I've requested How Will You Measure Your Life from my local library, but I don't think it'll be available for another few weeks. Maybe Jesse would be willing to drop by Brother Christensen's house and get the inside story on the book, for those who aren't able/planning to read it.
I did just finish an interesting book called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. The author, Jonathan Haidt is a Professor of Psychology at UVA. His research has focused on how we make moral decisions, and he summarizes what he's learned in his career. It's fairly standard social science written for a broad audience.
The three core principles he attempts to establish are:
- Moral 'reasoning' is really moral intuition followed by logical justification, which is why debate and dialogue so seldom sway people's opinions.
- Our moral senses have many dimensions, but (industrialized, Western, educated) society only recognizes a few as valid bases for moral judgements.
- While we usually consider moral judgements individually, occasionally we can be turned to a 'hive' view, with a more group-level perspective.
In all, I found a lot of the book to match very well with my own feelings about how and what we choose to value, as individuals and as a society. I particularly liked Haidt's attempt to broaden the moral matrix (2nd point above); this is something I think rationalists in both parties largely neglect. Liberal (or libertarian) legal justification admits only 'harm' as a valid mechanism for determining whether something is 'right'. Haidt began his research by relating stories to college students, narratives which most people would agree were 'wrong', but which couldn't be categorized as such by an appeal to them having caused harm. Repeatedly, students would attempt to introduce new elements into the narrative, in order to inject some harm, in order to provide what they felt was a justifiable reason for finding the behavior in the narrative immoral. Haidt's prescription, and I think I agree with him, is that we should recognize that our moral vision is much broader than can be encompassed by the concept of harm, and that we should be moral 'pluralists' in the sense of recognizing the varied mechanisms by which we deem things 'immoral'.
To that end, Haidt established a website called yourmorals.org. You can go and register to participate in a variety of questionnaire-based studies. The primary study, called the 'Moral Foundations Questionnaire', asks you to rate how much or little you take various things into account when making a moral decision, and then provides a personalized 'rating' based on five moral dimensions identified by Haidt's research, as well as providing comparison to the average ratings for self-identifying liberals and conservatives. You should all go do it; it doesn't take long and I think it can provide interesting insight. Here are my scores:
Harm - 2.7
Fairness - 2.8
Loyalty - 3.3
Authority - 3.5
Purity - 3.3
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 15, 2011
Health Care Costs ("bending the curve")
Below is an graph of three phases of healthcare costs, from 1960-1979, 1980-1989, and 1990-2010*. The data are taken from the OECD statistics database. The red curve tracks US spending on healthcare (normalized to the beginning of each period) and the blue curve tracks the normalized spending of all other OECD countries**.
The graph represents a comparison of cost growth between the US and non-US-OECD during three unique phases. What strikes me about the plot is that the growth in costs has been remarkably similar between the two groups for forty of the past fifty years, despite differences between the systems. This indicates to me that claims that changing the system alone will "bend the curve" are ill-founded.
That's not to say the US's system is ideal, or good, or fair, or efficient, or anything else. It's just to say that inasmuch as long term costs are driven by growth, and growth seems to be relatively similar between the US and non-US-OECD countries, simply changing the healthcare system is unlikely to control long-term costs.
What I really want to know is what happened during the 1980's. Up until that point, the US costs were fairly similar to most OECD countries (again, despite differences in the delivery systems) both in terms of absolute costs and growth. But during the 1980's, the US saw healthcare spending relative to GDP grow at a similar to the previous two decades, while other OECD countries saw no appreciable growth (on average). Does anyone have a thought on why that would be? Did something change in Europe in the late 70s early 80s? Or something in the US that caused us not to realize the relative gains our industrialized brethren enjoyed?
*Note: the downtick in the blue curve at 2010 is due to sparsity of reporting. Data isn't yet available from most countries, so the final data point is largely spurious.
**The set of OECD countries expanded throughout the period graphed. So each blue data point is the average of a slightly different set of countries.
The graph represents a comparison of cost growth between the US and non-US-OECD during three unique phases. What strikes me about the plot is that the growth in costs has been remarkably similar between the two groups for forty of the past fifty years, despite differences between the systems. This indicates to me that claims that changing the system alone will "bend the curve" are ill-founded.
That's not to say the US's system is ideal, or good, or fair, or efficient, or anything else. It's just to say that inasmuch as long term costs are driven by growth, and growth seems to be relatively similar between the US and non-US-OECD countries, simply changing the healthcare system is unlikely to control long-term costs.
What I really want to know is what happened during the 1980's. Up until that point, the US costs were fairly similar to most OECD countries (again, despite differences in the delivery systems) both in terms of absolute costs and growth. But during the 1980's, the US saw healthcare spending relative to GDP grow at a similar to the previous two decades, while other OECD countries saw no appreciable growth (on average). Does anyone have a thought on why that would be? Did something change in Europe in the late 70s early 80s? Or something in the US that caused us not to realize the relative gains our industrialized brethren enjoyed?
*Note: the downtick in the blue curve at 2010 is due to sparsity of reporting. Data isn't yet available from most countries, so the final data point is largely spurious.
**The set of OECD countries expanded throughout the period graphed. So each blue data point is the average of a slightly different set of countries.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Federal budget deficits (Redux)
Given the apparent deal on raising the debt ceiling (*sigh of relief*), I've again become interested in what's driving our persistent deficits. I went back and plotted historical federal spending by subcategory [edit] and revenues by source[/edit] as a percentage of GDP (see plots below).
Spending Plot
A couple things I notice about the spending plot. First is that the major increase in social spending (as a % of GDP) happened between 1965 and 1975. I guess this was Johnson's "Great Society." It also coincides with the period of divergence in health care costs between the US and the rest of the industrialized world (something I don't really understand the causes of). The other thing is that, while social spending rose precipitously with the onset of the Recession, prior to that it was relatively flat for about 20 years. This gives me some small hope that projections of continued significant increases in social spending are not as accurate as I'd previously believed.
