Tag: thoughts

Missing the Boat

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

In a comment over at KVNU’s For The People blog Craig concluded that if I was right in my position about health care it would mean that basically everyone had been missing the boat on this issue. My response to Craig was that I honestly believe that this current reform debate is missing the boat on what reforms we need.

Meanwhile, over at Fire Dog Lake (again) I find another insightful post from a staunch liberal, this time it’s from Jane Hamsher (yesterday it was Jon Walker) who is talking about what she calls the left/right populist wrap around.

There is an enormous, rising tide of populism that crosses party lines in objection to the Senate bill. We opposed the bank bailouts, the AIG bonuses, the lack of transparency about the Federal Reserve, “bailout” Ben Bernanke, and the way the Democrats have used their power to sell the country’s resources to secure their own personal advantage, just as the libertarians have. In fact, we’ve worked together with them to oppose these things. What we agree on: both parties are working against the interests of the public, the only difference is in the messaging. (emphasis added)

This is another example of the media missing the boat. They play everything as Left vs Right. They promote the notion that anything which angers both the radical right and the radical left must be pretty good policy – that’s their definition of centrist. In contrast, Ms. Hamsher pits the left/right populist wrap around against the beltway insiders – or as some of my commenters have called them, the corporatists.

Being able to unite the left wing and the right wing in opposition to a policy does not make that a good policy. After all, the German Fascists were able to unite the American Capitalists and the Soviet Communists in opposition against them, but you won’t here anyone (except neo-nazis) arguing that the German Fascists were good because of that.

We’ve had a perfect example of that here recently. I consider myself to be more conservative than the “conservatives” in Congress. Charles considers himself to be more liberal than the “liberals” in Congress. We disagree on many issues, but we’d both like to see a government that represented the people of the United States. I don’t see how it can be argued that Congress is getting it right when I want to see my Republican senator defeated and have him replaced with a real Conservative and Charles want to see his Democratic senator defeated and have her replaced with a real Liberal. (Excuse me for putting words into your mouth Charles.)

There is a disconnect between the roots of representative government and the tree of elected officers. Anyone who thinks that is a positive sign or healthy in any way is definitely missing the boat.

P.S. Having two hits in two days means I will now be following Fire Dog Lake rather than waiting for others to point out their latest articles.

Tags 2010, connections, discourse, power, thoughts

General

Your Employer: Competitor or Collaborator?

Post author By David
Post date December 15, 2009
3 Comments on Your Employer: Competitor or Collaborator?

photo credit: Trypode

This question is framed in terms of employer sponsored health care benefits, but it really applies to any employer/employee interaction. Are you working with your employer, or are you competing with your employer? To put it another way, is your employer working with you, or simply working you?

I ask this because in the health care debate there are two groups of people who have opposing views on this. One group argues that employer sponsored health care as the dominant source of health insurance coverage is destructive because it distorts the health insurance market by locking people into few if any options for insurance and locks them out of the economic decisions about what plans they want. They also argue that everything your employer spends sponsoring health care coverage is money out of the employees paycheck. The other group argues that employer sponsored health care is a good thing because that is the only way most people can afford coverage and if the employer were to drop coverage the money they save would not go back into paychecks, but would simply pad their bottom line.

The second group obviously views the employer and employee as competitors. These are the people who favor unions because the employee’s need to band together in order to stand up to their employers. This adversarial relationship dampens production and hampers progress. Before anyone gets too upset with this analysis let me just say that there have been situations where unions were necessary but they are no panacea.

Let me explain why I think the first perspective is more accurate based on my own experience.

Tags economics, Elevated, health care, KVNU FTP, thoughts, work

General

Questions of Legitimacy

I found Power, Authority, Legitimacy at Electric Politics to be a very interesting article. It talks about these three important elements to effectively government and how they interact with each other. The focus is on legitimacy, but George Kenney also explains how power and authority can be in place without bestowing any legitimacy.

As I started reading, before Kenney began speaking about the United States government, my thought was that our government is suffering from issues of legitimacy not unlike Mexico or Iran. There is no doubt about the authority or the power associated with our government, but legitimacy is definitely a question.

Nowhere do we see intelligent discussion regarding whether the government of the United States is legitimate or, if not, to what degree it is not, how it got that way, and what should be done about it.

