Category: General

Personal Independence

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I have been wanting to talk about the meaning of personal or individual independence for a while, especially in light of recent discussions – that was even before I got this comment from Charles that captured the debate in a nutshell:

If you are a collection of random individuals each committed to making your own decisions independent of others, then society doesn’t really exist. There is a great deal of distance between radical individualism and a centrally planned society.

The second half of that statement is very true and everyone should keep that in mind as they read my thoughts along with the fact that only and exceptionally small minority of people will be found at either of the extreme positions.

I believe that what Charles had in mind when he spoke about radical individualism could clearly be called anarchy. It is the rule of force, in other words anything I can enforce is a legitimate choice for me to make. If I can drive 120 miles per hour then so be it. If I can afford a car that drives 200 mph then my speed limit just went up significantly. This is the ultimate expression of moral relativism.

A centrally planned society, where individuals do not make choices is tyranny even when it is benevolent; is the antithesis of liberty. It does not matter if the planning is done by a monarch, a panel of experts (oligarchy), or the will of the majority (generally called democracy, but accurately described as mobocracy).

In contrast to those options, I believe in the rule of law where individuals are free to make decisions within a relatively static set of universal rules (meaning rules that apply to everyone in the system). You may be asking yourself what that has to do with personal independence. The answer is that in a centrally planned society an individual cannot be truly independent. In a non-society ruled by anarchy some people might try to argue that every person is independent, but the fact is that only those who are strong enough to enforce their own independence are independent.

Personal independence can only be achieved in a society ruled by law for people who act in accordance with established law and who choose to be stand on their own. In a society ruled by law there will be those who choose to make themselves dependent on others (the government, their neighbors, their employer) but at least they have the option to be independent which they would not have under other circumstances.

What does personal independence mean? First off, it does not mean ignoring the needs and desires of other people. Instead it means having the opportunity within the parameters set by established law to set personal goals regarding what is important to you and to work for those in a way that abides by the rules of society.

How is personal independence manifest? It is manifest in the ability and willingness to shoulder the responsibility for meeting your own need and goals. It is manifest in the ability to be sufficiently independent of employer, family, friends, and government to make your own determination of where your time, energy, and goods will be put to use.

Why is personal independence important? Obviously for those who do not desire it it is not important but for those who value their independence it is important because it means that others have little if any ability to allocate your resources in ways that contradict the goals you have. It also means that when others make choices that oppose your goals and interests their choices do not have the power to cause you to fail.

As a nation it was the lack of independence from our major financial institutions that brought about the threat that the failure of certain corporations would collapse our entire economy. This dependence put them in a position where they could demand billions of dollars in aid. Similarly because so many financial institutions were utterly dependent on favorable government regulations many of them could not refuse to participate in the bailout scam – all they could do was take their billions and later pay them back with interest despite the fact that some of them knew that they would be better off weathering the financial storm without government intervention.

Tags liberty, society, thoughts

General

The Health Care Issue as a Catalyst for Debate

Post author By David
Post date December 10, 2009
13 Comments on The Health Care Issue as a Catalyst for Debate

photo credit: the queen of subtle

When I saw that Jim DeMint had written an article titled Our Health Care Mess Is a Symptom of a Much Bigger Problem my interest was piqued partly because I like DeMint as a senator and partly because I had just been saying the same thing in a series of comments with a reader from New York. It was exactly as DeMint predicted in his final paragraph:

The current debate over health care reform is a symptom of a bigger problem in Washington. But it can be the catalyst for a wider debate about the proper role of government in our lives.

The comments I was receiving demonstrated exactly what DeMint was talking about when he said:

All of these things have happened because we’ve stopped asking, “Should government attempt to solve this problem?” Instead, we start by asking, “How should government fix the problem?” It’s now considered a sign of admirable restraint to occasionally ask, “How much should we spend?” And somehow we started thinking that anything less than a trillion dollars is a bargain. (emphasis mine)

We can’t expect to come up with the right answer when we start by asking the wrong question. For too long we have been asking only how the government should fix our problems and not if the government has any business fixing those problems. Obviously there are some problems that the government should fix, but there are many that it should not address.