But really, the story of the spending plot is the inverse relation between defense and social spending. For the past 60 years we've consistently chosen to fund increased social spending through cuts in defense spending. I don't think that is necessarily bad, but at a minimum it brings up the issue of what to do when we can't decrease military spending any more.
Revenue Plot
The revenue plot shows that federal revenues have been remarkably flat (as a % of GDP) over time. They've hovered around 18% of GDP for the past 60 years. The interesting trends I see in this plot are the decrease in receipts of corporate income taxes and the rise in taxes due to social insurance (increases in FICA and so forth). Total federal revenue is at a 6-decade low, due largely to the fall in income tax receipts. This is a result both of the two recessions in the 2000s and the Bush tax cuts (particularly those for the middle class).
Spending Plot
A couple things I notice about the spending plot. First is that the major increase in social spending (as a % of GDP) happened between 1965 and 1975. I guess this was Johnson's "Great Society." It also coincides with the period of divergence in health care costs between the US and the rest of the industrialized world (something I don't really understand the causes of). The other thing is that, while social spending rose precipitously with the onset of the Recession, prior to that it was relatively flat for about 20 years. This gives me some small hope that projections of continued significant increases in social spending are not as accurate as I'd previously believed.
But really, the story of the spending plot is the inverse relation between defense and social spending. For the past 60 years we've consistently chosen to fund increased social spending through cuts in defense spending. I don't think that is necessarily bad, but at a minimum it brings up the issue of what to do when we can't decrease military spending any more.
Revenue Plot
The revenue plot shows that federal revenues have been remarkably flat (as a % of GDP) over time. They've hovered around 18% of GDP for the past 60 years. The interesting trends I see in this plot are the decrease in receipts of corporate income taxes and the rise in taxes due to social insurance (increases in FICA and so forth). Total federal revenue is at a 6-decade low, due largely to the fall in income tax receipts. This is a result both of the two recessions in the 2000s and the Bush tax cuts (particularly those for the middle class).
Monday, March 8, 2010
Justice
I've been reading my runner up selection for book o' the month last month (The Idea of Justice by Amartya Sen) and thoroughly enjoying it, although I'm still convinced it would have made a lousy book club selection.
I've also been watching a series of lectures by Harvard professor Michael Sandel called, simply, Justice. The production quality is pretty good; Harvard teamed with WGBH to put it together. The lectures are fairly engaging, even if I feel too much time is given to Harvard underclassmen and not enough to in-depth topical development.
I'm wondering if there would be critical mass here at PVS for a discussion of some of the material. Is anyone interested in watching, say, one lecture a week (25 min.) and then having a collective discussion? Anyway, just a thought.
As for Red State, Blue State, I finished it some time back. I'll try and collect my thoughts and post something about it tonight or tomorrow.
I've also been watching a series of lectures by Harvard professor Michael Sandel called, simply, Justice. The production quality is pretty good; Harvard teamed with WGBH to put it together. The lectures are fairly engaging, even if I feel too much time is given to Harvard underclassmen and not enough to in-depth topical development.
I'm wondering if there would be critical mass here at PVS for a discussion of some of the material. Is anyone interested in watching, say, one lecture a week (25 min.) and then having a collective discussion? Anyway, just a thought.
As for Red State, Blue State, I finished it some time back. I'll try and collect my thoughts and post something about it tonight or tomorrow.
Friday, November 14, 2008
A Rebuttal
So "leaning to the left" caught my attention enough that I'll jump back into the fray. For some reason, anytime someone says "left" or "liberal" around me, I get all defensive and into battle mode. I think it has something to do with having lived in Utah so long. [By the way, Robert, I know that's not your intention--I'm just interested in exploring my reaction to the phrase].
By the way, I should never check my email one last time before I go to bed, and I especially shouldn't have clicked through to Robert's post, because I just spent the last 45 minutes trying to think up the best way to articulate the fundamental flaws that I believe underly Ezra Taft Benson's views on government.
And I still haven't thought of the best way to articulate things. That's understandable because Ezra Taft Benson put a lot of time and thought into his article, and one would expect that a decent rebuttal to the article would require an equivalent amount of time and thought. Back when I was in school I would have been up to the task. But now with my job and family responsibilities occupying so much time out of my life, it'll have to wait.
[Which reminds me of something I read once in The Atlantic--something about how Arafat, I think, once he got into power, decided that the best way to pacify some of his more radical terrorist supporters--whom he perceived as potential threats--was to give them wives and families. And apparently they have statistics showing that it worked. At first, I thought oh, that's a testament to the importance of families. Now I wonder if it's just because the former terrorists were so busy taking out the trash and fixing broken cabinet doors that they didn't have time to entertain radical thoughts. :)]
Anyway, I have no qualms with disagreeing with Ezra Taft Benson here. In fact, I think that many of our early church leaders would have disagreed with Ezra Taft Benson's poitical views. And no, I am no position to back that statement up right now.
Here are some of my gut responses (probably a little repetitive in light of previous blog posts, but maybe one day I'll say it the right--er, left--way):
(1) Ezra Taft Benson's ideology appears to assume that, for the most part, all "wealth" is fairly allocated to those who created it, and all "costs" are fairly allocated to those who actions resulted in those costs. But this is clearly not the case. Our markets and monetary systems have innumerous flaws that I will not list here (though I have previously tried to explain some of these flaws). I'll just use an example (perhaps even a deliberately deceptive political cheapshot) as a proxy for those flaws: is the work of a plumber who takes home 250,000 a year really 6x more valuable than your average school teacher? Or (without the political cheapshot), is the work of your average CEO really 10x more important than senator? Should our Patent and Trademark Office be filled with grossly incompetent patent examiners because law firms are able to pay anyone who would be competent for the job 4x more in salary? (In case you couldn't guess, the last rant was inspired by my day at work).
