Month: November 2008

One Thing Is Sure

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 enjoyed a number of discussions about politics and our current economic crisis over this Thanksgiving break. During those discussions my father-in-law made the observation that those who advocate for allowing this crisis to run its course without government intervention need to consider the implications of that course and ask themselves if they are prepared for the extremes of lawlessness and social breakdown that could accompany a deep depression.

Call me a fatalist, but I am among those who does not believe that our current approach of large and poorly applied bailouts is going to save us from such a depression. It might delay it slightly but I see us falling into the same (or worse) deep depression with these bailouts as I would expect without them. The proper solution to this crisis is to identify and return to solid financial ground. We have to abandon the practices of excessive risk and inattention to the rules of sound business that we have been ignoring for so long. Paul Krigman has a few thoughts in this direction that we should consider.

Whether we we pursue our present bailout course or not, whether we experience a deep depression wihtint he next two years or not (I just invented that timeframe up off the top of my head), there is one thing that is absolutely sure – we all should ask ourselves if we are ready for the social breakdown and lawlessness that can always potentially occur. Whether we ever face such a situation or not it is always smart to be prepared for it.

Tags economics, government, New York Times, prepare

National

Federalist Nos. 24 – 25

Federalist No. 24 shows the lack of logic behind the arguments to prohibit the government from having a standing army. It is relatively unremarkable except that I was surprised to discover that the writing style differed so greatly from other papers by the same author. I was amused by the reference to advanced communication coming from the perspective of our information age.

The improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors.

Federalist No. 25 shows the wisdom of having a military under the control of the central government and the necessity of allowing for standing armies even in times of peace. More importantly, it illustrated the dangers that come form burdening a system of law and government with unnecessary or illogical regulations.

It was a fundamental maxim of the Lacedaemonian commonwealth, that the post of admiral should not be conferred twice on the same person. The Peloponnesian confederates, having suffered a severe defeat at sea from the Athenians, demanded Lysander, who had before served with success in that capacity, to command the combined fleets. The Lacedaemonians, to gratify their allies, and yet preserve the semblance of an adherence to their ancient institutions, had recourse to the flimsy subterfuge of investing Lysander with the real power of admiral, under the nominal title of vice-admiral.

Sadly, our government today has become a system that is almost defined as a burden of unnecessary or illogical regulations – just look at the tax codes.

Tags Constitution, documents, federalist, history

National

Federalist No. 23

Federalist No. 23 uses the experience of the Articles of Confederation – specifically the experience related to the arrangement whereby the central government could request men and arms for the defense of the nation but did not have the power to enforce those requests on the citizens of the states – to argue that a stronger central government than that provided by the Articles of Confederation was necessary. That experience should prove the necessity of granting sufficient authority to enforce the edicts of the government relating to those tasks which have been delegated to each level of government.

The tasks listed as belonging properly to the central government are "the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries." In other words

national defense
public peace
interstate commerce
international relations

The principle of having powers sufficient to the duties allotted to each government is illustrated by the following:

Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction.

Where the federal government enacts laws that are the province of the state governments, the state governments become unable to perform their proper functions in society. That is a problem that has been growing in our nation for decades. As citizens we must come to a consensus again of what the role of the Federal government is and then insist that our representatives at the federal level do not overstep those bounds. We need to allow that the citizens of other states may make choices that we do not agree with, but so long as those choices are not the responsibility of the Federal Government we should not attempt to use the federal powers to force the views of one state on another. The same principle holds true of using state governments to unduly enforce the desires of one county or city on another in those areas that are the proper responsibility of local governments.

Tags Articles of Confederation, defense, documents, federalism, federalist, history

life National State

Loyalty . . . Right or Wrong

Post author By David
Post date November 24, 2008
4 Comments on Loyalty . . . Right or Wrong

I have been thinking about the sentiment “my country, right or wrong” as well as many potential variations (e.g. “my party, right or wrong,” “my parents, right or wrong,” or “my company, right or wrong”). What I have been thinking is that such a statement of unquestioning loyalty is ripe for abuse and manipulation.

I took the time to look up the origin of that statement and found that the actual toast by Stephen Decatur that it is supposed to be quoting was “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” This statement is still loaded with loyalty or patriotism, but it contains an important sentiment that is left out of the popular remnant “may she always be in the right.” I think that phrase is overshadowed by the statement of ownership that follows – “right or wrong, our country.”

As right as that true statement of loyalty is, a more dependable variation was uttered by Carl Schurz which he calls “the watchword of true patriotism”- “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” This is truly my brand of loyalty, whether to my country or to any other organization.

It is the sentiment of the original statement of unconditional ownership that convinced me to avoid party affiliation. I did not wish to allow any perception that I was dedicated to anything that was changeable. At least with my country it is arguable that my citizenship, and living here make it mine even when I disagree whereas with a party my disagreement while maintaining membership might seem incongruous.

