The Christmas season has traditionally been about hope, peace, and joy, but times have been tough and these things seem to be short supply. A lot of people are suffering, and a lot more are scaling back, doing without, and hunkering down.
We look for help, perhaps from government programs, from family, or from churches or charities. We seek solutions to the intractable problems of society, and ascribe blame to the rich, to government, to talk radio. Many of us put our trust in our skills, our jobs, or our intellect. Some of us put our trust in government to fix our problems, while others preach self-reliance and deify individualism.
But what happens when these things fail us? Sadly, too many of us throw up our hands and walk away, perhaps from families and children, mortgages, or even, life itself.
In these days when the rug has been yanked out from under us we might begin to re-examine our assumptions. The magnificent edifices we have built and trusted in do not seem so solid anymore. Perhaps it is time that we regain some perspective on what this life is all about.
We are insignificant creatures in the grand scheme of things. Tiny specks on this beautiful blue globe. “Each man's life is but a breath. “ We are born, we grow old, and we die. One might wonder if that is all there is. Some say so, but I don’t believe that. There has to be something more, something higher, something beyond.
The Christmas story is about God’s intervention into human affairs. The Son of God coming as savior, giving His life for us. Some of people don’t believe this. But as Morpheus said, “My beliefs do not require them to.” We all believe something, we all stake out positions of faith, whether in God or man or an idea.
I would suggest that faith in anything other than God is misplaced and futile. Our current situation would seem to lend credence to this. All the grand ideas of man have fallen short. Our systems and our safety nets have not done the job.
So when we reach the end of ourselves, when we hit rock bottom, I suggest that we turn to our Creator. As Sheryl Crow sings, “Talk to the one who made you.” God has the answers.
I think you’ll find what you are looking for. These problems will pass: “For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” There is something better ahead.
That is the true nature of peace. Peace comes when we realize that we have a fallback position that doesn’t depend on human strength. Placing our hope in our Maker, we come to the place of faith which allows us to accept His redemption and receive His peace.
That’s why I am offering this column today. You might think I’m talking to those of you who are not believers, but I’m not. I’m talking to the faithful who may have forgotten their foundation. I’m talking to those who are downcast. I’m talking to those of you who are fed up, tired out, or are looking for real answers.
The TEA party can’t help you. Government is not the answer. Rush Limbaugh can’t solve your problems. And President Obama can’t fix things.
But God can. A baby in the manger represents hope that transcends us. You’ll find your answers there.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Election night predictions
Assuming the Republicans do win tonight, be on the lookout for the following kinds of analysis from the pundits:
1) stupid voters
2) voters were filled with rage
3) no mandate for conservatives
4) Republican winners are extreme or radical
5) Democrats lost because they failed to communicate their successes
6) Democrats lost because they didn't go far enough
7) Democrats got no credit for their successes
8) Racism/greed
9) Republicans must find a way to cooperate with Obama
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
How I'm voting - Chronicle editorial
There are some issues on the November 2nd ballot that are on my radar.
Before making my observations, I need to note that I make my voting decisions based on certain principles, including
1) Is it something better left to the private sector
2) Is it an activity that is consistent with limited government
3) Does it impede personal liberty
So for me, this means that the proper role of government is more important than good intentions. The freedom of the marketplace with its risks and rewards outweighs the presumed need to “rein in” potential risk or financial loss. And, opportunity and freedom (both to succeed and fail) are more important than “fairness.”
Issue #1, the Constitutional Convention (CC-2): Senator Joe Balyeat, whom I respect, is one of the supporters of the Convention. He clearly communicates the basic principle: “Historically, the U.S. Constitution and well-crafted state constitutions delineated rights which barred government intrusion on basic freedoms…” Quite right. The purpose of a constitution is to define and limit government, not to define or limit the people.
Unfortunately, there is a problem. There is there is no guarantee that the majority of the 100 constitutional delegates would share this view. A Constitutional Convention could very easily make the constitution worse.
Further, the delegates are really not accountable to anyone on a practical level until the revised constitution is submitted to a vote of the people. And worse, depending on what the delegates decide, we might have to vote on the revisions as a package. A Constitutional Initiative, by contrast, can only address one issue.
Therefore, I oppose the Constitutional Convention. Any needed changes are more safely handled on an issue-by-issue basis.
Issue #2, CI-105: Here is an example of the afore-mentioned Constitutional Initiative. The intent here is to mitigate the potential abuse that government could foist upon the people. CI-105 would prohibit the legislature from imposing a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT). Even though this tax doesn’t currently exist, the people are perfectly within their rights to restrain government in this way.
One particularly troubling statement made by those who oppose the initiative: “Our constitution establishes our most fundamental rights - like the right to bear arms and the right to privacy - and articulates the most fundamental principles of our democracy.” This is incorrect. A constitution does not establish rights. Rights are pre-existing, and can only be enumerated. The 9th amendment to the U.S. constitution confirms this: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The opponents’ very next statement, however, swerves into a truth: “Detailed tax policy should be handled through legislation, not the constitution.” This is correct, but detailed tax policy is actually the problem. Montana’s tax system, like the feds, attempts to micromanage peoples’ finances and behaviors.
This is contrary to the principle of liberty. My pipe dream is to repeal the entire tax code in favor of some sort of single flat tax. Of course, the political will to do this does not exist. In fact, I doubt that the legislature would willingly give up its power to meddle in peoples’ financial affairs.
