I just purchased my very first gun, a lovely 12 gauge pump-action shot gun. This may concern some of you. There is nothing worse than a eeeevil right-wing extremist who is armed.
I'm not a gun type person, never even fired one. I held one once as a kid, my uncle had a pistol that my mom hated. That moment was seminal. I never forgot what it felt like, cold and heavy. It was a dull gray color, and smelled of oil and gunpowder. He had a peculiar smirk as he handed it to me, a smile that seemed to say, "Here, take it kid, be a man."
Now I am 51 years old. I have lived in Montana nearly 30 years. Although Montana has a reputation as a fiercely rugged, individualistic place, somehow it took me this long to embrace this rite of passage towards becoming a real Montanan, dare I say, a real man.
On one hand I was reluctant to buy a gun, because a firearm is quintessential lethal force. The power of life and death is not one to assume lightly. On the other hand, standing at that gun counter in the store was as exciting as when I asked my wife out on our very first date.
The salesman knew. Obviously he had trod these paths many times. He had that somehow-familiar smirk on his face, one that reminded me of my uncle. "So you wanna buy a gun, huh?" he said with a wink. Hmm, did he say that, or did he really say, "Here, take it kid, be a man"?
I almost said that I was not some teenager buying condoms, but thought the better of it. After all, buying a gun might be like boarding an airplane. You just don't joke with the TSA.
My son had come along for his expertise. It needs to be a moment that is shared with your first-born. He already owns several firearms, and suggested a shotgun for "personal defense." He coolly informed me that in the heat of the moment, you don't have to be as accurate with your aim with a shotgun in order to stop an intruder.
On the back wall there was a rack with dozens of guns laid out in neat rows, some of which were unexpectedly expensive. This is certainly one reason I haven't owned a gun. I have other bad habits to waste my money on. My 67 Camaro convertible has received my financial devotion up to this point, so buying a gun (or a snowmobile, or a 4 wheeler) had never been in the cards.
So why the change of heart? Well, the world isn't as safe as it once was, and some big city problems seem to have made their way to Montana. Couple this with my belief in and admiration of the Constitution, I almost felt obligated.
I was surprised to discover how good it feels to exercise a constitutional right. You know, if the second amendment was treated the same way as other, more popular rights, not only would we acknowledge it - yes, celebrate it - we would be entitled to government funding.
Like my uncle's pistol, the shotgun I settled on was cold and gray. Fitting, I suppose, for an instrument of destruction. I didn't even know how to hold it, kind of like a new father with his infant child. I didn't want to drop it. The salesman indulgently showed me what to do.
I was surprised to find out that in Montana there is no waiting period. I walked in, filled out a form, they made a phone call, and I walked out. I thought that I would have to give a fingerprint, or a blood sample or maybe show a permission slip from Max Baucus or something.
So now I am proud gun owner, in the finest of Montana traditions. Or alternately, I am now a danger to myself and others.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Planning in Gallatin County - editorial for 6/16/10
Land use regulations. Growth policies. Long range planning. These all sound like good and desirable things. After all, planning ahead is what prudent people do.
However, government always seems to take things off the deep end. After all, if a little planning is a good thing, then a lot of planning ought to be a lot better. Even the minutiae, like a dog poster in a window, are regulated. Before long there are whole branches of government dedicated to controlling what you do with your property.
And it certainly is about control. Leftists love to tell other people what to do. These same people, who would scream loud and long if government was regulating what happens in their bedrooms, seem to have not problem at all with the idea of telling people what color to paint their houses.
Montana is going down this central planning road. I think it is a dangerous trend. These planners are no more intelligent than you or I, but they have power. Their use of this power, like all government intervention, has unintended consequences, consequences that are almost always negative.
For example, take my home state of Washington. Washington has a marvelously extensive tax base, including Boeing, Microsoft, and Weyerhauser. It has experienced an economic expansion of massive proportions in recent years. Yet last year they had a $2.8 Billion deficit. Rather than cut spending, they raised taxes and set themselves up for a projected $5.8 Billion deficit this year.
How can this happen? There are lots of reasons, many of which come from the faulty government-as-a-problem-solver mentality. Certainly oppressive land use regulation and its attendant bureaucracy is a contributing factor. All day long, planners sit in their cubicles and dream up new regulations. They monitor and dictate what can and can’t be done someone else’s property.
In Washington, zoning led to the 1990 Growth Management Act, which led to Comprehensive Plans, which lead to Uniform Development Codes, which lead to Critical Areas Ordinances, which lead to Shoreline Acts… you get the idea. These noble causes are all for the “greater good,” while simultaneously leading to the erosion of individual property rights. You see, when someone else can tell you what to do with your own property, you have ceded control, and therefore, ownership of it.
It was only a matter of time that creeping bureaucracy would come to Montana. Counties & cities all seem to have planning staffs that never seem to stop planning. They just keep planning and we keep paying.
Gallatin country has growth policy, a trails plan, a recreation plan, and something called the “National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community Demonstration Project.” In addition, there are all sorts of committees, districts, and regulations, which you can see yourself at http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/gallatincomt_plandept/planning.
Good intentions do not necessarily yield good results. And someone always has to pay. Open spaces, walking trails, and neighborhood beautification all sound wonderful, at least while prosperity is funding it, but when the economy takes a downturn, people start realizing how expensive these things are. Like other government programs, taxpayers always end up being stuck with the check.
You know, I am not opposed to reasonable zoning for things like ensuring public safety. Other things, like property values, appearance, or home density can be dealt with by neighborhood associations and covenants.
Ironically, the influence of planners spreads in exactly the same way as the growth they seek to control. Maybe we need a planning board to control the spread of central-planning government.
However, government always seems to take things off the deep end. After all, if a little planning is a good thing, then a lot of planning ought to be a lot better. Even the minutiae, like a dog poster in a window, are regulated. Before long there are whole branches of government dedicated to controlling what you do with your property.
And it certainly is about control. Leftists love to tell other people what to do. These same people, who would scream loud and long if government was regulating what happens in their bedrooms, seem to have not problem at all with the idea of telling people what color to paint their houses.
Montana is going down this central planning road. I think it is a dangerous trend. These planners are no more intelligent than you or I, but they have power. Their use of this power, like all government intervention, has unintended consequences, consequences that are almost always negative.
For example, take my home state of Washington. Washington has a marvelously extensive tax base, including Boeing, Microsoft, and Weyerhauser. It has experienced an economic expansion of massive proportions in recent years. Yet last year they had a $2.8 Billion deficit. Rather than cut spending, they raised taxes and set themselves up for a projected $5.8 Billion deficit this year.
How can this happen? There are lots of reasons, many of which come from the faulty government-as-a-problem-solver mentality. Certainly oppressive land use regulation and its attendant bureaucracy is a contributing factor. All day long, planners sit in their cubicles and dream up new regulations. They monitor and dictate what can and can’t be done someone else’s property.
In Washington, zoning led to the 1990 Growth Management Act, which led to Comprehensive Plans, which lead to Uniform Development Codes, which lead to Critical Areas Ordinances, which lead to Shoreline Acts… you get the idea. These noble causes are all for the “greater good,” while simultaneously leading to the erosion of individual property rights. You see, when someone else can tell you what to do with your own property, you have ceded control, and therefore, ownership of it.
It was only a matter of time that creeping bureaucracy would come to Montana. Counties & cities all seem to have planning staffs that never seem to stop planning. They just keep planning and we keep paying.
Gallatin country has growth policy, a trails plan, a recreation plan, and something called the “National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community Demonstration Project.” In addition, there are all sorts of committees, districts, and regulations, which you can see yourself at http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/gallatincomt_plandept/planning.
Good intentions do not necessarily yield good results. And someone always has to pay. Open spaces, walking trails, and neighborhood beautification all sound wonderful, at least while prosperity is funding it, but when the economy takes a downturn, people start realizing how expensive these things are. Like other government programs, taxpayers always end up being stuck with the check.
You know, I am not opposed to reasonable zoning for things like ensuring public safety. Other things, like property values, appearance, or home density can be dealt with by neighborhood associations and covenants.
Ironically, the influence of planners spreads in exactly the same way as the growth they seek to control. Maybe we need a planning board to control the spread of central-planning government.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Medical Marijuana - Editorial, Bozeman Chronicle
Marijuana has been making news lately. Although I am a conservative, I have libertarian leanings. I tend to believe that people have the right to choose how to live their lives as long as their choices do not harm others.
Montana voters did approve medical marijuana, but that doesn’t mean that using it is good or desirable. Even though I don’t mind it being legal, I oppose its use. I have seen the problems using marijuana causes.
I remember my college days when I was smoking weed. Oh. Actually, I really don’t remember. Some memories from those days are missing, unfortunately. Happily, connecting with some old friends on Facebook has helped me to regain some of those parts of my life. The problem is, some of these memories are best forgotten.
I was a music major, so it was an easy transition into the culture. We all toked, we thought we were these sophisticated musicians. There was one particular album, a live album by Carlos Santana, that we loved listening to while high. Thing is, I couldn’t stand it when I was straight. Same with Frank Zappa.
And of course, we thought we played our instruments better while high. We played in jazz bands and jazz combos, where you close your eyes and just feel the groove. We felt it. Magical. But what a surprise to hear the recording the next day! It was terrible.
Fast forward some thirty years. Having recovered most of my mental faculties (an assertion my critics might dispute), I note that marijuana advocates are still using the same fuzzy rationalizations we used: “Well, dude, alcohol is legal, and marijuana is no worse than alcohol.” You know, appealing to another damaging product is a not smart move, I think. On second thought, it’s hard to blame them for not thinking clearly.
The real problem is, legality eventually leads to the idea of desirability and necessity. Then, we all must tolerate, approve, and eventually celebrate. Later, it becomes a right. Finally, the right requires funding. I wonder if Obamacare covers medical marijuana?
I note that a local firm has opened a laboratory to study the different varieties of cannabis. Once might rightly wonder, if this lab discovered a variety that had all of the medicinal qualities, but had absolutely no mind-altering effects, would medical marijuana advocates rush to embrace it? Somehow I doubt it.
Marijuana supporters are starting to become more insistent. They chafe under the perceived slights to their cause. They don’t want their medicine to be restricted, but since marijuana is a “smokable product,” it is subject to 50-40-103. 8): “’Smoking’ or ‘to smoke’ includes the act of lighting, smoking, or carrying a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any smokable product.” Yup, it's smokable, just like tobacco.
The city has rightly established other restrictions, like the 1000 foot buffer for schools. But wait a minute. If marijuana is really so wonderful, maybe we should tolerate/approve/celebrate what is legal/necessary/a right. Maybe we need a marijuana clinic in every school. After all, it’s medicine. Who are we to deny relief from suffering? And besides, kids are going to use it anyway, so shouldn’t we teach them to do it responsibly, and provide a safe, non-judgmental environment to do so?
Under the guise of relieving suffering, those who advocate marijuana use have another agenda at work. I think it is pretty clear that they are putting up, forgive me, a smoke screen.
Montana voters did approve medical marijuana, but that doesn’t mean that using it is good or desirable. Even though I don’t mind it being legal, I oppose its use. I have seen the problems using marijuana causes.
I remember my college days when I was smoking weed. Oh. Actually, I really don’t remember. Some memories from those days are missing, unfortunately. Happily, connecting with some old friends on Facebook has helped me to regain some of those parts of my life. The problem is, some of these memories are best forgotten.
I was a music major, so it was an easy transition into the culture. We all toked, we thought we were these sophisticated musicians. There was one particular album, a live album by Carlos Santana, that we loved listening to while high. Thing is, I couldn’t stand it when I was straight. Same with Frank Zappa.
And of course, we thought we played our instruments better while high. We played in jazz bands and jazz combos, where you close your eyes and just feel the groove. We felt it. Magical. But what a surprise to hear the recording the next day! It was terrible.
