Thursday, October 7, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
ELECTION OF SENATORS
ON ELECTION OF SENATORS BY STATE LEGISLATORS
© Chippy's Dad
I heard a political negative attack ad the other day. A particular candidate was being accused of supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal the 17th amendment, otherwise known as the direct election of senators. Wow, I have long supported returning to the original constitutional provision that senators would be elected by the legislatures of the several states. I never thought that this idea would make it into serious public discussion.
The direct election of senators in which senators are elected by the people is supposed to be more democratic and give the people more power over the government. In fact, it does the exact opposite.
The various segments of the government are each jealous of their own power. In particular, the state legislatures are jealous of their power. The concept of federalism is intended to account for this jealousy. As long as the United States Senate is made up of people who are beholden to the states, the central government will not be able to easily usurp power from the states. That is to say that more power would reside at the state level.
With the direct election of senators, the state governments no longer held any control over the central government. The main purpose of having a bi-cameral congress disappeared.
The practical effect was a massive increase in the power of the central government in Washington at the expense of the state governments and ordinary people. That means that anyone wishing to influence the government must go to Washington instead of the state capital. Now which is easier for an ordinary person from, say, Meeker, Colorado wishing to petition the government: go to Denver, or go to Washington?
As opposed to the propaganda of self-styled elites, the direct election of senators is actually intended to, and does, increase the power of the moneyed special interests. Only those with great financial resources can have a significant effect on government policies. When the congressional senators were elected by the states, much more policy was developed at the state level; and ordinary citizens on Main Street, as opposed to Wall Street, had more influence. Once direct election of senators was instituted in 1913, power was transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. That is when America started down the long road towards the current financial crisis. How many unfunded mandates would there be if the senators were elected by the state governments?
Clearly those who would oppose the return to the original senatorial elections by state legislatures are those who support increased power for powerful Wall Street special interests and decreased power for ordinary people on Main Street. Let us return power to Main Street by repealing the 17th amendment.
Incidentally, added benefits to senatorial election by state legislatures would be fewer political advertisements and pesky automated dinnertime political phone calls. It would also be helpful if state senators were elected by county governments. Act locally.
© Chippy's Dad
I heard a political negative attack ad the other day. A particular candidate was being accused of supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal the 17th amendment, otherwise known as the direct election of senators. Wow, I have long supported returning to the original constitutional provision that senators would be elected by the legislatures of the several states. I never thought that this idea would make it into serious public discussion.
The direct election of senators in which senators are elected by the people is supposed to be more democratic and give the people more power over the government. In fact, it does the exact opposite.
The various segments of the government are each jealous of their own power. In particular, the state legislatures are jealous of their power. The concept of federalism is intended to account for this jealousy. As long as the United States Senate is made up of people who are beholden to the states, the central government will not be able to easily usurp power from the states. That is to say that more power would reside at the state level.
With the direct election of senators, the state governments no longer held any control over the central government. The main purpose of having a bi-cameral congress disappeared.
The practical effect was a massive increase in the power of the central government in Washington at the expense of the state governments and ordinary people. That means that anyone wishing to influence the government must go to Washington instead of the state capital. Now which is easier for an ordinary person from, say, Meeker, Colorado wishing to petition the government: go to Denver, or go to Washington?
As opposed to the propaganda of self-styled elites, the direct election of senators is actually intended to, and does, increase the power of the moneyed special interests. Only those with great financial resources can have a significant effect on government policies. When the congressional senators were elected by the states, much more policy was developed at the state level; and ordinary citizens on Main Street, as opposed to Wall Street, had more influence. Once direct election of senators was instituted in 1913, power was transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. That is when America started down the long road towards the current financial crisis. How many unfunded mandates would there be if the senators were elected by the state governments?
Clearly those who would oppose the return to the original senatorial elections by state legislatures are those who support increased power for powerful Wall Street special interests and decreased power for ordinary people on Main Street. Let us return power to Main Street by repealing the 17th amendment.
Incidentally, added benefits to senatorial election by state legislatures would be fewer political advertisements and pesky automated dinnertime political phone calls. It would also be helpful if state senators were elected by county governments. Act locally.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
ON WHETHER CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT IS JUSTIFIED
ON WHETHER CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT IS JUSTIFIED
© Chippy's Dad
Crime and punishment, the subject has been much discussed throughout the ages. Some time ago, I had a conversation with the head of the Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministries, New Mexico (now there is a bit of newspeak). She was leading a discussion on capital punishment. The group of attendees numbered off with one side arguing in favor of capital punishment and one arguing against. It happened that I was in the latter group, against.
The discussion started with the standard arguments that have been repeated often. It seemed to me that no one on either side was really engaged with their own arguments let alone the arguments of the other side. I was no different in this respect than any of the other participants. At one point I changed direction by picking up an argument made by the pro-side and affirming its truth. However, I pointed out; there must always be a doubt about the facts of a crime. Once capital punishment has been consummated, no further relationship is possible. Understanding of the accused is terminated even if an error was made. The argument carried the day. Interestingly, the head of the Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministries invited me to join the office. Naturally, I declined and pointed out that I disapproved of most of what the church advocated in the political arena as immoral. She was shocked to say the least.
My argument was clever, but there remained the question about what justifies any kind of punishment let alone capital punishment. We all do wrong. Each of us regrets errors and hurts we have inflicted on other people. When these transgressions cause damage to another person, they are a crime. Amends are warranted.
How can anyone inflict a punishment when he himself commits criminal errors? The concept is similar to the statement by Jesus: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Since everyone is with sin, no one casts the first stone. In this way, punishment is never justifiable. The presumption must always be that the supposed offender is no guiltier than I.
Putting the onus of punishment in the hands of the state does not solve the problem. If I do not have the right to punish, then I do not have the power to delegate that right. I cannot delegate a power I do not have. Neither does anyone else have the power to punish: for the same reason. Furthermore, my neighbor and I together do not have the power or right to punish. My neighbor and I are two people who have committed many hurts on other people. There is no number of people, who as a group does not have the right to punish a person, where the addition of one more person confers that right on the larger group. The added person also has committed hurts just like all other people. Punishment, by the state, can never be justified.
Does that mean that punishment is impossible? Should people just allow hurts to occur with no consequences for the perpetrator? Not necessarily. Justifications proffered for punishment include revenge (fairness), retribution, education, and incapacitation of the offender.
From the above discussion that we have all committed hurts, revenge cannot be justifiable. No matter how much the victim has been hurt; she has also hurt others and is not in a place where she can cast the first stone. As discussed above, retribution cannot be justified either because the state consists of ordinary people who have also committed hurts and who are also not in a position to cast the first stone.
Education of the offender is problematical. How can one offender, as all people are, presume to teach another offender how to live? Only an arrogant person believes he can educate an offender. No one has walked in the shoes of the offender. As an example, consider a person who has come on hard luck and out of sheer desperation steals groceries to alleviate the starvation of his children. Who can say for certain that one, who would punish this crime, would not have done the same thing if faced with the same situation? Does that justify the crime? Not at all! It does mean that one must possess great hubris to undertake the education of an offender. This author has a hard enough time understanding how to live his own life to presume he can tell another offender how to live.
Incapacitation is the only remaining justification. Again, the question becomes how can one person who hurts another presume to incapacitate another? Herein, incapacitation refers to taking away the ability of the offender to hurt people. For example, putting a person in jail limits her range of actions so that she cannot hurt again as long as she remains in jail. The idea is not even punishment per-se. The punishment is a side effect of the effort to prevent the crime.