As I came to realize that my strident independence was hobbling my ability to contribute to the actual work of government I had to reconcile myself to the idea of participating with one party or another. I have already expressed the fact that I was seeking to decide what party to work with. Now, having come to the conclusions of Schurz’ true patriotism (even before I found his statement of it) I am able to join a party without reservation.

I have chosen the Republican party as my political vehicle not because it is without fault, but where there are faults I will strive to set it right. Likewise my choice not to join the Democratic party – despite my ardent desire for a healthy balance of parties in this state – is not because that party lacks virtues in its members or its stated goals. My conclusion is that the stated positions of the Republican party more closely align with my own internal values overall than the stated positions of the Democratic party. I have also come to the conclusion that the Democratic party, locally and nationally, has stayed closer to their core values in recent years than the Republican party has to their core values (especially nationally).

I will be working to help the Republican party live up to its ideals and I will hope to see others working to build up a strong and vibrant Democratic party in our state – especially in areas like Davis and Utah counties – which will challenge the Republican party and push us to stay true to our principles because I honestly believe that regardless of the policy differences between the parties each party is built up mainly of people who love their country and want what is best for their fellow citizens.

Tags civic participation, Democrat, Elevated, parties, patriotism, Republican, Utah

National

Secretary Clinton

This should be very interesting to see how Hillary Clinton fares as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Clinton has proven herself to be a very able politician. Despite any clashes during the primaries, she and Obama have never been far apart on their policies and goals for gorvernment so I don’t see any unmanageable friction. Aside from any ideological differences I have with Clinton, my major worry with her candidacy was her status as a lightning rod within the political community. I would not expect that to be as big an issue with the position of Secretary of State, but it looks like we’re going to find out.

Tags Clinton, Obama

culture

Vietnam

Post author By David
Post date November 21, 2008
8 Comments on Vietnam

This morning I was surprised to read the assertion (written in 1994) that many students who were too young to remember Vietnam are confused by the protests against that war. I am among those too young to remember Vietnam but I’ve never felt confused about the protests – it was a war we were fighting poorly and without decent justification.

As I learned some more details about the war my perspective changed. In 2004 I was unimpressed to learn that John Kerry would volunteer to serve in Vietnam and then be a vocal activist against the war after returning home. As I learned a few more details about what was happening in that war I am no longer surprised. (Not that it changes my opinion of his presidential potential.) In fact, I wonder that anyone could serve there and not protest the war when they got home.

My conclusion here is that while I did not feel confused about the protests before I did not really understand them. Considering how recent this history is it is a sad statement that students would have such a poor understanding of what took place at a time when half of our current voting population was already old enough to recognize what was happening all around them.

Tags history, Vietnam, war

culture

An Education on Social Class

Post author By David
Post date November 20, 2008
2 Comments on An Education on Social Class

I read a chapter today that was intent on destroying the myth of American egalitarianism and our "classless" social structure. I almost laugh at the idea of a society without classes based on the amount of time we spend talking about the middle class (and how to get in or out of it). I also believe that nobody who has lived even one decade of their adult life in the United States can still believe the myth of American egalitarianism. If we have a meritocracy (as we often claim) then it is one where the greatest merit is being born into a family that is well off economically.

One of the problems I have with all discussions of social classes and social inequality is that they are all based on assumptions about the desirability of eliminating social class and a definition of class that is based primarily on economic factors. I understand that economic factors are used to define class because money is used to enforce social position and because class structures tend to coalesce around different strata of economic situation. While that makes sense, my problem is that those who discuss it imply that redistributing the wealth would break the class structure – and that it would be a positive change.

I believe that there is nothing wrong with having different social classes so long as those classes are not strictly enforced, in other words I don’t view it as a problem so long as people are allowed to change classes. In other words, a system that distinguishes classes but treats people of different classes with equal respect and equal rights is perfectly acceptable to me. (This does not mean that I will argue that our society embodies such a system.)

I also believe that inequality of wealth and income is not inherently undesirable. It again comes back to a question of whether people with differing levels of wealth or income are treated equitably. If the inequalities are achieved through dishonesty or manipulation that indicates a problem. This is true whether we are talking about individual wealth or whether we are talking about corporate market-share (thus the reason to be wary of monopolies).

I think the greatest thing we can do with regard to education on the issue of social classes is to tell the truth – that classes exist – and to work to ensure that we eliminate preferential treatment of one class over another (that goes for any kind of class, whether economic or otherwise) and manipulation intended to dishonestly profit.

If we would accept the existence of classes and then work to remove those negative elements that generally tag along with the class system people could feel empowered and we could have a true meritocracy where people advanced among the classes based on their personal strengths and fell based on theri own weaknesses.

Tags Education, money, thoughts

life

Pursuit of Liberty Forum

Maybe I should call this a "pre-announcement" but I wanted to let everyone know that I am setting up a forum where anyone who is interested in talking politics is welcome to help shape my political thinking. The forum exists but will be taking real shape as I have time to shape it to meet my needs. I will have forums based on the governments over me and will not object if others want to create forums for other states, counties, cities, etc. I also plan to have forums on specific topics where we discuss the topic independent of a specific political entity. Feel free to register now.

