"It's my property and I have a right to do what I want with it!"
How often I have heard this sentiment, or one very like it, expressed.
The speaker is usually ranting about wanting less government interference in something. Often he or she is venting about how they want less taxes.
It is, superficially at least, an attractive position. I do, after all, own my property. I did, after all, work hard to gain the ownership of that property, assuming I didn't inherit it or receive it as a gift. Why shouldn't I be able to do what I want with the stuff I worked so hard to own?
Well, two reasons: first, it's illegal. Second, it's immoral.
Now, the illegality of doing whatever you want with your own property can always be changed. It is usually this illegality (the fact that using your own property anyway you want, without any obligation to use it in any particular way, is not permitted by law) that the speaker wishes to have changed. And, if enough of us agree that it should be changed, we can all agree to change it. But, we shouldn't.
Because it is immoral to "do whatever I want with my own property."
In logic, there is a concept called reductio ad absurdum. The idea is that the logic of an idea can be tested by taking the idea to its "logical" conclusion. If, when one does, the idea becomes absurd, then it is, in fact, illogical. For an idea to be logical, it must be logical in all its applications, not just some applications.
The notion that we have the moral right to do whatever we want with our property fails the logical test of reductio ad absurdum.
Imagine that one person has managed to acquire ownership of all the property in the world. All the real estate, all the businesses, all the food, all the water, all the houses, all the streets, all the schools. Everything. And imagine that he has done this perfectly legally. He is just such a skilled businessman that he has managed to acquire all the property in the world by completely legal, legitimate means. He - one person - owns everything.
And further suppose that it was, in fact, the law that a person could do anything they wanted with their own property, including doing nothing at all with it, if that's what they chose.
Would it be morally right for that one person to withhold all property from everyone else in the world, just because he had the legal right to do so? Would it be morally right for him to let everyone else in the world starve to death and die of thirst, just because it was all his and he had the right to do with "his" property what he wanted, and he didn't want to share with anyone?
If the answer is "yes," it is a perfect example of reductio ad absurdum. It cannot possibly be true that it is morally right to let everyone else starve when you own all the property in the world, just because you have the legal right to do it. That conclusion is absurd.
What if just two people owned all the property in the world? Would it be morally right for those two to let everyone else starve - all 6 billion human souls - because it was theirs and they had the right to do what they wanted with it? Clearly not. No reasonable person could think it would be moral for them to let everyone else starve when they had more than they could ever use, just because they had a protectable property right.
How about if three people owned all the property in the world? Or 100? Or 1000? Or what if 1 billion people owned all the property and the remaining 5 billion had nothing? Would it be moral for the 1 billion to let the 5 billion die so that they could exercise their "right" to do whatever they wanted with "their" property? Clearly not.
Well, if it isn't morally right for one person to deprive all the rest of the necessities of life, or 2, or 3, or 100, or 1 billion, then the notion of "its mine and I have the (moral) right to do what I want with it" has been demonstrated to be logically faulty.
In fact, we have demonstrated that, rather than having a moral right to do what you want with your own property, you really have a moral obligation to use your property in a way that benefits others. If you have very little property, than your moral obligation is very small, but if you have a great deal of property, then your moral obligation is very great. In fact, there is a direct proportionality between the amount of property one owns and one's moral obligation to use that property for the benefit of others.
The rich have a moral obligation to use their property for the benefit of the poor.
It is, in fact, the teaching of Jesus.
Now, we can quibble about how that moral obligation is affected by the choices the poor have made, or, more precisely, the choices that the rich think the poor have made. But, no matter how the obligation is affected or modified by individual circumstances, it never goes away. It always exists in some form or another. Remember, our hypothetical man who acquired all the property in the world did it legally, and as a result of his skill as a business man. That means that everyone else must have made really poor choices when they agreed to the business deals that resulted in them losing everything. Even so, we cannot imagine that it is then morally acceptable for him to let everyone else in the world starve, because they made "poor choices." It is still clear that he has some obligation to use his property for the benefit of the rest of the world, who are all starving.
So, once it becomes clear that anyone who owns property has at least some moral obligation to use his property in a way that benefits others, we can have legitimate debate over the extent and nature of that moral obligation. We cannot, however, ever logically claim that "its my property and I have a right to do whatever I want with it."
That's absurd.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Hypocrisy Alert
As hypocritical behaviors go, this one is relatively minor, but it looms very large because it is the behavior of someone who has made a career from pointing out the hypocrisy of others.
A few weeks ago, it was discovered by NBC News that Keith Olbermann, the host of MSNBC's Countdown, had contributed money to the campaigns of three Democrats. This violated NBC's rule against any of their on-air employees donating to any political campaign without the prior approval of NBC. Mr. Olbermann was suspended for two days for violating the rule.
Mr. Olbermann's response was that he did not know about the rule, he had not attempted to hide the contributions (which seems to be true), and he accepted the judgement of his employer, NBC, through MSNBC.
The stated reason for the rule was that it helped to preserve the objectivity, or at least the appearance of objectivity, among those on NBC who reported the news.
The suspension provoked much internet outrage among fans of Mr. Olbermann.
Most of the discussion revolved around these issues: 1. Whether it made sense to suspend someone for violating a rule he didn't know about. 2. Whether Mr. Olbermann should have known about the rule. 3. Whether the rule itself made sense when applied to someone like Mr. Olbermann, who is clearly partisan anyway, whether he donates to campaigns or not.