Fast forward some thirty years. Having recovered most of my mental faculties (an assertion my critics might dispute), I note that marijuana advocates are still using the same fuzzy rationalizations we used: “Well, dude, alcohol is legal, and marijuana is no worse than alcohol.” You know, appealing to another damaging product is a not smart move, I think. On second thought, it’s hard to blame them for not thinking clearly.
The real problem is, legality eventually leads to the idea of desirability and necessity. Then, we all must tolerate, approve, and eventually celebrate. Later, it becomes a right. Finally, the right requires funding. I wonder if Obamacare covers medical marijuana?
I note that a local firm has opened a laboratory to study the different varieties of cannabis. Once might rightly wonder, if this lab discovered a variety that had all of the medicinal qualities, but had absolutely no mind-altering effects, would medical marijuana advocates rush to embrace it? Somehow I doubt it.
Marijuana supporters are starting to become more insistent. They chafe under the perceived slights to their cause. They don’t want their medicine to be restricted, but since marijuana is a “smokable product,” it is subject to 50-40-103. 8): “’Smoking’ or ‘to smoke’ includes the act of lighting, smoking, or carrying a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any smokable product.” Yup, it's smokable, just like tobacco.
The city has rightly established other restrictions, like the 1000 foot buffer for schools. But wait a minute. If marijuana is really so wonderful, maybe we should tolerate/approve/celebrate what is legal/necessary/a right. Maybe we need a marijuana clinic in every school. After all, it’s medicine. Who are we to deny relief from suffering? And besides, kids are going to use it anyway, so shouldn’t we teach them to do it responsibly, and provide a safe, non-judgmental environment to do so?
Under the guise of relieving suffering, those who advocate marijuana use have another agenda at work. I think it is pretty clear that they are putting up, forgive me, a smoke screen.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Did the Supreme court open the floodgates?
JK writes:
In spite of their dislike of Wall Street and big corporate money, Libertarians and Republicans of Gallatin County who are fond of railing against federal government (i.e., Congress and the administration) interference in their lives and activist (read “liberal”) Supreme Court justices, have been deafeningly silent about the recent conservative controlled Supreme Court decision regarding campaign contributions by corporations. This decision overturned 100-plus years of precedents, which include a 1912 Montana law that banned political contributions by corporations, and, according to Justice Stevens, seven Supreme Court decisions. How activist can one get? By what stretch of the imagination could this have possibly been a “free speech” issue?
Is the silence because special interests and big money really do coincide with the private longings of those on the right, and that the cry against Wall Street is really only political rhetoric? Or is it that the right can use the influence of big money to further its social agendas (see ad on CBS during the Super Bowl)? Sen. McCain now accepts the McCain-Feingold Act as negated. Unions may be allowed to contribute directly to political campaigns as well, but their resources are far outweighed by corporations’ megamoney.
What this decision may mean, ultimately, is not a detour in the democratic electoral process, but the building of a new superhighway that favors rich corporations, special interests, lobbyists, and Wall Street: all at the expense of the common person. And, for those “originalists” among you (Justice Scalia, in particular), please note that the Constitution does not mention corporations as “persons”; in fact, it gives no rights to corporations at all. If this is not the Supreme Court legislating from the bench, I don’t know what is.
------------
I respond:
Dear JK,
I decided to answer your question about Citizens United v. FEC.
Have you read the case, or do you have any background information regarding the real questions that were presented to the Supreme court? The reason I ask is because the nature of your letter suggests you obtained all your information from the mainstream media and other left-leaning sources.
When I read the initial news reports I did not agree with the ruling. Unfortunately, the media presented the issue in a manner that suggested that the court opened the floodgates for corporate money to be donated to political candidates. Upon further investigation, this is not what happened at all.
The organization Citizens United had produced a film that was highly critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Because the release of the film coincided with the restrictive final period prior to the democratic primary prescribed by McCain-Feingold, a lower court ruled that the film was a political contribution and therefore subject to the prohibitions contained in McCain-Feingold.
The questions presented to the Supreme court were:
1. Whether challenges to the disclosure requirements imposed on "electioneering communications" by McCain-Feingold were resolved by the court challenge to McCain-Feingold (McConnell v. FEC).
2. Whether McCain-Feingold's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering communications, because such communications are protected "political speech" and not regulable “campaign speech” per Buckley v. Valeo.
3. Whether the law requires a clear plea for action to vote for or against a candidate.
4. Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as an advertisement, or whether the movie is not subject to regulation as an electioneering communication.
So, the actual issue boils down to whether or not a film that was critical of a political candidate, but did not advocate a particular candidate, amounts to a political contribution. The court ruled that it was not.
What this means is that the Court did not engage in judicial activism, they did not cave to big business money, and they did not grant "personhood" to corporations. Nor did they overturn 100 years of precedents (as if that is an automatically bad thing to do – see the Dred Scott decision, for example).
They simply decided that a moviemaker is not forbidden to make a film critical of a political candidate. This is a quintessential free speech issue.
With that said, I do not believe that corporations are persons or have constitutional rights. Corporations are legal constructs. Corporations can and should be forbidden to spend money on politics. The people who own corporations have free speech rights, however, and should be free to spend their personal money as they see fit without limit.
I can picture you reading this with a horrified look on your face. But consider that all sorts of restrictions have been applied to campaign contributions, but it still costs millions to get elected president. According to http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/23/cost-of-2008-election-cycle-53-billion/ , the 2008 election cycle cost $5.3 billion, and the presidential election cost $1.6 billion, doubling the 2004 election. Big Money still somehow controls elections.
The solution is not to try to control the flow of money in. The solution is to control the ability of elected officials to spend money. Legislators have too much power to fund pet projects, pay off contributors with contracts, and create gargantuan spending programs. The answer is to return government to its constitutional limits. If government has limited ability to spend, then there is no incentive to spend big on campaigns. Big money goes away. Corruption has limited effect. Sweetheart deals cannot be done.
We need to accurately identify the problem before we can obtain a solution.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The Superior Virtue of Capitalism (repost with replies)
Here's what was published in the Bozeman Chronicle, followed by a response and my rejoinder:
I recently saw a bumper sticker that read, "Hang the rich." How absurd. If I could, I would ask this person who gave them a job, or where the money for their paycheck comes from. Was it someone on welfare? A panhandler on a street corner, perhaps? No, all of us who work for someone else were hired by someone with money.
The rich create businesses that hire and pay people to produce their product. They fund a disproportionate share of society. According to the IRS, the top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all income taxes. Furthermore, since 1986 when their income tax share was 25.75%, upper tier wage earners have been paying a steadily increasing share of the tax burden.
But there are those who believe the rich are immoral or don’t pay their fair share. While it’s certainly true in some cases, I would say that people who stereotype this way don’t understand how people interact with each other. They don’t understand the potential rewards or the risks of loss in life. They don’t understand how or why achievement is rewarded.
They certainly don’t understand capitalism.
Consider the vapid caricatures associated with capitalism. Greedy fatcats. Evil. Exploiting the poor. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. These are simply glib slogans appealing to superficial thinkers in order to obscure the reality.
Here’s reality: Capitalism is simply the legal, willing exchange of things of value. That's it.
Before you run to your computer to write about all the terrible things done by big business, please note first that that stealing, cheating, or harming someone are all illegal. Therefore they cannot be capitalism. By definition, capitalism must involve legal exchanges, so anything illegal is not capitalism. Illegal acts are violations of capitalism.
Capitalism is the natural state of Man. It is quite simply, positive, mutually beneficial human interactions. Capitalism is not evil. It is not a system that needs to be “reined in,” controlled or curtailed; it only needs to be unleashed. True capitalism always results in the satisfaction of all parties.
Government intervention into these legal, private transactions is ideally minimal. All government needs to do as it applies to capitalism is to protect private property, enforce contracts, and ensure rule of law. In other words, government’s role in capitalism is to prosecute violators of capitalism.
We are all capitalists in practice. For example, if I go into a grocery store to buy bread, the grocer and I enter into an informal contract to exchange things of value. The grocer wants my money more than his bread, and I want his bread more than my money. The subject of the exchange is legal, and we were not coerced, cheated, or misled. Legal, willing exchange = Capitalism.
Capitalism is self-correcting, because people will always gravitate away from the violators of capitalism and buy from those who treat them fairly. There is no need for heavy-handed central planners. Government meddling unbalances the economy, and we see the results of that meddling every day. In fact, if we truly understand capitalism, we will soon realize that interventionist central government is the enemy of liberty, and liberty facilitates capitalism.
Boiled down to its essence, capitalism is humanity. It uplifts, innovates, improves, and creates. It satisfies needs, it prospers the poor, it feeds the world. Capitalism is the most beneficial, moral, and life-affirming activity engaged in by man.
------------------
S.E.'s response:
Rich, where have you been? You are still spouting the lines of Ayn Rand on the virtues of capitalism and minimal government [column, Dec 30]. Have you not been reading the papers? Do you not realize that our whole economic system nearly came crashing down on us a year ago? Exactly as in the Great Depression it followed a period of rampant capitalism.
Your fellow disciples, worshiping at the altar of capitalism and zero regulation, have all recanted; pull up former Fed Chief Greenspan's testimony to Congress. He and the others, e.g. White House Economic Adviser Larry Summers, finally realized that capitalism only works if man is by nature, moral. Man is not; he is selfish, so regulation is necessary. From Reagan onward regulations were eased, and we just lost tens of trillion of dollars: Government bailed the banks and us out.
Remember, credit froze up entirely. You are a businessman so I don’t have to explain to you the importance of credit. As businesses laid workers off, the recession nearly spiraled out of control, but spending was taken up partly by governent and unemployment did not rise as high. Do you think customers would have frequented your business if they were even more concerned about being laid off? Tax breaks proved useless as that money was not used for spending, but to pay down debt.
Your religion of capitalism does not take into account human psychology. All nations have a mix of capitalism and socialism; we like public schools, police, fire, military, homeland security, Medicare, Social Security. If you prefer to live without those things, I suggest you either move to central Africa, Russia or Kazakhstan; there you can be an unfettered capitalist and pay less taxes. Life is better in countries with slightly more social benefits. In your definition of true capitalism, where do the hedge fund managers sit?
--------------
my rejoinder:
I read your recent letter with interest. Permit me the opportunity to respond.
I have never read Ayn Rand, so I doubt I would be spouting lines from her writings. I do know enough about her to know I am not interested in her objectivism, nor do I care for her atheism. I suspect that your intent in linking me to her is a form of ad hominem, but you can tell me if I’m wrong.
Indeed I have been reading the newspapers, and a lot of other resources as well, both from the left and from the right. I make it my practice to study what both sides are saying, so that I can actually understand the various positions. Based on your letter it appears you simply accept the “conventional wisdom” about the various economic issues we face and do not understand what people like me believe. Hopefully I can correct that.
Your use of phrases like “rampant capitalism” betrays an ignorance of the events that led up to the recent downturn. You seem to have completely accepted the superficial mainstream media analysis. If that is true, then you actually know precious little about what has really happened over the past year.
Your use of quasi-religious terminology is troubling. I worship at no man-made altar, particularly the one you seem to have vested so much faith in: Government. Indeed, I have no faith in capitalism apart from its utility. Further, I do not, and have never advocated “zero regulation.”
It seems to me that you impute to government the characteristics of Diety. You use the same language, you draw the same conclusions, and you seem to be a true believer. It is a curious thesis you put forth, that regulation enforces morality. Does it really? Do more laws make us more law-abiding? Does government action increase our character? Does obeying the law makes us moral?
I have never heard anyone argue such a thing. The way I see it is that God deals with all our moral failings via the cross of Christ. By contrast, government punishes lawbreakers. Morality is an internal thing that might never manifest in behavior. God deals with the inner man, and government the outer man. I wonder if you see a difference?
