And so I hear that this morning the state security forces moved to clear peaceful protesters from the public square in the capital of Wisconsin.
Oh! I'm sorry. I'm getting my stories slightly confused.
And so I hear that this morning the state security forces moved to clear peaceful protesters from the public areas of the capitol building in the capital of Wisconsin.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Revolution
A member of the United States Congress is shot through the head by an armed citizen of the United States.
A federal judge, shot dead. A U.S. Congressional aid. Dead. Mothers, grandmothers, daughters, wives, husbands, fathers. Dead. A nine-year-old girl lying dead in a pool of her own blood. Our fellow human beings' bodies strewn about like so many bloody, ripped-up rag dolls. Many others wounded, bleeding, bodies torn apart by bullets. Our neighbors.
Second Amendment remedies indeed.
Perhaps this was the work of a mad man. Whether it was or not, if you are one of those who have been toying with, talking about, or even thinking about revolting against or seceding from the United States, this mad man has painted a picture for you, a picture which you should burn into your brain and keep there.
This is what your revolution looks like.
Before you decide to start your revolution, think about this picture and decide very carefully if your revolution is really worth it. Because, once you start, you can't turn back.
And, when you revolt, if you do, against my country, against my government, against my flag, against the nation I love, I will participate. I will fight. But, it won't be on your side. I will fight you in defense of my country. So, don't imagine that those dead and wounded men, women, and children will only be the bodies of your imagined enemies. Among them will be your women and children. Your friends. Your loved ones.
Second Amendment remedies? Really? Are you serious? Have you really thought about what you're saying?
I hope so.
A federal judge, shot dead. A U.S. Congressional aid. Dead. Mothers, grandmothers, daughters, wives, husbands, fathers. Dead. A nine-year-old girl lying dead in a pool of her own blood. Our fellow human beings' bodies strewn about like so many bloody, ripped-up rag dolls. Many others wounded, bleeding, bodies torn apart by bullets. Our neighbors.
Second Amendment remedies indeed.
Perhaps this was the work of a mad man. Whether it was or not, if you are one of those who have been toying with, talking about, or even thinking about revolting against or seceding from the United States, this mad man has painted a picture for you, a picture which you should burn into your brain and keep there.
This is what your revolution looks like.
Before you decide to start your revolution, think about this picture and decide very carefully if your revolution is really worth it. Because, once you start, you can't turn back.
And, when you revolt, if you do, against my country, against my government, against my flag, against the nation I love, I will participate. I will fight. But, it won't be on your side. I will fight you in defense of my country. So, don't imagine that those dead and wounded men, women, and children will only be the bodies of your imagined enemies. Among them will be your women and children. Your friends. Your loved ones.
Second Amendment remedies? Really? Are you serious? Have you really thought about what you're saying?
I hope so.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Compassion?
Republicans in the United States Congress claim that they want to reduce the federal deficit.
They applaud President Barrack Obama's proposal to freeze the wages of federal employees for two years. This would save about six billion dollars over the two years. "Long overdue," is the way some of them describe the proposal.
This proposal, if it were to be adopted by the Congress, would freeze the wages of every federal employee, even those making the lowest wages - clerks and secretaries and maintenance people.
At the same time, the Republicans in Congress are determined to give a tax cut to everyone making $250,000 a year or more. I can't be sure, but I'm willing to bet few, if any, federal employees make $250,000 a year from their federal salaries. Frankly, few employees of anyone make that much.
This proposal, if it were to be adopted by the Congress, would increase the federal deficit by about 700 billion dollars over ten years.
So, Republicans, who claim to be concerned about the federal deficit, are willing to hurt the lowest paid federal employees to save six billion, but they're willing to add 700 billion to the deficit to help the richest Americans.
Go figure.
They applaud President Barrack Obama's proposal to freeze the wages of federal employees for two years. This would save about six billion dollars over the two years. "Long overdue," is the way some of them describe the proposal.
This proposal, if it were to be adopted by the Congress, would freeze the wages of every federal employee, even those making the lowest wages - clerks and secretaries and maintenance people.
At the same time, the Republicans in Congress are determined to give a tax cut to everyone making $250,000 a year or more. I can't be sure, but I'm willing to bet few, if any, federal employees make $250,000 a year from their federal salaries. Frankly, few employees of anyone make that much.
This proposal, if it were to be adopted by the Congress, would increase the federal deficit by about 700 billion dollars over ten years.
So, Republicans, who claim to be concerned about the federal deficit, are willing to hurt the lowest paid federal employees to save six billion, but they're willing to add 700 billion to the deficit to help the richest Americans.
Go figure.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
It's My Property!
"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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)