However, I think all of the discussion missed the point. The point, the really important point, is that Mr. Olbermann had, prior to his donations to Democratic candidates, repeatedly skewered Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation for having donated large sums of money to Republicans in various ways. Mr. Olbermann used this apparently undisputed fact to bolster his argument that Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation were merely tools of the Republican Party or, vice versa, that the Republican Party had become a tool of Fox News, since the sums of money donated were so large.
On the other hand, Mr. Olbermann argued that, while he, on Countdown, frequently and openly took positions that were favorable to Democrats and critical of Republicans, it was not because MSNBC was tied to the Democratic Party, but because they were convinced that the positions held by the Democrats were correct and the positions held by the Republicans were incorrect.
The only difference that I can see between the donations made by Rupert Murdoch and the donations made by Keith Olbermann is that Mr. Murdoch's donations were a lot larger.
But, as I've said before, we've now established what they are, and we are merely haggling over price.
I strongly disagree with much of the tone of Mr. Olbermann's program, and very often with his rhetoric and on-screen devices used in making the points he makes. But, I find myself usually in agreement with the points he makes.
But, I can't tolerate hypocrisy. Why, oh why, Mr. Olbermann, did you have to be such a hypocrite? Your integrity was worth so much more than the paltry campaign donations you made. Your integrity was a much more valuable asset to the causes you believe in than any amount of money you could have given to any candidate.
Now, when folks ask me for the difference between Fox News and Countdown, I can no longer say that there is a qualitative difference. I can now only argue that Countdown is not as bad as Fox News.
Mr. Olbermann, I'm not going to make that argument.
Why, oh why, did you have to do it?
A few weeks ago, it was discovered by NBC News that Keith Olbermann, the host of MSNBC's Countdown, had contributed money to the campaigns of three Democrats. This violated NBC's rule against any of their on-air employees donating to any political campaign without the prior approval of NBC. Mr. Olbermann was suspended for two days for violating the rule.
Mr. Olbermann's response was that he did not know about the rule, he had not attempted to hide the contributions (which seems to be true), and he accepted the judgement of his employer, NBC, through MSNBC.
The stated reason for the rule was that it helped to preserve the objectivity, or at least the appearance of objectivity, among those on NBC who reported the news.
The suspension provoked much internet outrage among fans of Mr. Olbermann.
Most of the discussion revolved around these issues: 1. Whether it made sense to suspend someone for violating a rule he didn't know about. 2. Whether Mr. Olbermann should have known about the rule. 3. Whether the rule itself made sense when applied to someone like Mr. Olbermann, who is clearly partisan anyway, whether he donates to campaigns or not.
However, I think all of the discussion missed the point. The point, the really important point, is that Mr. Olbermann had, prior to his donations to Democratic candidates, repeatedly skewered Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation for having donated large sums of money to Republicans in various ways. Mr. Olbermann used this apparently undisputed fact to bolster his argument that Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation were merely tools of the Republican Party or, vice versa, that the Republican Party had become a tool of Fox News, since the sums of money donated were so large.
On the other hand, Mr. Olbermann argued that, while he, on Countdown, frequently and openly took positions that were favorable to Democrats and critical of Republicans, it was not because MSNBC was tied to the Democratic Party, but because they were convinced that the positions held by the Democrats were correct and the positions held by the Republicans were incorrect.
The only difference that I can see between the donations made by Rupert Murdoch and the donations made by Keith Olbermann is that Mr. Murdoch's donations were a lot larger.
But, as I've said before, we've now established what they are, and we are merely haggling over price.
I strongly disagree with much of the tone of Mr. Olbermann's program, and very often with his rhetoric and on-screen devices used in making the points he makes. But, I find myself usually in agreement with the points he makes.
But, I can't tolerate hypocrisy. Why, oh why, Mr. Olbermann, did you have to be such a hypocrite? Your integrity was worth so much more than the paltry campaign donations you made. Your integrity was a much more valuable asset to the causes you believe in than any amount of money you could have given to any candidate.
Now, when folks ask me for the difference between Fox News and Countdown, I can no longer say that there is a qualitative difference. I can now only argue that Countdown is not as bad as Fox News.
Mr. Olbermann, I'm not going to make that argument.
Why, oh why, did you have to do it?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Charles Rangel
The honorable thing for United States Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, to do is resign.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Capitalism and a Free Market
Contrary to popular belief, "capitalism" and "free market" are not synonyms.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the capital portion of the capital-labor partnership is owned by individuals, not by the society collectively or by the government.
A free market is, literally, one free of government intervention.
I submit that, rather than being synonyms, or even inextricably intertwined, capitalism and a completely free market are mortal enemies. Anyone who believes in and supports the capitalist economic system of generating new wealth ought to be scared to death of a truely free market.
Capitalism is an amazingly efficient system for creating new wealth. Part of the reason it is so efficient is that it is driven by a powerful engine, fueled by a powerful motivation: greed.
Unfortunately, greed is an emotion that, if not evil in itself, leads to evil outcomes if left unchecked.
In the case of capitalism, it leads to an imbalance in the sharing of the wealth between the capital contributor and the labor contributor. More specifically, it has always lead to more and more of the wealth going to the capital contributor and less and less of it going to the labor contributor.