I very much doubt that Lawrence Summers had any sort of epiphany regarding the necessity of morality. But I do wholeheartedly agree that morality is necessary in carrying out capitalism; indeed, morality is necessary for the whole of life. But I wonder, you must then disagree with the vapid statement that “you cannot legislate morality,” because It certainly appears to me that you advocate bringing the weight of the legal system upon those who are immoral. I sure would like to hear your explanation of that.
You write: “All nations have a mix of capitalism and socialism; we like public schools, police, fire, military, homeland security, Medicare, Social Security…” This really puzzles me. The military in particular is a constitutional activity of government and has nothing to do with economics. Ditto for Schools, police, and fire, which are powers delegated by the people to state and local governments, and also have nothing to do with socialism. What is your definition of socialism?
It is a non sequitur to imply that I or any other person who advocates capitalism are anarchists. It is also puerile to suggest that central Africa, Russia and Kazakhstan are characterized by, founded upon, or are in pursuit of capitalism. What were you thinking?
Your assertions that we aren’t regulated enough, that we don’t have enough socialism, that we need government to control our morality, and that our government programs are what makes us great are specious and contradictory. Our greatness as a country was achieved by liberty, not government programs. What makes America great is its people, not its government. Our slide into irrelevancy began when we started embracing centralized power and the forced labor of our citizens to fund it.
I see that you recite even more “conventional wisdom” about the effect of government activities in the aftermath of the downturn. So I ask you, did the government bailout of banks loosen credit? The answer is no. Banks continue to be tight with credit, and I don’t blame them. Who in their right mind would lend to anyone not knowing what the rules are going to be next month or next year? I mean really. If the government can waive the provisions of the mortgage contract, then what bank would bind itself to one?
Did the stimulus reduce unemployment? No, we were warned that it would exceed 8% if nothing was done, but we are currently at 10% with the stimulus. If we include people who have stopped looking, it is more than 17%. If we exclude government hiring, we are at 22%. Now that’s what I call a successful government program. Sorry for the sarcasm, but any objective person must call these bailouts a complete failure.
Once again I am confused. You claim, “Tax breaks proved useless as that money was not used for spending, but to pay down debt.” Are you suggesting it is better for people to spend their windfall than it is to pay off debt? How do you know it’s better to spend it? When debt is paid off, does that money disappear somewhere or go out of circulation? And how do you measure the equation to determine that tax breaks were useless? Once again, I can hardly wait for your answer.
As I read your letter I wondered if you were really interested in anything other than what you were writing. I, however, have been asking you direct questions throughout this response, because I am interested in bringing clarity to your inscrutable writing.
But you finally asked me a question at the end of your letter about what I believe: “In your definition of true capitalism, where do the hedge fund managers sit,” you ask. This question has little to do with my editorial, and I’m not even sure what you’re asking. So, I’m not going to go into any depth about hedge funds other than they are an investment strategy used by investors and businesses to lessen their risk. According to the definition of capitalism, the transaction is legal and the participants are willing. That’s as much as I can say without knowing what you are asking.
Perhaps if you decide to respond you could clarify some of your thinking. That would certainly help.
I recently saw a bumper sticker that read, "Hang the rich." How absurd. If I could, I would ask this person who gave them a job, or where the money for their paycheck comes from. Was it someone on welfare? A panhandler on a street corner, perhaps? No, all of us who work for someone else were hired by someone with money.
The rich create businesses that hire and pay people to produce their product. They fund a disproportionate share of society. According to the IRS, the top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all income taxes. Furthermore, since 1986 when their income tax share was 25.75%, upper tier wage earners have been paying a steadily increasing share of the tax burden.
But there are those who believe the rich are immoral or don’t pay their fair share. While it’s certainly true in some cases, I would say that people who stereotype this way don’t understand how people interact with each other. They don’t understand the potential rewards or the risks of loss in life. They don’t understand how or why achievement is rewarded.
They certainly don’t understand capitalism.
Consider the vapid caricatures associated with capitalism. Greedy fatcats. Evil. Exploiting the poor. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. These are simply glib slogans appealing to superficial thinkers in order to obscure the reality.
Here’s reality: Capitalism is simply the legal, willing exchange of things of value. That's it.
Before you run to your computer to write about all the terrible things done by big business, please note first that that stealing, cheating, or harming someone are all illegal. Therefore they cannot be capitalism. By definition, capitalism must involve legal exchanges, so anything illegal is not capitalism. Illegal acts are violations of capitalism.
Capitalism is the natural state of Man. It is quite simply, positive, mutually beneficial human interactions. Capitalism is not evil. It is not a system that needs to be “reined in,” controlled or curtailed; it only needs to be unleashed. True capitalism always results in the satisfaction of all parties.
Government intervention into these legal, private transactions is ideally minimal. All government needs to do as it applies to capitalism is to protect private property, enforce contracts, and ensure rule of law. In other words, government’s role in capitalism is to prosecute violators of capitalism.
We are all capitalists in practice. For example, if I go into a grocery store to buy bread, the grocer and I enter into an informal contract to exchange things of value. The grocer wants my money more than his bread, and I want his bread more than my money. The subject of the exchange is legal, and we were not coerced, cheated, or misled. Legal, willing exchange = Capitalism.
Capitalism is self-correcting, because people will always gravitate away from the violators of capitalism and buy from those who treat them fairly. There is no need for heavy-handed central planners. Government meddling unbalances the economy, and we see the results of that meddling every day. In fact, if we truly understand capitalism, we will soon realize that interventionist central government is the enemy of liberty, and liberty facilitates capitalism.
Boiled down to its essence, capitalism is humanity. It uplifts, innovates, improves, and creates. It satisfies needs, it prospers the poor, it feeds the world. Capitalism is the most beneficial, moral, and life-affirming activity engaged in by man.
------------------
S.E.'s response:
Rich, where have you been? You are still spouting the lines of Ayn Rand on the virtues of capitalism and minimal government [column, Dec 30]. Have you not been reading the papers? Do you not realize that our whole economic system nearly came crashing down on us a year ago? Exactly as in the Great Depression it followed a period of rampant capitalism.
Your fellow disciples, worshiping at the altar of capitalism and zero regulation, have all recanted; pull up former Fed Chief Greenspan's testimony to Congress. He and the others, e.g. White House Economic Adviser Larry Summers, finally realized that capitalism only works if man is by nature, moral. Man is not; he is selfish, so regulation is necessary. From Reagan onward regulations were eased, and we just lost tens of trillion of dollars: Government bailed the banks and us out.
Remember, credit froze up entirely. You are a businessman so I don’t have to explain to you the importance of credit. As businesses laid workers off, the recession nearly spiraled out of control, but spending was taken up partly by governent and unemployment did not rise as high. Do you think customers would have frequented your business if they were even more concerned about being laid off? Tax breaks proved useless as that money was not used for spending, but to pay down debt.
Your religion of capitalism does not take into account human psychology. All nations have a mix of capitalism and socialism; we like public schools, police, fire, military, homeland security, Medicare, Social Security. If you prefer to live without those things, I suggest you either move to central Africa, Russia or Kazakhstan; there you can be an unfettered capitalist and pay less taxes. Life is better in countries with slightly more social benefits. In your definition of true capitalism, where do the hedge fund managers sit?
--------------
my rejoinder:
I read your recent letter with interest. Permit me the opportunity to respond.
I have never read Ayn Rand, so I doubt I would be spouting lines from her writings. I do know enough about her to know I am not interested in her objectivism, nor do I care for her atheism. I suspect that your intent in linking me to her is a form of ad hominem, but you can tell me if I’m wrong.
Indeed I have been reading the newspapers, and a lot of other resources as well, both from the left and from the right. I make it my practice to study what both sides are saying, so that I can actually understand the various positions. Based on your letter it appears you simply accept the “conventional wisdom” about the various economic issues we face and do not understand what people like me believe. Hopefully I can correct that.
Your use of phrases like “rampant capitalism” betrays an ignorance of the events that led up to the recent downturn. You seem to have completely accepted the superficial mainstream media analysis. If that is true, then you actually know precious little about what has really happened over the past year.
Your use of quasi-religious terminology is troubling. I worship at no man-made altar, particularly the one you seem to have vested so much faith in: Government. Indeed, I have no faith in capitalism apart from its utility. Further, I do not, and have never advocated “zero regulation.”
It seems to me that you impute to government the characteristics of Diety. You use the same language, you draw the same conclusions, and you seem to be a true believer. It is a curious thesis you put forth, that regulation enforces morality. Does it really? Do more laws make us more law-abiding? Does government action increase our character? Does obeying the law makes us moral?
I have never heard anyone argue such a thing. The way I see it is that God deals with all our moral failings via the cross of Christ. By contrast, government punishes lawbreakers. Morality is an internal thing that might never manifest in behavior. God deals with the inner man, and government the outer man. I wonder if you see a difference?
I very much doubt that Lawrence Summers had any sort of epiphany regarding the necessity of morality. But I do wholeheartedly agree that morality is necessary in carrying out capitalism; indeed, morality is necessary for the whole of life. But I wonder, you must then disagree with the vapid statement that “you cannot legislate morality,” because It certainly appears to me that you advocate bringing the weight of the legal system upon those who are immoral. I sure would like to hear your explanation of that.
You write: “All nations have a mix of capitalism and socialism; we like public schools, police, fire, military, homeland security, Medicare, Social Security…” This really puzzles me. The military in particular is a constitutional activity of government and has nothing to do with economics. Ditto for Schools, police, and fire, which are powers delegated by the people to state and local governments, and also have nothing to do with socialism. What is your definition of socialism?
It is a non sequitur to imply that I or any other person who advocates capitalism are anarchists. It is also puerile to suggest that central Africa, Russia and Kazakhstan are characterized by, founded upon, or are in pursuit of capitalism. What were you thinking?
Your assertions that we aren’t regulated enough, that we don’t have enough socialism, that we need government to control our morality, and that our government programs are what makes us great are specious and contradictory. Our greatness as a country was achieved by liberty, not government programs. What makes America great is its people, not its government. Our slide into irrelevancy began when we started embracing centralized power and the forced labor of our citizens to fund it.
I see that you recite even more “conventional wisdom” about the effect of government activities in the aftermath of the downturn. So I ask you, did the government bailout of banks loosen credit? The answer is no. Banks continue to be tight with credit, and I don’t blame them. Who in their right mind would lend to anyone not knowing what the rules are going to be next month or next year? I mean really. If the government can waive the provisions of the mortgage contract, then what bank would bind itself to one?
Did the stimulus reduce unemployment? No, we were warned that it would exceed 8% if nothing was done, but we are currently at 10% with the stimulus. If we include people who have stopped looking, it is more than 17%. If we exclude government hiring, we are at 22%. Now that’s what I call a successful government program. Sorry for the sarcasm, but any objective person must call these bailouts a complete failure.
Once again I am confused. You claim, “Tax breaks proved useless as that money was not used for spending, but to pay down debt.” Are you suggesting it is better for people to spend their windfall than it is to pay off debt? How do you know it’s better to spend it? When debt is paid off, does that money disappear somewhere or go out of circulation? And how do you measure the equation to determine that tax breaks were useless? Once again, I can hardly wait for your answer.
As I read your letter I wondered if you were really interested in anything other than what you were writing. I, however, have been asking you direct questions throughout this response, because I am interested in bringing clarity to your inscrutable writing.
But you finally asked me a question at the end of your letter about what I believe: “In your definition of true capitalism, where do the hedge fund managers sit,” you ask. This question has little to do with my editorial, and I’m not even sure what you’re asking. So, I’m not going to go into any depth about hedge funds other than they are an investment strategy used by investors and businesses to lessen their risk. According to the definition of capitalism, the transaction is legal and the participants are willing. That’s as much as I can say without knowing what you are asking.
