be concerned for a good society nor should it be. Freedom is its own blessing and inheritance to our descendents. As we have flourished, our children will follow to their own maturity and harvest of their endeavors. A country of free men will in turn produce its own “good society” secured by the superior virtue of liberty.
This is certainly attractive; but it has something uneasy about it. At least to a Conservatives ears, to say that a good society strictly speaking is not a Libertarian’s obligation strikes of ingratitude at its worst or gullibility its at best. To ingratitude, what is it to depend of the blessings of one’s society or one’s government and then turn to say you owe it nothing? To gullibility, where in human history do we see this transmission of “Libertarian” liberty into a good, humane culture?
Libertarians typically return that this is where Conservatives misunderstand the Founding. What Conservatives consider abuse in fact is the very liberty the founders risked their lives and treasure. It is freedom’s privilege that the only morally valid obligations are those one choose’s for himself and by no other. The Libertarian believes the Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul—and to the extent their original intentions were carried out demonstrates liberty’s “invisible hand” in building “that most excellent empire”.
To say the least, Conservatives could not disagree more.
The assertion that the “Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul” is one Conservatives dismiss out of hand. If the Founders singular concern was liberty, the Articles of Confederation would have served quite well. Under its terms, America would indeed have a weak central government. But the Founders found the Articles deficient and the Philadelphia Convention (constitutional convention) was called. More was needed. In addition, Conservatives maintain that every individual is born with obligations and that the Founders could scarcely be thought to believe otherwise.
As one might expect, Conservatives object and counter that the Constitution was written and born of Conservative2 structure. It is not that Libertarians are totally wrong. It is that they do not see the Constitution and its conventions in full.
The first item to consider is the Preamble. The Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre, holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility3, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare4, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity5, do ordain6 and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founders had much more in mind that the single pursuit of liberty. The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris—men who had fundamental differences. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
Of these James Madison is commonly claimed to be a Libertarian. Even if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Madison’s role as the “Father of the Constitution” is somewhat exaggerated7. Thomas Jefferson is also one claimed to be one of Libertarian’s own. Again, if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Jefferson was not a Framer. He was not there at the Philadelphia Convention. Instead, he was out of the country serving as minister to France. While both Jefferson and Madison had a great affinity with one another, in must be noted that they worked in opposition to Hamilton and Washington—two men who were also prominent at the Philadelphia Convention.
But we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. We will have more to say about the Founding later. But here I wish to return to our main subject of freedom, justice and order.
Be that as it may, a society must have three elements to be good, humane, and a nourishing of life. Those constituents are justice, order and freedom. Without each, no home can be called good. But among these three, order is the most important. This is so because without an endurable order justice and freedom soon will not exist. Without order, it can be said one can have the freedom of a fugitive or a savage can be said to have freedom. The fugitive always lives with the threat of discovery and the savage, while he hunts, always fears being the hunted. In either case, nothing is predictable or secure. To some, this is the epitome of adventure, but it counts as no freedom to those who wish to live in the open. Such “freedom” would truly be reduced to the Hobbesian “all against all” making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
It is reliability certain that Benjamin Franklin is to have said “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. We can quibble about what the modifiers “essential” and “temporary” mean, but in the limited sense Franklin was quite correct. But in the main, it was one of the more foolish things he ever said. To make “freedom” the solitary absolute principle in our lives together undermines both justice and order. If we make “freedom” the whole end of our civil social order events will undo freedom itself. Indeed, to maintain such a “neat” “organizing” principle that determines all else does not describe men as they are and certainly is too inept to govern them.
Libertarians answer in kind stating that the Conservative insistence on “order” in fact opens the door for all sorts of mischief by the State. It may even serve as an open door for governmental sponsorship of Conservative mischief. Such a notion has been expressed to me in several ways without bringing Conservative nuisances into it. Some Libertarians have stated:
“By making freedom, justice and order important in deliberations it makes it so that none of them will determine anything.”8
It my limited experience, nothing will drive a libertarian to ire or drink (and sometimes both) as when it is said that the need for order may necessarily trim freedom’s sails in many instances. Part of the problem is with the word “order”. As it often appears, the word has a vaguely “Nazi” odor. In any event, for Libertarians, “order” doesn’t sound anything like minimal government.
It is not that there isn’t something to the Libertarians’ concern. “Order” without justice and freedom isn’t anything that recommends anything to anybody9. The Conservative answer is that it is by the collected wisdom, experience, and moral imagination that we keep order, justice and freedom in balance. Order, justice and freedom provide a three-point contact to which they may be balanced. Catholicism maintains that, in the realm of Christianity, three elements called revealed truth, reason and tradition form the basis for the rule of faith such as the three legs of a level and steady stool. Each in their measure supports the other. Don’t get caught up the citation from Catholic theology involved in the illustration. It is a mere example of the form of thought of what makes for a humane society. In balancing order, justice and freedom, freedom can be exercised at its fullest.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 Although, it must be pointed out, nowhere in the actual text of the Constitution does it make any such claim.
2 The word “conservative” itself did not come into use until well into the 19th century.
3 One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states. The Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution precisely because they had sympathy for such revolts as the Whiskey Rebellion for which Washington would crush with disproportionate force with the army.
4 Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. Despite Liberal insistence, this is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. By “general welfare” the Constitution was referring to the “commonweal”—the common good of all. Indeed, the “general welfare” was the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
5 By this, the Founders meant future generations.
6 To order by or as if by decree, from the Latin; ordinaire, to organize
7 Even the “Bill of Rights” owes more to George Mason’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights” as well as the original “English Bill of Rights” than to James Madison. No small part is owed to Patrick Henry and his insistence that he would not sign the Constitution unless a “bill of right” was included.
8 From personal correspondence with self-identified libertarian
9 According to C.S.Lewis, in the human world of “masters” and “slaves”, some men are indeed only fit to be slaves. But no man is fit to be a master to another.
See http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html for a Constitutional directory.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)