Whether one is a capital contributor or a labor contributor, one ought to fear this outcome, because it eventually leads to the breakdown of the capitalist system. In the mildest case, it simply results in the labor contributor being less willing to contribute as efficiently as he might do if he were receiving his fair share of the wealth he helped to create. In the most severe case, it leads to revolution, the goal of which is the destruction of the capital contributor, the effect of which is the destruction of the capitalist system.
Unfortunately, as foreseen by the founders of the American republic, humans, left to their own devices, cannot be trusted to self-regulate when the opportunity arises for them to use power for their own benefit. This is not only true of government, it is true of economics.
Therefore, some force must intervene - on behalf of the capitalist system - to keep the fuel that so powerfully and efficiently drives the capitalist engine properly regulated so that the engine does not accelerate out of control and blow all its gaskets.
The obvious force, the only one powerful enough to intervene, is government. The form of this intervention is to regulate the "market." The government cannot leave all economic decisions in the hands of individuals, because they will in almost every case choose to maximize their own benefit, even at the expense of the system that creates that benefit. Therefore, they must be forced, in some cases, to make decisions which benefit the system, at their personal expense, for the benefit of all who stand to gain from a properly balanced, properly functioning system.
The most obvious example of this type of regulation are the system of laws extant in the United States which endeavor to prevent the creation of a monopoly, either vertical or horizontal. Another example, unfortunately not so clear to our policy makers, is the need to prevent banks from engaging in activities that destroy the banks.
History has shown convincingly that the hypothetical "invisible hand" of the market does not, in fact, regulate the economic decisions of those in positions to make them sufficiently to prevent them from destroying the system itself.
Admittedly, the power to regulate the market must be used wisely, and with restraint, just as must any power. Reasonable minds can differ on how such power should be used or how much of such power should be exercised in order to properly regulate the capitalist system for maximum health and efficiency, but one cannot reasonably argue that no regulation of the market is needed to preserve capitalism.
Intervention in the market is an absolute necessity for the survival of the capitalist system. Those who argue in favor of a capitalist system and a completely free market do not have the best interests of any of us at heart, even themselves, or else do not understand the ramifications of the state for which they argue.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the capital portion of the capital-labor partnership is owned by individuals, not by the society collectively or by the government.
A free market is, literally, one free of government intervention.
I submit that, rather than being synonyms, or even inextricably intertwined, capitalism and a completely free market are mortal enemies. Anyone who believes in and supports the capitalist economic system of generating new wealth ought to be scared to death of a truely free market.
Capitalism is an amazingly efficient system for creating new wealth. Part of the reason it is so efficient is that it is driven by a powerful engine, fueled by a powerful motivation: greed.
Unfortunately, greed is an emotion that, if not evil in itself, leads to evil outcomes if left unchecked.
In the case of capitalism, it leads to an imbalance in the sharing of the wealth between the capital contributor and the labor contributor. More specifically, it has always lead to more and more of the wealth going to the capital contributor and less and less of it going to the labor contributor.
Whether one is a capital contributor or a labor contributor, one ought to fear this outcome, because it eventually leads to the breakdown of the capitalist system. In the mildest case, it simply results in the labor contributor being less willing to contribute as efficiently as he might do if he were receiving his fair share of the wealth he helped to create. In the most severe case, it leads to revolution, the goal of which is the destruction of the capital contributor, the effect of which is the destruction of the capitalist system.
Unfortunately, as foreseen by the founders of the American republic, humans, left to their own devices, cannot be trusted to self-regulate when the opportunity arises for them to use power for their own benefit. This is not only true of government, it is true of economics.
Therefore, some force must intervene - on behalf of the capitalist system - to keep the fuel that so powerfully and efficiently drives the capitalist engine properly regulated so that the engine does not accelerate out of control and blow all its gaskets.
The obvious force, the only one powerful enough to intervene, is government. The form of this intervention is to regulate the "market." The government cannot leave all economic decisions in the hands of individuals, because they will in almost every case choose to maximize their own benefit, even at the expense of the system that creates that benefit. Therefore, they must be forced, in some cases, to make decisions which benefit the system, at their personal expense, for the benefit of all who stand to gain from a properly balanced, properly functioning system.
The most obvious example of this type of regulation are the system of laws extant in the United States which endeavor to prevent the creation of a monopoly, either vertical or horizontal. Another example, unfortunately not so clear to our policy makers, is the need to prevent banks from engaging in activities that destroy the banks.
History has shown convincingly that the hypothetical "invisible hand" of the market does not, in fact, regulate the economic decisions of those in positions to make them sufficiently to prevent them from destroying the system itself.
Admittedly, the power to regulate the market must be used wisely, and with restraint, just as must any power. Reasonable minds can differ on how such power should be used or how much of such power should be exercised in order to properly regulate the capitalist system for maximum health and efficiency, but one cannot reasonably argue that no regulation of the market is needed to preserve capitalism.
Intervention in the market is an absolute necessity for the survival of the capitalist system. Those who argue in favor of a capitalist system and a completely free market do not have the best interests of any of us at heart, even themselves, or else do not understand the ramifications of the state for which they argue.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Morality and Capitalism
Contrary to what some may believe, I am a committed capitalist. Capitalism is by far and unquestionably the most efficient system for the creation of wealth ever designed or imagined by the mind of man. I can think of no other economic system that even comes close.
I would be terribly disappointed to see it collapse or be destroyed.
However, we capitalists desperately need to remember that, like any other social system, and a lot more than most social systems, capitalism depends on many delicate balances to function properly. If any of those necessary balances gets skewed in one direction or another, the capitalist system loses efficiency in direct proportion. If any of them gets skewed too far, the capitalist system will cease to function at all.