The victim can say:
"Because I am not perfect myself, I have a limit as to how much hurt I can tolerate. If you are going to hurt me this way, I simply cannot live with you. I need to make sure you cannot continue to hurt either myself or others."
A huge problem with this line of reasoning is that the victim may not have actually suffered a hurt from the accused offender. Maybe the hurt is a result of bad luck and the victim is reacting from an emotional inability to deal with the hurt and wants to "get even" with someone.
The trial by jury serves the function of preventing unjust punishment. Not only must the victim believe that she cannot live with the offender, everyone else must also believe it. The number 12 for a jury is arbitrary, but whereas the agreement of the entire population is impractical, the number 12 is used to represent the entire population. If 12 people agree that a certain act is intolerable, then on average over time if more than 4% of the population can live with the activity, then on average the accused will be released. (One person on the jury is 8.33% of the jury. If half of the time the 12th juror would vote "not guilty" because he believes he can live with the offender, then on average no more than 4.17% of the population can agree with the 12th juror who votes "not guilty".) This overwhelming majority is deemed to represent the entire population.
The justification for "punishment" is that it is not justified but that because people are imperfect with limited capacity for tolerance, then incapacitating the offender may be necessary anyway. This incapacitation can only be necessary where an actual victim exists; where no less than 96% of the population agrees that the offence was a crime; where the principle object of the incapacitation is to limit the activities of the offender to the restoration of the victim to wholeness; and where revenge, retribution, and education are not of primary concern. Finally, incapacitation can only be undertaken with the extremely humble realization that "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
© Chippy's Dad
Crime and punishment, the subject has been much discussed throughout the ages. Some time ago, I had a conversation with the head of the Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministries, New Mexico (now there is a bit of newspeak). She was leading a discussion on capital punishment. The group of attendees numbered off with one side arguing in favor of capital punishment and one arguing against. It happened that I was in the latter group, against.
The discussion started with the standard arguments that have been repeated often. It seemed to me that no one on either side was really engaged with their own arguments let alone the arguments of the other side. I was no different in this respect than any of the other participants. At one point I changed direction by picking up an argument made by the pro-side and affirming its truth. However, I pointed out; there must always be a doubt about the facts of a crime. Once capital punishment has been consummated, no further relationship is possible. Understanding of the accused is terminated even if an error was made. The argument carried the day. Interestingly, the head of the Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministries invited me to join the office. Naturally, I declined and pointed out that I disapproved of most of what the church advocated in the political arena as immoral. She was shocked to say the least.
My argument was clever, but there remained the question about what justifies any kind of punishment let alone capital punishment. We all do wrong. Each of us regrets errors and hurts we have inflicted on other people. When these transgressions cause damage to another person, they are a crime. Amends are warranted.
How can anyone inflict a punishment when he himself commits criminal errors? The concept is similar to the statement by Jesus: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Since everyone is with sin, no one casts the first stone. In this way, punishment is never justifiable. The presumption must always be that the supposed offender is no guiltier than I.
Putting the onus of punishment in the hands of the state does not solve the problem. If I do not have the right to punish, then I do not have the power to delegate that right. I cannot delegate a power I do not have. Neither does anyone else have the power to punish: for the same reason. Furthermore, my neighbor and I together do not have the power or right to punish. My neighbor and I are two people who have committed many hurts on other people. There is no number of people, who as a group does not have the right to punish a person, where the addition of one more person confers that right on the larger group. The added person also has committed hurts just like all other people. Punishment, by the state, can never be justified.
Does that mean that punishment is impossible? Should people just allow hurts to occur with no consequences for the perpetrator? Not necessarily. Justifications proffered for punishment include revenge (fairness), retribution, education, and incapacitation of the offender.
From the above discussion that we have all committed hurts, revenge cannot be justifiable. No matter how much the victim has been hurt; she has also hurt others and is not in a place where she can cast the first stone. As discussed above, retribution cannot be justified either because the state consists of ordinary people who have also committed hurts and who are also not in a position to cast the first stone.
Education of the offender is problematical. How can one offender, as all people are, presume to teach another offender how to live? Only an arrogant person believes he can educate an offender. No one has walked in the shoes of the offender. As an example, consider a person who has come on hard luck and out of sheer desperation steals groceries to alleviate the starvation of his children. Who can say for certain that one, who would punish this crime, would not have done the same thing if faced with the same situation? Does that justify the crime? Not at all! It does mean that one must possess great hubris to undertake the education of an offender. This author has a hard enough time understanding how to live his own life to presume he can tell another offender how to live.
Incapacitation is the only remaining justification. Again, the question becomes how can one person who hurts another presume to incapacitate another? Herein, incapacitation refers to taking away the ability of the offender to hurt people. For example, putting a person in jail limits her range of actions so that she cannot hurt again as long as she remains in jail. The idea is not even punishment per-se. The punishment is a side effect of the effort to prevent the crime.
The victim can say:
"Because I am not perfect myself, I have a limit as to how much hurt I can tolerate. If you are going to hurt me this way, I simply cannot live with you. I need to make sure you cannot continue to hurt either myself or others."
A huge problem with this line of reasoning is that the victim may not have actually suffered a hurt from the accused offender. Maybe the hurt is a result of bad luck and the victim is reacting from an emotional inability to deal with the hurt and wants to "get even" with someone.
The trial by jury serves the function of preventing unjust punishment. Not only must the victim believe that she cannot live with the offender, everyone else must also believe it. The number 12 for a jury is arbitrary, but whereas the agreement of the entire population is impractical, the number 12 is used to represent the entire population. If 12 people agree that a certain act is intolerable, then on average over time if more than 4% of the population can live with the activity, then on average the accused will be released. (One person on the jury is 8.33% of the jury. If half of the time the 12th juror would vote "not guilty" because he believes he can live with the offender, then on average no more than 4.17% of the population can agree with the 12th juror who votes "not guilty".) This overwhelming majority is deemed to represent the entire population.
The justification for "punishment" is that it is not justified but that because people are imperfect with limited capacity for tolerance, then incapacitating the offender may be necessary anyway. This incapacitation can only be necessary where an actual victim exists; where no less than 96% of the population agrees that the offence was a crime; where the principle object of the incapacitation is to limit the activities of the offender to the restoration of the victim to wholeness; and where revenge, retribution, and education are not of primary concern. Finally, incapacitation can only be undertaken with the extremely humble realization that "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
ON FREE COMPULSORY EDUCATION
FREE COMPULSORY EDUCATION
© Chippy's Dad
I will start this post with several assertions with which I believe most people will agree. Education is a good that enables persons to live more successfully. We are all better off if everyone is well educated. Education is expensive. Education takes time. A person's education is never complete; there is always more to learn.
Assuming the foregoing assertions to be true, is compulsion acceptable to extend education to a maximum number of people? For reasons discussed below, compulsion is not okay. Is the use of tax dollars to provide an education at no cost or reduced cost to the student acceptable? No-cost or subsidized education is neither acceptable nor beneficial.
NO-COST EDUCATION
Imagine a caller uses the phone to initiate an offer for a free service, say a free home pest inspection. Such an inspection requires entry into the home by an unknown person. Unless a person is both concerned about pests and has reason to believe the caller represents a legitimate business, she would be likely to turn down the offer. The reason for turning down the offer involves consideration of the alternative outcomes from accepting the offer which outcomes could include:
• Pests are found and a reasonable offer is made to eliminate the pests.
• Pests are found and an unreasonably expensive offer for pest control is made.
• Pests are reported to exist when in fact they do not, and an offer is made to eliminate them.
• The inspector cases the house and returns to burglarize the house.
Considering the alternatives, the offer is rejected because the offer of a free service makes the service appear to have no real value and may indeed be of negative value.
