Tag: Elevated

Posts to cross post at Politics Elevated

Our Broken Debate

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

The big question in the debate over torture right now is “who knew what and when did they know it?” That question is being used by Republicans right now to implicate Speaker Nancy Pelosi as having done nothing with what she knew and thus being complicit in any torture committed under the previous administration. The question and implications are very important questions that are worthy of debate in this country. The reason that I consider the debate to be broken is that the debate is avoiding the real substantive issue and just taking political potshots at the opposing party.

The fact is that speaker Pelosi is not in any way the only hypocrite in this debate – she is not the only one who knew and did nothing until it was politically advantageous. Democratic officeholders have been muttering under their breath (or less) about what the Bush administration was doing until Obama was elected and released the torture memos. In response the CIA is trying to defend themselves from these vocal attacks by revealing that Pelosi knew about this activity years ago.

If the Democrats were more interested in standing against torture in principle than they were in scoring political points and retaining personal power they would have been much more vocal about this issue. Speaker Pelosi would have been saying things like, “based on briefings I have had I am completely uncomfortable with what the administration is doing and willing to do to detainees through the CIA.” (Note that while that statement would open the door for discussion nothing in there would raise any national security concerns.) She would not have been alone either – other Democrats who had been briefed would also have stood up and echoed that sentiment if they had any backbone and cared about the issue. Senator Diane Feinstein would have been one of those who had also been briefed. I don’t know who else had been briefed, but all of them are guilty of doing nothing if they were uncomfortable with what they heard.

On the other hand, if the Republicans were interested in anything other than scoring points against their political opponents they would be naming the Republicans who had been briefed who were equally complicit with Speaker Pelosi. Republican officeholders have proven that they are perfectly content to have spineless and complicit representatives in office so long as they support the party line. They show that as a body they have no problem with institutionalized secrecy rather than open representation for their constituents and the other voters of the United States.

The voters need to demand that their representatives, whether of their own party or another party, quit playing politics in Washington and stick to the very serious business of leading our nation on to increased greatness – we should again be a shining city on a hill that the world can look to as an example of goodness. That can only happen if we quite trying to score political points and start having real debates about what is right and what constitutes greatness.

Tags Bush, change congress, discourse, Elevated, house, ideals, media, Obama, parties, senate

culture

Federal-Sighted

Most people have probably heard of the two basic classes of vision problems, far-sightedness and near-sightedness. For those who are not clear on the differences, far-sightedness is characterized by the eye being able to focus on objects at a distance while objects up close are blurry. Conversely, near-sightedness is characterized by the eye being able to focus on objects in close proximity while objects further away are unclear.

I have come to the conclusion that as a society we generally suffer from a political far-sightedness that I call federal-sightedness – that is, we focus on issues at a federal or national level while allowing local and state issues to become excessively fuzzy. Just as with personal vision problems that develop slowly and without our notice, our first reaction is to compensate in subtle ways. We step back from near issues and view them from a federal perspective. Rather than tackling problems close up we attempt to fix them from an arms-length away.

The problems associated with this perspective were illustrated to me from a recent comment stating that, “By definition you can’t have individual liberty while at the same enforcing your preferred level of societal morality.” This statement assumes a situation where there is a single layer to government and social order.

The comments were following a golf course analogy at the time so lets follow through with that imagery to show what I mean. If the governing body of golf were the only source of rules the statement would be true. The reality of the situation is that the governing authority should be promoting individual liberty by only mandating a minimal set of rules defining what makes an acceptable golf course. This would include basic rules regarding how the game of golf is played. It would include rules such as mandating that an official golf course must have 18 holes, that each hole must have a par rating between 3 and 5, that the entire course must have a par total between 69 and 73, and the rules for determining the par rating for a hole. On the other hand, the governing body should avoid making rules such as requiring that the third hole on each course must be a par-5 hole.

While the governing body lays out the general rules of golf the owners and operators of each golf course can determine the design of their own course, their hours of operation, their standards for membership etc. We need not conclude that the governing body is shirking its responsibility to promote individual liberty simply because some golf courses (or even a majority) have closed membership policies.

The antidote for federal-sightedness is local activism. Local activism helps us to focus on those things which are within our locus of control thus making for a much more functional society. This was brought to my attention with the news today of a group that stopped waiting for federal funds before fixing a bridge that had been destroyed in a flood. Although they had as much claim on federal disaster relief funds as New Orleans after Katrina or Minneapolis after the collapse of the I-35 bridge they changed their focus from waiting for help to making a difference with what they had. The end result, their bridge is fixed sooner and without costing $4 million.