Perhaps if you decide to respond you could clarify some of your thinking. That would certainly help.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Unfunded liabilities and my nemesis, Tom Woods
I take time to refute these responses like Tom's because of the apparent lack of thinking skills, even amongst the intelligent and highly educated. My responses in bold.
He writes: "[...government unfunded liabilities are] about $106 trillion. Other sources report this figure at less than half that amount..." And some sources quote a higher number, so I picked one in the middle.
"Of course the amount is huge and of course we don't have that kind of money on hand, but how useful is a statistic like this?" It's useful to the extent of demonstrating that the government has obligations for which it cannot pay. That seems simple.
"Here's an analogy. When we had our two children we incurred a liability of about $450,000: That's the money that we will spend for the first 18 years of their lives. Add in our mortgage over that period of time and our "liability" is more like $750,000. We don't have that kind of money. Should we sell the house and put the kids up for adoption? No. This imposing figure will be paid out over a long period of time with money that we haven't made yet. We’ll be OK."
Yes, you will be ok, because you actually pay towards the service of these obligations. Government does not, and in fact is increasing the obligation every day. And by the way, the mortgage is a secured loan, not an unfunded liability. Unless you are upside down in the loan, it will be paid off by the value of the property should you default.
But let's take the analogy from the realm of fantasyland and apply some real numbers. I'll even use the "half that amount" number, $53 trillion. Let's say the government creates a $53 trillion liability akin to a mortgage, and finances it at 5% over 50 years. The annual payment would be $2.88 trillion, which is more than the current annual budget of the government.
So would it be prudent for a hypothetical lender to make a loan to an organization, with a loan payment amount that exceeds the income of the organization?
"I think we can best address future liabilities by reducing health care costs...It's a great reason to work for meaningful health care reform." How exactly does increasing the government's unfunded liabilities by obligating itself to paying for health care LESSEN future liabilities? This is completely vapid.
Only a "true believer" would think such a thing makes sense.
He writes: "[...government unfunded liabilities are] about $106 trillion. Other sources report this figure at less than half that amount..." And some sources quote a higher number, so I picked one in the middle.
"Of course the amount is huge and of course we don't have that kind of money on hand, but how useful is a statistic like this?" It's useful to the extent of demonstrating that the government has obligations for which it cannot pay. That seems simple.
"Here's an analogy. When we had our two children we incurred a liability of about $450,000: That's the money that we will spend for the first 18 years of their lives. Add in our mortgage over that period of time and our "liability" is more like $750,000. We don't have that kind of money. Should we sell the house and put the kids up for adoption? No. This imposing figure will be paid out over a long period of time with money that we haven't made yet. We’ll be OK."
Yes, you will be ok, because you actually pay towards the service of these obligations. Government does not, and in fact is increasing the obligation every day. And by the way, the mortgage is a secured loan, not an unfunded liability. Unless you are upside down in the loan, it will be paid off by the value of the property should you default.
But let's take the analogy from the realm of fantasyland and apply some real numbers. I'll even use the "half that amount" number, $53 trillion. Let's say the government creates a $53 trillion liability akin to a mortgage, and finances it at 5% over 50 years. The annual payment would be $2.88 trillion, which is more than the current annual budget of the government.
So would it be prudent for a hypothetical lender to make a loan to an organization, with a loan payment amount that exceeds the income of the organization?
"I think we can best address future liabilities by reducing health care costs...It's a great reason to work for meaningful health care reform." How exactly does increasing the government's unfunded liabilities by obligating itself to paying for health care LESSEN future liabilities? This is completely vapid.
Only a "true believer" would think such a thing makes sense.
Another example of liberal logic
My nemesis Tom wrote a response to my recent editorial about the huge unfunded liability of Goverment, which I will respond to in my next post:
In his Nov. 18 column, "Stop the Spending” Rich cited a figure called the "government unfunded liabilities" and stated that its about $106 trillion. Other sources report this figure at less than half that amount but its still a big, scary number. Where does it come?
As I understand it, the unfunded liability is money that’s been promised which we have not yet set aside. Its entitlement money (mostly Medicare) that could potentially be paid out to all eligible Americans for the rest of their lives. That’s a lot of people over a long period of time. Of course the amount is huge and of course we don't have that kind of money on hand, but how useful is a statistic like this?
Here's an analogy. When we had our two children we incurred a liability of about $450,000. That's the money that we will spend for the first 18 years of their lives. Add in our mortgage over that period of time and our "liability" is more like $750,000. We don't have that kind of money. Should we sell the house and put the kids up for adoption? No. This imposing figure will be paid out over a long period of time with money that we haven t made yet. We’ll be OK.
So am I saying that should we ignore ie government's unfunded liability? Absolutely not. I think we can best address “future liabilities” by reducing health care costs. Currently a single night in the hospital costs thousands of dollars. The intensive care units charge more than $25,000 per night. Nursing homes average $200 per day. Reducing these extortionate prices would really help bring government spending into line. It's a great reason to work for meaningful health care reform.
In his Nov. 18 column, "Stop the Spending” Rich cited a figure called the "government unfunded liabilities" and stated that its about $106 trillion. Other sources report this figure at less than half that amount but its still a big, scary number. Where does it come?
As I understand it, the unfunded liability is money that’s been promised which we have not yet set aside. Its entitlement money (mostly Medicare) that could potentially be paid out to all eligible Americans for the rest of their lives. That’s a lot of people over a long period of time. Of course the amount is huge and of course we don't have that kind of money on hand, but how useful is a statistic like this?
Here's an analogy. When we had our two children we incurred a liability of about $450,000. That's the money that we will spend for the first 18 years of their lives. Add in our mortgage over that period of time and our "liability" is more like $750,000. We don't have that kind of money. Should we sell the house and put the kids up for adoption? No. This imposing figure will be paid out over a long period of time with money that we haven t made yet. We’ll be OK.
So am I saying that should we ignore ie government's unfunded liability? Absolutely not. I think we can best address “future liabilities” by reducing health care costs. Currently a single night in the hospital costs thousands of dollars. The intensive care units charge more than $25,000 per night. Nursing homes average $200 per day. Reducing these extortionate prices would really help bring government spending into line. It's a great reason to work for meaningful health care reform.
Buy a fleece from Organizing for America, help fleece America
Here's a great Christmas gift for your favorite leftist. Hopefully the irony will not be lost. From Obama's website:
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
A response to "Stop the Spending"
Vern writes a response to my most recent column, posted on this blog on 11/17:
I have a few questions for Rich (Nov. 18 column, "Stop the Spending"). Disregarding the obscene size of the $106 trillion government unfunded liability, what is its composition? What portions purchase what essential things? What plans exist to reduce the sizes of the portions?
Should we not have hailed out GMC, Chrysler, AIG and others? Why not? Or should we have let them fail? What impact would that have had on the national economy and unemployment?
Should we not have spent stimulus money to get people back to work? What are the alternatives? Civilian Conservation Corps? Federal militia? Or what?
If we replace thriftless members of Congress, how will we keep their replacements from mutating into what we currently have once they get the scent of power and money?'
Your commentary lacked substance, and you took the same easy route as countless news media reporters and columnists - passionately, fluently criticize and condemn in hopes that the readers won't recognize you have nothing new to offer. just wanted you to know I recognized it, and I'll bet others did, too
I have a few questions for Rich (Nov. 18 column, "Stop the Spending"). Disregarding the obscene size of the $106 trillion government unfunded liability, what is its composition? What portions purchase what essential things? What plans exist to reduce the sizes of the portions?
Should we not have hailed out GMC, Chrysler, AIG and others? Why not? Or should we have let them fail? What impact would that have had on the national economy and unemployment?
Should we not have spent stimulus money to get people back to work? What are the alternatives? Civilian Conservation Corps? Federal militia? Or what?
If we replace thriftless members of Congress, how will we keep their replacements from mutating into what we currently have once they get the scent of power and money?'
Your commentary lacked substance, and you took the same easy route as countless news media reporters and columnists - passionately, fluently criticize and condemn in hopes that the readers won't recognize you have nothing new to offer. just wanted you to know I recognized it, and I'll bet others did, too
Monday, November 23, 2009
My response to Carl
I also referenced a letter to the editor in which Carl advocated limits on government and private enterprise.
--------------
Dear Carl,
It’s my turn to apologize for this delayed response, although in retrospect it is probably a good thing because of your intervening letter to the editor.
That letter may raise some eyebrows amongst your friends, I think. Any acknowledgement that government needs to restrained automatically classifies you as an right wing extremist. ;) I know you tried to mitigate it with an obligatory shot across the bow of big business, but you may not realize that you committed a cardinal sin that cannot be mitigated.
I’m only half-joking with you. I personally found your letter to the editor to be balanced and nicely articulated. May I say, though, that if government can be properly restrained and properly delineated as you suggested, the excesses of big business will also be solved.
I say that because big business exits the realm of capitalism when it lobbies government for favors. But if government could be restrained and returned back to its constitutional boundaries, then big business (as well as any other lobbyists) would have very little to influence. If government did not have the power to manipulate society and the economy with targeted taxation/tax breaks, favorable treatment, or sweetheart legislation, then big business would simply walk away from it.
Turning to your response of 10/23/09, you write, “I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care).” Tying in with the above discussion, another reason I oppose national health care is that it gives government even more power, which in turn increases its susceptibility to external pressures like lobbying.
You wrote, “I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas.” I need to be as clear as I can be. Capitalism is the legal, voluntary exchange of value. That makes everyone a capitalist, even Marxists and communists. Everyone engages in the exchange of value. It isn’t a faith in capitalism, it is faith in people going about the private pursuits of their daily lives.
Capitalism is not the process by which a select few people get rich, it is the process by which society functions. Some people are very good at coming up with good ideas or desirable products that a them a lot of money as others engage them in voluntary exchange. However, making a lot of money is not a feature of superior skills in capitalism, it is only one of many possible outcomes of capitalism in a free society.
“Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism.” No, no, no. 1) People who get rich in capitalism ARE working. 2) people “doing the world’s work” are engaging in voluntary exchange (working for money) and as such are capitalists themselves. 3) There is no “brunt” to feel in capitalism, there is only the risks and rewards of living life.
“Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country…” Capitalism - people freely associating for mutual benefit – is a positive thing. I have never, ever seen “radical libertarian individualism.” I have only seen big government meddling; meddling which destroys lives and plays favorites. Government permeates every facet of society and influences every exchange we engage in. I wonder what ““radical libertarian individualism” you could possibly talking about.
“My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.” Communalism is intrinsically at odds with powerful centralized government. Those “voluntary associations” result from human relationships, not government programs. Government destroys relationships and interpersonal obligations, substituting programs funded with dollars coerced from us. I would say that communalism is a founding concept (states’ rights as opposed to powerful, oppressive central government).
“I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so.” I agree, which is why I have never said I’m a Republican, I have never joined a political party, and I have never made a political donation to a party.
“I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems…” I would disagree to the extent that such a system might obscure the ability for the people to discern what a candidate believes and what that candidate would do once in office. But if the result was to break the hold that political parties hold over their candidates (chairmanships, campaign dollars, etc.), I would definitely agree to that.
“Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned…” No, POWER, the ability to spend other peoples’ money with impunity, is the corrupting influence (i.e. lobbyists). There would be no multi-million dollar campaigns if the resulting elections sent people to Washington without the power to allocate tax dollars.
“…I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.” I understand your desire for less acrimony and more cooperation, but unfortunately there can be no “can’t-we-just-get-along” government. People always have been divided by opinion, world view, politics, religion, neighborhoods, and any other topic you could name. This actually is the way it should be (free association). Our ideological diversity is much more a strength than the diversity of our pigment levels. We should debate ideas. The alternative is forced compliance from a top-down authority, which I don’t thing you are advocating, are you?
“I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe.” Tithing is what God requires of people who choose to be obedient to Him. By His mercy I have been blessed, and one of my acts of worship is to obey Him and give to others. I would only hold people of faith to a tithing requirement, and then it still is a matter of conscience rather than government forcing people to part with their money.
“Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle…” No. Insurance is a contractual agreement voluntarily engaged. It has nothing to do with socialism on any level. Things of value are exchanged without coercion. It is a private, legal transaction for mutual benefit.
“…I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions.” These apocryphal stories of abuse are frequently trotted out, and they certainly do happen, but I don’t think they are as common as insurance company critics suggest. However, regarding pre-existing conditions, I think they ought to be denied. Or do you think you should be able to buy car insurance the day after a crash? Do you think you should be issued a life insurance policy after dying? A pre-existing condition has a 100% probability of loss, so it violates the one of the primary principles of insurance: A loss must be unexpected.
“Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.” Like I have already said, there are laws against criminal behavior. So yes, I agree. Prosecute them every time it happens.
“Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.” Yes we have. Oregon and Massachusetts. Medicare. CHIP. H1N1 vaccination program. Every one a mess, subject to fraud, cost overruns, and inefficiency.
Well, this is a long letter in response. I look forward to your letter, should you send one.
--------------
Dear Carl,
It’s my turn to apologize for this delayed response, although in retrospect it is probably a good thing because of your intervening letter to the editor.
That letter may raise some eyebrows amongst your friends, I think. Any acknowledgement that government needs to restrained automatically classifies you as an right wing extremist. ;) I know you tried to mitigate it with an obligatory shot across the bow of big business, but you may not realize that you committed a cardinal sin that cannot be mitigated.
I’m only half-joking with you. I personally found your letter to the editor to be balanced and nicely articulated. May I say, though, that if government can be properly restrained and properly delineated as you suggested, the excesses of big business will also be solved.
I say that because big business exits the realm of capitalism when it lobbies government for favors. But if government could be restrained and returned back to its constitutional boundaries, then big business (as well as any other lobbyists) would have very little to influence. If government did not have the power to manipulate society and the economy with targeted taxation/tax breaks, favorable treatment, or sweetheart legislation, then big business would simply walk away from it.
Turning to your response of 10/23/09, you write, “I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care).” Tying in with the above discussion, another reason I oppose national health care is that it gives government even more power, which in turn increases its susceptibility to external pressures like lobbying.
You wrote, “I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas.” I need to be as clear as I can be. Capitalism is the legal, voluntary exchange of value. That makes everyone a capitalist, even Marxists and communists. Everyone engages in the exchange of value. It isn’t a faith in capitalism, it is faith in people going about the private pursuits of their daily lives.
Capitalism is not the process by which a select few people get rich, it is the process by which society functions. Some people are very good at coming up with good ideas or desirable products that a them a lot of money as others engage them in voluntary exchange. However, making a lot of money is not a feature of superior skills in capitalism, it is only one of many possible outcomes of capitalism in a free society.
“Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism.” No, no, no. 1) People who get rich in capitalism ARE working. 2) people “doing the world’s work” are engaging in voluntary exchange (working for money) and as such are capitalists themselves. 3) There is no “brunt” to feel in capitalism, there is only the risks and rewards of living life.
“Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country…” Capitalism - people freely associating for mutual benefit – is a positive thing. I have never, ever seen “radical libertarian individualism.” I have only seen big government meddling; meddling which destroys lives and plays favorites. Government permeates every facet of society and influences every exchange we engage in. I wonder what ““radical libertarian individualism” you could possibly talking about.
“My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.” Communalism is intrinsically at odds with powerful centralized government. Those “voluntary associations” result from human relationships, not government programs. Government destroys relationships and interpersonal obligations, substituting programs funded with dollars coerced from us. I would say that communalism is a founding concept (states’ rights as opposed to powerful, oppressive central government).
“I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so.” I agree, which is why I have never said I’m a Republican, I have never joined a political party, and I have never made a political donation to a party.
“I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems…” I would disagree to the extent that such a system might obscure the ability for the people to discern what a candidate believes and what that candidate would do once in office. But if the result was to break the hold that political parties hold over their candidates (chairmanships, campaign dollars, etc.), I would definitely agree to that.
“Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned…” No, POWER, the ability to spend other peoples’ money with impunity, is the corrupting influence (i.e. lobbyists). There would be no multi-million dollar campaigns if the resulting elections sent people to Washington without the power to allocate tax dollars.
“…I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.” I understand your desire for less acrimony and more cooperation, but unfortunately there can be no “can’t-we-just-get-along” government. People always have been divided by opinion, world view, politics, religion, neighborhoods, and any other topic you could name. This actually is the way it should be (free association). Our ideological diversity is much more a strength than the diversity of our pigment levels. We should debate ideas. The alternative is forced compliance from a top-down authority, which I don’t thing you are advocating, are you?
“I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe.” Tithing is what God requires of people who choose to be obedient to Him. By His mercy I have been blessed, and one of my acts of worship is to obey Him and give to others. I would only hold people of faith to a tithing requirement, and then it still is a matter of conscience rather than government forcing people to part with their money.
“Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle…” No. Insurance is a contractual agreement voluntarily engaged. It has nothing to do with socialism on any level. Things of value are exchanged without coercion. It is a private, legal transaction for mutual benefit.
“…I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions.” These apocryphal stories of abuse are frequently trotted out, and they certainly do happen, but I don’t think they are as common as insurance company critics suggest. However, regarding pre-existing conditions, I think they ought to be denied. Or do you think you should be able to buy car insurance the day after a crash? Do you think you should be issued a life insurance policy after dying? A pre-existing condition has a 100% probability of loss, so it violates the one of the primary principles of insurance: A loss must be unexpected.
“Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.” Like I have already said, there are laws against criminal behavior. So yes, I agree. Prosecute them every time it happens.
“Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.” Yes we have. Oregon and Massachusetts. Medicare. CHIP. H1N1 vaccination program. Every one a mess, subject to fraud, cost overruns, and inefficiency.
Well, this is a long letter in response. I look forward to your letter, should you send one.
Another exchange of letters
A reader responded to my column:
Rich,
I am sorry I did not respond to your letter you sent awhile back. I didn't mean to be rude-I just couldn't get around to it. I should also say your points were well-taken and argued.
I may have liberal views, but there are some things I am concerned about: if I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care), I also am concerned we don't get rid of social programs once they have outlived their usefulness. Ag subsidies, for instance. These support the system of industrial agriculture that have destroyed the small independent (family) farm, and the land and degraded the quality of our food supply and ruined our hopes for a truly ecologically, economically, and culturally sustainable agriculture in this country.
There should also be limits to government even though we do not agree on those limits. And, yes, the Constitution should be amended if it needs to reflect the times we live in without violating its basic integrity. One needed amendment: a land ethic, which should be second in importance to freedom of speech and religion, the central right from which all other rights extend. The Founding Fathers could never have anticipated the terrible abuse and damage we have done to the environment.
Sorry, but talk radio is downright venomous, especially since it reaches a much wider audience and inflames passions by demonizing liberals. It has done it’ part to divide our country, making it impossible to have a productive discussion on the critical issues of our time. We should be talking to one another rather than listening to talk radio, we might even learn something. I stopped going to peace rallies, because it seemed they were as much about Bush bashing (although I was very critical of the Bush Administration) as they were about, rightly, questioning the whole neo-con policy of pre-emptive war. I find liberals sometimes to be as arrogant and close-minded as true-believer conservatives.
Despite my liberal views, I subscribe to and am an avid reader of Imprimus, a conservative speech digest out of Hillsdale College. There, I encounter intelligent conservative discourse on a range of issues from respectable (mostly) academics, public intellectuals, historians, policy makers, foreign policy experts, think tank members (with the exception of featuring Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin-and I voiced my displeasure to them for including those two). I often do not buy their arguments, but I find the pieces stimulating and thought-provoking.
I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas. Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism. Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country, and it has done some real damage to the environment (as did Soviet communism-both systems are industrial economies that have been brutal to people and the land). My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.
I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so. I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems, work with people who have other views, and uphold our Constitution. Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned-I would gladly have our taxes pay for political campaigns (to the extent that it gets the message out there and pays for travel and debates, etc.), which should be limited to a period extending from the day after Labor Day to the day before Election Day (anymore I anticipate every election season with dread). I refuse to donate to political campaigns because I oppose private donations and I am not afraid to say this when I am solicited. I do NOT belong to any political party.
The two party system, partisan politics are destroying or at least seriously damaging our country-no terrorist could do the damage that the two party system has done. Our country is nearly hopelessly divided.
Yes, I do believe in a post-ideological politics and I do point this out to my liberal friends. I see my own liberal views as something I bring to the table, but I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.
As far as making private donations to charity or to help people out-I do what I can within the scope of my limited resources-I haven't gotten exactly rich. I believe we each must do whatever we can to bring some goodness into the world. I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe. Also lower income people give a higher percentage of their income than wealthy people.
Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle and I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.
Canadians and Brits are baffled and dismayed by the way their healthcare systems are getting trashed in this country, especially the lies and propaganda and distortions we hear. They are actually reasonably satisfied with these systems, more than Americans are with theirs. We cannot get the truth about those systems in this country. Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.
The direction healthcare reform is now taking is going to prove disastrous, I think. Congrats on your new column. I'll look forward to reading it. I hope someday you can come around to being an advocate for the politics of the Third Way. Conservatism has its shortcomings, too, not just liberalism. I was not one of the people who applied to be a columnist-it's enough to get out that occasional letter to the editor!
Rich,
I am sorry I did not respond to your letter you sent awhile back. I didn't mean to be rude-I just couldn't get around to it. I should also say your points were well-taken and argued.
I may have liberal views, but there are some things I am concerned about: if I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care), I also am concerned we don't get rid of social programs once they have outlived their usefulness. Ag subsidies, for instance. These support the system of industrial agriculture that have destroyed the small independent (family) farm, and the land and degraded the quality of our food supply and ruined our hopes for a truly ecologically, economically, and culturally sustainable agriculture in this country.
There should also be limits to government even though we do not agree on those limits. And, yes, the Constitution should be amended if it needs to reflect the times we live in without violating its basic integrity. One needed amendment: a land ethic, which should be second in importance to freedom of speech and religion, the central right from which all other rights extend. The Founding Fathers could never have anticipated the terrible abuse and damage we have done to the environment.
Sorry, but talk radio is downright venomous, especially since it reaches a much wider audience and inflames passions by demonizing liberals. It has done it’ part to divide our country, making it impossible to have a productive discussion on the critical issues of our time. We should be talking to one another rather than listening to talk radio, we might even learn something. I stopped going to peace rallies, because it seemed they were as much about Bush bashing (although I was very critical of the Bush Administration) as they were about, rightly, questioning the whole neo-con policy of pre-emptive war. I find liberals sometimes to be as arrogant and close-minded as true-believer conservatives.
Despite my liberal views, I subscribe to and am an avid reader of Imprimus, a conservative speech digest out of Hillsdale College. There, I encounter intelligent conservative discourse on a range of issues from respectable (mostly) academics, public intellectuals, historians, policy makers, foreign policy experts, think tank members (with the exception of featuring Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin-and I voiced my displeasure to them for including those two). I often do not buy their arguments, but I find the pieces stimulating and thought-provoking.
I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas. Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism. Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country, and it has done some real damage to the environment (as did Soviet communism-both systems are industrial economies that have been brutal to people and the land). My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.
I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so. I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems, work with people who have other views, and uphold our Constitution. Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned-I would gladly have our taxes pay for political campaigns (to the extent that it gets the message out there and pays for travel and debates, etc.), which should be limited to a period extending from the day after Labor Day to the day before Election Day (anymore I anticipate every election season with dread). I refuse to donate to political campaigns because I oppose private donations and I am not afraid to say this when I am solicited. I do NOT belong to any political party.
The two party system, partisan politics are destroying or at least seriously damaging our country-no terrorist could do the damage that the two party system has done. Our country is nearly hopelessly divided.