Because er have been asking ourselves the wrong question we find ourselves as a nation in this situation:

There’s not a word in the Constitution about the government deciding what medical tests private health insurers should pay for. Nothing about the government deciding how much executives on Wall Street should earn, or what kind of light bulbs and cars we should buy. There’s nothing about the thousands of parochial earmarks that fund local bridges to nowhere, golf courses, bike paths, sewer plants, and tea pot museums.

There’s nothing about these or many other things in the Constitution because they have nothing to do with the proper role of a federal government in a free society. But these are exactly the kinds of things our government spends its time and money on, and we don’t even question anymore why that is.

As the length of that list indicates we have had many opportunities to ask the right question. Hopefully health care will be the issue where we finally step back and ask the right question. Once we ask the right question we will begin to understand the truth that:

It matters because every time we give a job to the government, we take away some control that people have over their lives, and we take away a little bit more of their freedom. In return for letting government try its hand at solving a problem, we as citizens cede our ability to try for ourselves to find a better way.

It’s awkward to admit it, but my colleagues in Congress have led this country into the woods despite our oath of office. We swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to bear true faith and allegiance to it. The Constitution prescribes a very limited role for the federal government. There is not a word in our oath, or in the Constitution, about most of what we do. As we’ve wandered off the path of liberty, there are few crumbs left of the Constitution in the halls of Congress to lead us out of the woods. (emphasis mine)

If we honestly ask the right question we will undoubtedly reach some uncomfortable conclusions such as the fact that the government has already overstepped its bounds with things we would rather not alter, like Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, but if we continue to shut our eyes to that primary question there will be no way to reverse our downward spiral, the best we could ever manage to do is quit digging the hole deeper.

Tags civic participation, comments, connections, discourse, government, health care, Jim DeMint, KVNU FTP

General

Too Rich to Go Bankrupt

photo credit: Stowe Boyd

By “too rich to go bankrupt” I don’t mean someone so rich that they never will go bankrupt. What I mean by that is someone so rich that them going bankrupt would destabilize our economy and thus they deserve a bailout if bankruptcy ever threatens them. (Think Bill Gates plus Warren Buffett plus everyone who gets a paycheck from Google.) More on that later . . .

In discussing the role of the federal government in an economic recovery Ronald Hunt and Charles D. brought up the issue of the role of corporations. Charles was good enough to provide links to a 2-part article by Richard Grossman from 1998 (Part 1, Part 2) that did a good job of discussing how corporations have turned into very unwieldy masters over “we the people.” I was amazed when I first realized that these articles, which are so pertinent to our situation of bailing out “too big to fail” institutions was written more than a decade before our massive Bush bailouts.

I especially enjoyed a couple of quotes from the second part of the article:

the Supreme Court of Georgia, in Railroad Co. v. Collins, wrote: “All experience has shown that large accumulations of property in hands likely to keep it intact for a long period are dangerous to the public weal. Having perpetual succession, any kind of corporation has peculiar facilities for such accumulations . . .” (emphasis mine)

And from the end of the first part:

In Richardson v. Buhl, the Nebraska Supreme Court in the late 19th century declared: “Indeed, it is doubtful if free government can long exist in a country where such enormous amounts of money are… accumulated in the vaults of corporations, to be used at discretion in controlling the property and business of the country against the interest of the public and that of the people, for the personal gain and aggrandizement of a few individuals.” (emphasis mine)

Tags bailout, economics, Elevated, government, KVNU FTP

General

2074 Pages of Loopholes

With Thanksgiving weekend behind us all politically interested people can look forward to the Senate opening work on the healthcare bill. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

. . . senators {will} work on weekends if necessary to hammer out compromises on thorny issues like a government-run insurance plan, abortion coverage and holding down costs.

“The next few weeks will tell us a lot about whether senators are more committed to solving problems or creating them,” Reid said.