A child very quickly learns that free services usually result in a waste of time. A free internet web site requires spending time listening to advertisements. Purchasing an item so advertised often results in receiving an item that is a waste of money. The example actually appears to have the same form as no-cost education: a "teacher" is informing, i.e. lecturing, the student of certain "facts" for free.
When education is offered for free, the offer suggests that education has no value. The people offering the education may have an agenda that is in the best interest of the people making the offer, not the student. An offer of education for free reduces the investment required of the student. Based on experience, the student rightly thinks that you get what you pay for. The student is likely to make the jump to the idea that pursuing any education is a waste of time.
COMPULSION
Imagine a child wants to go outside and play. His father forces him to wash the car first. A child quickly learns that whatever is forced upon him is undesirable. No force is required to make him play outside. Force is required to make him wash the car. From this lesson when compulsion is used to force a student to learn, the student is likely to make the jump to the idea that pursuing an education should be resisted.
THE TWO LAWS
A free tax-supported compulsory education violates the first of the two laws. HONOR THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF OTHER PEOPLE. The law is violated because the requirement under pain of sanction to attend a school aggresses against the student by denying her right to freedom. It aggresses against the tax payer by forcefully taking property to support an educational establishment. The aggression is even more damaging if the taxpayer opposes the particular educational environment and doctrines subsidized by the tax.
ACHIEVING AN EDUCATION
The essential ingredient for a person to achieve an education is personal desire and commitment. No-cost compulsory education works on two levels to reduce the educational level of people by reducing both the desire and the commitment of the student. In any case, violation of the person through the use of force is never acceptable, even for a most noble cause. In order to improve the educational standards of a society, all education must be free of all compulsion and must reflect to the student the true cost. Only education achieved in spite of great obstacles will instill education with the meaning to the student that leads to greatness.
© Chippy's Dad
I will start this post with several assertions with which I believe most people will agree. Education is a good that enables persons to live more successfully. We are all better off if everyone is well educated. Education is expensive. Education takes time. A person's education is never complete; there is always more to learn.
Assuming the foregoing assertions to be true, is compulsion acceptable to extend education to a maximum number of people? For reasons discussed below, compulsion is not okay. Is the use of tax dollars to provide an education at no cost or reduced cost to the student acceptable? No-cost or subsidized education is neither acceptable nor beneficial.
NO-COST EDUCATION
Imagine a caller uses the phone to initiate an offer for a free service, say a free home pest inspection. Such an inspection requires entry into the home by an unknown person. Unless a person is both concerned about pests and has reason to believe the caller represents a legitimate business, she would be likely to turn down the offer. The reason for turning down the offer involves consideration of the alternative outcomes from accepting the offer which outcomes could include:
• Pests are found and a reasonable offer is made to eliminate the pests.
• Pests are found and an unreasonably expensive offer for pest control is made.
• Pests are reported to exist when in fact they do not, and an offer is made to eliminate them.
• The inspector cases the house and returns to burglarize the house.
Considering the alternatives, the offer is rejected because the offer of a free service makes the service appear to have no real value and may indeed be of negative value.
A child very quickly learns that free services usually result in a waste of time. A free internet web site requires spending time listening to advertisements. Purchasing an item so advertised often results in receiving an item that is a waste of money. The example actually appears to have the same form as no-cost education: a "teacher" is informing, i.e. lecturing, the student of certain "facts" for free.
When education is offered for free, the offer suggests that education has no value. The people offering the education may have an agenda that is in the best interest of the people making the offer, not the student. An offer of education for free reduces the investment required of the student. Based on experience, the student rightly thinks that you get what you pay for. The student is likely to make the jump to the idea that pursuing any education is a waste of time.
COMPULSION
Imagine a child wants to go outside and play. His father forces him to wash the car first. A child quickly learns that whatever is forced upon him is undesirable. No force is required to make him play outside. Force is required to make him wash the car. From this lesson when compulsion is used to force a student to learn, the student is likely to make the jump to the idea that pursuing an education should be resisted.
THE TWO LAWS
A free tax-supported compulsory education violates the first of the two laws. HONOR THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF OTHER PEOPLE. The law is violated because the requirement under pain of sanction to attend a school aggresses against the student by denying her right to freedom. It aggresses against the tax payer by forcefully taking property to support an educational establishment. The aggression is even more damaging if the taxpayer opposes the particular educational environment and doctrines subsidized by the tax.
ACHIEVING AN EDUCATION
The essential ingredient for a person to achieve an education is personal desire and commitment. No-cost compulsory education works on two levels to reduce the educational level of people by reducing both the desire and the commitment of the student. In any case, violation of the person through the use of force is never acceptable, even for a most noble cause. In order to improve the educational standards of a society, all education must be free of all compulsion and must reflect to the student the true cost. Only education achieved in spite of great obstacles will instill education with the meaning to the student that leads to greatness.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
©Chippy's Dad
What Is Law? Much confusion surrounds the term "law". As commonly used, it refers to at least four separate concepts including the law of God, scientific law, moral law, and legislation. The concepts represented by the first three expressions of law precede the actions of men; these laws are not man-made. Legislation is man-made.
Divine law, scientific law, and moral law constitute human being's attempts to understand and articulate the reality of creation: the universe in which people live. They represent truth to the human capacity for understanding. To the extent of current understanding, these laws never contradict each other. When a contradiction is found, the need for more reflection on the milieu of human existence is indicated. After finding a firm ground upon which to stand, individuals acting alone or in community can hypothesize and test revised understandings. Whatever these understandings, the basic reality remains unchanged and completely in operation.
DIVINE LAW is expressed in the writings, creeds, authorities, and sacraments of the gathering: mosque, synagogue, church. The content of divine law relates to the relationship between mankind and God. Divine law is different from other law because it represents the intentionality of God as far as humans can understand it. All religious expressions contain some version of two laws which precede the actions of people:
HONOR THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF OTHER PEOPLE.
ABIDE BY YOUR COMMITMENTS.
SCIENTIFIC LAW is expressed in various scientific theories. The content relates to observed natural relationships. An example of scientific law is the law of supply and demand as described by students of economics. Scientific law is different from divine law and legislation because it does not represent intentionality. For example the law of supply and demand is not intended to achieve any purpose other than to explain our observations of economic activity and results. It is not used as an attempt to create a level playing field nor make a group of people wealthier. It merely explains how the world works.
Another scientific law is the second law of thermal dynamics which is not intended to achieve a particular state of affairs but explains that entropy increases. In short all things rundown or wear out.
Leaders in government attempt to achieve certain economic results; but if in so doing, they disregard the scientific law of supply and demand, the results will be disappointing at best. In a like manner many people have denied the second law of thermal dynamics and have wasted much time and resources trying to develop a perpetual motion machine through which energy can be extracted from the machine without putting energy into the machine. Indeed, the concept of the government spending our way into prosperity is an example of a perpetual motion machine. Supposedly, we can extract resources from the economy without first putting energy into the economy.
MORAL LAW is expressed in moral philosophical investigations. The content relates to the civil relations between humans. A central precept of moral law is the categorical imperative, which has been stated in many ways:
1. "Love your neighbor as yourself." –Jesus
2. "So act that you can will that the maxim of your action to be a universal law." –Kant
3. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Jefferson
Like scientific law, moral law does not represent intentionality. Moral law consists of a-priori statements of mandates to explain the nature of relations between people and which precede any human intentions.
An example of moral law is the prohibition against stealing. The prohibition is implied by the first law listed above. Failure to abide by the prohibition against stealing results in a loss to the community of all humans. It results in a larger loss than the loss to the victim of theft.