One of those delicate balances is the sharing of the wealth created among those who helped to create it.
A few observations about wealth are necessary. All of these observations come, directly or indirectly, from Adam Smith's epic work, "The Wealth of Nations."
First, money is not wealth. Money represents a right to acquire wealth, and a right only to the extent that right is supported by the social structure. But, money itself is not wealth. Corn is wealth. Gold is wealth. Iron is wealth. Cars and houses and land and tables and bed linens and even ideas are all wealth, but money is not wealth.
Second, no matter what the wealth may be, no matter what form it takes, it requires two things to create new wealth: capital and labor. Certain kinds of wealth require more labor and less capital to create. Other kinds require more capital and less labor. But, all new wealth is created by a combination of labor applied to capital.
Third, any system can create only a finite amount of new wealth in a given interval of time. This is because the amount of existing capital and available labor in any system is finite, so they can only be combined, even at maximum efficiency, in a way that produces a finite amount of new wealth in a given interval of time.
Take, for example, iron ore. Iron ore is capital. When it is in place in the ground, it is a form of real property, with a certain value - a measure of the wealth it is. When it is removed from the ground, its value - the measure of the wealth it is - increases. But, it cannot be removed from the ground without the application of labor. By applying the labor of mining to the capital of iron ore in the ground, new wealth is created. New capital is not created. There is no more iron ore than there ever was, but the value - the wealth that ore is - increases.
Likewise when the iron ore is smelted and becomes iron. And then when the iron is combined with other elements and becomes steel. Then when the steel is fabricated into automobile parts. Then when those parts are assembled with other elements to become an automobile. Then when the automobile is transported to the dealership. At each of these steps, labor is applied to capital to create new value - new wealth. Remember, no new capital is created, only new wealth.
So, to gain the advantage of the incredibly efficient system for creating new wealth that we call capitalism, we must have both capital and labor. Without capital, labor is merely wasted time. Without labor, the value of capital remains static; no new wealth is created.
The question then becomes, how should we share the new wealth that is created by applying labor to capital? Specifically, how much of that new wealth should become the property of the person who owns the capital, and how much should become the property of the person who contributed the labor?
I have not used the word "should" by accident. The question is, how should we divide the new wealth created by this partnership of the person who supplies the capital and the person who supplies the labor. I submit that this question is a moral question, in addition to being an economic question.
Allow me to elaborate. The options for sharing the new wealth lie along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, the person who contributes the labor gets all the new wealth created and the person who contributes the capital gets none of it. We have a name for this end of the spectrum. It is called communism.
At the other end of the spectrum, the person who contributes the capital gets all the new wealth created and the person who contributes the labor gets none of it. We also have a name for this extreme of the spectrum: slavery.
There may be some who would disagree, but in general, people will recognize that it is immoral to take soemone's capital - his or her property - and give him or her nothing for it. Likewise, people generally understand that it is immoral to take someone's labor and give him or her nothing in exchange for it. So, people will recognize that both ends of the spectrum that illustrates how the new wealth can be shared are immoral.
It follows, therefore, that there is some area in the center of the spectrum - that area where the capital contributor and the labor contributor - both get some of the wealth they jointly create. Now, clearly, people will disagree about where that "moral" range is. Some will argue that it is somewhere closer to the laborer, and others will argue that it is somewhere closer to the capitalist. But, to argue that such a "moral" range for sharing the new wealth does not exist is to ignore the obvious fact that both extremes are immoral, therefore somewhere in the middle there has to be a compromise that is, at the very least, not immoral.
I am convinced that we need to have a clear-eyed discussion about what we think is a moral compromise for the sharing of new wealth created by our incredible economic system. If we don't, we run the risk that one side or the other will decide that what they are getting for their contribution is simply unfair. If, when that happens, the other side has so much of the wealth that they can force the other side to participate at whatever "compromise" they dictate, the result will be the destruction of the system.
We will have, in our greed, destroyed the goose who laid all our golden eggs.
Let us hope we will not be so foolish.
I would be terribly disappointed to see it collapse or be destroyed.
However, we capitalists desperately need to remember that, like any other social system, and a lot more than most social systems, capitalism depends on many delicate balances to function properly. If any of those necessary balances gets skewed in one direction or another, the capitalist system loses efficiency in direct proportion. If any of them gets skewed too far, the capitalist system will cease to function at all.
One of those delicate balances is the sharing of the wealth created among those who helped to create it.
A few observations about wealth are necessary. All of these observations come, directly or indirectly, from Adam Smith's epic work, "The Wealth of Nations."
First, money is not wealth. Money represents a right to acquire wealth, and a right only to the extent that right is supported by the social structure. But, money itself is not wealth. Corn is wealth. Gold is wealth. Iron is wealth. Cars and houses and land and tables and bed linens and even ideas are all wealth, but money is not wealth.
Second, no matter what the wealth may be, no matter what form it takes, it requires two things to create new wealth: capital and labor. Certain kinds of wealth require more labor and less capital to create. Other kinds require more capital and less labor. But, all new wealth is created by a combination of labor applied to capital.
Third, any system can create only a finite amount of new wealth in a given interval of time. This is because the amount of existing capital and available labor in any system is finite, so they can only be combined, even at maximum efficiency, in a way that produces a finite amount of new wealth in a given interval of time.