I have seen much evidence of federal-sightedness among those who are politically active online – in fact I have suffered from this malady myself. Thankfully I am coming to my senses and trying to be more involved in finding solutions that are closer to home. It is a move that was recently demonstrated by Rob Miller as he decided to shift his political activity from the state party level to the county party level. Obviously we need people involved at all levels but I am left wondering how many of our federal problems would evaporate or whither away to manageable levels if we were more busy as a society focusing on the issues directly around us and spending less time waiting for help from a larger society.

Our propensity for federal-sightedness has been assisted by newspapers focusing on larger and larger issues at the expense of focusing locally. The newspapers are suffering from that ill-considered shift and so is society. Hopefully if we shift our focus back closer to home we will experience a social renaissance in which our problems become manageable – just as I noted that newspapers with a local focus are surviving better than national papers.

There is an opposite to federal-sightedness which is local-sightedness. This condition ignores the larger society and holds dangers of its own. Thankfully it is a much more rare condition today than federal-sightedness.

Tags civic participation, discourse, Elevated, government

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

culture National

Legislated Equality

I have been thinking about the “equality” that we equate with the American dream – the one that we want our government to guarantee for us. This has lead me to consider the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. I don’t think that many people would openly argue for equality of outcomes if people see that argument as depicting that everybody should be earning $50,000 a year with no opportunity to earn more. As much as we may like equality we always want the chance to get ahead of the Joneses. This tells me that what we really want as a nation is equality of opportunity which leaves us with the issue of defining what that means.

We can easily see that an equality of outcomes would encompass legislation that the demographics of any profession must match the demographics of the population at large. Unfortunately, what gets argued by the discrimination chasers is that equality of opportunity requires enforced demographics in hiring or admissions processes. They ignore the fact that demography based approaches to equality lead exactly to the best possible outcomes that governments can guarantee. If we would like to see where that leads we need look no further than our public education system. For decades the system has become centrally controlled to greater and greater degrees and during that same time period we have fallen further in our educational outcomes whether compared to other nations or compared to objective standards such as literacy levels or percentage of graduates who have basic mathematical competency. Our public education system has shown unequivocally that legislating an equality of outcomes is tantamount to legislating a low quality outcome.

When we talk about guaranteeing an equality of opportunity we can look to the 14th amendment as an example of what such legislation would look like and how it would operate (specifically the first two sections). This amendment did not guarantee that every male would vote, nor did it specify that the number of white men voting would only be proportional to the number of white men in the voting population as a whole. Instead it specified that the right for men to vote should not be abridged and specified the penalty incurred by the state for violating that right. The key here is that the punishment – although aimed at ending racial discrimination at the voting booth – was completely colorblind. If a state were to become dominated by Latinos due to immigration – let’s say New Mexico for example – and the majority of citizens chose to implement a policy stating that voters must have ancestors from Central or South America in order to vote New Mexico would be subject to the punishment of only having representation in Congress proportional to the population which had Central or South American ancestry. In fact the state would be allowed to do that.

Equality of opportunity leaves the door wide open for unequal outcomes. An open door for unequal outcomes is an open door for incentive to promote outcomes that are above average – in other words, the opportunity to fail is the best motivation to succeed. Now we need to ensure that our government does not try to legislate the equality of outcomes, only of opportunity.

Tags Elevated, government, political philosophy

culture pictures

Our Chinese Finger Trap

Socialism is like a Chinese finger trap. Playing with it just a bit look harmless and even fun, but once you start on that road it much easier to get further trapped than it is to free yourself.

Chinese Finger Trap

Image based on stuck for lyfe by Chris Martin.

I read a great example of this in the comments on an article about some proposed seatbelt legislation – specifically the following interchange:

No mandate please | 8:43 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

If I don’t want to wear a seatbelt, that’s my business. But the sponsors of this bill will cry…”it’s about safety”. Let’s all be honest. Bottom line…it’s not about safety. It’s about revenue. It’s about mining the drivers in Utah for more money over a silly (soon to be) law.

Legislators should stick to real issues. Seatbelt laws are unconstitutional.

Anonymous | 9:06 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

How many people out there are not willing to wear a seatbelt but more than willing to sue the insurance company for injuries sustained for not wearing a seatbelt.

Anonymous | 9:18 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

It is your business as long as you don’t expect Utah taxpayers to pick up your medical bills if you are out of work or disabled. Sort of like a smoker. Do it if you want but don’t expect me to pay your bills if you end up with cancer.