Note that I am not saying that everybody should be paid the same as everyone else, I am merely observing that markets fail to fairly reward people the value of their work. Accordingly, our incentives are often in the wrong place, and our productivity is steered in unhealthy directions, sometimes with self-destructive consequences.
(2) The government, having created the monetary system in the first place, should also be responsible for taking measures to "fix" that monetary system to correct for market failures, including taking taxes and providing certain benefits.
(3) Not all government programs that involve the "redistribution of wealth" are zero-sum. For example, keeping people healthy and off the streets pays many indirect benefits to all citizens.
(4) Concentration of wealth, particularly when it involves the means of production, is as much a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a despot or an invading foreign power. I believe I have blogged on this previously.
(5) Government action is necessary to initiate beneficial programs that, absent government involvement, no one person or entity would have the incentive to undertake (highway system, pollution controls, etc.) I.e., the tragedy of the commons.
(6) One thing I do agree on is that a lot of government is best left to the local level. Of course, I believe this is more true for executive and judicial branches and less true of the legislative branch. But maybe I'll save that conversation for another day.
(7) The point that I feel most adament about is that Ezra Taft Benson's political ideology distances the individual from government in a way that is unhealthy in the modern world. The people of this world become increasingly inter-connected every day, and it's time we started treating government as a forum in which we negotiate our interconnectedness, as opposed to a necessary evil.
And from this remark, let me just jump to one of my personal pedastool points. We all look forward to the day when God's kingdom will be restored to this Earth. But most of us assume that since it will take an intervening force to make that restoration possible, we should just be all doom and gloom and live in survival mode while we watch the world crumble around us. But why should we act this way? Is it not possible that a great deal of the intervening force that brings forth God's kingdom will be us taking a role in the future of the world, engaging our brothers and sisters in discourse instead of sitting firmly entrenched in our sheltered positions?
Sorry, not sure how I ended up on that pedastool. I should go to sleep.
Oh, and here are some articles that say things in a way I only wish I could:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=119
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/demosp.html
By the way, I should never check my email one last time before I go to bed, and I especially shouldn't have clicked through to Robert's post, because I just spent the last 45 minutes trying to think up the best way to articulate the fundamental flaws that I believe underly Ezra Taft Benson's views on government.
And I still haven't thought of the best way to articulate things. That's understandable because Ezra Taft Benson put a lot of time and thought into his article, and one would expect that a decent rebuttal to the article would require an equivalent amount of time and thought. Back when I was in school I would have been up to the task. But now with my job and family responsibilities occupying so much time out of my life, it'll have to wait.
[Which reminds me of something I read once in The Atlantic--something about how Arafat, I think, once he got into power, decided that the best way to pacify some of his more radical terrorist supporters--whom he perceived as potential threats--was to give them wives and families. And apparently they have statistics showing that it worked. At first, I thought oh, that's a testament to the importance of families. Now I wonder if it's just because the former terrorists were so busy taking out the trash and fixing broken cabinet doors that they didn't have time to entertain radical thoughts. :)]
Anyway, I have no qualms with disagreeing with Ezra Taft Benson here. In fact, I think that many of our early church leaders would have disagreed with Ezra Taft Benson's poitical views. And no, I am no position to back that statement up right now.
Here are some of my gut responses (probably a little repetitive in light of previous blog posts, but maybe one day I'll say it the right--er, left--way):
(1) Ezra Taft Benson's ideology appears to assume that, for the most part, all "wealth" is fairly allocated to those who created it, and all "costs" are fairly allocated to those who actions resulted in those costs. But this is clearly not the case. Our markets and monetary systems have innumerous flaws that I will not list here (though I have previously tried to explain some of these flaws). I'll just use an example (perhaps even a deliberately deceptive political cheapshot) as a proxy for those flaws: is the work of a plumber who takes home 250,000 a year really 6x more valuable than your average school teacher? Or (without the political cheapshot), is the work of your average CEO really 10x more important than senator? Should our Patent and Trademark Office be filled with grossly incompetent patent examiners because law firms are able to pay anyone who would be competent for the job 4x more in salary? (In case you couldn't guess, the last rant was inspired by my day at work).
Note that I am not saying that everybody should be paid the same as everyone else, I am merely observing that markets fail to fairly reward people the value of their work. Accordingly, our incentives are often in the wrong place, and our productivity is steered in unhealthy directions, sometimes with self-destructive consequences.
(2) The government, having created the monetary system in the first place, should also be responsible for taking measures to "fix" that monetary system to correct for market failures, including taking taxes and providing certain benefits.
(3) Not all government programs that involve the "redistribution of wealth" are zero-sum. For example, keeping people healthy and off the streets pays many indirect benefits to all citizens.
(4) Concentration of wealth, particularly when it involves the means of production, is as much a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a despot or an invading foreign power. I believe I have blogged on this previously.
(5) Government action is necessary to initiate beneficial programs that, absent government involvement, no one person or entity would have the incentive to undertake (highway system, pollution controls, etc.) I.e., the tragedy of the commons.
(6) One thing I do agree on is that a lot of government is best left to the local level. Of course, I believe this is more true for executive and judicial branches and less true of the legislative branch. But maybe I'll save that conversation for another day.
(7) The point that I feel most adament about is that Ezra Taft Benson's political ideology distances the individual from government in a way that is unhealthy in the modern world. The people of this world become increasingly inter-connected every day, and it's time we started treating government as a forum in which we negotiate our interconnectedness, as opposed to a necessary evil.
And from this remark, let me just jump to one of my personal pedastool points. We all look forward to the day when God's kingdom will be restored to this Earth. But most of us assume that since it will take an intervening force to make that restoration possible, we should just be all doom and gloom and live in survival mode while we watch the world crumble around us. But why should we act this way? Is it not possible that a great deal of the intervening force that brings forth God's kingdom will be us taking a role in the future of the world, engaging our brothers and sisters in discourse instead of sitting firmly entrenched in our sheltered positions?
Sorry, not sure how I ended up on that pedastool. I should go to sleep.