Despite that claim in the article I think that the discussion has been happening on a small scale for some time although I’m not sure the discussion has been framed with the term “legitimacy.” I also think that it is being discussed more broadly and more openly. Kenney also makes this claim which might explain why I see the discussion differently than he does:

American voters have done their job: they’ve elected politicians who promised to satisfy their preferences. But politicians haven’t delivered. Should we blame the voters? That’s one approach . . . Another approach is to blame our leaders. . . All such complaints, though, have to do with either power or authority.

I am among those who has talked about whether the federal government has the authority to do what they are doing and what they propose to do going forward. When Mr. Kenney talks about authority he is not talking about theoretical authority, which is what I am questioning. Instead he is talking about functional authority, which is not in doubt. As the only government operating in the entire United States and with no state governments putting up any real challenge to their mandates, the federal government unquestionably has the functional authority to do what it is doing.

Tags connections, discourse, government, reactions, thoughts

General

Personal Independence

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

culture

What Are Your Fundamental Assumptions?

Post author By David
Post date December 3, 2009
17 Comments on What Are Your Fundamental Assumptions?

photo credit: quarksteilchen

In the midst of a recent comment the author revealed a fundamental assumption that he and I don’t share that clearly explains why we have differing views on government:

Federal mandates are about the only power the government has to prevent a race to the bottom. . . THE only way to get some states to do what needs to be done is to simply mandate it. The race to the bottom has got to end.

I should start by saying that federal mandates truly are the only power that government has to prevent a race to the bottom – also that I don’t think such mandates are sufficient to prevent such a race (in other words government is powerless to stop that race). After exploring the assumptions that serve as the foundation for that statement about a race to the bottom I quickly concluded that I could not accept that view of the world for myself.

The view that government must use federal mandates to prevent a race to the bottom seems to be built on the belief of Thomas Hobbes that people are basically selfish and evil. People who act as Hobbes expects will naturally engage in a race to the bottom on any issue. It is possible to believe that states will engage in a race to the bottom while still thinking the people are not basically selfish but to hold that combination of beliefs requires a belief that politics is basically corrupt and that it is mainly those who would engage in a race to the bottom who hold public office.

Tags Elevated, federalism, political philosophy, reactions, thoughts

culture

A Fundamental Difference Between Conservatives and Progressives

Post author By David
Post date December 2, 2009
14 Comments on A Fundamental Difference Between Conservatives and Progressives

photo credit: Marcin Porwit

Late in October a comment by Jason sparked my brain to recognize a subtle but fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives. Perhaps it should have been obvious simply by comparing the definitions for “conservative” and “progressive” but the implications seem to be both subtle and profound.

The word “conservative” can be reduced to essentially seeking to maintain a static foundation. The word “progressive” can be reduced to essentially seeking to promote change from the status quo. Notice that, contrary to what some people believe, progressive and conservative are not antonyms. There are times when change from the status quo may be towards an earlier static foundation, but I think it is obvious why these two views would generally not be in harmony with each other.

Tags conservative, Elevated, political philosophy, progressive, thoughts

State

Do the Utah Lake Bridge Right

Post author By David
Post date November 19, 2009
No Comments on Do the Utah Lake Bridge Right

I agree with the sentiment in this Deseret News article that the environmental impacts of proposed Utah Lake bridge should be discussed.

{Sam} Rushforth has been studying at {Utah Lake} for 35 years and said there needs to be an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conducted while the bridge over the lake is being considered.

Those who have read here long enough know that I am in favor of building a bridge over the lake and even if I weren’t I think it is inevitable in the long run. The argument that a bridge over the lake will bring more growth to Utah county is laughable – the growth is coming either way. One comment on the article says that a bridge is not necessary with the arrival of the new roads under construction through Lehi on the north end of the lake. Having lived in Lehi and worked on Main Street there I am absolutely convinced that no matter how much road they build there it will be congested very quickly with the ever increasing demand of the growing populations in the area – a bridge will make a significant impact on commute time.

Having said all of that, my support of building a bridge does not interfere with my belief that doing an EIS is absolutely imperative in order to do it right. I would consider such a study to be the very least in the way of due diligence on the part of those who want to build a bridge.

Since I no longer live in Utah County, I no longer have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate like I once did. I consider myself to be a relatively informed and now more objective observer and long term I am certain that the bridge, if it is done right, will be a benefit to Utah County residents and possibly to the lake itself. I urge all those who are actively discussing this issue to not rush their decisions – simply throwing up some steel girders and a wide slab of concrete would be a travesty but doing nothing or putting off bridge planning until it becomes truly critical would be foolhardy.