I would heartily encourage anyone who reads and comments here to participate and help me shape my perspectives on issues I have not, and in some cases will not end up writing about on this blog. I admit that I start this with the selfish aim of taking advantage of the wisdom of this crowd, but I hope that it can become a useful resource for other as well. I will be encouraging people to participate here from groups that I get involved with such as a party or a citizens group (I hope to be involved in more such groups as I was before I moved).

Tags civic participation, connections, debates, discourse, forum, meta, site

culture National

We Can Do Better

It seems that both parties have been parroting this message all through the 2008 campaign. While they are absolutely right that we can do better, I am not talking about 2008, the Bush administration, or any other recent phenomenon. As I have been reading Lies My Teacher Told Me I am seeing a glaringly obvious pattern to our nations history. Despite the fact that we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world (and we have been for two centuries even with our myriad faults) our history seems to consist more of opportunities lost and blundered chances for real greatness than it does of human excellence. It feels like this greatest of nations has been pushed to the pinnacle of world achievement against our underlying efforts to sink to the depths of human mistakes.

Our biggest blunders are universally centered on the human elements of our interactions with other nations and within our society. Since Europe first laid claim to this continent the Europeans refused to interact with other nations on equal terms. History books continue to perpetuate that crime by minimizing all non-dominant cultures. Thus we approach our endeavors from the perspective of dominance. I believe that mindset of superiority or cultural hierarchy encourages us to pursue homogenization.

The pursuit of homogenization causes equality to trump liberty. Instead of valuing the right of people to make choices and receive the consequences for those choices we begin to devalue all choice by attempting to make the consequences of all choice lead to the same outcome. The only possible result for that type of system would be to destroy everything of value. Trying to enforce an equality of outcome takes the shine off of anything with real intrinsic value. Without that shine illuminating things with real value we lose the incentive to choose that which has value because, whether the outcomes are the same or different, it is always easier to chose the lower road. If the easy way and the hard way end in the same destination many more people will always choose the easy way.

We have all heard the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What we need to realize that those who fail to teach history – to whitewash it and pretend that it consists of a natural progression – are steadily preventing the real progress that could be made.

If this seems like an underformed idea – that’s because it is. I am trying to synthesize a lot of information and I am still putting it into words and putting it into context. What I know is that, similar to the issue of the cost of health care and how to reduce it, most of the problems we face as a nation are larger, more complex, and more deeply rooted than we care to believe. As long as we do not see the whole problem we are at least as likely to make the problem worse with our solutions as we are to make it better.

Tags history, liberty, thoughts

National State

“Free Market” Health Care

The call for Lawyers to join health-reform efforts was a not so subtle reminder to me about how "free" our health care market is currently. We can’t really pretend that the cost of services or the services rendered are determined by patients and providers. In fact, they are not even determined by a combination of patients, providers, and insurance interests.

Malpractice lawsuits, whether as threat or reality, skew a provider’s treatment decisions to the legal safe side, members of the Legislature’s Health Care System Reform Task Force were told Tuesday. That approach, in turn, adds to the amount of redundant testing and is a significant but so far unaddressed factor in the reform process.

The cost of malpractice-insurance premiums for providers also is rising rapidly, Rep. Gregory Bell, R-Fruit Heights, and an attorney, told fellow task force members.

We have developed a pricing and practice environment based on a staggering concoction of laws, medical knowledge, middlemen, and advertising. Patients may demand unnecessary services or medications based on what they hear from advertisements. They may also have unreasonable expectations regarding how flawless our medical system is or should be – in other words, they may feel entitled to compensation for unavoidable tragedies. Governments step in to define what "unavoidable" means by specifying standards of practice which may bear little connection to medical necessity. Insurance companies can, by choice or accident, inflate the costs by demanding standards of practice and levels of compensation that can’t possibly take into account all the factors that should define the practice of health care and the commensurate compensation for care.

Care must cost more when malpractice insurance rates rise. Prices will increase when the salaries and profits of insurance companies must also be covered in the process of receiving health care. Checks against unnecessary care will disappear when those receiving care are not sensitive to the costs of individual procedures. Medical decisions will be skewed when manufacturers provide kickbacks to doctors and advertise their wares directly to customers who have no medical background.

While we use the Brass Serpent (the Nehushtan) as the symbol for the field of medicine we might find it convenient to use the Hydra as a symbol of the cost of health care.

The Hydra - photo by Craig Stephen
Hydra – photo by Craig Stephen

Somehow we need to slay this monster but while the sword of government may have a place in the battle it is not sufficient to complete the task – by itself the sword of government makes the monster more dangerous.

Tags Deseret News, economics, free markets, government, health care, issues, laws