Oh, and here are some articles that say things in a way I only wish I could:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=119
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/demosp.html
The Proper Role of Government
Admittedly, I am shocked to discover that several of you have drifted toward the political left. I've been impressed at your attempts to justify your positions and with the respect with which you all appear to be treating each other. Like Jefferson and Adams, we all have the same end goals and we recognize that we all learn more by the open and friendly debate than if we all came to the table with the exact same perspectives.
I posted on my own blog the full text of Ezra Taft Benson's essay "The Proper Role of Government" and I highlighted the points that I thought most powerful (well, that most powerfully supported my position anyway). I'd invite you all to read it and let's discuss.
I do not hide in the coat-tails of his ethos as a former president of our church to say that I am right and you are wrong. This essay was given as his opinion, not as doctrine nor a church position. So, by all means, if you disagree with something he said in this essay, you won't go to hell by questioning it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Yes we can!
Obama-mania
I stayed up to watch Obama's acceptance speech, as my wife fell asleep on the couch beside me, and it was worth the loss of sleep. I'm excited about 4 years of great presidential speeches. The big crowds, the Hollywood backgrounds, etc. I eat that stuff up. I also thought McCain gave his best speech of the campaign last night, but purely as a public figurehead, everyone has to agree that the younger, more eloquent and charismatic Obama was the better choice.
Now, I couldn't bring myself to actually vote for Obama, mostly out of a fear of any one party having too much power and because of the large uncertainty about the difference between what Obama was saying he would do and what he would actually do with a legislative branch firmly in his corner. (Note: I didn't vote for McCain either, mostly because he rubs me the wrong way. I know, it's a very issue oriented approach to voting, but hey, I wasn't in love with either man's record or lack thereof.) Still, despite my not voting for Obama, I am surprisingly excited that he won. I think the US needed a new face to represent us to the world, and for those that prefer a smaller govt. brand of Republicanism, the Bush brand of Republicanism (clearly not smaller govt.) and those that were in any way associated with it had to fail to bring about change.
I know there are a lot of ardent Democrats out there, and I fervently hope that you are right. I want Obama and all of his new pals in Washington to be just what this country needs. I'm actually quite excited to see what he'll do. It's possible I'm just excited because the world's longest political season is over, but I think it's more like Obama is a mystery novel and I want to stay up all night to find out whodunnit and how. My excitement may also have something to do with Obama's desire for a playoff in college football, but that's just me.
Book club
Peter, I enjoyed your post, especially your alternate ending. I'll just pretend that's the way it really ended. Your posts are always stimulating vocabulary lessons. I can't believe you worked Bayesian probability into a post on the plague. The one thing you neglected to mention was the book club order for the next few months. Since it is already Nov. 5th, I will go ahead and select my next book choice be it for November or some time in the future. I choose "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals". I just started it this morning, and the first four tracks provided an interesting premise and demonstrated intelligent writing. I think that, if nothing else, it will provide good conversation material for you as you are eating your Thanksgiving feasts.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
the other candidate
Last Thursday at our ward's monthly fellowshipping fireside, I presented the topic of Joseph Smith's 1844 presidential campaign. Not too many people attended, perhaps because of the vice presidential debate, though I did get home in time to hear Palin ask, "Can I call you Joe?"
Alvin had asked a while back if I would share what I glean from the book that I had on my list of potential October reads. So here is a summary of how Arnold Garr presents Joseph Smith's move into the political arena.
Joseph Smith said of President Van Buren, "[our interaction shows] … he was an office seeker, that self-aggrandizement was his ruling passion, and that justice and righteousness were no part of his composition." He was frustrated by the lack of desire and ability that the president and the candidates had to help the Mormons. He was determined to do something about it. He said, "If I ever get into the presidential chair, I will protect the people in their rights and liberties." He was sincere in his desire to help the injured innocent, regardless of faith.
I enjoyed the book, it was a quick read, but it provided a good detail of the campaign. There are several interesting tid-bits of history in there. Let me know if you would like to borrow the book, or if you have any questions about details that my brief summary left out.
Alvin had asked a while back if I would share what I glean from the book that I had on my list of potential October reads. So here is a summary of how Arnold Garr presents Joseph Smith's move into the political arena.
- Oct. 1838 - Gov. Boggs issues extermination order
- March 1839 - while in Liberty Jail, Joseph Smith (JS) receives a revelation (D&C 123); verses 1-6 are instruction to take details of persecutions to the gov't for appeal
- Oct 20, 1839 - Nauvoo High Council select JS as a delegate to take grievances to the president and congress of the United States
- Nov 1839 - journey to DC; JS stops a runaway stagecoach and is declared a hero; presents documents to President Martin Van Buren, who says, "What can I do? I can do nothing for you! If I do anything I shall come in contact with the whole state of MO."
- Dec 1839 - present to congress petition for assistance in bringing justice for the Mormons
- March 4 1840 - Judiciary Committee declines the Mormons' petition, essentially stating that it is a matter for MO
- Dec. 16, 1840 - IL state legislature approves the Nauvoo Charter; JS said, "I concocted it for the salvation of the Church, and on principles so broad, that every honest man might dwell secure under its protective influence."
- Feb 1, 1841 - JS elected to the Nauvoo City Council
- Feb 3, 1841 - JS introduced bills to organize the militia (the Nauvoo Legion) and the University of the City of Nauvoo. JS is named a regent of the University
- Feb 4, 1841 - JS elected lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo Legion
- Jan 22, 1842 - JS elected Vice Mayor of Nauvoo
- May 19, 1842 - JS elected Mayor of Nauvoo after John C. Bennet is ousted from the office for many acts of gross misconduct
- Summer of 1842 - multiple attempts to arrest the prophet, including one by the former Gov. of MO, Lilburn Boggs. The IL refuses to help JS, instead offering a $200 bounty.
- Mar 3, 1843 - IL House of Reps. vote to repeal the Nauvoo Charter. The Senate votes to retain it.