In any case, I favor removing this weapon from the tax man’s arsenal.
Issue #3, Initiative No. 164: There is obviously a market for payday loans, and they tend to be high risk. A commensurate charge is expected.
And, no one is forcing anyone to take out a payday loan. These are private, willing transactions that hurt no one. We just don’t need government to rescue us from every little problem that comes our way. And legislation that protects us from a $15.00 payday loan fee is one of those kinds of problems.
Good luck and good voting November 2nd.
Before making my observations, I need to note that I make my voting decisions based on certain principles, including
1) Is it something better left to the private sector
2) Is it an activity that is consistent with limited government
3) Does it impede personal liberty
So for me, this means that the proper role of government is more important than good intentions. The freedom of the marketplace with its risks and rewards outweighs the presumed need to “rein in” potential risk or financial loss. And, opportunity and freedom (both to succeed and fail) are more important than “fairness.”
Issue #1, the Constitutional Convention (CC-2): Senator Joe Balyeat, whom I respect, is one of the supporters of the Convention. He clearly communicates the basic principle: “Historically, the U.S. Constitution and well-crafted state constitutions delineated rights which barred government intrusion on basic freedoms…” Quite right. The purpose of a constitution is to define and limit government, not to define or limit the people.
Unfortunately, there is a problem. There is there is no guarantee that the majority of the 100 constitutional delegates would share this view. A Constitutional Convention could very easily make the constitution worse.
Further, the delegates are really not accountable to anyone on a practical level until the revised constitution is submitted to a vote of the people. And worse, depending on what the delegates decide, we might have to vote on the revisions as a package. A Constitutional Initiative, by contrast, can only address one issue.
Therefore, I oppose the Constitutional Convention. Any needed changes are more safely handled on an issue-by-issue basis.
Issue #2, CI-105: Here is an example of the afore-mentioned Constitutional Initiative. The intent here is to mitigate the potential abuse that government could foist upon the people. CI-105 would prohibit the legislature from imposing a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT). Even though this tax doesn’t currently exist, the people are perfectly within their rights to restrain government in this way.
One particularly troubling statement made by those who oppose the initiative: “Our constitution establishes our most fundamental rights - like the right to bear arms and the right to privacy - and articulates the most fundamental principles of our democracy.” This is incorrect. A constitution does not establish rights. Rights are pre-existing, and can only be enumerated. The 9th amendment to the U.S. constitution confirms this: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The opponents’ very next statement, however, swerves into a truth: “Detailed tax policy should be handled through legislation, not the constitution.” This is correct, but detailed tax policy is actually the problem. Montana’s tax system, like the feds, attempts to micromanage peoples’ finances and behaviors.
This is contrary to the principle of liberty. My pipe dream is to repeal the entire tax code in favor of some sort of single flat tax. Of course, the political will to do this does not exist. In fact, I doubt that the legislature would willingly give up its power to meddle in peoples’ financial affairs.
In any case, I favor removing this weapon from the tax man’s arsenal.
Issue #3, Initiative No. 164: There is obviously a market for payday loans, and they tend to be high risk. A commensurate charge is expected.
And, no one is forcing anyone to take out a payday loan. These are private, willing transactions that hurt no one. We just don’t need government to rescue us from every little problem that comes our way. And legislation that protects us from a $15.00 payday loan fee is one of those kinds of problems.
Good luck and good voting November 2nd.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Electronic auto insurance verification: Chronicle editorial for 9/29/10
I’m a pretty good test-taker. I hate tests, but I excel at passing them. This happens to be a good thing, because we insurance agents have to take 24 hours of continuing ed every two years. Some day I might write a column to whine about government involvement in my professional status, but not today.
One continuing education requirement is 1 credit hour of Montana law. There was one thing of particular interest in this course, and this is what I want to discuss. I thought I kept my finger on the pulse of my industry rather well, but there was a change to Montana insurance law I didn’t know about.
The 2009 legislature mandated the installation of an Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System, the purpose of which is to be able to electronically verify the insured status of vehicles. I wondered why I had missed this, so I googled “61-6-157,” which is the actual reference for the law. The only hits I received were State of Montana Websites. It didn’t make the news at all.
This law and its related laws require insurance carriers to electronically provide insurance data to the State, commencing July 2011. Law enforcement will have real-time access to the insurance status of drivers. According to 61-6-309, “…a peace officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system provided under 61-6-157 to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy…”
You know, this sounds just like the Arizona illegal immigration law. So “peace officers” will already know if you have liability coverage when they stop you. Since the online system is funded by fines and penalties collected from violators, there appears to be a real incentive to pull over people to ascertain their insured status. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
I’m in a bit of a quandary, however. On one hand I have a financial interest in writing car insurance. On the other, I have to consider how the mandatory insurance law is interpreted by my libertarian leanings. I don’t like laws that force otherwise law-abiding citizens to purchase something.
Some have tried to draw a parallel with the mandatory purchase of health insurance under Obamacare, but it’s not the same. The purchase of liability insurance is mandated by individual states, not the feds. Liability insurance protects others, not you. And if you don’t drive the law doesn’t apply to you, whereas Obamacare is only escapable via the actions of the death panel.