Once upon a time, in Memphis, I observed the attempted theft of an auto battery. In what was probably not the wisest move, I came up and stood beside the would-be thief without him noticing my presence and quietly asked what was wrong with his car. (It happened that I knew both the thief and the owner of the car.) He was completely surprised and immediately stood up straight, looked at me with extreme fear written on his face, and ran away. I closed the hood and reported the situation to the owner. It is probably a vain hope, but I do hope it put such fear in the thief that he never stole again.
The point of the story is to imagine what would have happened had he stolen the battery. The thief would have sold the battery for a buck or two. The battery would then have been resold for some price less than the price of a new battery. Meanwhile, the owner of the car would have been denied the use of her car. As it was, the battery was disconnected and she had to have a friend reconnect it. She would have had to take the time to figure out why her car would not start, call the police to report the theft, go to a battery store, buy a replacement battery, and have it installed. The costs across the entire community in time and effort would have been several hundred dollars expended in order that the thief could have gained maybe two dollars. Time and effort would have been wasted trying to restore a previous situation as opposed to advancing to an improved situation. The largest loss in the preceding example is the loss of trust. People find it necessary to lock doors, install antitheft devices, and hire security guards.
The same applies to taxes. The government receives its money. In order for that to happen, it must employ a hoard of tax collectors. People must employ highly trained experts to decipher the byzantine tax code. People must invest their savings in less than ideal (but government favored) ventures in order to maximize their after tax savings. The loss to the community in time and resources far exceeds the resources available for government expenditures. The biggest loss to the community as a whole is the loss confidence. Everyone lives in fear because no one can be sure that they can avoid an audit by a harassing bureaucrat, be found in "violation" of some obscure provision, and fined or imprisoned.
The moral law prohibiting theft precedes action by mankind and reflects the reality that healthy relationships among people suffer whenever the principle is violated.
All of the preceding forms of law are operational at all times and do not in any way require enforcement. Violations of them always produce unpleasant, and usually immediate, results.
LEGISLATION is expressed in the acts of governments. I try to reserve the term "law" to the above three expressions of law. References to legislation should avoid the term "law". Law precedes the action of people; legislation does not. The distinction between law and legislation implies that legislation can and frequently does contradict expressions of law.
For example in Germany of the 1930's and early 1940's it was illegal and a capital offence to harbor people of the Jewish faith. This legislation contradicts both divine and moral law. The losses to the community of people in Germany and throughout the world were beyond calculation. Germany for a short period reverted to the stone-age. Never-the-less, the policy of harassing Jews was exceedingly popular just as harassing undocumented immigrants is today.
In the same way it is supposedly "illegal" in the United States to harbor or employ undocumented aliens. Clearly this legislation is illegal since it contradicts the natural prohibition of encroachment and the unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Refer to the previous post on this site On Immigration. The cost to the community of humans is incalculable. Those who are so vocal about "illegal" immigrants should consider the cost of deporting in excess of seven million people. Such a mass deportation would create massive hardship and would rank among the largest forced migrations in history. It would exceed the Trail of Tears.
Much legislation is acceptable. For example, the requirement to drive on the right side of the road establishes a convention to enable safe driving. The convention does not violate the Laws. However, most legislation does violate the laws. All legislation that violates the laws will produce unpleasant results. Unpleasant results include injuries, financial chaos, loss of healthy relationships, starvation, poverty, and death.
©Chippy's Dad
What Is Law? Much confusion surrounds the term "law". As commonly used, it refers to at least four separate concepts including the law of God, scientific law, moral law, and legislation. The concepts represented by the first three expressions of law precede the actions of men; these laws are not man-made. Legislation is man-made.
Divine law, scientific law, and moral law constitute human being's attempts to understand and articulate the reality of creation: the universe in which people live. They represent truth to the human capacity for understanding. To the extent of current understanding, these laws never contradict each other. When a contradiction is found, the need for more reflection on the milieu of human existence is indicated. After finding a firm ground upon which to stand, individuals acting alone or in community can hypothesize and test revised understandings. Whatever these understandings, the basic reality remains unchanged and completely in operation.
DIVINE LAW is expressed in the writings, creeds, authorities, and sacraments of the gathering: mosque, synagogue, church. The content of divine law relates to the relationship between mankind and God. Divine law is different from other law because it represents the intentionality of God as far as humans can understand it. All religious expressions contain some version of two laws which precede the actions of people:
HONOR THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF OTHER PEOPLE.
ABIDE BY YOUR COMMITMENTS.
SCIENTIFIC LAW is expressed in various scientific theories. The content relates to observed natural relationships. An example of scientific law is the law of supply and demand as described by students of economics. Scientific law is different from divine law and legislation because it does not represent intentionality. For example the law of supply and demand is not intended to achieve any purpose other than to explain our observations of economic activity and results. It is not used as an attempt to create a level playing field nor make a group of people wealthier. It merely explains how the world works.
Another scientific law is the second law of thermal dynamics which is not intended to achieve a particular state of affairs but explains that entropy increases. In short all things rundown or wear out.
Leaders in government attempt to achieve certain economic results; but if in so doing, they disregard the scientific law of supply and demand, the results will be disappointing at best. In a like manner many people have denied the second law of thermal dynamics and have wasted much time and resources trying to develop a perpetual motion machine through which energy can be extracted from the machine without putting energy into the machine. Indeed, the concept of the government spending our way into prosperity is an example of a perpetual motion machine. Supposedly, we can extract resources from the economy without first putting energy into the economy.
MORAL LAW is expressed in moral philosophical investigations. The content relates to the civil relations between humans. A central precept of moral law is the categorical imperative, which has been stated in many ways:
1. "Love your neighbor as yourself." –Jesus
2. "So act that you can will that the maxim of your action to be a universal law." –Kant
3. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Jefferson
Like scientific law, moral law does not represent intentionality. Moral law consists of a-priori statements of mandates to explain the nature of relations between people and which precede any human intentions.
An example of moral law is the prohibition against stealing. The prohibition is implied by the first law listed above. Failure to abide by the prohibition against stealing results in a loss to the community of all humans. It results in a larger loss than the loss to the victim of theft.
Once upon a time, in Memphis, I observed the attempted theft of an auto battery. In what was probably not the wisest move, I came up and stood beside the would-be thief without him noticing my presence and quietly asked what was wrong with his car. (It happened that I knew both the thief and the owner of the car.) He was completely surprised and immediately stood up straight, looked at me with extreme fear written on his face, and ran away. I closed the hood and reported the situation to the owner. It is probably a vain hope, but I do hope it put such fear in the thief that he never stole again.
The point of the story is to imagine what would have happened had he stolen the battery. The thief would have sold the battery for a buck or two. The battery would then have been resold for some price less than the price of a new battery. Meanwhile, the owner of the car would have been denied the use of her car. As it was, the battery was disconnected and she had to have a friend reconnect it. She would have had to take the time to figure out why her car would not start, call the police to report the theft, go to a battery store, buy a replacement battery, and have it installed. The costs across the entire community in time and effort would have been several hundred dollars expended in order that the thief could have gained maybe two dollars. Time and effort would have been wasted trying to restore a previous situation as opposed to advancing to an improved situation. The largest loss in the preceding example is the loss of trust. People find it necessary to lock doors, install antitheft devices, and hire security guards.
The same applies to taxes. The government receives its money. In order for that to happen, it must employ a hoard of tax collectors. People must employ highly trained experts to decipher the byzantine tax code. People must invest their savings in less than ideal (but government favored) ventures in order to maximize their after tax savings. The loss to the community in time and resources far exceeds the resources available for government expenditures. The biggest loss to the community as a whole is the loss confidence. Everyone lives in fear because no one can be sure that they can avoid an audit by a harassing bureaucrat, be found in "violation" of some obscure provision, and fined or imprisoned.