Take, for example, iron ore. Iron ore is capital. When it is in place in the ground, it is a form of real property, with a certain value - a measure of the wealth it is. When it is removed from the ground, its value - the measure of the wealth it is - increases. But, it cannot be removed from the ground without the application of labor. By applying the labor of mining to the capital of iron ore in the ground, new wealth is created. New capital is not created. There is no more iron ore than there ever was, but the value - the wealth that ore is - increases.
Likewise when the iron ore is smelted and becomes iron. And then when the iron is combined with other elements and becomes steel. Then when the steel is fabricated into automobile parts. Then when those parts are assembled with other elements to become an automobile. Then when the automobile is transported to the dealership. At each of these steps, labor is applied to capital to create new value - new wealth. Remember, no new capital is created, only new wealth.
So, to gain the advantage of the incredibly efficient system for creating new wealth that we call capitalism, we must have both capital and labor. Without capital, labor is merely wasted time. Without labor, the value of capital remains static; no new wealth is created.
The question then becomes, how should we share the new wealth that is created by applying labor to capital? Specifically, how much of that new wealth should become the property of the person who owns the capital, and how much should become the property of the person who contributed the labor?
I have not used the word "should" by accident. The question is, how should we divide the new wealth created by this partnership of the person who supplies the capital and the person who supplies the labor. I submit that this question is a moral question, in addition to being an economic question.
Allow me to elaborate. The options for sharing the new wealth lie along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, the person who contributes the labor gets all the new wealth created and the person who contributes the capital gets none of it. We have a name for this end of the spectrum. It is called communism.
At the other end of the spectrum, the person who contributes the capital gets all the new wealth created and the person who contributes the labor gets none of it. We also have a name for this extreme of the spectrum: slavery.
There may be some who would disagree, but in general, people will recognize that it is immoral to take soemone's capital - his or her property - and give him or her nothing for it. Likewise, people generally understand that it is immoral to take someone's labor and give him or her nothing in exchange for it. So, people will recognize that both ends of the spectrum that illustrates how the new wealth can be shared are immoral.
It follows, therefore, that there is some area in the center of the spectrum - that area where the capital contributor and the labor contributor - both get some of the wealth they jointly create. Now, clearly, people will disagree about where that "moral" range is. Some will argue that it is somewhere closer to the laborer, and others will argue that it is somewhere closer to the capitalist. But, to argue that such a "moral" range for sharing the new wealth does not exist is to ignore the obvious fact that both extremes are immoral, therefore somewhere in the middle there has to be a compromise that is, at the very least, not immoral.
I am convinced that we need to have a clear-eyed discussion about what we think is a moral compromise for the sharing of new wealth created by our incredible economic system. If we don't, we run the risk that one side or the other will decide that what they are getting for their contribution is simply unfair. If, when that happens, the other side has so much of the wealth that they can force the other side to participate at whatever "compromise" they dictate, the result will be the destruction of the system.
We will have, in our greed, destroyed the goose who laid all our golden eggs.
Let us hope we will not be so foolish.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Who? I'm Sorry. Who?
In his book "Fed Up! Our Fight to Save American from Washington," Texas Governor Rick Perry says, "We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food, what windows we can buy for our house, what kind of cars we can drive, what kind of prayers we are allowed to say and where we can say them, what political speech we are allowed to use to elect candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what kind of food we can grow, what doctor we can see, and countless other restrictions on our right to live as we see fit."
The implication is that Washington, or someone in Washington, is telling "us" all these things.
Now, literally, the words don't mean that anyone is telling "us" any of these things. Literally, the words mean that "we," whoever "we" are, are "tired" of being told these things, even if it isn't the reality that we are being told these things. So, literally, Governor Perry escapes being a flat-out liar. On this point, anyway.
But, the implication is clear. Washington, or someone in Washington, is telling "us" all these things.
So, let's examine these things, one by one.
"We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food." Unless "we" are children who must obey our parents, then no one is telling or can tell any of "us" how much salt we can put on our food. We are free to put as much salt on our food as we want. Just take that ol' salt shaker and pour it on, Governor, 'cause nobody can stop you. Feel free to put so much salt on your food that you die of sodium overdose, 'cause you can if you want.
Now, it is true that there are lots of folks telling "us" how much salt is healthy to put on our food. Our doctors. Our health insurance providers. Our employers. Our mothers. Even the U.S. Surgeon General. There are even folks who are telling other people how much salt those other people can put on our food. As in, "It's illegal to put so much salt on someone else's food that they die of sodium overdose." But, frankly, I'm not tired of that. I'm actually okay with that. And, those folks and some others are telling other people that if they do put salt on our food then they at least have to tell us how much salt they put on our food. But, I'm okay with that, too. I don't think anybody else ought to be allowed to put salt on my food and not even tell me how much salt they put on my food.
So, since nobody can tell us or is telling us how much salt we can put on our food, and nobody is trying to do that, what exactly are "we" tired of.
"We are tired of being told what windows we can buy for our house." Who is doing this? No one that I know of. Now, I am aware that governments sometimes give tax breaks or other incentives to those who buy certain kinds of energy-saving windows. And builders are required to install certain kinds of windows in order to follow building and safety codes. But, someone is telling "us" what kind of windows "we" can buy for our house? As far as I know, we are free to buy any kind of windows we can find for sale. So, Governor, go to some demolition site where they're tearing down some old house and buy all those old windows you want. No one will stop you. Even put 'em in your house. As long as you can afford the energy bill from those old windows, have at it. No one can stop you from buying whatever windows you want for your own house. Or even having no windows at all.