So the State, in essence, is forcing us to be “responsible” by buying liability insurance, yet there is something like a 40% non compliance rate. Further, the minimum liability requirement is only $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident bodily injury to others, and $10,000 per accident property damage to others. Or you can purchase an indemnity bond with similar limits. These are clearly token requirements, and they are exceeded in accidents on a regular basis.
I suspect the legislation is intended to increase compliance, or perhaps, to increase revenue. It certainly increases state control over citizens. Admittedly, the financial consequences of an accident are potentially quite substantial, but we need to note that there is no requirement for citizens to purchase liability insurance for carelessly leaving a rake lying around, wrong side up. In fact, aside from automotive liability there is no other liability purchase mandate I can think of.
For better or worse, I tend to err on the side of less government control in peoples’ lives. In my idea of a perfect world, individuals, not society, would be responsible for their choices.
One continuing education requirement is 1 credit hour of Montana law. There was one thing of particular interest in this course, and this is what I want to discuss. I thought I kept my finger on the pulse of my industry rather well, but there was a change to Montana insurance law I didn’t know about.
The 2009 legislature mandated the installation of an Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System, the purpose of which is to be able to electronically verify the insured status of vehicles. I wondered why I had missed this, so I googled “61-6-157,” which is the actual reference for the law. The only hits I received were State of Montana Websites. It didn’t make the news at all.
This law and its related laws require insurance carriers to electronically provide insurance data to the State, commencing July 2011. Law enforcement will have real-time access to the insurance status of drivers. According to 61-6-309, “…a peace officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system provided under 61-6-157 to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy…”
You know, this sounds just like the Arizona illegal immigration law. So “peace officers” will already know if you have liability coverage when they stop you. Since the online system is funded by fines and penalties collected from violators, there appears to be a real incentive to pull over people to ascertain their insured status. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
I’m in a bit of a quandary, however. On one hand I have a financial interest in writing car insurance. On the other, I have to consider how the mandatory insurance law is interpreted by my libertarian leanings. I don’t like laws that force otherwise law-abiding citizens to purchase something.
Some have tried to draw a parallel with the mandatory purchase of health insurance under Obamacare, but it’s not the same. The purchase of liability insurance is mandated by individual states, not the feds. Liability insurance protects others, not you. And if you don’t drive the law doesn’t apply to you, whereas Obamacare is only escapable via the actions of the death panel.
So the State, in essence, is forcing us to be “responsible” by buying liability insurance, yet there is something like a 40% non compliance rate. Further, the minimum liability requirement is only $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident bodily injury to others, and $10,000 per accident property damage to others. Or you can purchase an indemnity bond with similar limits. These are clearly token requirements, and they are exceeded in accidents on a regular basis.
I suspect the legislation is intended to increase compliance, or perhaps, to increase revenue. It certainly increases state control over citizens. Admittedly, the financial consequences of an accident are potentially quite substantial, but we need to note that there is no requirement for citizens to purchase liability insurance for carelessly leaving a rake lying around, wrong side up. In fact, aside from automotive liability there is no other liability purchase mandate I can think of.
For better or worse, I tend to err on the side of less government control in peoples’ lives. In my idea of a perfect world, individuals, not society, would be responsible for their choices.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Successful marriage requires virtue
This chart shows data regarding the success rate of marriage when the bride has had other sexual partners. You'll note that marrying a virginal woman is an almost iron-clad guarantee that the marriage will not end in divorce. Just one sexual partner lowers the success rate to barely 50/50, and by the time a woman has had 16+ sexual partners, a successful marriage is rather unlikely.
I do not have data on the groom.
I do not have data on the groom.
Monday, September 13, 2010
How is this different than the Arizona law?
Effective October 1, 2009, Section 61-6-157, Montana Code, Annotated:
"Senate bill 508 creates an Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System to verify the compliance of a motor vehicle owner or operator with motor vehicle liability policy requirements and to monitor proof of financial responsibility. The new law allows the Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division, to contract with a private vendor or vendors to establish and maintain the system. The system will send requests to insurers for verification of motor vehicle liability insurance using electronic services established by the insurers. The system will include provisions to secure its data against unauthorized access and to maintain a record of all requests and responses. The system will be accessible without fee to authorized personnel of the Department, the courts, law enforcement
personnel, county treasurers, and their authorized agents...
"All insurers must cooperate with the department in establishing and maintaining the system and must provide access to motor vehicle liability policy status information to verify liability coverage for a vehicle insured by that company that is registered in this state and, if available, for a vehicle that is insured by that company or that is operated in this state and the subject of an accident investigation, regardless of where the vehicle is registered.
Law Enforcement Use of the System
"A peace officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy as required by state law. The response received from the system supersedes an insurance card produced by a vehicle owner or operator."
Effective January 1, 2010, Section 61-3-303, Montana Code Annotated:
"Beginning July 1, 2011, the county treasurer will use the Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System to verify that vehicle owners have complied with motor vehicle liability requirements. Unless the verification system is temporarily unavailable, the county treasurer cannot issue license plates to a motor vehicle when compliance cannot be verified."
"Senate bill 508 creates an Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System to verify the compliance of a motor vehicle owner or operator with motor vehicle liability policy requirements and to monitor proof of financial responsibility. The new law allows the Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division, to contract with a private vendor or vendors to establish and maintain the system. The system will send requests to insurers for verification of motor vehicle liability insurance using electronic services established by the insurers. The system will include provisions to secure its data against unauthorized access and to maintain a record of all requests and responses. The system will be accessible without fee to authorized personnel of the Department, the courts, law enforcement
personnel, county treasurers, and their authorized agents...