Really? | 9:18 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

Do you really think that not wearing a seat bealt is just your business? Let’s say you don’t have insurance, like many Utahns, who is going to pay your medical bills? You will probably end up on Medicaid and the tax payers will have to pay for you… now let’s say you do have insurance. Do you think there is a possibility that my insurance rates will go up because of your expensive medical bills? Now let’s say you have a wife and kids, and you die due to your neglect, what happens to them? They may go on public assistance as well. They start getting Social Security death benefits. Can you see that more is at stake than “your business”?

YES REALLY | 9:38 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

Hey Really… Yes I think it is just my business or whoever it is that chooses to not wear a seatbelt. You have a good point on the insurance statement, but that is just one of many things that could make your rates go up or have people get on public assistance. People can start getting Social Security death benefits from anything that might take someones life. I have to agree with the above comment, I do believe its not about safety, it really is about the money. We should have a choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt. Remember this is America.

Sagacious Inquisitor | 9:58 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

To Really.
Sadly, your comments are based on the Socialistic notion that somehow society is responsible for me. Granted, Socialism is the dangerous system into which we have already slipped too far.

Once we already have a little socialism – such as government paying the costs of health care for those who can’t afford the choices they have made – it gets easy to use that as a lever to argue that the choices they make are no longer theirs to make but are within the reach of government to make those choices for them. The problem is that each time such an argument is made it becomes that much more difficult to be free to make our own choices – responsible for the consequences of our choices, and not responsible for the choices of others.

It is too easy to paint proponents of individual responsibility as uncaring towards those who are less fortunate than they are, but that is an unfair characterization of the position. I am fully in favor of helping someone in need. I absolutely desire that doctors be paid for their time and effort on behalf of people who cannot afford the health care they need.

The difference is that I believe we do a disservice to those who receive such help when the help comes from a nameless, faceless, impersonal government agency rather than coming from caring neighbors or relatives. Not only do they feel no urgency to improve their situations or to repay the kindness they have received in their time of need when aid comes from such an impersonal source, but it is impossible for government to fully tailor that aid to their specific situation which opens up the misfortune of some people to be used as an opportunity for gain by other unscrupulous people. With caring individuals involved in rendering the needed assistance there are greater safeguards against those who would take such advantage and more incentive for those receiving aid to lift themselves as much as possible.

If the vehicle of government could be used to eliminate social ills such as poverty or homelessness we would have found that solution after decades of government intervention. For all the efforts to use government for those noble ends we show little if any progress.

Tags Elevated, government, responsibility, socialism

culture

Liberty is the Priority

Much of what has gone wrong in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam is a result of a culture that is very different from ours. As I thought about that recently it occurred to me that Iraq is typical of all (or virtually all) of the fighting that the U.S. has engaged in since the end of World War II in that our goal has been to establish or protect democracy. It would seem that democracy is our standard for measuring the relative liberty found in various nations.

The problem that we generate when we confuse democracy with liberty is that we get so focused on the structure that we forget the fundamental principle. The truth is that I would much rather live under a dictator who enforced law with consistency and equity than vote regularly to determine who would take the lead in telling me what to do and suppressing my freedoms as they deemed appropriate.

I believe that the last half century has offered conclusive proof that we cannot enforce liberty by the installation of democracy. Instead we should be spending out resources of time and energy towards the perfecting and perpetuating of liberty here so that our nation can stand as an example of liberty to the world. Rather than going out and policing other nations we would find that by policing ourselves, other nations would seek our counsel when necessary after they were able to support a free society.

Right now China, which is a fully communist country, seems more prepared to sustain a free society than Iraq even since we toppled their dictator. In fact, Iran might already be more prepared than Iraq is currently. Liberty cannot be imposed from outside. Our nation would not have survived its own founding if the society in the 13 colonies had not already been prepared to maintain the principle of freedom upon which our country was founded.

The question for each succeeding generation will always be – are they still prepared to maintain the freedom they inherited?

It is a question without a pre-determined answer.

Tags democracy, Elevated, Iraq, liberty, thoughts

National

Health Insurance Isn’t Insurance

Post author By David
Post date October 16, 2007
3 Comments on Health Insurance Isn’t Insurance

Steve Olsen started a discussion about healthcare at THE UTAH AMICUS (I’m looking forward to part II) by asking: Is “free market health insurance” a nonsense phrase? He then identifies two issues that we must face head-on if we are to have any hope of actually pursuing a solution to this problem.

We hear a little about “this is how I’m going to pay for it” in these proposals, but very little of “this is how I’m going to eliminate waste, fraud and excessive profits”. Most independent studies have estimated between 25 and 40 percent of America’s health care dollar is spent on things other than actually providing care. . .