"We are tried of being told what kind of cars we can drive." I'm not clear who's doing this, either. In fact, I see old cars and cars of every make and model on the roads almost every day. Go get whatever kind of car you want, and drive it to your heart's content. No one is stopping you. Now, if what you mean is that you are not allowed to let your car get in such terrible repair that it pollutes my air and you still get to drive it around making me sick, well, yeah. People are telling you you can't do that. States, mostly, but some local governments. Maybe even the federal government. You know. Washington. But, I'm not tired of that. I'm really okay with the notion that my elected representatives care enough about my health that they won't let you ruin it by polluting my air. But, what kind of car you can drive? Nope. Nobody's telling you, or "us," that.
"We are tired of being told what kind of prayers we are allowed to say." You gotta be kidding, Governor. Are you really claiming that Washington cares what kind of prayers you say? Last time I checked, I was allowed to say any kind of prayer I felt like saying. No government, Washington or any other, was allowed to say, or was trying to say, I couldn't. That's kind of what that whole separation of church and state thing that at least one tea party candidate couldn't find in the Constitution is all about. No law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Remember? Ah, well, maybe you forgot.
"We are tired of being told where we can say [prayers]." Well, I guess you got me there. It's true. Because of that separation of church and state thing, because the government really can't tell you what kind of prayers you can say, the government doesn't get to force you to go somewhere - like a school for a school child or a courtroom for someone participating in the justice system - and make you listen to prayers selected by the government. Nope, not the ones the government thinks we ought to hear, and not any others. So, yeah, "we" are told that if "we" are part of the government, "we" don't get to say "our" prayers in places that force "our" fellow citizens to listen to them in order to participate in "their" government. Even if it didn't violate that church and state thing, it seems like it might violate the "t'ain't fair" rule, at least. So, yeah, Governor, I admit, you are told where you can say your prayers. No place that interferes with other folks right to listen to whatever prayers they want to listen to and not have to listen to yours if they don't want to.
"We are tired of being told what political speech we can use to elect candidates." Huh? Maybe there's some kind of political speech that doesn't work in electing candidates, but, leately it seems like pretty much anything goes. You should know.
"We are tired of being told what kind of energy we can use." Um ... huh? Again, huh? I admit, I am practically restricted in what kind of energy I use, because I can get electrical power only from the City of Austin, and I don't control how they generate their electrical power. But, last time I checked, they were required by law to let me hook up a solar panel or a wind generator to the grid at my house, and even buy any excess energy that might produce and pay me for it. I can't set a fire that burns down my neighbor's house or pollutes their air, but I can burn wood in my fireplace and candles on my table, if I want. Or, I can do without energy if I want - turn off my lights and my air conditioner and just tough it out in the heat and dark. Who is telling me what energy I can use? Certainly not Washington.
"We are tired of being told what kind of food we can grow." What? I don't have a garden, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could grow anything in it I wanted to, if I could get it to grow in Texas, except marijuana. I mean, I know some folks put that stuff in brownies, but generally it isn't thought of as food. I don't think. So, who, exactly, is telling me what kind of food I can grow? Certainly no one from Washington, that I know of. Governor, you weren't talking about legalizing home-grown marijuana, were you?
"We are tired of being told what doctor we can see." As far as I know, I can see any doctor I can afford. My insurance company has pretty tight control of what doctors I can afford, but if I were rich, like you, I'm pretty sure I could see any doctor I wanted to see. Certainly, Washington wouldn't stop me. In fact, last time I checked, Washington was trying to expand my options for which doctors I could afford, and you opposed that idea. But, regardless, they sure aren't telling me or anyone else I can't see any doctor I want to see. Where did you get this crazy idea?
Now, the government does say who gets to be a doctor. As in, you have to pass the medical exams to get to be a doctor. But, it's the states that do that, not Washington. And, like some of your other complaints, if that's what's bugging you, I have to say I'm really okay with that. I kind of like the idea that when I go to someone claiming to be a doctor, I've got some reason to assume he or she really knows something about medicine.
But, someone in Washington is telling me which one I can see? Nope. Never happened to me.
So, all in all, the obvious implication of the Governor's little diatribe - the implication that someone is controlling or is trying to control any of these things - is ... well ... ludicrous. (Well, except for that little thing about the government not being able to tell us what prayers we have to listen to in order to participate in our government.)
But, we go on and on telling ourselves and each other these patent falsehoods. They feed what we "feel" is true, and we begin to believe them because they "feel" true. But, they aren't. But, because we believe them to be true, without any basis for that belief, it becomes impossible for us to talk to each other and figure out what really is true. We're all tied up with what we just "feel" must be true.
It's a shame that people are willing to do that to us, but there have always been hucksters and snake oil salesman, people willing to make a buck off other people's credulity. The bigger shame is that we keep letting them do it to us.
When are we going to learn?
The implication is that Washington, or someone in Washington, is telling "us" all these things.
Now, literally, the words don't mean that anyone is telling "us" any of these things. Literally, the words mean that "we," whoever "we" are, are "tired" of being told these things, even if it isn't the reality that we are being told these things. So, literally, Governor Perry escapes being a flat-out liar. On this point, anyway.
But, the implication is clear. Washington, or someone in Washington, is telling "us" all these things.
So, let's examine these things, one by one.