The moral law prohibiting theft precedes action by mankind and reflects the reality that healthy relationships among people suffer whenever the principle is violated.
All of the preceding forms of law are operational at all times and do not in any way require enforcement. Violations of them always produce unpleasant, and usually immediate, results.
LEGISLATION is expressed in the acts of governments. I try to reserve the term "law" to the above three expressions of law. References to legislation should avoid the term "law". Law precedes the action of people; legislation does not. The distinction between law and legislation implies that legislation can and frequently does contradict expressions of law.
For example in Germany of the 1930's and early 1940's it was illegal and a capital offence to harbor people of the Jewish faith. This legislation contradicts both divine and moral law. The losses to the community of people in Germany and throughout the world were beyond calculation. Germany for a short period reverted to the stone-age. Never-the-less, the policy of harassing Jews was exceedingly popular just as harassing undocumented immigrants is today.
In the same way it is supposedly "illegal" in the United States to harbor or employ undocumented aliens. Clearly this legislation is illegal since it contradicts the natural prohibition of encroachment and the unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Refer to the previous post on this site On Immigration. The cost to the community of humans is incalculable. Those who are so vocal about "illegal" immigrants should consider the cost of deporting in excess of seven million people. Such a mass deportation would create massive hardship and would rank among the largest forced migrations in history. It would exceed the Trail of Tears.
Much legislation is acceptable. For example, the requirement to drive on the right side of the road establishes a convention to enable safe driving. The convention does not violate the Laws. However, most legislation does violate the laws. All legislation that violates the laws will produce unpleasant results. Unpleasant results include injuries, financial chaos, loss of healthy relationships, starvation, poverty, and death.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
ON INDIGENCE
ON INDIGENCE
©Chippy's Dad
One time while discussing medical care, I was asked: "Don't you think it is best if all people and not just sick people pay the costs of indigent care?" As part of my answer I said, "While I cannot prove it, I believe that through the elimination of moral hazard there would be far fewer indigents if everyone knew they were on their own." The response was that "I would find it interesting to hear your ideas as to the common causes, environments and education that lead to indigence."
Before I start I will say that, except as described below, education has nothing to do with it. Also, despite the conversation below, I suspect that in rare cases, indigence may result from bad luck such as coming down with a debilitating illness or being seriously injured. However, if bad luck, not fear, is the sole cause of indigence and nothing that follows applies, then the indigent will probably have insurance and will certainly have loved ones who care for him. Following is my response.
The short answer is included in the exchange described above. The moral hazard provides a systemic account for indigence. The conviction that someone will take care of me leads to a tendency to become indigent.
It is not that simple because, as children, almost all of us are convinced that our parents will take care of us. As a person matures, the realization sets in that this idyllic situation will not last. Most people learn to take care of themselves and go on to raise children of their own. So, perhaps indigence results from poor parenting. If the parents continue to fret about the child with great ado through adolescence and early adulthood, he remains dependent. That is, he becomes indigent. Yet, most children become rebellious towards fussy parents. As he matures, why would a child remain dependent after leaving the nest and become indigent when most do not.
What if indigence does not simply follow from a conviction of dependency? I think the indigent lives in fear. Yes, it can be parents who instill a sense of fear even as they fuss, but the key element is the experience of violence such that the indigent feels no control. If the parents inflict arbitrary or unpredictable rewards and punishments on the child, she may become convinced that not only the home but the entire world is chaotic and that all she can do is sit there and take it as it comes. Even if no reward or punishment is intended, but the child perceives the actions of her parents as such, then the world will appear chaotic. She may experience a certain comfort in keeping an extreme low profile in order to not attract attention. When out in the world, a low profile this extreme is indigence.
Notice then, that indigence does not necessarily involve poor parenting. For example, an experience with slavery can produce the same effect. A person, who is a slave, is a person who experiences violence daily yet is perpetually fed, cultivated, and tended. A slave is totally dependent and has no control: dependent for food, housing, direction, training, everything. A slave experiences the extreme fear that at any time, the master may announce that he will be sold and separated from everyone he loves. After slavery, he might live in fear since he was always dependent on the master for direction as to what to do and how to live. When turned out to face the world on his own, the former slave may freeze in the headlights out of fear. Because he is frozen in fear, he would not be free. He thus becomes indigent or tends towards indigence. This feeling of no control and chaos can be passed on through generations. The fear passed through generations can manifest itself in a poor education, a low paying job, violence in the home, anger at the world, and indigence. The fear becomes self fulfilling.
(As an aside, I often hear people refer to "slave wages". This term completely misses the point of slavery. Slavery has nothing to do with low wages. Slavery has everything to do with being directed and with not having the freedom to act according to one's own will. The conviction that low wages are slave wages is a manifestation of materialistic beliefs.)
Oppression can occur in schools. Should a teacher hand out rewards and punishments on an arbitrary basis, the student may experience a loss of control. This can be particularly true if the punishments themselves are strange. For example if the punishment is to be publicly dressed down and to be forced to issue an unfelt apology for some infraction, the student may experience a loss of control and may not understand the object of her anger. She can be lead into a situation where every attempt to break free becomes another ineffective act of defiance that turns into another embarrassing experience. It can be much worse than out right physical punishment. Not that I am a fan of physical punishment, but at least it can generally have the effect of focusing her anger in a simple and understandable way. The feeling of loss of control can result not only from punishments but from the perception of punishment. A student who is constantly oppressed, or perceived to be oppressed, in school year after year by multiple teachers and fellow students and who cannot effectively defy her tormentors may become indigent.
Whether inside or out of the family, indigence results from a fearful attitude adopted to keep a low profile. In a radical sense, everyone is free at all times. The oppressed child is free to defy her parents and suffer the violence. The slave is free to run away and risk being caught and beaten. However, these choices are radical because the consequences are very hard to take especially if the consequences are continuing and unpredictable, especially if death is feared. This defiant attitude explains how some people are able to break out of the circle of violence and become prosperous people, and the difficulty of defying an oppressor also explains why most people do not.
The defiance does not have to be ubiquitous. As an example consider Uncle Tom. Those who use the Term "Uncle Tom" to refer to a compliant black person, fail to understand that in the end Uncle Tom is defiant. When asked to plow the field, Uncle Tom plows the field: compliance, apparently. But! When Simon Legree asks the location of Cassy and Emmeline, Uncle Tom refuses to tell. In the end, he is defiant; he is his own man; he is a man with convictions who will suffer whatever is dispensed without compromising his principles. Uncle Tom is not a compliant black person; he is a self-made man. Any kind of defiance in the face of oppression will forestall indigence.
The discussion above has implications for government. The more control governmental leaders exercise, the more indigence will exist. Governmental leaders can and do take on the role of the slave masters when they take the fruits of the people's labor through taxes, apply thousands of pieces of petty legislation which they presume to call "law", and throw thousands of people in jail for violations of arbitrary petty regulations. Even worse, governmental leaders become slave masters when, enforcing political correctness, they inflict strange punishments like publically dressing down an individual or group and forcing an unfelt apology for some supposed infraction. When a person meets the government face to face and is unable to defy it, he may retract into a shell of fear and become indigent. When a person is tended by well meaning bureaucrats, he may become frozen in fear should he feel the threat that the largesse may cease. Because the government is well armed, he may feel the threat of death. He would be an indigent.
Indigence, then, results from the individual's unwillingness or inability to defy an oppressor.