Not only that, improving the cost efficiency of health care has become an economic necessity. Consider Chrysler Corporation. In 1998, Daimler Benz paid $38 billion to purchase Chrysler, and earlier this year, essentially paid Cerberus to take it off their hands. Why? To escape the billions of dollars in unfunded health care obligations to employees and retirees. Basically, a major American manufacturing company was driven to insolvency because America expects employers to foot the bill for health care, something no other major industrial country does.

It is interesting that everyone seems to know that inefficiency in the system needs to be removed and yet there are no concrete ideas being presented on how to do that by any of the candidates spouting their proposals. The last time I wrote about health care I said that we need consumers to become sensitive to the costs of health care services rather than being sensitive to the costs of insurance premiums. Steve’s post reminds me that most Americans has even been insulated from the costs of insurance premiums until the last decade or so. Free markets promote efficiency but we are not going to have a free market for health care until we address the second issue that Steve discusses. (This is true no matter what Health Insurance Connector Authority we may decided to create.)

I believe one thing that hamstrings our efforts to improve health care is our insistence on using the word “insurance”. Let’s look at the dictionary definition of insurance: “A means of indemnity (transferring the responsibility for loss) against occurrence of an uncertain event.” Using the conservative definition of socialism, insurance is essentially socialistic, since it transfers personal responsibility to a larger group in society. The characteristic that allows insurance (in the traditional sense) to work in a free market system, despite being socialistic, is the fact that the event insured against is both uncertain and undesirable. . . Except for isolated cases of fraud, the undesirability of the event being insured against means collection of the benefit will not be abused.

Is health care a proper fit for the insurance paradigm? There are instances of catastrophic illness or accidents that meet the definition. But, in general, most consumption of health care services is neither uncertain nor undesired. We want that daily dose of Lipitor to keep our cholesterol down. We purposely conceive children and consume the health care services necessary to bring a new baby into the world – and we also consume birth control medicine to avoid pregnancy. Whether the illness is diabetes or bi-polar disorder, health care is often a matter of planned consumption where strong and significant consumer demand exists for the product.

People should be allowed to choose the kinds of plans that currently pass as health “insurance” but we need to wake up to the rigged system that we are working with. Insurance companies make it more expensive for doctors to operate and consumers pay that price. Worse yet, patients who don’t have insurance are charged higher prices to compensate for those extra costs because the insurance companies set their own prices on what they will pay for various treatments and office visits. This may be financially beneficial in the short run, but the result is that patients want to get their money’s worth so they expect more services. More demand means higher prices. If consumers were sensitive to the prices of individual procedures the demand would level off as the procedures got too pricey. On the other hand, more demand can lead to efficiency, but the insurance companies keep paying the same price for a procedure (and never lower their premiums) whether the system is efficient or not so the costs remain high even when doctors find ways to improve the system.

One comment from Scott Thompson asks Steve to run for Congress against Rob Bishop again. I don’t know enough about Scott to vote for him (not that it matters since that’s not my district) but I am impressed that he would come out and directly identify the central fallacy that keeps us from actually fixing our health care system.

Tags economics, Elevated, health care, issues

General

Economies of Scale

This news is disturbing but hardly surprising – our existing entitlement programs are unsustainable in the long term. The more I think about it the more I realize that this is like a lesson I learned as a child about ants. There’s an old movie that depicts 25-foot tall ants attacking people. What I learned as a child was that ants could not exist at that scale.

Ants at their existing scale are extremely strong. They can carry many times their body weight with their little exoskeletal bodies. Ants at the scale depicted in the movie would collapse under their own weight. As it turns out, people are the same way. I remember watching a documentary on giants and one thing that really caught my attention is that they have extra health problems because of their size. In fact, their life expectancy is decades shorter society as a whole because their organs tend to fail trying to maintain bodies that are larger than human organs are meant to support.

What I am realizing now is that the same principles of scale hold true for governments as well. Large, intrusive governments are unsustainable over time. The larger a government is, meaning the more it tries to do for citizens, the shorter it can remain stable. Either it must be scaled back or it will collapse. In our case we are staring at the possibility of economic collapse, but sometimes the collapse is a societal collapse.

If you want more proof that there exists a natural law of scale just remember that all the largest elements that have been “discovered” in the last few decades have actually been manufactured in labs. Without exception they rapidly decay into smaller elements because atoms larger than Uranium (weight 238 au) are not sustainable.

Tags economics, Elevated, insights, politics