- Oct. 1843 - editorial in "The Times & Seasons" titled "Who Shall Be Our Next President?"
- Nov. 1843 - JS wrote letters to 5 leading presidential candidates, essentially asking, "What will you do for the Mormons?" He received 3 replies but no pledge of support. In fact, John C. Calhoun said, "[The Mormon case] does not come withing the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, which is one of limited and specific powers."
- Jan 29, 1844 - local leaders in Nauvoo meet; Willard Richards motions that JS should run for President of the United States. JS works with W.W. Phelps to draft "General Smith's Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States," which outlines much of his presidential platform.
- JS political platform includes the following: increase the power of the presidency, especially to be able to suppress mobs, reduce the number of members in the House of Representatives by approximately one fifth (2 reps per 1 million people) and reduce their pay from $8/day to $2/day, abolish slavery by 1850 and "pay every slave owner a reasonable price for his slaves." reform the prison system, abolish court martial for desertion, form a national bank, annex OR and TX
- March 11, 1844 - JS organizes the Council of 50, to help with the campaign
- April 9, 1844 - call for volunteer electioneer missionaries to preach the gospel and spread JS campaign message
- June 7, 1844 - Nauvoo Expositor publishes articles with hostile charges laid against JS
- June 10, 1844 - The Nauvoo City Council sees the Expositor as a threat to the peace of Nauvoo and orders its removal
- June 27, 1844 - JS is martyred
- July 1, 1844 - State convention held in Boston, delegates are chosen for nat'l convention
Joseph Smith said of President Van Buren, "[our interaction shows] … he was an office seeker, that self-aggrandizement was his ruling passion, and that justice and righteousness were no part of his composition." He was frustrated by the lack of desire and ability that the president and the candidates had to help the Mormons. He was determined to do something about it. He said, "If I ever get into the presidential chair, I will protect the people in their rights and liberties." He was sincere in his desire to help the injured innocent, regardless of faith.
I enjoyed the book, it was a quick read, but it provided a good detail of the campaign. There are several interesting tid-bits of history in there. Let me know if you would like to borrow the book, or if you have any questions about details that my brief summary left out.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Howdy from Texas
Well, I suppose it's time for me to stop lurking and finally post something. I've been reading the discussions for a while now and am finally up to date. I've found it to be a great forum for discussions of many different views.
Anyway, a little about myself. I'm currently a software engineer for Bibble Labs in Austin, Texas. We do photography workflow software, primarily focusing on processing RAW images from Digital-SLR cameras faster than any other software available. As such I get to play with just about any DSLR that comes out; if only that made me a better photographer.
I made my way to Austin by first working with Karl at another software company - Corda Technologies in Lindon, Utah. I actually started working there way back when we were all still in Merrill Hall, at that time it was only me and my Boss. After I served my mission in the Philippines I returned to Corda and worked there while I finished my BS in Computer Science at BYU. I graduated in the fall of 2002 only a few days after I got married.
Marriage inevitably took me to New York City where I worked for Nikon doing photography software similar to what I'm doing now. I lived in the Upper East Side of Manhattan for about 3 years. This time unfortunately saw the end of my marriage which also indirectly led me to Austin. Being single again let me entertain opportunities that I otherwise might not have considered.
That's me in a nutshell. Throughout most of that time I've had a big black lab named Pungi who is featured frequently in the pictures I post on my blog, Cutterpillow.com. Unfortunately Pungi hasn't quite mastered the art of taking pictures so there are very few pictures of me there. One of these days I'll get Pungi trained and then hopefully there'll be more pictures of me up there.
Climate Change
Lastly to contribute somewhat to the discussion I'll share some of my views on climate change. I must admit that I don't have a large knowledge of the subject, but since when has that ever stopped anyone from having strong opinions? First of all I despise the term "global warming" as it implies that global temperatures will only ever get warmer and never cooler and that claim is pretty much preposterous. I tend to agree with the following quote by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley which I referenced on my blog:
A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide.Now when you've got a title like The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who's going to mess with you? Seriously though, as for Peter's scale in the previous article I'd have to say that I fall in at #1 and don't go beyond that, that is I believe that on average global temperatures are currently increasing. I don't have any conclusive beliefs one way or another regarding #2 but I am highly skeptical that we have anything to do with the rise in the average global temperature. My belief is that the primary force behind climate change is that big burning ball of gas that our planet orbits. I just don't think that there's enough information to determine that our activity is the driving force behind the current trend in climate change, after all the entire history of civilized mankind is only a blink in the history of this planet. And the period of time that we've actually kept records of global climate trends is a mere blink of that - a blink of a blink in the history of the world. To claim that we have any solid understanding of global climate trends over large periods of time is fairly foolish in my opinion, let alone trying to predict how the climate will trend in the future.
Something I like to remind myself of is how wrong science has been throughout the history of mankind. The one thing that is constant in science is change, yet there are many who believe that out current understanding of science is an absolute authority. There was once time when we knew that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. Later a time that we knew that the planets orbited the sun in perfect circles. I think that our understanding of the global climate system is still in its infancy and trying to enact any policy based on our current limited knowledge is premature and potentially dangerous. It was only 34 years ago that Time magazine published an article titled Another Ice Age? The consensus at that time was that "global cooling" was occurring and potentially a problem. Not to mention that they thought that man might have been the cause. Whatever the cause of the current change in global climates I believe that it is premature to take any significant actions based on our limited understanding of global climate patterns, especially any actions that might try to significantly change global climates. Who knows, we might cause our own manmade ice age if we were to undertake radical efforts to prevent "global warming."
I do think that doing things to ensure a clean environment are a good thing. Everyone wants clean water and air and we should recycle as best we can. But imposing costly measures on businesses and individuals (Carbon Credits) is foolish in my opinion.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Weather and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction
Let me start by saying that I love having this forum to discuss interesting topics with intelligent people. I'm glad that there are a wide variety of opinions and ideas. Thanks Peter, for getting this started and organizing it. In reference to your book choice, I'd really enjoy a discussion on the temple, so that would be my first choice. But I'd be happy with any of the three choices.