"All insurers must cooperate with the department in establishing and maintaining the system and must provide access to motor vehicle liability policy status information to verify liability coverage for a vehicle insured by that company that is registered in this state and, if available, for a vehicle that is insured by that company or that is operated in this state and the subject of an accident investigation, regardless of where the vehicle is registered.
Law Enforcement Use of the System
"A peace officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy as required by state law. The response received from the system supersedes an insurance card produced by a vehicle owner or operator."
Effective January 1, 2010, Section 61-3-303, Montana Code Annotated:
"Beginning July 1, 2011, the county treasurer will use the Online Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Verification System to verify that vehicle owners have complied with motor vehicle liability requirements. Unless the verification system is temporarily unavailable, the county treasurer cannot issue license plates to a motor vehicle when compliance cannot be verified."
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Another response to atheism
This is why I always ask the atheist to provide scientific evidence they exist, because, for all I know I could be having a hallucination! the atheist I am talking to might not be real! documentary, historical and anecdotal evidence don't aren't good enough! not even personal experience!
I also wonder why atheists don't have scientific evidence their mothers exist, or they love them. The atheist might counter with 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! its a lot more extraordinary to say a (insert attributes here) sky fairy that made the universe exists than it is to say a human being that doesn't believe in a sky fairy exist' to which I reply 'wrong, it is equally extraordinary to believe that a random occurrence of molecules has somehow assembled itself into what seems to be (if you're real) your unique form and has had your unique experiences. I find that to be quite extraordinary indeed! and I would like scientific evidence you exist!' It's all in your perception and how you word things!
Most atheists don't grasp the fact that what is extraordinary is entirely dependent upon the person and their experiences. I am sure some tribesman that's lived his entire life in the amazon rain forest might think a building or a rocket ship is 'extraordinary,' while the atheist, who experiences those things everyday, will find both a rocket ship and a building to be not extraordinary.
Then you point out that according to the evidence, the majority of the world believes the supernatural exists (whether they experience it everyday as much as we experience buildings and rocket ships is a different story entirely) and thus in this sense the atheist can be compared to the ignorant tribesman in that he is completely oblivious to what the majority of the world believes is real.
I also wonder why atheists don't have scientific evidence their mothers exist, or they love them. The atheist might counter with 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! its a lot more extraordinary to say a (insert attributes here) sky fairy that made the universe exists than it is to say a human being that doesn't believe in a sky fairy exist' to which I reply 'wrong, it is equally extraordinary to believe that a random occurrence of molecules has somehow assembled itself into what seems to be (if you're real) your unique form and has had your unique experiences. I find that to be quite extraordinary indeed! and I would like scientific evidence you exist!' It's all in your perception and how you word things!
Most atheists don't grasp the fact that what is extraordinary is entirely dependent upon the person and their experiences. I am sure some tribesman that's lived his entire life in the amazon rain forest might think a building or a rocket ship is 'extraordinary,' while the atheist, who experiences those things everyday, will find both a rocket ship and a building to be not extraordinary.
Then you point out that according to the evidence, the majority of the world believes the supernatural exists (whether they experience it everyday as much as we experience buildings and rocket ships is a different story entirely) and thus in this sense the atheist can be compared to the ignorant tribesman in that he is completely oblivious to what the majority of the world believes is real.
Monday, August 30, 2010
9/8/10 editorial - Conservative code speak
I was at the supermarket the other day, having just completed a legal, willing exchange of things of value. For $2.99 I got my box of Chester Fried, acquired without government intervention.
As I made my way to the exit I heard someone call out, “Say, are you that fellow who writes…” His voice trailed off as he looked furtively over each shoulder. Apparently satisfied he had aroused no suspicions, he came closer. Leaning toward me conspiratorially, he began again: “Are you that fellow who writes columns for the Chronicle?” He glanced around again as if we were engaging in a medical marijuana purchase. I told him I was.
“I really like what you write,” he said. “All my friends love your stuff. Keep it up. My name is John.” We exchanged in the Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, clasping right hands and moving them up and down in unison three to five times.
“I’m Rich, glad to meet you,” I said. “Thanks for saying something. It means a lot.” I was a bit more at ease, now that I knew he belonged. Nevertheless, I still kept my radar up. Infiltrators are everywhere.
We began our Eeeevil Extremist Conservative Code-Speak. “There are lots of patriots (Translation: People who agree with us) out there who are fed up with the government spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave (Let’s cut crucial services so the elderly will starve),” John whispered. “I don’t like Obama’s programs (Black people are ruining this country).”
John’s eyes darted to and fro. “It’s dangerous to be talking this way.” He shifted uneasily on his feet.
I tried to be reassuring. “This is America (We hate immigrants). We are still a free country (Slavery, the good old days),” I said. “All we can do is keep telling our side (Keep hysterically shouting, but offer no solutions). People are starting to wake up (Stupid people are joining us).”
John seemed to perk up. “Yeah, a lot of people are finally deciding to take a stand (We are hypocrites who had nothing to say about the past 8 years).” “I really think the TEA party is going to make a difference (with all the funding from shadowy right wingers).”
“Have you been to any TEA party events (Did you have enough Obama = Hitler signs)?” I asked. “Yeah, a couple,” John said. “It was kinda neat to protest government, like they did back in the sixties (As long as we are all white).”