©Chippy's Dad
One time while discussing medical care, I was asked: "Don't you think it is best if all people and not just sick people pay the costs of indigent care?" As part of my answer I said, "While I cannot prove it, I believe that through the elimination of moral hazard there would be far fewer indigents if everyone knew they were on their own." The response was that "I would find it interesting to hear your ideas as to the common causes, environments and education that lead to indigence."
Before I start I will say that, except as described below, education has nothing to do with it. Also, despite the conversation below, I suspect that in rare cases, indigence may result from bad luck such as coming down with a debilitating illness or being seriously injured. However, if bad luck, not fear, is the sole cause of indigence and nothing that follows applies, then the indigent will probably have insurance and will certainly have loved ones who care for him. Following is my response.
The short answer is included in the exchange described above. The moral hazard provides a systemic account for indigence. The conviction that someone will take care of me leads to a tendency to become indigent.
It is not that simple because, as children, almost all of us are convinced that our parents will take care of us. As a person matures, the realization sets in that this idyllic situation will not last. Most people learn to take care of themselves and go on to raise children of their own. So, perhaps indigence results from poor parenting. If the parents continue to fret about the child with great ado through adolescence and early adulthood, he remains dependent. That is, he becomes indigent. Yet, most children become rebellious towards fussy parents. As he matures, why would a child remain dependent after leaving the nest and become indigent when most do not.
What if indigence does not simply follow from a conviction of dependency? I think the indigent lives in fear. Yes, it can be parents who instill a sense of fear even as they fuss, but the key element is the experience of violence such that the indigent feels no control. If the parents inflict arbitrary or unpredictable rewards and punishments on the child, she may become convinced that not only the home but the entire world is chaotic and that all she can do is sit there and take it as it comes. Even if no reward or punishment is intended, but the child perceives the actions of her parents as such, then the world will appear chaotic. She may experience a certain comfort in keeping an extreme low profile in order to not attract attention. When out in the world, a low profile this extreme is indigence.
Notice then, that indigence does not necessarily involve poor parenting. For example, an experience with slavery can produce the same effect. A person, who is a slave, is a person who experiences violence daily yet is perpetually fed, cultivated, and tended. A slave is totally dependent and has no control: dependent for food, housing, direction, training, everything. A slave experiences the extreme fear that at any time, the master may announce that he will be sold and separated from everyone he loves. After slavery, he might live in fear since he was always dependent on the master for direction as to what to do and how to live. When turned out to face the world on his own, the former slave may freeze in the headlights out of fear. Because he is frozen in fear, he would not be free. He thus becomes indigent or tends towards indigence. This feeling of no control and chaos can be passed on through generations. The fear passed through generations can manifest itself in a poor education, a low paying job, violence in the home, anger at the world, and indigence. The fear becomes self fulfilling.
(As an aside, I often hear people refer to "slave wages". This term completely misses the point of slavery. Slavery has nothing to do with low wages. Slavery has everything to do with being directed and with not having the freedom to act according to one's own will. The conviction that low wages are slave wages is a manifestation of materialistic beliefs.)
Oppression can occur in schools. Should a teacher hand out rewards and punishments on an arbitrary basis, the student may experience a loss of control. This can be particularly true if the punishments themselves are strange. For example if the punishment is to be publicly dressed down and to be forced to issue an unfelt apology for some infraction, the student may experience a loss of control and may not understand the object of her anger. She can be lead into a situation where every attempt to break free becomes another ineffective act of defiance that turns into another embarrassing experience. It can be much worse than out right physical punishment. Not that I am a fan of physical punishment, but at least it can generally have the effect of focusing her anger in a simple and understandable way. The feeling of loss of control can result not only from punishments but from the perception of punishment. A student who is constantly oppressed, or perceived to be oppressed, in school year after year by multiple teachers and fellow students and who cannot effectively defy her tormentors may become indigent.
Whether inside or out of the family, indigence results from a fearful attitude adopted to keep a low profile. In a radical sense, everyone is free at all times. The oppressed child is free to defy her parents and suffer the violence. The slave is free to run away and risk being caught and beaten. However, these choices are radical because the consequences are very hard to take especially if the consequences are continuing and unpredictable, especially if death is feared. This defiant attitude explains how some people are able to break out of the circle of violence and become prosperous people, and the difficulty of defying an oppressor also explains why most people do not.
The defiance does not have to be ubiquitous. As an example consider Uncle Tom. Those who use the Term "Uncle Tom" to refer to a compliant black person, fail to understand that in the end Uncle Tom is defiant. When asked to plow the field, Uncle Tom plows the field: compliance, apparently. But! When Simon Legree asks the location of Cassy and Emmeline, Uncle Tom refuses to tell. In the end, he is defiant; he is his own man; he is a man with convictions who will suffer whatever is dispensed without compromising his principles. Uncle Tom is not a compliant black person; he is a self-made man. Any kind of defiance in the face of oppression will forestall indigence.
The discussion above has implications for government. The more control governmental leaders exercise, the more indigence will exist. Governmental leaders can and do take on the role of the slave masters when they take the fruits of the people's labor through taxes, apply thousands of pieces of petty legislation which they presume to call "law", and throw thousands of people in jail for violations of arbitrary petty regulations. Even worse, governmental leaders become slave masters when, enforcing political correctness, they inflict strange punishments like publically dressing down an individual or group and forcing an unfelt apology for some supposed infraction. When a person meets the government face to face and is unable to defy it, he may retract into a shell of fear and become indigent. When a person is tended by well meaning bureaucrats, he may become frozen in fear should he feel the threat that the largesse may cease. Because the government is well armed, he may feel the threat of death. He would be an indigent.
Indigence, then, results from the individual's unwillingness or inability to defy an oppressor.
Monday, July 12, 2010
ON JUST GOVERNMENT
ON JUST GOVERNMENT
©Chippy's Dad
The LAW precedes all government. My views on government start with my dedication to Jesus and the Christian God. Based on my faith, all law can be boiled down to 2 basic laws that precede all others and that precede man made government. (I note that other people with similar views on just government start with an atheistic or even an agnostic faith, to wit: Ludwig VonMises, Doug Casey.)
THE TWO LAWS:
1. HONOR THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF OTHER PEOPLE (1).
2. ABIDE BY YOUR COMMITMENTS (2).
The problem for just government resides in the fact that people are greedy. In particular, some people are greedy for power. When that power manifests itself in the form of power over other people, the first law is violated. Since people with a greed for power over people tend towards government office, where they can satisfy their craving; government necessarily tends towards injustice.
People who lust for power over other people see an opportunity in civil government to realize their goals. Government is a technology or tool for the domination of people. As long as there are greedy people, government will tend towards tyranny.
The founders of the USA tried twice (the Articles and the Constitution) to develop a government that would be limited so that greedy people could not become tyrants. From day one, the government of the USA has become ever more militaristic and tyrannical, gradually and continuously, until the life blood has been sapped from the very marrow of our community.
From the militaristic point of view, first the greedy ones launched an ill-fated invasion of Canada. To follow on, they subjugated the Native Americans and attacked Mexico in order to take possession of Texas and California. Then they expanded overseas by overthrowing the government of Hawaii in 1893, by attacking and annexing certain territories of Spain in 1898, by attacking independence minded Filipinos in 1899, by participating in WW1 and the Versailles Treaty, etc., etc. In the twentieth century, overseas military adventures became too numerous to list.