I make no pretense that I have abandoned my day job and any semblance of a life to read through the entire 2074 pages of H.R. 3590 but I have read through the entire 13 page index of the bill and looked up a number of sections that either looked interesting or concerning to me. Of course my first question is how will this affect my health insurance situation (that may give some insight into the 12 sections I reviewed). The real question in this debate is whether there will be anyone who takes the time in the coming weeks (according to the story linked above we may expect up to 3 weeks of debate) to read the entire bill and break down what it actually means for consumers and the nation – going beyond the party-line soundbites that we will no doubt be subjected to constantly through the media for as long as the debate lasts.

After reading through my chosen sections I found seven that were interesting enough for me to write about them. (For anyone who is curious, there are approximately 350 sections to the bill – 50 times what I am doing today.) I will review them in the order they appear in the bill.

Tags Bob Bennett, Harry Reid, health care, issues, legislation, Orrin Hatch, reactions, senate

General

Of Big Tents and Purity

It’s a busy holiday time so I’ll spend more time quoting and less time expounding. Back in May, Jim DeMint expressed the very opinion I still hold about How Republicans Can Build a Big-Tent Party by holding to one key principle:

There is a question Republicans do need to ask: What is it that binds our party together?

. . . Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.

The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it.

Despite notable successes at both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., it seems to me that Republicans in Congress and in the Bush administration forgot a simple truth. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you aim for principled reform, you win elections in the bargain; if you just aim for elections, you get neither.

No Child Left Behind didn’t win us “soccer moms,” but it did cost us our credibility on locally controlled education. Medicare prescription drugs didn’t win us a “permanent majority,” but it cost us our credibility on entitlement reform. Every year, another Republican quality was tainted: managerial competence, fiscal discipline and personal ethics.

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom.

(emphasis mine)

We’ve been discussing the ideas of purity, conservatism, inclusiveness, and intra-party division a lot in the last few months. I believe, along with many of you, that holding to principle and being inclusive are not mutually exclusive goals. There must be strong poles to hold the tent up, or to put it another way, there must be something in the tent that makes people want to enter. I agree with Senator DeMint that freedom would be a very enticing offering – but we have to find a way to articulate the vision of freedom and not allow the message to by framed in negative terms by those who disagree with our vision.

Tags ideals, Jim DeMint, parties, reactions, Republican, Wall Street Journal

General

Stretching Our TARP

photo credit: wolfheadfilms

When the TARP bill was first being discussed I made a statement that I would like to repeat about the TARP money:

[T]his should not be used as a windfall by Congress to fund some pet projects.

We have come to the point now where Congress is faced with the question of whether to extend the program past the initial time of authorization. From the earliest versions of the bill (not including the 3 page version written by Sec. Paulson) to the final version the program was authorized only until 2009 with the option for Congress to extend it as far as two years from the day it was enacted (October 10, 2010 being that two year mark). Faced with the reality of this first deadline there are people who are absolutely opposed to those members of Congress who have indicated a desire to not extend the program.

I stand by my response to what I called “my favorite section” of that first version of the bill:

Of course I won’t hold my breath that it will die in two years or less.

Indeed, Sec. Geithner testified before Congress yesterday that:

he would not support a permanent extension of the program, but . . .

(emphasis added)

Tags bailout, Bob Bennett, Elevated, money

General

Phony Federalism

photo credit: estherase

Gene Healy wrote about what he called Obama’s phony federalism but what he was really talking about was a relatively universal perspective on federalism:

Not yet a year into his administration, Obama’s record on 10th Amendment issues is already clear: He’ll let the states have their way when their policies please blue team sensibilities and he’ll call in the feds when they don’t. Thus, he’ll grant California a waiver to allow it to raise auto emissions standards, but he’ll bring the hammer down when the state tries to cut payments to unionized health care workers.

. . .

Just a few years back, the Republicans — nominally the party of federalism — were busily wielding federal power to enforce red state values . . . In that odd political climate, you often heard liberals lamenting the decline of states’ rights.

That strange new respect for the 10th Amendment lasted roughly as long as the blue team’s exile from power.

Federalism then, as understood by both major political parties is simply a tool to bash your opponents into conformity and then deflect their power from affecting you when you are on the defensive.