“Why do they think that government can solve economic problems by doing even more of what got us into this mess (We're against the minimum wage in order to keep minorities in poverty)?” I asked. John replied, “I dunno. Do they really think we are that stupid (Glenn Beck is god)?”
I started leaning towards the door. “It was good to meet you,” I said, "and keep on believing (Keep working towards theocracy)".
John’s voice returned to normal. “It was good to meet you, too,” He said. Sotto voce again, he whispered, “What are you going to write about next (How are you going to advance corporate interests at the expense of workers)?”
I thought a moment. “Well, maybe I’ll write about the secret code language conservatives supposedly use.” John replied, “Oh, you mean like, ‘Big city problems coming to Montana?’”
“Yeah, like that,” I said. “Did you know that somehow means blacks are moving in?” He answered, “No, I didn’t. (I’ll have to update my secret decoder ring).”
“Me either.” We exchanged another Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, and John made his way towards the cheap wine section.
Wait a minute, he only shook twice. Infiltrators are everywhere…
As I made my way to the exit I heard someone call out, “Say, are you that fellow who writes…” His voice trailed off as he looked furtively over each shoulder. Apparently satisfied he had aroused no suspicions, he came closer. Leaning toward me conspiratorially, he began again: “Are you that fellow who writes columns for the Chronicle?” He glanced around again as if we were engaging in a medical marijuana purchase. I told him I was.
“I really like what you write,” he said. “All my friends love your stuff. Keep it up. My name is John.” We exchanged in the Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, clasping right hands and moving them up and down in unison three to five times.
“I’m Rich, glad to meet you,” I said. “Thanks for saying something. It means a lot.” I was a bit more at ease, now that I knew he belonged. Nevertheless, I still kept my radar up. Infiltrators are everywhere.
We began our Eeeevil Extremist Conservative Code-Speak. “There are lots of patriots (Translation: People who agree with us) out there who are fed up with the government spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave (Let’s cut crucial services so the elderly will starve),” John whispered. “I don’t like Obama’s programs (Black people are ruining this country).”
John’s eyes darted to and fro. “It’s dangerous to be talking this way.” He shifted uneasily on his feet.
I tried to be reassuring. “This is America (We hate immigrants). We are still a free country (Slavery, the good old days),” I said. “All we can do is keep telling our side (Keep hysterically shouting, but offer no solutions). People are starting to wake up (Stupid people are joining us).”
John seemed to perk up. “Yeah, a lot of people are finally deciding to take a stand (We are hypocrites who had nothing to say about the past 8 years).” “I really think the TEA party is going to make a difference (with all the funding from shadowy right wingers).”
“Have you been to any TEA party events (Did you have enough Obama = Hitler signs)?” I asked. “Yeah, a couple,” John said. “It was kinda neat to protest government, like they did back in the sixties (As long as we are all white).”
“Why do they think that government can solve economic problems by doing even more of what got us into this mess (We're against the minimum wage in order to keep minorities in poverty)?” I asked. John replied, “I dunno. Do they really think we are that stupid (Glenn Beck is god)?”
I started leaning towards the door. “It was good to meet you,” I said, "and keep on believing (Keep working towards theocracy)".
John’s voice returned to normal. “It was good to meet you, too,” He said. Sotto voce again, he whispered, “What are you going to write about next (How are you going to advance corporate interests at the expense of workers)?”
I thought a moment. “Well, maybe I’ll write about the secret code language conservatives supposedly use.” John replied, “Oh, you mean like, ‘Big city problems coming to Montana?’”
“Yeah, like that,” I said. “Did you know that somehow means blacks are moving in?” He answered, “No, I didn’t. (I’ll have to update my secret decoder ring).”
“Me either.” We exchanged another Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, and John made his way towards the cheap wine section.
Wait a minute, he only shook twice. Infiltrators are everywhere…
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Dr. Laura says the "N" word, outrage ensues
Surprise, the controversy is overblown. She didn't call anyone a "N." Here's the transcript:
SCHLESSINGER: I think that's -- well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says -- we had friends over the other day; we got about 35 people here -- the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was gonna go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, "White men can't jump; I want you on my team." That was racist? That was funny.
CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around --
SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger.
CALLER: That isn't --
SCHLESSINGER: I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate.
CALLER: So it's OK to say "nigger"?
SCHLESSINGER: -- and not enough sense of humor.
CALLER: It's OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it's said.
CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It's -- it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK.
SCHLESSINGER: I think that's -- well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says -- we had friends over the other day; we got about 35 people here -- the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was gonna go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, "White men can't jump; I want you on my team." That was racist? That was funny.
CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around --
SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger.
CALLER: That isn't --
SCHLESSINGER: I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate.
CALLER: So it's OK to say "nigger"?
SCHLESSINGER: -- and not enough sense of humor.
CALLER: It's OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it's said.
CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It's -- it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
New editorial, water main
I admit that I am puzzled by the City’s actions regarding the busted water main. I’m going back and forth on the issue. On one hand we have the property damage and other losses, and on the other we have the city’s $1000 goodwill payment.
Add to the mix the City’s insurance carrier. The City apparently has a liability insurance policy. Generally speaking, liability insurance covers the insured for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is found legally liable. Although this is the general principle, we don’t know what the policy language says. It may have some exclusion that applies.