"We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food." Unless "we" are children who must obey our parents, then no one is telling or can tell any of "us" how much salt we can put on our food. We are free to put as much salt on our food as we want. Just take that ol' salt shaker and pour it on, Governor, 'cause nobody can stop you. Feel free to put so much salt on your food that you die of sodium overdose, 'cause you can if you want.
Now, it is true that there are lots of folks telling "us" how much salt is healthy to put on our food. Our doctors. Our health insurance providers. Our employers. Our mothers. Even the U.S. Surgeon General. There are even folks who are telling other people how much salt those other people can put on our food. As in, "It's illegal to put so much salt on someone else's food that they die of sodium overdose." But, frankly, I'm not tired of that. I'm actually okay with that. And, those folks and some others are telling other people that if they do put salt on our food then they at least have to tell us how much salt they put on our food. But, I'm okay with that, too. I don't think anybody else ought to be allowed to put salt on my food and not even tell me how much salt they put on my food.
So, since nobody can tell us or is telling us how much salt we can put on our food, and nobody is trying to do that, what exactly are "we" tired of.
"We are tired of being told what windows we can buy for our house." Who is doing this? No one that I know of. Now, I am aware that governments sometimes give tax breaks or other incentives to those who buy certain kinds of energy-saving windows. And builders are required to install certain kinds of windows in order to follow building and safety codes. But, someone is telling "us" what kind of windows "we" can buy for our house? As far as I know, we are free to buy any kind of windows we can find for sale. So, Governor, go to some demolition site where they're tearing down some old house and buy all those old windows you want. No one will stop you. Even put 'em in your house. As long as you can afford the energy bill from those old windows, have at it. No one can stop you from buying whatever windows you want for your own house. Or even having no windows at all.
"We are tried of being told what kind of cars we can drive." I'm not clear who's doing this, either. In fact, I see old cars and cars of every make and model on the roads almost every day. Go get whatever kind of car you want, and drive it to your heart's content. No one is stopping you. Now, if what you mean is that you are not allowed to let your car get in such terrible repair that it pollutes my air and you still get to drive it around making me sick, well, yeah. People are telling you you can't do that. States, mostly, but some local governments. Maybe even the federal government. You know. Washington. But, I'm not tired of that. I'm really okay with the notion that my elected representatives care enough about my health that they won't let you ruin it by polluting my air. But, what kind of car you can drive? Nope. Nobody's telling you, or "us," that.
"We are tired of being told what kind of prayers we are allowed to say." You gotta be kidding, Governor. Are you really claiming that Washington cares what kind of prayers you say? Last time I checked, I was allowed to say any kind of prayer I felt like saying. No government, Washington or any other, was allowed to say, or was trying to say, I couldn't. That's kind of what that whole separation of church and state thing that at least one tea party candidate couldn't find in the Constitution is all about. No law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Remember? Ah, well, maybe you forgot.
"We are tired of being told where we can say [prayers]." Well, I guess you got me there. It's true. Because of that separation of church and state thing, because the government really can't tell you what kind of prayers you can say, the government doesn't get to force you to go somewhere - like a school for a school child or a courtroom for someone participating in the justice system - and make you listen to prayers selected by the government. Nope, not the ones the government thinks we ought to hear, and not any others. So, yeah, "we" are told that if "we" are part of the government, "we" don't get to say "our" prayers in places that force "our" fellow citizens to listen to them in order to participate in "their" government. Even if it didn't violate that church and state thing, it seems like it might violate the "t'ain't fair" rule, at least. So, yeah, Governor, I admit, you are told where you can say your prayers. No place that interferes with other folks right to listen to whatever prayers they want to listen to and not have to listen to yours if they don't want to.
"We are tired of being told what political speech we can use to elect candidates." Huh? Maybe there's some kind of political speech that doesn't work in electing candidates, but, leately it seems like pretty much anything goes. You should know.
"We are tired of being told what kind of energy we can use." Um ... huh? Again, huh? I admit, I am practically restricted in what kind of energy I use, because I can get electrical power only from the City of Austin, and I don't control how they generate their electrical power. But, last time I checked, they were required by law to let me hook up a solar panel or a wind generator to the grid at my house, and even buy any excess energy that might produce and pay me for it. I can't set a fire that burns down my neighbor's house or pollutes their air, but I can burn wood in my fireplace and candles on my table, if I want. Or, I can do without energy if I want - turn off my lights and my air conditioner and just tough it out in the heat and dark. Who is telling me what energy I can use? Certainly not Washington.
"We are tired of being told what kind of food we can grow." What? I don't have a garden, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could grow anything in it I wanted to, if I could get it to grow in Texas, except marijuana. I mean, I know some folks put that stuff in brownies, but generally it isn't thought of as food. I don't think. So, who, exactly, is telling me what kind of food I can grow? Certainly no one from Washington, that I know of. Governor, you weren't talking about legalizing home-grown marijuana, were you?
"We are tired of being told what doctor we can see." As far as I know, I can see any doctor I can afford. My insurance company has pretty tight control of what doctors I can afford, but if I were rich, like you, I'm pretty sure I could see any doctor I wanted to see. Certainly, Washington wouldn't stop me. In fact, last time I checked, Washington was trying to expand my options for which doctors I could afford, and you opposed that idea. But, regardless, they sure aren't telling me or anyone else I can't see any doctor I want to see. Where did you get this crazy idea?