Yes, I do believe in a post-ideological politics and I do point this out to my liberal friends. I see my own liberal views as something I bring to the table, but I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.
As far as making private donations to charity or to help people out-I do what I can within the scope of my limited resources-I haven't gotten exactly rich. I believe we each must do whatever we can to bring some goodness into the world. I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe. Also lower income people give a higher percentage of their income than wealthy people.
Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle and I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.
Canadians and Brits are baffled and dismayed by the way their healthcare systems are getting trashed in this country, especially the lies and propaganda and distortions we hear. They are actually reasonably satisfied with these systems, more than Americans are with theirs. We cannot get the truth about those systems in this country. Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.
The direction healthcare reform is now taking is going to prove disastrous, I think. Congrats on your new column. I'll look forward to reading it. I hope someday you can come around to being an advocate for the politics of the Third Way. Conservatism has its shortcomings, too, not just liberalism. I was not one of the people who applied to be a columnist-it's enough to get out that occasional letter to the editor!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Another intelligent leftist...
John wrote a letter to the editor refuting last month's column. His letter is first, my response is below it:
"I was extremely disappointed to read Rich's maiden column (Oct. 28). His writing reveals the same non-thought processes as those of Tamara Hall. Two examples: 'Only individuals can be compassionate; government can't.'
"Why not? Government is a reflection of the people (at least in my democracy), and if I am compassionate, then why cannot my representative government pass compassionate laws, for example those regarding handicapped individuals or the victims crimes or disasters?
"Hey, wait a minute. We’ve done that. Anyone who can use the public library (another government social program or access the Internet could discover these “compassionate” acts of government.
"'No social program has ever succeeded in solving, the problem for which it was created." Like the Food and Drug Administration? Which did not get rid of the sale of diseased meat, poisons posing as medicines, and misleading labeling? Like the GI bill, designed originally to provide educational opportunities for WW II veterans and reduce post-war unemployment. It didn’t work?
"Get out your history book. Like the Marshall Plan, to rebuild war-torn Europe and keep it from the communists? History book time again. Social Security, compassionately designed to provide retirement saving accounts for those without the resources to buy stocks and bonds. Hasn’t worked? Talk to your grandmother. Voting Rights Act.
"Do you know anything about the history of racial discrimination in our nation, and how effective this 1965 legislation was, and is, in providing social justice for people of color in the nation?
"Editor, are you not embarassed to provide a showplace for such ignorance in your publication? Please provide us with an intelligent and educated local conservative to share his or her opinons in the Chronicle."
-----------------
My response to John:
Dear John,
I read your recent letter with interest. I suppose it would easy for me to respond to you in a similar tone, but instead I choose to extend to you a higher degree of dignity and respect than you did to me.
I will give you credit for actually attempting a refutation of some of the things I wrote. It a rare event indeed when someone of your political persuasion actually addresses an issue raised by a conservative. Nevertheless, it didn’t take long for you to lapse into name-calling by questioning my intelligence, education, and calling me ignorant. Maybe such vitriol is common in your circle of friends, but I’ve been raised differently. It used to be that gentleman could disagree without personal attacks and character assassination (“ad hominem” I believe is the applicable phrase).
May I remind you of what I actually wrote regarding compassion? “Only individuals can be compassionate. Government can’t.” And the part you left out: “Compassion is a human virtue.” Now, these are not particularly controversial statements, your histrionics aside. I note the irony of the situation in that you insist on government compassion but extend no compassion to me. I am also surprised to note that you find my opinion on this matter to be a definitive indicator of my intelligence, or the lack thereof. May I make the obvious observation that you disagreeing with me does not make me ignorant?
You proceed to list some government activities you deem compassionate. And what is your standard of compassion? Surprise, it is a manifestation of humanity, instigated by individuals acting on their morality to pass laws and create programs. I guess you should feel free to anthropomorphize the resulting inanimate objects, i.e. the laws and programs passed by government, all you like. But sorry, that doesn’t impute human traits to them.
Your usage of the word “compassion” gradually morphs from intentions to results. Your equations: 1) If a program is intended to help people, that makes it compassionate; or 2) If a program ends up helping some people, then that is compassionate.
So I wonder, if a program intended to help people actually helps no one, is it still compassionate? Or if a program helps some but not others, perhaps you can tell me the percentage threshold that needs to be crossed before the program can be called compassionate and not damaging?
It seems to me that if anyone is hurt it fails the compassion test. For how could it be compassionate to hurt someone, unless you are willing to accept some amount of collateral damage in pursuit of an acceptable statistical outcome? I would pay real money to hear your rationalization of this.
The “compassion” of a government program is not simply that some people are helped, or that the program was intended to help people. If you accept that some people are helped, you are also required to accept that some people are simultaneously hurt. If a government social program gets the credit for the resulting good, it also must receive the blame for bad outcomes as well.
And before your definitions shift further to suit your aims, perhaps I could pin you down as to how it might be compassionate to force some Americans to pay for the needs of others? Could you explain where the compassion is in that equation? Or even constitutional? Stated clearly, for a stupid person like me?
I am distressed to observe the goal posts meandering even farther away as you provide your next rebuttal. It seems like a simple request. All I want is an example of a government social program that solved the problem. SOLVED the problem. One will do.
The FDA: It did not “get rid” of the sale of diseased meat or poisons or anything else. One tiny example among many is from http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/sep1604fda.html: “A nationwide survey by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that risk factors for foodborne disease, such as inadequate handwashing by workers and keeping food at unsafe temperatures, are very common in the nation's restaurants, retail stores, and institutional food services.” Well, I guess that sorta means that the problem is solved?
The GI bill: Once again some people were helped. Aside from the fact that the program was conceived as a sort of quid pro quo for sacrificial services rendered to the country, are there other effects we can observe? Well, yes. Government unbalanced the cost-of-college equation by providing free college to some of its citizens. College, being the elite institution it is, has always been fairly expensive. But the GI bill gave access to a group of people who may not have attended college otherwise, which increased demand.
When demand increases and supply doesn’t, prices increase. This law of supply and demand may be a new idea for you. In addition, we taxpayers pay for GIs to go to college, but some taxpayers (i.e., those who go to college without the GI bill) pay twice, once through their taxes, and again for the increased cost of their education.
So it is possible to claim that it worked in some fashion. We might even go so far as to consider it successful on some level. But that wasn’t my criteria. I wonder if I can wrestle the goal posts back into position. The GI bill was not a social program created to solve a problem.
The Marshall Plan: Maybe you could explain how rebuilding Europe after WWII might be considered a social program? I thought people on the Left didn't like imperialist actions like this. And you are in favor of fighting communism? Shh. Better not let your leftist friends know. And by the way, what problem in society did it solve again?
Social Security: What social problem has it solved? Our seniors are now living the lifestyles they deserve? They don’t have to choose between food and medicine? Never mind that it’s going bankrupt. Pay no attention that the Social Security Trust Fund empty. It’s working!
Oh, I should mention that SS didn’t create savings accounts for anyone. SS is a Ponzi scheme. It is a tax levied on workers’ income, the proceeds of which are used to pay benefits to retirees and disabled folks. Any money not used is put in the Trust Fund, after which the government puts bonds (IOUs) in and spends the proceeds. SS is a wealth transfer program, a pyramid that can last only as long as those paying in money don’t starting wanting some of it back in too large of numbers.
Voting Rights Act: Where, exactly, is the social program? Who is getting money from it? What line item in the budget is it? The Voting Rights Act is legislation, not a social program. I think you knew that. Regardless, I will note for the record that you won’t find me opposing sensible legislation that rights a wrong.
Racial Discrimination: Indeed, racism was and is a problem. Tell me what social program was created to solve it, and tell me also when discrimination was solved. Jesse Jackson might be surprised to know this.
In conclusion, part of the reason I am writing is to establish dialogue with you so that we might understand each other, for clearly you do not understand my position. I am also extending the opportunity for you to try and name for me a government social program which solved the problem for which it was created.
If you want, you can try to re-argue your case for the compassion of inanimate objects as well (“wow, that stop sign saved my life. I’m glad it was so compassionate!”). You probably won’t change my untutored mind.
I am a reasonable man. I am expecting that you are too. Your response, should you write one, will tell me for sure.
"I was extremely disappointed to read Rich's maiden column (Oct. 28). His writing reveals the same non-thought processes as those of Tamara Hall. Two examples: 'Only individuals can be compassionate; government can't.'
"Why not? Government is a reflection of the people (at least in my democracy), and if I am compassionate, then why cannot my representative government pass compassionate laws, for example those regarding handicapped individuals or the victims crimes or disasters?
"Hey, wait a minute. We’ve done that. Anyone who can use the public library (another government social program or access the Internet could discover these “compassionate” acts of government.
"'No social program has ever succeeded in solving, the problem for which it was created." Like the Food and Drug Administration? Which did not get rid of the sale of diseased meat, poisons posing as medicines, and misleading labeling? Like the GI bill, designed originally to provide educational opportunities for WW II veterans and reduce post-war unemployment. It didn’t work?
"Get out your history book. Like the Marshall Plan, to rebuild war-torn Europe and keep it from the communists? History book time again. Social Security, compassionately designed to provide retirement saving accounts for those without the resources to buy stocks and bonds. Hasn’t worked? Talk to your grandmother. Voting Rights Act.
"Do you know anything about the history of racial discrimination in our nation, and how effective this 1965 legislation was, and is, in providing social justice for people of color in the nation?
"Editor, are you not embarassed to provide a showplace for such ignorance in your publication? Please provide us with an intelligent and educated local conservative to share his or her opinons in the Chronicle."
-----------------
My response to John:
Dear John,
I read your recent letter with interest. I suppose it would easy for me to respond to you in a similar tone, but instead I choose to extend to you a higher degree of dignity and respect than you did to me.
I will give you credit for actually attempting a refutation of some of the things I wrote. It a rare event indeed when someone of your political persuasion actually addresses an issue raised by a conservative. Nevertheless, it didn’t take long for you to lapse into name-calling by questioning my intelligence, education, and calling me ignorant. Maybe such vitriol is common in your circle of friends, but I’ve been raised differently. It used to be that gentleman could disagree without personal attacks and character assassination (“ad hominem” I believe is the applicable phrase).
May I remind you of what I actually wrote regarding compassion? “Only individuals can be compassionate. Government can’t.” And the part you left out: “Compassion is a human virtue.” Now, these are not particularly controversial statements, your histrionics aside. I note the irony of the situation in that you insist on government compassion but extend no compassion to me. I am also surprised to note that you find my opinion on this matter to be a definitive indicator of my intelligence, or the lack thereof. May I make the obvious observation that you disagreeing with me does not make me ignorant?
You proceed to list some government activities you deem compassionate. And what is your standard of compassion? Surprise, it is a manifestation of humanity, instigated by individuals acting on their morality to pass laws and create programs. I guess you should feel free to anthropomorphize the resulting inanimate objects, i.e. the laws and programs passed by government, all you like. But sorry, that doesn’t impute human traits to them.
Your usage of the word “compassion” gradually morphs from intentions to results. Your equations: 1) If a program is intended to help people, that makes it compassionate; or 2) If a program ends up helping some people, then that is compassionate.
So I wonder, if a program intended to help people actually helps no one, is it still compassionate? Or if a program helps some but not others, perhaps you can tell me the percentage threshold that needs to be crossed before the program can be called compassionate and not damaging?
It seems to me that if anyone is hurt it fails the compassion test. For how could it be compassionate to hurt someone, unless you are willing to accept some amount of collateral damage in pursuit of an acceptable statistical outcome? I would pay real money to hear your rationalization of this.
The “compassion” of a government program is not simply that some people are helped, or that the program was intended to help people. If you accept that some people are helped, you are also required to accept that some people are simultaneously hurt. If a government social program gets the credit for the resulting good, it also must receive the blame for bad outcomes as well.