Start now.Take your time. Do it right.

Tags Deseret News, issues, thoughts, Utah County, Utah Lake

General

Eight Ideas for Reform

Kyle Mathews shares eight steps he believes would produce a more functional congress at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen. It is an interesting list including ideas I’ve heard before and a few new ideas. There is also some good discussion in the comments. I thought it would be worth sharing here in the order that he presented the ideas.

Resolve the electoral status of D.C.

I’ve made my position on this issue clear in the past. Kyle agrees with me that it is important and that the current legislation is the wrong route.

Limit campaign contributions to those who will be represented in the election.

Again, I’ve already shared my thoughts on that (multiple times) and I agree with this idea. I like the term Kyle uses – electoral carpetbaggery.

Water down the filibuster.

This is one I don’t think I have written about. I agree that the filibuster is overused but I also agree with one of the comments which said that placing a time-limit on filibusters would effectively remove them completely. As one who believes that the filibuster mechanism provides an important check on the system I think I would rather put up with its overuse, than do away with it entirely.

Eliminate anonymous holds.

I had not considered this before either, but as a believer in transparency and accountability I agree that holds should not be anonymous. If I put a hold on a bill I should be willing to admit it and explain my reasons.

Increase the size of both houses.

Once again, I have made my position on this quite clear, and once again I agree. I had never considered increasing the size of the Senate, but the way that he presents it – three senators per state – would be workable and would still allow the Senate to function in the same capacity that it was originally designed to function. I especially like the way the three senators per state idea would give each state a chance to bring a fresh face to the Senate in each cycle.

Increase the capacity and role of the Congressional Research Service.

This was another idea that was new to me, but it sounds like a good one. One comment argues that members of congress only use the CBO information if it benefits them. That argument is fairly weak because whatever hurts one side of the debate will benefit the other so the information will almost always be used. More information is almost never a bad thing for the governing process.

Restructure the committee system.

This is another idea I have never addressed, but I agree that the committee system is broken. Committees tend to turn committee members into industry insiders (if they weren’t already) and thus minimize any objectivity that should exist between government and industry. One other idea I once heard related to this was random committee assignments and regular rotation. I think there are lots of ways the committee system could be altered and most of them would be improvements over the current system.

Make all elections non-partisan.

Once upon a time I might have agreed with this, but I now believe that this would actually make it more difficult for voters to get truly informed about candidates and would further discourage voter participation in the political system. I could be wrong about that, but that is what I would expect to happen.

Out of the eight ideas I had addressed three directly in the past and I agree with six of the ideas in principle – some details would still need to be worked out on some of those. If I had to choose all or nothing I think that making all eight reforms would be a positive change overall in our system despite the drawbacks of the two ideas that I disagree with.

Tags change congress, civic participation, connections, ideas, thoughts, voting

General

Knowledge – the Key to Sound Government

Post author By David
Post date November 3, 2009
4 Comments on Knowledge – the Key to Sound Government

photo credit: TheAllNewAventuresOfMe

Although I had never heard it before, this quote in Utah Policy really captured the essence of some of what I have been trying to convey in posts and comments on what makes an ideal legislator:

“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives”. James Madison

We are supposed to have a popular government (government of and by the people) and it must have popular information (information from the people) if it is to function properly. This is one of the reasons that backroom politics is so undesirable. In this age of hyper-communication every elected official (or even candidate) has the means of acquiring popular information and they must do everything in their power to acquire that information.

Tags change congress, connections, Elevated, liberty, quotes, thoughts

General

We Should Make That Illegal

Post author By David
Post date October 21, 2009
13 Comments on We Should Make That Illegal

I heard a report of a store robbery this morning and the description of the perpetrator sounded very familiar – dark clothing, dark beanie hat, you know the drill. As I heard it I discarded the remote possibility that there is one man or a small group that use that outfit as their signature in committing these felonies. This led me to a new conclusion (I’m amazed nobody has thought of this before) – the availability of dark clothing, especially dark t-shirts and dark beanie hats, induces people to commit robberies.

We should make the production and sale of those clothing items illegal and remove the temptation to commit these robberies.

Tags funny, reactions, thoughts