The City’s insurer has taken this very position, publicly announcing that there is no coverage. It’s worth noting that this is not the same thing as denying an actual claim; it seems more like a pre-emptive strike to minimize future losses. We don’t know if property owners have actually submitted claims and been denied.
However, just because the insurer says the damage isn’t covered doesn’t mean that is the end of the issue. Property owners could complain to the State Auditor’s office, which oversees insurance in Montana. I assume the city's insurer is subject to the Auditor's oversight. This is a powerful motivator for insurers, because the Auditor is the gateway to doing insurance business in Montana. An insurer would not want their authority to transact business impeded in any way, so they might choose to cover the losses in order to retain their authority to sell insurance in Montana.
But let’s assume that there is an unambiguous exclusion in the policy which lets the insurer off the hook. The absence of coverage does not mean an absence of liability. A property owner might choose to take the City to court. The court’s affirmative decision would certainly establish legal liability for the loss, so the City would then be obligated to pay all damages caused by the broken water main.
But here is where I get confused. The City is apparently acting on the insurer’s denial and offering each owner a $1000 payment (or more in some cases). This strikes me as odd. Why insult people with an inadequate payment? If the City is offering this payment they must have some sort of sense that they ought to help pay for the damage. But why would they do that if they don’t believe it’s their fault? Either they’re liable or they are not. If they are liable, they pay for everything; if they are not, they pay nothing.
And by making the token payment it may mean they are assuming liability, a situation their attorneys should have warned them about. One might wonder if there is a level of incompetence at work here.
This payment scheme was a quick announcement, like there was a midnight meeting or something. They were ready with this $1000 awfully fast. I can imagine sleepy-eyed commissioners having a conversation, like: “OMG, what are we gonna do?” “Hey, how about $1000 each?” “Yeah, then we just say that we wanted to treat everyone equally.” “I like that. We show our compassion in the face of that eeeevil insurance company denying claims.”
This is a scheme that could only be dreamed up by government. No matter what the individual situation, no matter who is at fault or who deserves what, no matter how much damage, the payment is $1000. Funded by taxpayers, of course. Like so many government programs which pay people regardless of need or merit, this payment is nothing more than a feel-good moment for the governmental elites.
And they expected that there would be no criticism of their offer? One might wonder if the city leaders are living in the real world.
Add to the mix the City’s insurance carrier. The City apparently has a liability insurance policy. Generally speaking, liability insurance covers the insured for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is found legally liable. Although this is the general principle, we don’t know what the policy language says. It may have some exclusion that applies.
The City’s insurer has taken this very position, publicly announcing that there is no coverage. It’s worth noting that this is not the same thing as denying an actual claim; it seems more like a pre-emptive strike to minimize future losses. We don’t know if property owners have actually submitted claims and been denied.
However, just because the insurer says the damage isn’t covered doesn’t mean that is the end of the issue. Property owners could complain to the State Auditor’s office, which oversees insurance in Montana. I assume the city's insurer is subject to the Auditor's oversight. This is a powerful motivator for insurers, because the Auditor is the gateway to doing insurance business in Montana. An insurer would not want their authority to transact business impeded in any way, so they might choose to cover the losses in order to retain their authority to sell insurance in Montana.
But let’s assume that there is an unambiguous exclusion in the policy which lets the insurer off the hook. The absence of coverage does not mean an absence of liability. A property owner might choose to take the City to court. The court’s affirmative decision would certainly establish legal liability for the loss, so the City would then be obligated to pay all damages caused by the broken water main.
But here is where I get confused. The City is apparently acting on the insurer’s denial and offering each owner a $1000 payment (or more in some cases). This strikes me as odd. Why insult people with an inadequate payment? If the City is offering this payment they must have some sort of sense that they ought to help pay for the damage. But why would they do that if they don’t believe it’s their fault? Either they’re liable or they are not. If they are liable, they pay for everything; if they are not, they pay nothing.
And by making the token payment it may mean they are assuming liability, a situation their attorneys should have warned them about. One might wonder if there is a level of incompetence at work here.
This payment scheme was a quick announcement, like there was a midnight meeting or something. They were ready with this $1000 awfully fast. I can imagine sleepy-eyed commissioners having a conversation, like: “OMG, what are we gonna do?” “Hey, how about $1000 each?” “Yeah, then we just say that we wanted to treat everyone equally.” “I like that. We show our compassion in the face of that eeeevil insurance company denying claims.”
This is a scheme that could only be dreamed up by government. No matter what the individual situation, no matter who is at fault or who deserves what, no matter how much damage, the payment is $1000. Funded by taxpayers, of course. Like so many government programs which pay people regardless of need or merit, this payment is nothing more than a feel-good moment for the governmental elites.
And they expected that there would be no criticism of their offer? One might wonder if the city leaders are living in the real world.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Gay marriage editorial
I truly feel for the lady featured in a recent Chronicle article.
Apparently the parents of her deceased partner removed personal items, took retirement funds, and moved the body. It is horrifying how people will sometimes treat fellow human beings, especially in a time of sorrow. This woman suffered the death of a loved one. No one should be treated this way. Gay marriage aside, this is a human issue.
What’s worse, it could have been easily prevented. There are legal ramifications to any relationship that involves things of material value. Contracts are necessary and desirable. People do this all the time to protect their interests and to prevent other parties from acting against their wishes. A lot of heartache could have been avoided.