As for this month's book, I have only read the cover page and the bibliography/appendix thing at the back, but I am very impressed with the title. How our fears shape our public decision making is a very interesting topic.
In my contemplation this morning, I found a surprising number of parallels between global warming and the war in Iraq. Let me explain.
Pollution vs. Saddam Hussein
Saddam was a problem for a number of years. Nobody in the world argued the assertion that Saddam was a bad man, doing lots of bad things. However, this in and of itself was not enough to justify our invasion of Iraq. Not even after he invaded Kuwait. An invasion of Iraq needed to be justified by a bigger fear (see below). Similarly, no one is arguing that pollution is bad.
Global Warming vs. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam alone wasn't worth the sacrifice of American lives and money, but Saddam with WMDs is an unimaginable worst case scenario that justified the cost. Similarly, pollution alone isn't worth the cost of slowing down our economy and the extra burden, but global warming and the unimaginable thought of "Waterworld", "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Wall-E", now that's worth sacrificing for.
Consensus
Not fair, you say. We KNOW there is global warming, but we didn't know if there were WMDs. I agree, we do know there is global warming, but we don't know if it will be catastrophic. That's a key difference. We knew that Saddam had weapons, just not weapons of mass destruction. We knew that Saddam was avoiding UN inspectors and acting like he had WMDs. There was a consensus in the political community that Saddam had WMDs, even among those that didn't go to war with us. Which leads to my next point...
No Coalition
Bush gets ripped to shreds for not forming a broad coalition before going into Iraq. He called it leadership. We are, after all, the only superpower. Now, there's a call for leadership in climate change without the agreement of important contributers, namely China and India.
Going in without the right plan
According to the great vision of hindsight, many have said that we could have avoided many of the problems in Iraq if we had just gone in with the right plan. Well, personally I think that many environmentalists have been going about things the wrong way. From what I've read, biofuels and wind power don't appear to be the solutions they've been touted to be. I think the cap and trade system will be a bureaucratic mess that will have very little impact on our net Carbon emissions.
Al Gore vs. Dick Cheney
Haliburton benefitted nicely from the war in Iraq, and similarly, many of the todays most fervent environmentalists will have "greener" wallets as the global warming movement picks up steam.
How long we'll be there
For some, the problem with Iraq wasn't that we went in, but that we can't get back out. Similarly, if the government bolsters up its payrolls with green collar workers, I imagine it will be tough to let those workers off when the job is over. It's never politically popular to let people go. And the effects of a cap and trade system will linger just as long as our troops stay in Iraq.
The "What if..." factor
Getting out of Iraq is complicated by several fears and hopes, namely the fear of a terrorist breeding ground if we leave and the hope of a democratic Iraq and eventually a democratic Middle East. History may one day see George Bush as a hero and one of our greatest presidents. Stranger things have happened. Interestingly, it's the fear, more than the hope that drives people's opinions. Similarly, the fear of cataclysmic weather is much more motivating than the hope of a pristine environment. The "What If..." factor will ensure that we never leave Iraq and that we will always worry and legislate our effect on the environment.
My Conclusion
There are intelligent people that support the war in Iraq, and there are more intelligent people that support drastic government intervention to reduce our impact on the environment. I respect both groups, even though often they are either of vastly different political persuasions or they voted for McCain. I don't know the correctness of either cause. There will always be that "What if..." factor. However, I have stopped believing the argument that there are people smarter than me that have a lot more information than I do, and that I should just trust them. (Note: I have no doubt that there are people smarter than me and with more experience, but I now require a higher level of evidence from them. If they're so smart, they should be able to explain it to me and not just require me to trust them. (Note: That means if they want me to trust a computer model's output for 10 years down the road, they should start by predicting one year down the road.))
I know it's becoming a bit cliche to blame Bush, but I like to blame him for making me more cynical. I got sucked into the justification for the war in Iraq, thinking that he had access to information that I didn't, and when I felt deceived later, I tried to learn from my mistakes. After the dot.com bubble, you've got to recognize the signs of a housing bubble. While I think that a big government-backed environmental movement is inevitable, I still have a faint hope that they will go in with a good plan.
In the meantime, I will try to do my part to help the environment. We recycle, and while I don't bike to work like Paul, I do work from home 2 days a week. And if the government wants to save the environment, they can ask me to work from home every day.
As for this month's book, I have only read the cover page and the bibliography/appendix thing at the back, but I am very impressed with the title. How our fears shape our public decision making is a very interesting topic.
In my contemplation this morning, I found a surprising number of parallels between global warming and the war in Iraq. Let me explain.
Pollution vs. Saddam Hussein
Saddam was a problem for a number of years. Nobody in the world argued the assertion that Saddam was a bad man, doing lots of bad things. However, this in and of itself was not enough to justify our invasion of Iraq. Not even after he invaded Kuwait. An invasion of Iraq needed to be justified by a bigger fear (see below). Similarly, no one is arguing that pollution is bad.
Global Warming vs. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam alone wasn't worth the sacrifice of American lives and money, but Saddam with WMDs is an unimaginable worst case scenario that justified the cost. Similarly, pollution alone isn't worth the cost of slowing down our economy and the extra burden, but global warming and the unimaginable thought of "Waterworld", "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Wall-E", now that's worth sacrificing for.
Consensus
Not fair, you say. We KNOW there is global warming, but we didn't know if there were WMDs. I agree, we do know there is global warming, but we don't know if it will be catastrophic. That's a key difference. We knew that Saddam had weapons, just not weapons of mass destruction. We knew that Saddam was avoiding UN inspectors and acting like he had WMDs. There was a consensus in the political community that Saddam had WMDs, even among those that didn't go to war with us. Which leads to my next point...