Now, the government does say who gets to be a doctor. As in, you have to pass the medical exams to get to be a doctor. But, it's the states that do that, not Washington. And, like some of your other complaints, if that's what's bugging you, I have to say I'm really okay with that. I kind of like the idea that when I go to someone claiming to be a doctor, I've got some reason to assume he or she really knows something about medicine.
But, someone in Washington is telling me which one I can see? Nope. Never happened to me.
So, all in all, the obvious implication of the Governor's little diatribe - the implication that someone is controlling or is trying to control any of these things - is ... well ... ludicrous. (Well, except for that little thing about the government not being able to tell us what prayers we have to listen to in order to participate in our government.)
But, we go on and on telling ourselves and each other these patent falsehoods. They feed what we "feel" is true, and we begin to believe them because they "feel" true. But, they aren't. But, because we believe them to be true, without any basis for that belief, it becomes impossible for us to talk to each other and figure out what really is true. We're all tied up with what we just "feel" must be true.
It's a shame that people are willing to do that to us, but there have always been hucksters and snake oil salesman, people willing to make a buck off other people's credulity. The bigger shame is that we keep letting them do it to us.
When are we going to learn?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Part-Time Senator
This morning I saw Rand Paul, Republican United States Senator-elect from Kentucky, being interviewed on television. He was asked what he planned to do with his medical practice, now that he was about to be a U.S. Senator.
He responded by urging his patients not to go to another doctor, because he was already setting appointments for Mondays and Fridays, when he expected to be back home in Kentucky.
So, that leaves Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to be in Washington.
Rand Paul, along with other tea party candidates, ran for office promising to "change Washington." He, in particular, promised to "take our government back."
Part-time, Dr. Paul? In three days a week, Doctor? You're going to change Washington and take back our government working part time as a U.S. Senator, three days a week?
My clients are Texas county elected officials. I don't know any of them who work part time. The county commissioners do not work part time. In fact, they work way more than 40 hours a week. And for less than the salary of a U.S. Senator. Way less.
Maybe you can change Washington and take back our government only working three days a week, but I'm willing to bet it takes a little more time than that to be a good United States Senator.
But, there may be some who might argue that it's a good thing that Dr. Paul will only be in Washington three days a week instead of full time.
We'll see, I guess.
He responded by urging his patients not to go to another doctor, because he was already setting appointments for Mondays and Fridays, when he expected to be back home in Kentucky.
So, that leaves Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to be in Washington.
Rand Paul, along with other tea party candidates, ran for office promising to "change Washington." He, in particular, promised to "take our government back."
Part-time, Dr. Paul? In three days a week, Doctor? You're going to change Washington and take back our government working part time as a U.S. Senator, three days a week?
My clients are Texas county elected officials. I don't know any of them who work part time. The county commissioners do not work part time. In fact, they work way more than 40 hours a week. And for less than the salary of a U.S. Senator. Way less.
Maybe you can change Washington and take back our government only working three days a week, but I'm willing to bet it takes a little more time than that to be a good United States Senator.
But, there may be some who might argue that it's a good thing that Dr. Paul will only be in Washington three days a week instead of full time.
We'll see, I guess.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Truth Alert
There is an opinion piece in today's Austin American-Statesman entitled "In search of civility," by Jeanne Claire van Ryzin. It is about a speaking tour by Jim Leach, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
It is difficult to tell which parts of the article are Ms. van Ryzin's words, which are quotations from Mr. Leach, and which are paraphrases of Mr. Leach, but in the article are these words: "[W]e had greater tension in the pre-Civil War era and we had greater tension soon after the founding of the republic. After all, Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with the vice president of the United States. I sometimes describe that as 'a legal act of incivility,' because duels were legal then and fortunately they're not now." [Emphasis added.] I think that is a quotation from Mr. Leach.
In any event, these things are so simple. With the availability of the internet, you don't even have to go to the library to check them, even if you don't remember your basic American history. Why does the American-Statesman continue to publish these obvious falsehoods?
Duels were not legal when Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr fought theirs. In fact, even though they both lived in New York, they rowed across the Hudson River to a dueling grounds in Weehauken, New Jersey, to fight their duel because the law against dueling was being more aggressively enforced in New York at the time, and they were afraid the duel would be stopped by the authorities if held in New York. Mr. Hamilton died the following day of a wound he received at the hand of Mr. Burr, and Mr. Burr was charged with two counts of murder.
It is difficult to tell which parts of the article are Ms. van Ryzin's words, which are quotations from Mr. Leach, and which are paraphrases of Mr. Leach, but in the article are these words: "[W]e had greater tension in the pre-Civil War era and we had greater tension soon after the founding of the republic. After all, Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with the vice president of the United States. I sometimes describe that as 'a legal act of incivility,' because duels were legal then and fortunately they're not now." [Emphasis added.] I think that is a quotation from Mr. Leach.
In any event, these things are so simple. With the availability of the internet, you don't even have to go to the library to check them, even if you don't remember your basic American history. Why does the American-Statesman continue to publish these obvious falsehoods?
Duels were not legal when Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr fought theirs. In fact, even though they both lived in New York, they rowed across the Hudson River to a dueling grounds in Weehauken, New Jersey, to fight their duel because the law against dueling was being more aggressively enforced in New York at the time, and they were afraid the duel would be stopped by the authorities if held in New York. Mr. Hamilton died the following day of a wound he received at the hand of Mr. Burr, and Mr. Burr was charged with two counts of murder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)