But may we question what really happened here? Retirement plans and life insurance policies list beneficiaries and owners. No one can intervene without showing cause in court. Wills, auto titles, deeds, loans, and rental agreements all name the parties involved. So are there facts we don’t know about? It doesn’t seem to add up.
Ok, so what about gay marriage? Some of you are probably waiting to pounce with name calling and hysterical invective, but we can discuss and disagree without such histrionics, right? As I mentioned in a prior column, I am a conservative who sometimes leans libertarian. Now, libertarians do not believe that they must keep their mouths shut about moral issues. They believe that government must keep its mouth shut about moral issues.
First, I oppose a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The purpose of the Constitution is to tell government what it can and cannot do. It defines and limits government. You know, if this basic concept was better understood, a lot of legal controversies would simply disappear.
A constitutional amendment about marriage wouldn’t be about defining the powers of government, it would impact the private relationships of The People. Therefore, those who want to amend the Constitution need to deal with their convictions in some other way.
Second, marriage is a religious institution. Government should leave marriage to the church. If you want to get married, find a church that will solemnize your relationship. For some reason, however, there is this misplaced desire to get gay marriage legalized, as if the legal and moral approval of society must be extracted to affirm love and commitment.
We need to be clear, civil marriage is an expression of law. There is no right to marriage. No one is suppressing anyone’s rights. Indeed, government is the only party that can suppress rights.
Marriage is a privilege granted by government. That’s why there’s a marriage license. You see, there are already lots of people who cannot marry due to age, genetic relationship, or even due to the fact that they are presently married. Their rights are not being violated either.
Indeed, government has made many laws that regulate marriage, to the point that it is barely recognizable as an expression of religion. Government has invaded all kinds of other religious activities as well, all of which violate the Constitution. What part of “Congress shall make no law…” don’t we understand?
Third, government should get out of marriage and religion. Churches should drop their tax-exempt status - - they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff. And people should stop looking for approval for the way they lead their lives.
You might be a person interested in being legally acknowledged by society. You might suggest that all loving, committed relationships are noble. And certainly there is a certain satisfaction in rubbing the gay marriage issue in the nose of those homophobes who disagree with you.
I grant all of that, but inviting the further presence of government into our private relationships can only lead to oppression. We don’t need more government.
Apparently the parents of her deceased partner removed personal items, took retirement funds, and moved the body. It is horrifying how people will sometimes treat fellow human beings, especially in a time of sorrow. This woman suffered the death of a loved one. No one should be treated this way. Gay marriage aside, this is a human issue.
What’s worse, it could have been easily prevented. There are legal ramifications to any relationship that involves things of material value. Contracts are necessary and desirable. People do this all the time to protect their interests and to prevent other parties from acting against their wishes. A lot of heartache could have been avoided.
But may we question what really happened here? Retirement plans and life insurance policies list beneficiaries and owners. No one can intervene without showing cause in court. Wills, auto titles, deeds, loans, and rental agreements all name the parties involved. So are there facts we don’t know about? It doesn’t seem to add up.
Ok, so what about gay marriage? Some of you are probably waiting to pounce with name calling and hysterical invective, but we can discuss and disagree without such histrionics, right? As I mentioned in a prior column, I am a conservative who sometimes leans libertarian. Now, libertarians do not believe that they must keep their mouths shut about moral issues. They believe that government must keep its mouth shut about moral issues.
First, I oppose a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The purpose of the Constitution is to tell government what it can and cannot do. It defines and limits government. You know, if this basic concept was better understood, a lot of legal controversies would simply disappear.
A constitutional amendment about marriage wouldn’t be about defining the powers of government, it would impact the private relationships of The People. Therefore, those who want to amend the Constitution need to deal with their convictions in some other way.
Second, marriage is a religious institution. Government should leave marriage to the church. If you want to get married, find a church that will solemnize your relationship. For some reason, however, there is this misplaced desire to get gay marriage legalized, as if the legal and moral approval of society must be extracted to affirm love and commitment.
We need to be clear, civil marriage is an expression of law. There is no right to marriage. No one is suppressing anyone’s rights. Indeed, government is the only party that can suppress rights.
Marriage is a privilege granted by government. That’s why there’s a marriage license. You see, there are already lots of people who cannot marry due to age, genetic relationship, or even due to the fact that they are presently married. Their rights are not being violated either.
Indeed, government has made many laws that regulate marriage, to the point that it is barely recognizable as an expression of religion. Government has invaded all kinds of other religious activities as well, all of which violate the Constitution. What part of “Congress shall make no law…” don’t we understand?
Third, government should get out of marriage and religion. Churches should drop their tax-exempt status - - they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff. And people should stop looking for approval for the way they lead their lives.
You might be a person interested in being legally acknowledged by society. You might suggest that all loving, committed relationships are noble. And certainly there is a certain satisfaction in rubbing the gay marriage issue in the nose of those homophobes who disagree with you.
I grant all of that, but inviting the further presence of government into our private relationships can only lead to oppression. We don’t need more government.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
God's intent for our brain
A Facebook conversation I found interesting:
PJ - What was the original intent for our brain?
MSF - It was to create things in the physical realm out of the overflow of the spiritual things.
MSF - Our mind worships the Lord and brings glory to Him by becoming renewed via the spirit. Then we bring the things into earth that heaven has revealed through practical, physical creation. We do balance the knowledge of our brain through biblical study and the study of other things, but not knowledge that puffs up, we submit it to the spirit.