No Coalition
Bush gets ripped to shreds for not forming a broad coalition before going into Iraq. He called it leadership. We are, after all, the only superpower. Now, there's a call for leadership in climate change without the agreement of important contributers, namely China and India.
Going in without the right plan
According to the great vision of hindsight, many have said that we could have avoided many of the problems in Iraq if we had just gone in with the right plan. Well, personally I think that many environmentalists have been going about things the wrong way. From what I've read, biofuels and wind power don't appear to be the solutions they've been touted to be. I think the cap and trade system will be a bureaucratic mess that will have very little impact on our net Carbon emissions.
Al Gore vs. Dick Cheney
Haliburton benefitted nicely from the war in Iraq, and similarly, many of the todays most fervent environmentalists will have "greener" wallets as the global warming movement picks up steam.
How long we'll be there
For some, the problem with Iraq wasn't that we went in, but that we can't get back out. Similarly, if the government bolsters up its payrolls with green collar workers, I imagine it will be tough to let those workers off when the job is over. It's never politically popular to let people go. And the effects of a cap and trade system will linger just as long as our troops stay in Iraq.
The "What if..." factor
Getting out of Iraq is complicated by several fears and hopes, namely the fear of a terrorist breeding ground if we leave and the hope of a democratic Iraq and eventually a democratic Middle East. History may one day see George Bush as a hero and one of our greatest presidents. Stranger things have happened. Interestingly, it's the fear, more than the hope that drives people's opinions. Similarly, the fear of cataclysmic weather is much more motivating than the hope of a pristine environment. The "What If..." factor will ensure that we never leave Iraq and that we will always worry and legislate our effect on the environment.
My Conclusion
There are intelligent people that support the war in Iraq, and there are more intelligent people that support drastic government intervention to reduce our impact on the environment. I respect both groups, even though often they are either of vastly different political persuasions or they voted for McCain. I don't know the correctness of either cause. There will always be that "What if..." factor. However, I have stopped believing the argument that there are people smarter than me that have a lot more information than I do, and that I should just trust them. (Note: I have no doubt that there are people smarter than me and with more experience, but I now require a higher level of evidence from them. If they're so smart, they should be able to explain it to me and not just require me to trust them. (Note: That means if they want me to trust a computer model's output for 10 years down the road, they should start by predicting one year down the road.))
I know it's becoming a bit cliche to blame Bush, but I like to blame him for making me more cynical. I got sucked into the justification for the war in Iraq, thinking that he had access to information that I didn't, and when I felt deceived later, I tried to learn from my mistakes. After the dot.com bubble, you've got to recognize the signs of a housing bubble. While I think that a big government-backed environmental movement is inevitable, I still have a faint hope that they will go in with a good plan.
In the meantime, I will try to do my part to help the environment. We recycle, and while I don't bike to work like Paul, I do work from home 2 days a week. And if the government wants to save the environment, they can ask me to work from home every day.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Peter's Bric-a-brac
State of Fear: Paul, it's been a month since our last book club. I don't know if you've been thinking about what you want to post in re Michael Crichton's polemic, but I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts. I have my own, but I'll wait until you've opened things.
Constitutional Law: I really enjoyed Christopher's post regarding the Constitution and how it should be interpreted. Based largely on the bad taste in my mouth after the MA SSM decision, which had no basis in law IMO, I spent some time as a strict originalist. But, thinking about the historical role of judges I feel that the sort of originalism propounded by Justice Scalia is a bit farther than I'm willing to go; judges should be (I feel) the wise men of society who can balance the letter and the spirit of the law. That said, I feel law has become troublingly politicized, particularly due to the balkanization of the US Supreme Court and several high profile legislative battles over Federal Circuit appointees.
Same Sex Marriage: Living in MA, having gone to the only gay wedding to which I've been invited (after much inner conflict), I find that my personal acquaintance with the practice has not significantly impacted my feelings about it as far as I can tell.
I believe marriage is a social construct; that its only meaning is what we as a society imbue it with. As such, I do not accept that "equal marriage" is an inherent right. The question I see the point revolving on is whether we as a society want to weaken the construct sufficiently to allow for same sex couples. Historically there have been far less strict interpretations of what "marriage" means; globally there are very different interpretations on what "marriage" means. I'm not too worked up over the possibility of a definitional change. Although individually I oppose it and vote that way, if society chooses to accept it I'm not going to go about wringing my hands.
I do get worked up, however, with any arguments in favor of SSM that assert a "right to marry" or that focus on logistical (i.e. inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.), rather than definitional aspects of marriage. I'm leary of the assertion of "rights" beyond a basic few, and don't see historical or popular support for the assertion of this particular "right." Since the question, to me, is not one of "rights," the procedure calls for legislative deliberation and popular votes to determine the central question of whether homosexual relationships belong to the marriage construct, with all the social acceptance that membership entails. If society does not believe that, then the government has no place dictating an different position.
I feel that the push to legalize SSM through judicial rather than legislative methods is largely an effort to use the power of government as a method to force a change in the social construct, rather than the more appropriate process of legislating to reconcile the government with what the construct has become. I see this particularly in MA where the legal battle became essentially a public relations method for recognition of the validity of same-sex relationships. It was an anti-populist attempt to compel change in the hearts and minds of the populace, which I see as a poor legal precedent.
I disagree both with the MA and CA SSM decisions; in both cases the courts recognized a right that I don't believe exists, i.e. the "right to marry." Precedence appeals to the end of miscegnation (which, IIRC, were part of the written decisions in both state cases) I think are faulty; you could equally well (to my mind) say the refutation of it as a right is established by minimum age laws, cousin (or sibling) laws, or polyandry laws. I don't know if that makes sense, but my point is simply that using an example of expansion (interracial marriage) to assert a right to marry while ignoring examples of contractions (close-relative marriage) is either disingenuous or illogical.