From the tyrannical point of view, the early history is complex beyond the scope of this post but a major turning point was the year 1913. In that year, the income tax was established, the direct election of senators was established, and the Federal Reserve was established. The income tax gave the greedy ones in the central government direct knowledge and control over individual Americans and their finances. The direct election of senators assaulted the sovereignty of the states by removing the one strong control the states had over the central government after their right to withdraw from the union had been eliminated by the War of Northern Aggression otherwise known as the Civil War. The Federal Reserve socialized money. With socialized money, the government of the USA rejected the free market. The Federal Reserve has provided the greedy ones with the ability expand the scope of the government for intrusion into the lives of Americans almost beyond limit. Since we live under socialized money, what market freedom remains is severely degraded and has become ever more degraded since 1913.
The Constitution has been interpreted gradually until constitutional limits no longer apply. Who is doing this interpretation? Why those people in Washington who are greedy for power; that is who. These people have a deep seated conflict of interest. They each have a personal interest in increasing their own power.
One way that might have provided for a more just government (maybe) would have been to include in the Constitution an explicit provision that, as sovereign entities, states can withdraw from the union. More importantly, a provision should have been included that, as sovereign entities, individual citizens can withdraw from participation in the government. Such an individual could live, travel, and hold property in the USA without harassment; would pay no taxes; would be subject to no restrictions other than to conform to the two laws; but would not be eligible to stand for public office; or to vote; or to receive any service offered by the government, such as fire fighting, without paying a fee. Individuals who have withdrawn would be free to form associations to provide alternative services such as fire fighting.
The two provisions allowing secession of states and individuals, respectively, would enhance just government in that as the government tends towards increased tyranny, which it must because of the greedy ones, individuals would withdraw. As the numbers of individuals who have withdrawn increases, the greedy ones would have ever less power. In their own greedy interest, the greedy ones would need to leave more liberties to the people, so that they would want to participate in the government.
This concept becomes the definition of just government. A just government is one that subjects itself and its agents to the two fundamental laws and that allows citizens and provinces to secede from the government without loss of personal freedoms or property.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The first law has been stated: "Love your neighbor as yourself." – Jesus, and also "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."– Lock
(2) The second law has been stated: "Thou shalt not bear false witness." - Exodus 20:16.
©Chippy's Dad
The LAW precedes all government. My views on government start with my dedication to Jesus and the Christian God. Based on my faith, all law can be boiled down to 2 basic laws that precede all others and that precede man made government. (I note that other people with similar views on just government start with an atheistic or even an agnostic faith, to wit: Ludwig VonMises, Doug Casey.)
THE TWO LAWS:
1. HONOR THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF OTHER PEOPLE (1).
2. ABIDE BY YOUR COMMITMENTS (2).
The problem for just government resides in the fact that people are greedy. In particular, some people are greedy for power. When that power manifests itself in the form of power over other people, the first law is violated. Since people with a greed for power over people tend towards government office, where they can satisfy their craving; government necessarily tends towards injustice.
People who lust for power over other people see an opportunity in civil government to realize their goals. Government is a technology or tool for the domination of people. As long as there are greedy people, government will tend towards tyranny.
The founders of the USA tried twice (the Articles and the Constitution) to develop a government that would be limited so that greedy people could not become tyrants. From day one, the government of the USA has become ever more militaristic and tyrannical, gradually and continuously, until the life blood has been sapped from the very marrow of our community.
From the militaristic point of view, first the greedy ones launched an ill-fated invasion of Canada. To follow on, they subjugated the Native Americans and attacked Mexico in order to take possession of Texas and California. Then they expanded overseas by overthrowing the government of Hawaii in 1893, by attacking and annexing certain territories of Spain in 1898, by attacking independence minded Filipinos in 1899, by participating in WW1 and the Versailles Treaty, etc., etc. In the twentieth century, overseas military adventures became too numerous to list.
From the tyrannical point of view, the early history is complex beyond the scope of this post but a major turning point was the year 1913. In that year, the income tax was established, the direct election of senators was established, and the Federal Reserve was established. The income tax gave the greedy ones in the central government direct knowledge and control over individual Americans and their finances. The direct election of senators assaulted the sovereignty of the states by removing the one strong control the states had over the central government after their right to withdraw from the union had been eliminated by the War of Northern Aggression otherwise known as the Civil War. The Federal Reserve socialized money. With socialized money, the government of the USA rejected the free market. The Federal Reserve has provided the greedy ones with the ability expand the scope of the government for intrusion into the lives of Americans almost beyond limit. Since we live under socialized money, what market freedom remains is severely degraded and has become ever more degraded since 1913.
The Constitution has been interpreted gradually until constitutional limits no longer apply. Who is doing this interpretation? Why those people in Washington who are greedy for power; that is who. These people have a deep seated conflict of interest. They each have a personal interest in increasing their own power.
One way that might have provided for a more just government (maybe) would have been to include in the Constitution an explicit provision that, as sovereign entities, states can withdraw from the union. More importantly, a provision should have been included that, as sovereign entities, individual citizens can withdraw from participation in the government. Such an individual could live, travel, and hold property in the USA without harassment; would pay no taxes; would be subject to no restrictions other than to conform to the two laws; but would not be eligible to stand for public office; or to vote; or to receive any service offered by the government, such as fire fighting, without paying a fee. Individuals who have withdrawn would be free to form associations to provide alternative services such as fire fighting.
The two provisions allowing secession of states and individuals, respectively, would enhance just government in that as the government tends towards increased tyranny, which it must because of the greedy ones, individuals would withdraw. As the numbers of individuals who have withdrawn increases, the greedy ones would have ever less power. In their own greedy interest, the greedy ones would need to leave more liberties to the people, so that they would want to participate in the government.
This concept becomes the definition of just government. A just government is one that subjects itself and its agents to the two fundamental laws and that allows citizens and provinces to secede from the government without loss of personal freedoms or property.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The first law has been stated: "Love your neighbor as yourself." – Jesus, and also "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."– Lock
(2) The second law has been stated: "Thou shalt not bear false witness." - Exodus 20:16.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ON PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
©Chippy's Dad
It was during a trip many years ago that one of the major turning points in my intellectual life journey occurred. It was on the steps of the Kentucky state capitol building with my Grandmother that I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court was wrong to ban prayer in public schools and that public education itself must be unconstitutional. I was a junior in high school.
Understand: my Grandmother was a very dedicated Christian. She was appalled by the ban. Up until that conversation with her, my view on the then recent decision was simply that the highest authority in the land had laid down the law. While the ban was intended to avoid an establishment of religion, in fact the decision was wrong precisely because it amounted to an establishment of religion. Before we can understand why a ban on prayer was an establishment of religion, we must answer the question "What is religion?"
Not all religions teach a single God such as Yahweh or Allah. Some religions teach many gods or no gods at all. So religion cannot be understood as belief in a god to which a person can appeal through prayer. I propose that religion can and should be defined as "THAT UNDERSTANDING OF ULTIMATE REALITY THAT IS ACCEPTED ON THE BASIS OF FAITH WITHOUT REASON." Ultimate reality is the basis of all other reality. This definition covers all known religions. With this definition, most people are religious, and I would suggest passionately so. Even those who say they are atheists and rely totally on reason forget that reason must start with a first principle: the major premise. I suggest that the original major premise is accepted on the basis of faith without reason. (And are not atheists passionate?) If an attempt is made to justify the first principle by logic or experience, that merely moves the first principle back to a more basic level. If the subject of this first principle involves ultimate reality from which no further appeal to reason or experience can be made, then it is the basic precept of that person's religion.