And before your definitions shift further to suit your aims, perhaps I could pin you down as to how it might be compassionate to force some Americans to pay for the needs of others? Could you explain where the compassion is in that equation? Or even constitutional? Stated clearly, for a stupid person like me?
I am distressed to observe the goal posts meandering even farther away as you provide your next rebuttal. It seems like a simple request. All I want is an example of a government social program that solved the problem. SOLVED the problem. One will do.
The FDA: It did not “get rid” of the sale of diseased meat or poisons or anything else. One tiny example among many is from http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/sep1604fda.html: “A nationwide survey by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that risk factors for foodborne disease, such as inadequate handwashing by workers and keeping food at unsafe temperatures, are very common in the nation's restaurants, retail stores, and institutional food services.” Well, I guess that sorta means that the problem is solved?
The GI bill: Once again some people were helped. Aside from the fact that the program was conceived as a sort of quid pro quo for sacrificial services rendered to the country, are there other effects we can observe? Well, yes. Government unbalanced the cost-of-college equation by providing free college to some of its citizens. College, being the elite institution it is, has always been fairly expensive. But the GI bill gave access to a group of people who may not have attended college otherwise, which increased demand.
When demand increases and supply doesn’t, prices increase. This law of supply and demand may be a new idea for you. In addition, we taxpayers pay for GIs to go to college, but some taxpayers (i.e., those who go to college without the GI bill) pay twice, once through their taxes, and again for the increased cost of their education.
So it is possible to claim that it worked in some fashion. We might even go so far as to consider it successful on some level. But that wasn’t my criteria. I wonder if I can wrestle the goal posts back into position. The GI bill was not a social program created to solve a problem.
The Marshall Plan: Maybe you could explain how rebuilding Europe after WWII might be considered a social program? I thought people on the Left didn't like imperialist actions like this. And you are in favor of fighting communism? Shh. Better not let your leftist friends know. And by the way, what problem in society did it solve again?
Social Security: What social problem has it solved? Our seniors are now living the lifestyles they deserve? They don’t have to choose between food and medicine? Never mind that it’s going bankrupt. Pay no attention that the Social Security Trust Fund empty. It’s working!
Oh, I should mention that SS didn’t create savings accounts for anyone. SS is a Ponzi scheme. It is a tax levied on workers’ income, the proceeds of which are used to pay benefits to retirees and disabled folks. Any money not used is put in the Trust Fund, after which the government puts bonds (IOUs) in and spends the proceeds. SS is a wealth transfer program, a pyramid that can last only as long as those paying in money don’t starting wanting some of it back in too large of numbers.
Voting Rights Act: Where, exactly, is the social program? Who is getting money from it? What line item in the budget is it? The Voting Rights Act is legislation, not a social program. I think you knew that. Regardless, I will note for the record that you won’t find me opposing sensible legislation that rights a wrong.
Racial Discrimination: Indeed, racism was and is a problem. Tell me what social program was created to solve it, and tell me also when discrimination was solved. Jesse Jackson might be surprised to know this.
In conclusion, part of the reason I am writing is to establish dialogue with you so that we might understand each other, for clearly you do not understand my position. I am also extending the opportunity for you to try and name for me a government social program which solved the problem for which it was created.
If you want, you can try to re-argue your case for the compassion of inanimate objects as well (“wow, that stop sign saved my life. I’m glad it was so compassionate!”). You probably won’t change my untutored mind.
I am a reasonable man. I am expecting that you are too. Your response, should you write one, will tell me for sure.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Retirement advice
I have a good friend up in Kalispell, he and I got into the insurance business at the same time with the same company. We have traded advice over the years, compared notes on muscle cars and Corvettes, and we know some great places to get ribs.
Today he emailed me, asking for advice on his planned retirement next June. I have expanded here what I told him:
Wow, advice. I'm honored that you would ask me. Hmm, this is a tough time to retire, isn't it? I can only speak to what I read and what my gut tells me. Your retirement is probably pretty closely tied to the performance of the economy, I would think. This means the future performance of the stock market, the dollar vs. other currencies, real estate, and tax and debt policy are all on the table.
You have your company pension, your 401k, plus other investments, and residuals (?) from your business. If I recall, you've been doing some real estate development, and maybe you also took some cash from your home sale. And your wife has her retirement as well, and maybe some other stuff. Then there is S.S., such as it is.
Hypothetically, if you converted all of your retirement assets into monthly payments, what percentage of your current lifestyle will that cover? 80%? 125%? If most of your assets are performing at the inflation rate, that means that you will break even for the future. If the cost of living increases, you will come up short at some point. The question is, when does that point arrive? Your hypothetical monthly income would have to account for the cost of living 20 years from now.
Doom and gloom time. I have grave doubts about the financial condition of the country, and that will filter down to our finances. At this point I am predicting (assuming no change in government practices) that we are going to have a small bear market recovery, and then an even greater crash than the one we just experienced. This will suck trillions of dollars out of the stock market, business will close making their stock worth zero, banks will fold, and we will be faced with what has up to this point been a third-world problem - hyperinflation.
What happens when a loaf of bread costs $1000? Ugh. Those of us who are lucky enough to still have a job will be in a tough situation. But retired people will be worse off, and there might not even be jobs for them to re-enter the workforce. With government bankrupt, government bonds will be worth nothing (including the bonds that are in the Social Security Trust Fund), and no one will buy new debt. Certainly not the Chinese.
Government services will begin to fail; first things like road maintenance and national parks. Then visible public services like fire and police. The military will be cut, perhaps some branches even discontinued. After that, welfare is gone. Finally, Social Security. Our society, bought and paid for on credit (both personal and governmental), will collapse. And frankly, the rest of the world, which depends on our economic prosperity, will follow us down.
And the thing is, it will happen quickly. This collapse has been in the works for decades with all the wealth transfer programs, government meddling in the economy, the progressive income tax system, and many other things. Capitalism can bear up under a great amount of this kind of stuff, but it will ultimately shut down. And I think that the stimulus, government health care, and this insane keynesian monetary policy will be the straws that break the camel's back.
There is the possibility that we as a society will be transported back to the 1900s, the wild, wild west. Justice will come at the end of a gun. People will scrape out a living from what they can grow and what they can barter for. Cities will be desolate as services fail and people either die or get out. Rural areas will be overrun. There will be lawlessness, disease.
I know I'm painting a bleak picture, but this scenario is not all that unlikely. It may never happen at all. But let's say only half of it happens. That still will be bad news. Even here, I have no idea how to plan for it. There just isn't a financial plan or investment strategy that will make an ounce of difference.
If I were a militia-type, I guess I would hunker down and stockpile food and weapons. And maybe that isn't such a bad idea to some degree. But I don't think there is any scenario (in my opinion) where retirement is something I would consider.
I hear Costa Rica is nice.
Today he emailed me, asking for advice on his planned retirement next June. I have expanded here what I told him:
Wow, advice. I'm honored that you would ask me. Hmm, this is a tough time to retire, isn't it? I can only speak to what I read and what my gut tells me. Your retirement is probably pretty closely tied to the performance of the economy, I would think. This means the future performance of the stock market, the dollar vs. other currencies, real estate, and tax and debt policy are all on the table.
You have your company pension, your 401k, plus other investments, and residuals (?) from your business. If I recall, you've been doing some real estate development, and maybe you also took some cash from your home sale. And your wife has her retirement as well, and maybe some other stuff. Then there is S.S., such as it is.
Hypothetically, if you converted all of your retirement assets into monthly payments, what percentage of your current lifestyle will that cover? 80%? 125%? If most of your assets are performing at the inflation rate, that means that you will break even for the future. If the cost of living increases, you will come up short at some point. The question is, when does that point arrive? Your hypothetical monthly income would have to account for the cost of living 20 years from now.
Doom and gloom time. I have grave doubts about the financial condition of the country, and that will filter down to our finances. At this point I am predicting (assuming no change in government practices) that we are going to have a small bear market recovery, and then an even greater crash than the one we just experienced. This will suck trillions of dollars out of the stock market, business will close making their stock worth zero, banks will fold, and we will be faced with what has up to this point been a third-world problem - hyperinflation.
What happens when a loaf of bread costs $1000? Ugh. Those of us who are lucky enough to still have a job will be in a tough situation. But retired people will be worse off, and there might not even be jobs for them to re-enter the workforce. With government bankrupt, government bonds will be worth nothing (including the bonds that are in the Social Security Trust Fund), and no one will buy new debt. Certainly not the Chinese.
Government services will begin to fail; first things like road maintenance and national parks. Then visible public services like fire and police. The military will be cut, perhaps some branches even discontinued. After that, welfare is gone. Finally, Social Security. Our society, bought and paid for on credit (both personal and governmental), will collapse. And frankly, the rest of the world, which depends on our economic prosperity, will follow us down.
And the thing is, it will happen quickly. This collapse has been in the works for decades with all the wealth transfer programs, government meddling in the economy, the progressive income tax system, and many other things. Capitalism can bear up under a great amount of this kind of stuff, but it will ultimately shut down. And I think that the stimulus, government health care, and this insane keynesian monetary policy will be the straws that break the camel's back.
There is the possibility that we as a society will be transported back to the 1900s, the wild, wild west. Justice will come at the end of a gun. People will scrape out a living from what they can grow and what they can barter for. Cities will be desolate as services fail and people either die or get out. Rural areas will be overrun. There will be lawlessness, disease.
I know I'm painting a bleak picture, but this scenario is not all that unlikely. It may never happen at all. But let's say only half of it happens. That still will be bad news. Even here, I have no idea how to plan for it. There just isn't a financial plan or investment strategy that will make an ounce of difference.
If I were a militia-type, I guess I would hunker down and stockpile food and weapons. And maybe that isn't such a bad idea to some degree. But I don't think there is any scenario (in my opinion) where retirement is something I would consider.
I hear Costa Rica is nice.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Hang the rich
I recently saw a bumper sticker that read, "Hang the rich." Now if that isn't a glittering jewel of an example of ignorance, I don't know what is.
This kind of ignorance of capitalism approaches profound. One might wonder whom they expect will give them a job and sign their paychecks. Someone on welfare? A panhandler on a street corner, perhaps? We NEED the rich. They have the resources, they are willing to take the risk to form and fund businesses. If the risk pays off and the business becomes viable, it will eventually hire and pay people to work. And of course, it will make a profit.
So, what is capitalism? Capitalism is the legal, willing exchange of goods or services between parties. That's it. Any time an exchange of something valuable occurs in this context, capitalism has happened.
Capitalism is the natural state of Man as he conducts his life in interaction with others. This exchange has happened ever since one man has had interrelationships with another. It is not evil, it does not need to be controlled or curtailed. It only needs to be unleashed. It is not a system, it has its own natural rules, it can only operate in an environment of legality, and yes, morality, and because it is non-coercive, it always results in the satisfaction of all parties.
We must emphatically note that stealing, committing fraud, or harming someone are all illegal. Therefore they cannot be capitalism. Capitalism must be legal activity, so anything illegal is not capitalism. Monopolies, cheating, and selling inferior products are not features of capitalism. They are violations of capitalism.
Likewise, selling dangerous products has nothing to do with capitalism. If the goods are dangerous, there is no willing exchange. A true capitalist will be highly motivated to sell a safe product, because capitalism will not permit him to continue to sell his products otherwise.
In addition, safe, effective, well-designed products sell, while inferior, faulty products do not. Therefore, capitalism is self-correcting and self disciplining. Government intervention is ideally minimal. It ought to create the legal environment needed to engage in capitalism, but nothing else. Where government is friendly to capitalism, capitalism thrives.
There is no need for heavy-handed central planners. In fact, if we truly understand capitalism, we will immediately realize that oppressive central government is the enemy of liberty, and liberty facilitates capitalism. In an economic system as complex as ours, it is clear that the sheer magnitude of factors in play will elude the comprehension, let alone control, of the central planners. Big government can only fail here.