Tags connections, Elevated, federalism, liberty, parties

General

Legislator as Advocate

Many times during campaigns for legislative offices voters and candidates alike portray officeholders as leaders. I think this is a mistake. A more accurate portrayal would be of officeholders as advocates. Their job is one where they speak out for positions and principles, but it is not possible for a legislature to be made up entirely of leaders. Obviously some legislators will be leaders, those who are able to rally other legislators to support the ideas and positions they are advocating but all legislators should be advocates while only some of them will be leaders – that is one of the primary differences between the legislative and the executive branch.

Voters may prefer that their legislator be a leader, but they must insist that their legislator be an advocate. If they choose a leader who cannot be an advocate they will be frustrated and disappointed. If they choose someone who is an effective advocate for them and their positions they will be satisfied. If they are able to have a legislator who is effective both as an advocate and as a leader then they should feel very fortunate.

Tags discourse, ideal, leadership, legislature

General

Legislator as Negotiator

Politics is the art of the possible.

So said Otto Von Bismarck in 1867 and he was surely right. One of the challenges for an idealist is that compromise is a necessary and appropriate component of the political process. It happens within parties and it happens within legislative bodies. In both cases compromise is necessary because all decisions in those settings affect a number of people who are in a variety of life situations and hold varying goals for themselves and their communities and good decisions cannot be made without addressing the concerns and perspectives of those various parties. Some dislike this reality – and certainly some use it as an excuse to abandon all principle, but the ability to recognize when and how compromise is appropriate is an important skill for any good legislator.

Obviously the ability to analyze and communicate with colleagues and constituents is a critical prerequisite for a legislator to be an effective negotiator. The real challenge once the analysis and communication abilities are in place is knowing how to balance the ability to negotiate with the understanding of what values or positions are non-negotiable. A legislator should be a good negotiator, but they should not be a chameleon or even a contortionist.

Part of their negotiation must be that there is a core which is immutable – one that they have communicated to constituents. The constituents should be able to depend upon this core of principle to predict how their legislator will represent them and the legislator should be able to articulate how their actions during negotiations conform to those core principles. Once the core of principles has evaporated in the face of their legislative record constituents should be quick to replace their legislator – and a legislator should expect no less from their constituents.

Tags campaign promises, civic participation, communication, ideal, legislature

General

Frying a Red Herring

I wonder if our country would be in better shape if we spent more energy in a war on bad arguments rather than a war on terror (or poverty, or drugs, . . . or prosperity). Just a thought.

As an example, we see the often repeated argument by abortion advocates that it is hypocritical to claim to be pro-life and simultaneously support capital punishment. This is a very nice red herring for them because there is a lot of overlap between those who oppose abortion and those who support capital punishment. The problem is that holding those positions simultaneously does not amount to hypocrisy. For those who care, here is a long, well-written explanation of how the two are perfectly compatible. For those who are in a hurry or in the middle of a debate where this argument is trotted out, here’s my short proof.

The founders recognized life, liberty, and (private) property, as human rights to be protected. It’s not really necessary, but for the sake of clarity let’s view these as a hierarchy of primary individual rights – life being the most important of the three and property as the least important of these inalienable rights. “Inalienable” means that they are “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred .”

Now, if we cannot surrender or transfer our right to property I would ask if property can ever be legitimately taken from our control? The answer is clearly “yes.” Taxes, fines, and restitution for wrongs committed by a person are all examples. If we cannot surrender or transfer our right to liberty, can liberty ever be legitimately taken from us? Once again, the answer is “yes.” Saunter on down to the nearest jail or prison and see that it has been taken from some. Note also that even in cases where a person is later proven innocent the state at times has a legitimate right to suspend liberty while determining the question of guilt. Finally, if we cannot surrender or transfer our right to life, can life ever be legitimately forfeit based on our actions (according to the best evidence available at the time)? I will stop short of answering in the affirmative because I recognize a lack of complete consensus on the question but I submit that the affirmative answers on both preceding questions is ample evidence of what I set out to prove – that simultaneously being pro-life and supporting capital punishment is insufficient evidence to convict someone of the sin of hypocrisy.

Case closed – pass the fish.

Tags death penalty, issues, pro-life, rights