The viewpoint that out-loud, spoken group-prayer is unnecessary when embarking upon an important activity such as education is a religious viewpoint. It was this religious viewpoint that was established by the Supreme Court. It is this religious viewpoint that must insult any committed Christian person such as my grandmother (as well as any passionate Jew, Muslim, etc.). Of course it would have been equally wrong for the Supreme Court to have affirmed prayer in public schools as that too would have established a religion. Thus the Supreme Court was over a barrel; no decision could be made, UNLESS..... Public education itself must be unconstitutional in the first place. Since first reaching this view point in high school, I have never found a reason to change my understanding. Today, I have come to understand that the public schools of today are churches for the propagation of the established religion that serve the same function as the medieval cathedrals in Europe: buildings around which the community as a whole gathers and in which the people find identity and community pride.
Indeed, upon reading the Constitution, I find no warrant for the involvement of the central government of the United States in education. Education is therefore reserved to the states respectively or to the people. Furthermore, every argument I can find to support the establishment of a public school, can be used to support a public religion by simply substituting the word religion for the word school. Try it yourself with your favorite argument in support of public schools; and being honest with yourself, see whether such an argument is not equally persuasive. In a like manner, every argument I have found to oppose the establishment of a public religion can be used to oppose the establishment of a public school.
I suggest that many of the huge controversies regarding public education would go away if everyone were free to pursue education in the way he sees fit without having to pay for the established church err school. Controversies such as prayer vs. no prayer, creationism vs. evolution, sex education vs. no sex education, or even which heroes to use for edification would be rendered mute.
For these and many reasons, I cannot support public education. Rather, I support education freedom. Many to whom I have expressed this view are concerned that many parents do not care enough about education to see that their children are educated. To any who would make this claim, I leave it to her: If allowed educational freedom, would you leave yourself and your child uneducated?
©Chippy's Dad
It was during a trip many years ago that one of the major turning points in my intellectual life journey occurred. It was on the steps of the Kentucky state capitol building with my Grandmother that I came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court was wrong to ban prayer in public schools and that public education itself must be unconstitutional. I was a junior in high school.
Understand: my Grandmother was a very dedicated Christian. She was appalled by the ban. Up until that conversation with her, my view on the then recent decision was simply that the highest authority in the land had laid down the law. While the ban was intended to avoid an establishment of religion, in fact the decision was wrong precisely because it amounted to an establishment of religion. Before we can understand why a ban on prayer was an establishment of religion, we must answer the question "What is religion?"
Not all religions teach a single God such as Yahweh or Allah. Some religions teach many gods or no gods at all. So religion cannot be understood as belief in a god to which a person can appeal through prayer. I propose that religion can and should be defined as "THAT UNDERSTANDING OF ULTIMATE REALITY THAT IS ACCEPTED ON THE BASIS OF FAITH WITHOUT REASON." Ultimate reality is the basis of all other reality. This definition covers all known religions. With this definition, most people are religious, and I would suggest passionately so. Even those who say they are atheists and rely totally on reason forget that reason must start with a first principle: the major premise. I suggest that the original major premise is accepted on the basis of faith without reason. (And are not atheists passionate?) If an attempt is made to justify the first principle by logic or experience, that merely moves the first principle back to a more basic level. If the subject of this first principle involves ultimate reality from which no further appeal to reason or experience can be made, then it is the basic precept of that person's religion.
The viewpoint that out-loud, spoken group-prayer is unnecessary when embarking upon an important activity such as education is a religious viewpoint. It was this religious viewpoint that was established by the Supreme Court. It is this religious viewpoint that must insult any committed Christian person such as my grandmother (as well as any passionate Jew, Muslim, etc.). Of course it would have been equally wrong for the Supreme Court to have affirmed prayer in public schools as that too would have established a religion. Thus the Supreme Court was over a barrel; no decision could be made, UNLESS..... Public education itself must be unconstitutional in the first place. Since first reaching this view point in high school, I have never found a reason to change my understanding. Today, I have come to understand that the public schools of today are churches for the propagation of the established religion that serve the same function as the medieval cathedrals in Europe: buildings around which the community as a whole gathers and in which the people find identity and community pride.
Indeed, upon reading the Constitution, I find no warrant for the involvement of the central government of the United States in education. Education is therefore reserved to the states respectively or to the people. Furthermore, every argument I can find to support the establishment of a public school, can be used to support a public religion by simply substituting the word religion for the word school. Try it yourself with your favorite argument in support of public schools; and being honest with yourself, see whether such an argument is not equally persuasive. In a like manner, every argument I have found to oppose the establishment of a public religion can be used to oppose the establishment of a public school.
I suggest that many of the huge controversies regarding public education would go away if everyone were free to pursue education in the way he sees fit without having to pay for the established church err school. Controversies such as prayer vs. no prayer, creationism vs. evolution, sex education vs. no sex education, or even which heroes to use for edification would be rendered mute.
For these and many reasons, I cannot support public education. Rather, I support education freedom. Many to whom I have expressed this view are concerned that many parents do not care enough about education to see that their children are educated. To any who would make this claim, I leave it to her: If allowed educational freedom, would you leave yourself and your child uneducated?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
ON IMMIGRATION
ON IMMIGRATION
©Chippy's Dad
On the subject of immigration, a few months ago there was an article about Texas regarding Texas and immigrants and how immigrants are supposedly a drain on the Texas budget. The article focused on medical services. The article was sent to me by email, and I do not recall its origin.
To begin, the concept that "all people are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" is axiomatic. The rights to life and liberty are not subject to affirmation by a political body. By virtue of being a creature, any person has the right to liberty. How can the right to cross a border be denied to a peaceful person? Liberty includes the right to cross the border. If a rabbit is free to cross the border then a human is free to do so, period.
Borders are totally arbitrary and fictitious lines drawn by greedy politicians to enhance their control over people. As our borders take on an ever more similar appearance to the Berlin wall, the totalitarian noose tightens ever more firmly around our own necks. In a paraphrase of Reagan: Mr. Obama, tear down this wall.
The right of any peaceful person to cross the border is an absolute. Crossing the border, which is a fictitious line, should be as simple as crossing the street. The person crossing the border should not have to give his name or show any identification or be slowed down or intimidated in any other way.
Regarding the effect of immigrants on the state budget, all Texas (or any other state) needs to do is to eliminate every single free "service" provided to immigrants: or to anyone else for that matter. I say no free hospital visits except as a privately owned and operated hospital and staff, without any tax support, choose to offer such free services out of their own resources and free will.
©Chippy's Dad
On the subject of immigration, a few months ago there was an article about Texas regarding Texas and immigrants and how immigrants are supposedly a drain on the Texas budget. The article focused on medical services. The article was sent to me by email, and I do not recall its origin.
To begin, the concept that "all people are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" is axiomatic. The rights to life and liberty are not subject to affirmation by a political body. By virtue of being a creature, any person has the right to liberty. How can the right to cross a border be denied to a peaceful person? Liberty includes the right to cross the border. If a rabbit is free to cross the border then a human is free to do so, period.
Borders are totally arbitrary and fictitious lines drawn by greedy politicians to enhance their control over people. As our borders take on an ever more similar appearance to the Berlin wall, the totalitarian noose tightens ever more firmly around our own necks. In a paraphrase of Reagan: Mr. Obama, tear down this wall.
The right of any peaceful person to cross the border is an absolute. Crossing the border, which is a fictitious line, should be as simple as crossing the street. The person crossing the border should not have to give his name or show any identification or be slowed down or intimidated in any other way.
Regarding the effect of immigrants on the state budget, all Texas (or any other state) needs to do is to eliminate every single free "service" provided to immigrants: or to anyone else for that matter. I say no free hospital visits except as a privately owned and operated hospital and staff, without any tax support, choose to offer such free services out of their own resources and free will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