But even so, since capitalism is a natural facet of human activity it will function in any environment. Where government is hostile to capitalism or is malfunctioning or non-existent, capitalism still thrives, perhaps as a black market. Here, the disciplines required to engage in capitalism are enforced by the participants, since the legal environment of government is missing, antagonistic, or faulty.
Boiled down to its essence, capitalism is humanity. It uplifts, innovates, improves, and creates. It satisfies needs, it prospers the poor, it feeds the world. Capitalism is the most beneficial, moral, and life-affirming activity engaged in by man.
This kind of ignorance of capitalism approaches profound. One might wonder whom they expect will give them a job and sign their paychecks. Someone on welfare? A panhandler on a street corner, perhaps? We NEED the rich. They have the resources, they are willing to take the risk to form and fund businesses. If the risk pays off and the business becomes viable, it will eventually hire and pay people to work. And of course, it will make a profit.
So, what is capitalism? Capitalism is the legal, willing exchange of goods or services between parties. That's it. Any time an exchange of something valuable occurs in this context, capitalism has happened.
Capitalism is the natural state of Man as he conducts his life in interaction with others. This exchange has happened ever since one man has had interrelationships with another. It is not evil, it does not need to be controlled or curtailed. It only needs to be unleashed. It is not a system, it has its own natural rules, it can only operate in an environment of legality, and yes, morality, and because it is non-coercive, it always results in the satisfaction of all parties.
We must emphatically note that stealing, committing fraud, or harming someone are all illegal. Therefore they cannot be capitalism. Capitalism must be legal activity, so anything illegal is not capitalism. Monopolies, cheating, and selling inferior products are not features of capitalism. They are violations of capitalism.
Likewise, selling dangerous products has nothing to do with capitalism. If the goods are dangerous, there is no willing exchange. A true capitalist will be highly motivated to sell a safe product, because capitalism will not permit him to continue to sell his products otherwise.
In addition, safe, effective, well-designed products sell, while inferior, faulty products do not. Therefore, capitalism is self-correcting and self disciplining. Government intervention is ideally minimal. It ought to create the legal environment needed to engage in capitalism, but nothing else. Where government is friendly to capitalism, capitalism thrives.
There is no need for heavy-handed central planners. In fact, if we truly understand capitalism, we will immediately realize that oppressive central government is the enemy of liberty, and liberty facilitates capitalism. In an economic system as complex as ours, it is clear that the sheer magnitude of factors in play will elude the comprehension, let alone control, of the central planners. Big government can only fail here.
But even so, since capitalism is a natural facet of human activity it will function in any environment. Where government is hostile to capitalism or is malfunctioning or non-existent, capitalism still thrives, perhaps as a black market. Here, the disciplines required to engage in capitalism are enforced by the participants, since the legal environment of government is missing, antagonistic, or faulty.
Boiled down to its essence, capitalism is humanity. It uplifts, innovates, improves, and creates. It satisfies needs, it prospers the poor, it feeds the world. Capitalism is the most beneficial, moral, and life-affirming activity engaged in by man.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A report from Burning Man
My friend is part of a team that goes to the Burning Man gathering to engage in a radical form of ministry. Burning Man is a collection of spiritual misfits, often rejected by society and/or the mainstream Church. They frequently are an inquisitive type, often are searching for meaning; they are creative, outside-the-box people who gather in the Nevada desert once a year for this festival.
My friend and his group are courageous, innovative, and tender. They are meeting these people at their point of need, using their language and worldview to minister the love of the Father. Here is his report:
Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of...
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue.
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true
The refrains of a seventy year old song drift over us ageless like Spirit. I can't hold the center any longer. I'm crying. It's lunch at our Spirit Dream Camp in Burning Man's Black Rock City. Marjorie and Andrea (known as Ladybug and Firefly here) do an impromptu a capella version over our team and guests.
The spiritual weight hangs there, timeless like some mystic veil. Our Burner guests sit transfixed and red eyed. Gina who was gently lend into an actual conversation about Jesus weeps and weeps. She's close to the Door. She leaves copies of her music cd behind. We leave her with etherial weight to ponder. All in perfect process. In time. In season.
Six years of coming here and you'd think we'd get it. It's America but Ozzie and Harriet are gone. In their absence are drugs, a plethora of theme camp bars and sensuality and dark entities masquerading as goddesses. On the opposite pole there are good things here: humor,giving, amazing art and a hunger and realness that is free to give expression without judgement. Lisa Matshcek and I lead this outpost of light. We occupy our territory and cleanse and make a stand.
I beat my gift of a drum by our First Nations friends to each of the four directions. The light marks us and radiates out. In this spiritual climate people know how to see this light. As a team, we often wish the Christian gatherings we came out of could discern the same.
The tin men and women are coming even as we set up camp. "You're here again. We're glad we're camp neighbors" We're touched. We get out the oil can and dispel our own rusty thoughts and our chest cavities fill with desire to get to know those that love us. This year we take their gifts of hospitality on their turf - drinks, waffles, phone service and hair washing from Astral Headwash (an amazing experience in an itchy, dusty environment). We are learning to integrate.
They love us more. They send more people our way. They come and come. Ozzie and Harriet we are not but something far more mystical and safe - the fathers and mothers God meant us to be in this vacuum. The oil can reaches the jaw. We smile a lot here.
Friday afternoon. Lunch is over. There is a line out the door of our encounter tent. It's wicked hot. They are waiting. The tent flaps are parted. Darren hurriedly forms teams. We get people in our healing encounter groups of two or three. The waiting room is filled to capacity with people on the floor and there are still people out in the sun. Waiting. Waiting times go to an hour or more. They tell us they heard it is worth it. It's Burning Man. They have time. time is spent conversing or shifts occur where they practice their meditative style to prepare themselves. It's supernaturally cooler in temperature here. This is noted. The abstract tree of life sculpture (Andrea created) with leaves hanging down into our living space all add to the mystery, the expectation.
God is gifting us. We have higher level encounters as the week wears on. The Reiki master level people are here finding the true light. Really broken Dissociative Identity people fight hard internally and come to sit with us. I talk early on with a lesbian woman with horribly cut scarred arms. Rich is a chiropractic doctor in his forties heaving great sobs of release as collapses in my arms for a father's blessing. A few of the team compare notes and find dry coughing the demons out is common this year. Again, we find that the how to manuals do not exist here. Like John's desert we have to hear the voice of One.
Katie sits before Andrea, Julie and I. Two moms and a dad. She's a flower bruised. I pose a probing question to her "Are you concerned about growing old?" We ask her age. She floors us with "I'm 27" She looks 40. She confides "I feel I'm going to be disappointed with this encounter" Her mantra on life. Julie goes to OZ and says she looks like Dorothy. Julie takes her to the scene when all the others have gotten their gifts, she, without home, says "Is there anything in that bag for me?" We dig beyond the bag and ask permission to gently give her a portion of father identity blessing that will pool in the pock marks in the heart. The flower opens slowly and receives the rain as the mothers spirit whisper "This is home"
Somewhere over the rainbow. Bluebirds fly. Birds fly over the rainbow. Why then, why can't I?
Madison is in his twenties. He staggers off his bike as we are packing to leave. He can barely walk toward me. He says he's ready to commit to Jesus. He been coming to us for a couple of years and has won the hearts of many of us with his struggles and questions. Last year I did a fathers blessing on him. I think his internal circuits fried. We talk. I lead him in a prayer fitting him. He cries and cries, buried deep in my chest. My goofy flying saucer egg tee shirt beaming up a placid cow is covered in tears and snot. He eventually ends up on the dusty playa laughing and laughing in a new Spirit baptism.
My friend and his group are courageous, innovative, and tender. They are meeting these people at their point of need, using their language and worldview to minister the love of the Father. Here is his report:
Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of...
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue.
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true
The refrains of a seventy year old song drift over us ageless like Spirit. I can't hold the center any longer. I'm crying. It's lunch at our Spirit Dream Camp in Burning Man's Black Rock City. Marjorie and Andrea (known as Ladybug and Firefly here) do an impromptu a capella version over our team and guests.
The spiritual weight hangs there, timeless like some mystic veil. Our Burner guests sit transfixed and red eyed. Gina who was gently lend into an actual conversation about Jesus weeps and weeps. She's close to the Door. She leaves copies of her music cd behind. We leave her with etherial weight to ponder. All in perfect process. In time. In season.
Six years of coming here and you'd think we'd get it. It's America but Ozzie and Harriet are gone. In their absence are drugs, a plethora of theme camp bars and sensuality and dark entities masquerading as goddesses. On the opposite pole there are good things here: humor,giving, amazing art and a hunger and realness that is free to give expression without judgement. Lisa Matshcek and I lead this outpost of light. We occupy our territory and cleanse and make a stand.
I beat my gift of a drum by our First Nations friends to each of the four directions. The light marks us and radiates out. In this spiritual climate people know how to see this light. As a team, we often wish the Christian gatherings we came out of could discern the same.
The tin men and women are coming even as we set up camp. "You're here again. We're glad we're camp neighbors" We're touched. We get out the oil can and dispel our own rusty thoughts and our chest cavities fill with desire to get to know those that love us. This year we take their gifts of hospitality on their turf - drinks, waffles, phone service and hair washing from Astral Headwash (an amazing experience in an itchy, dusty environment). We are learning to integrate.
They love us more. They send more people our way. They come and come. Ozzie and Harriet we are not but something far more mystical and safe - the fathers and mothers God meant us to be in this vacuum. The oil can reaches the jaw. We smile a lot here.
Friday afternoon. Lunch is over. There is a line out the door of our encounter tent. It's wicked hot. They are waiting. The tent flaps are parted. Darren hurriedly forms teams. We get people in our healing encounter groups of two or three. The waiting room is filled to capacity with people on the floor and there are still people out in the sun. Waiting. Waiting times go to an hour or more. They tell us they heard it is worth it. It's Burning Man. They have time. time is spent conversing or shifts occur where they practice their meditative style to prepare themselves. It's supernaturally cooler in temperature here. This is noted. The abstract tree of life sculpture (Andrea created) with leaves hanging down into our living space all add to the mystery, the expectation.
God is gifting us. We have higher level encounters as the week wears on. The Reiki master level people are here finding the true light. Really broken Dissociative Identity people fight hard internally and come to sit with us. I talk early on with a lesbian woman with horribly cut scarred arms. Rich is a chiropractic doctor in his forties heaving great sobs of release as collapses in my arms for a father's blessing. A few of the team compare notes and find dry coughing the demons out is common this year. Again, we find that the how to manuals do not exist here. Like John's desert we have to hear the voice of One.
Katie sits before Andrea, Julie and I. Two moms and a dad. She's a flower bruised. I pose a probing question to her "Are you concerned about growing old?" We ask her age. She floors us with "I'm 27" She looks 40. She confides "I feel I'm going to be disappointed with this encounter" Her mantra on life. Julie goes to OZ and says she looks like Dorothy. Julie takes her to the scene when all the others have gotten their gifts, she, without home, says "Is there anything in that bag for me?" We dig beyond the bag and ask permission to gently give her a portion of father identity blessing that will pool in the pock marks in the heart. The flower opens slowly and receives the rain as the mothers spirit whisper "This is home"
Somewhere over the rainbow. Bluebirds fly. Birds fly over the rainbow. Why then, why can't I?
Madison is in his twenties. He staggers off his bike as we are packing to leave. He can barely walk toward me. He says he's ready to commit to Jesus. He been coming to us for a couple of years and has won the hearts of many of us with his struggles and questions. Last year I did a fathers blessing on him. I think his internal circuits fried. We talk. I lead him in a prayer fitting him. He cries and cries, buried deep in my chest. My goofy flying saucer egg tee shirt beaming up a placid cow is covered in tears and snot. He eventually ends up on the dusty playa laughing and laughing in a new Spirit baptism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)