Me - The mind is informed by the spirit. The Spirit of God gives life to our spirits and gives us the ability to being our minds into conformance with God.
Rom 8:6-8 - "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
1 Cor 1:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Luke 24:45 - "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."
I can find no Scripture that speaks of creating reality. Sorry.
MSF - I agree with those verses, they are the support for what I'm getting at. I was trying to get at the fact that our brain controls the motor functions and other systems of our body. Our mind is made up by our soul (mind, will, and emotions). When they are submitted to the Lord through our spirit, to His spirit, then we begin to function in original intent. Does that make sense? I was making the case for our spirit to know and understand God, and that our brain or mind is not what we connect to Him with, as is so often tried. The verse that sparked that was the one you quoted from I Corinthians. I just read from chapter 1 and 2 and mistakenly cited chapter 2 as the source.
Me - I Gotcha. However, you did write that the brain "...was to create things in the physical realm..."
What did you mean by that?
MSF - The brain controls our motor functions, the physical body. God created the physical universe and gave us physical bodies to co-create in a physical world. The creator God created us to also create and glorify Him in that. So I think our brain was designed to make the physical manifestations on earth from the spiritual reality of God.
Me - Scripture reference?
MSF - I love your questions, Rich. They always challenge me to better articulate myself and really cite scripture. It always forces me to be sharpened in that simple way.
Genesis 2:15 "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
God made Adam physically, in addition to the breathe of the spirit which brought him life, to do physical things with creation. God even delighted in how Adam would use his mind to be creative: "...He brought them (the animals) to the man to see what he would name them..." Gen 2:19
Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
In Exodus 31:1-11 we see that some of the first people who were filled with the Spirit were craftsmen and creative people.
Jesus said that he brought glory to the Father by completing every work that the Father set for Him to do.
Now, obviously the only fruit that means anything is eternal things, but we use our body to bring about these things "on earth as it is in Heaven". What's born in the spirit is brought into fruition into physical earth, though it is in the spiritual realm. My deduction is that taking that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing..." (John 6:63) and yet we are flesh, I believe the flesh has a role to play as a middle man on this side of eternity. If we submit the body and soul to the Spirit, we can produce spiritual things in the earth.
Me - I'm trying to determine if you are talking about how we might use the intellect, sanctified by the Spirit, to build, create, and form things as skillful workmen (i.e., the fruit of our labors); or, if you are referring to what is popularly known as "name it and claim it," where our words have power to create things.
MSF - the first one.
PJ - What was the original intent for our brain?
MSF - It was to create things in the physical realm out of the overflow of the spiritual things.
MSF - Our mind worships the Lord and brings glory to Him by becoming renewed via the spirit. Then we bring the things into earth that heaven has revealed through practical, physical creation. We do balance the knowledge of our brain through biblical study and the study of other things, but not knowledge that puffs up, we submit it to the spirit.
Me - The mind is informed by the spirit. The Spirit of God gives life to our spirits and gives us the ability to being our minds into conformance with God.
Rom 8:6-8 - "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
1 Cor 1:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Luke 24:45 - "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."
I can find no Scripture that speaks of creating reality. Sorry.
MSF - I agree with those verses, they are the support for what I'm getting at. I was trying to get at the fact that our brain controls the motor functions and other systems of our body. Our mind is made up by our soul (mind, will, and emotions). When they are submitted to the Lord through our spirit, to His spirit, then we begin to function in original intent. Does that make sense? I was making the case for our spirit to know and understand God, and that our brain or mind is not what we connect to Him with, as is so often tried. The verse that sparked that was the one you quoted from I Corinthians. I just read from chapter 1 and 2 and mistakenly cited chapter 2 as the source.
Me - I Gotcha. However, you did write that the brain "...was to create things in the physical realm..."
What did you mean by that?
MSF - The brain controls our motor functions, the physical body. God created the physical universe and gave us physical bodies to co-create in a physical world. The creator God created us to also create and glorify Him in that. So I think our brain was designed to make the physical manifestations on earth from the spiritual reality of God.
Me - Scripture reference?
MSF - I love your questions, Rich. They always challenge me to better articulate myself and really cite scripture. It always forces me to be sharpened in that simple way.
Genesis 2:15 "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
God made Adam physically, in addition to the breathe of the spirit which brought him life, to do physical things with creation. God even delighted in how Adam would use his mind to be creative: "...He brought them (the animals) to the man to see what he would name them..." Gen 2:19
Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
In Exodus 31:1-11 we see that some of the first people who were filled with the Spirit were craftsmen and creative people.
Jesus said that he brought glory to the Father by completing every work that the Father set for Him to do.
Now, obviously the only fruit that means anything is eternal things, but we use our body to bring about these things "on earth as it is in Heaven". What's born in the spirit is brought into fruition into physical earth, though it is in the spiritual realm. My deduction is that taking that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing..." (John 6:63) and yet we are flesh, I believe the flesh has a role to play as a middle man on this side of eternity. If we submit the body and soul to the Spirit, we can produce spiritual things in the earth.
Me - I'm trying to determine if you are talking about how we might use the intellect, sanctified by the Spirit, to build, create, and form things as skillful workmen (i.e., the fruit of our labors); or, if you are referring to what is popularly known as "name it and claim it," where our words have power to create things.
MSF - the first one.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Editorial - buying my first gun
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)