My Political Philosophy: I generally see myself as a classic conservative in the vein of Edmund Burke. This is neither the conservatism of the current Republican Party, nor the individual rights conservatism that Jesse has propounded. It has more to do with an ideological resistance to change, which in my case is coupled with a distrust of pure reason as a basis for policy. I generally believe that policies already in place are wise, and am pessimistic that changes in policy will lead to intended benefits nor that they will avoid unintended negative consequences. I see an inspiration for this in Burke's principles in supporting the American revolution but rejecting the French revolution. In general, I identify more with the "liberal" wing of the Republican party, and view Bush pere as a better president than either Ronald Reagan or Bush fils.
When asked, rather than Republican or Democrat, I usually identify myself as Communitarian. Like Libertarians, Communitarians find themselves on both sides of the two-party split. But instead of a focus on individual rights and liberties (as in Libertarianism), Communitarianism focuses more on our responsibility to our communities. A result of this is that I feel that political decisions should devolve to the most local community capable of addressing the issue adequately. I am a strong proponent of the "representative" part of our representative democracy (I was recently quite disappointed by the MA legislature's decision to award our Electoral votes for PotUS to the winner of the National popular vote in an attempt to make a populist end run around the Electoral College). I think the changes in the federal government enacted by FDR and LBJ were more bad than good, and that we'd be better off pushing most of the responsibilities the federal government assumed over the past 75 years back down to the states and localities, particularly the social safety net (i.e. health care, social security, unemployment, etc.) I feel that administering it at a political level so far removed from community oversight is a recipe for corruption and inefficiency. Ideally I don't think the federal government should do much other than maintain interstate trade (mostly the interstate highway system) and work out foreign relations (including Defense, which has come to mean Offense, which is a whole different issue). Pretty much all other functions should devolve to at least the states if not the localities.
More Merrill Alums: If anyone has contact with other friends from our Helaman Halls days, please feel free to invite them to the symposium. I didn't spend a lot of time tracking down loose ends, but I'd certainly like to see more voices added to our mix. Furthermore, I'd be open to a discussion of extending membership to spouses or other friends who would like to participate.
Constitutional Law: I really enjoyed Christopher's post regarding the Constitution and how it should be interpreted. Based largely on the bad taste in my mouth after the MA SSM decision, which had no basis in law IMO, I spent some time as a strict originalist. But, thinking about the historical role of judges I feel that the sort of originalism propounded by Justice Scalia is a bit farther than I'm willing to go; judges should be (I feel) the wise men of society who can balance the letter and the spirit of the law. That said, I feel law has become troublingly politicized, particularly due to the balkanization of the US Supreme Court and several high profile legislative battles over Federal Circuit appointees.
Same Sex Marriage: Living in MA, having gone to the only gay wedding to which I've been invited (after much inner conflict), I find that my personal acquaintance with the practice has not significantly impacted my feelings about it as far as I can tell.
I believe marriage is a social construct; that its only meaning is what we as a society imbue it with. As such, I do not accept that "equal marriage" is an inherent right. The question I see the point revolving on is whether we as a society want to weaken the construct sufficiently to allow for same sex couples. Historically there have been far less strict interpretations of what "marriage" means; globally there are very different interpretations on what "marriage" means. I'm not too worked up over the possibility of a definitional change. Although individually I oppose it and vote that way, if society chooses to accept it I'm not going to go about wringing my hands.
I do get worked up, however, with any arguments in favor of SSM that assert a "right to marry" or that focus on logistical (i.e. inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.), rather than definitional aspects of marriage. I'm leary of the assertion of "rights" beyond a basic few, and don't see historical or popular support for the assertion of this particular "right." Since the question, to me, is not one of "rights," the procedure calls for legislative deliberation and popular votes to determine the central question of whether homosexual relationships belong to the marriage construct, with all the social acceptance that membership entails. If society does not believe that, then the government has no place dictating an different position.
I feel that the push to legalize SSM through judicial rather than legislative methods is largely an effort to use the power of government as a method to force a change in the social construct, rather than the more appropriate process of legislating to reconcile the government with what the construct has become. I see this particularly in MA where the legal battle became essentially a public relations method for recognition of the validity of same-sex relationships. It was an anti-populist attempt to compel change in the hearts and minds of the populace, which I see as a poor legal precedent.
I disagree both with the MA and CA SSM decisions; in both cases the courts recognized a right that I don't believe exists, i.e. the "right to marry." Precedence appeals to the end of miscegnation (which, IIRC, were part of the written decisions in both state cases) I think are faulty; you could equally well (to my mind) say the refutation of it as a right is established by minimum age laws, cousin (or sibling) laws, or polyandry laws. I don't know if that makes sense, but my point is simply that using an example of expansion (interracial marriage) to assert a right to marry while ignoring examples of contractions (close-relative marriage) is either disingenuous or illogical.
My Political Philosophy: I generally see myself as a classic conservative in the vein of Edmund Burke. This is neither the conservatism of the current Republican Party, nor the individual rights conservatism that Jesse has propounded. It has more to do with an ideological resistance to change, which in my case is coupled with a distrust of pure reason as a basis for policy. I generally believe that policies already in place are wise, and am pessimistic that changes in policy will lead to intended benefits nor that they will avoid unintended negative consequences. I see an inspiration for this in Burke's principles in supporting the American revolution but rejecting the French revolution. In general, I identify more with the "liberal" wing of the Republican party, and view Bush pere as a better president than either Ronald Reagan or Bush fils.
When asked, rather than Republican or Democrat, I usually identify myself as Communitarian. Like Libertarians, Communitarians find themselves on both sides of the two-party split. But instead of a focus on individual rights and liberties (as in Libertarianism), Communitarianism focuses more on our responsibility to our communities. A result of this is that I feel that political decisions should devolve to the most local community capable of addressing the issue adequately. I am a strong proponent of the "representative" part of our representative democracy (I was recently quite disappointed by the MA legislature's decision to award our Electoral votes for PotUS to the winner of the National popular vote in an attempt to make a populist end run around the Electoral College). I think the changes in the federal government enacted by FDR and LBJ were more bad than good, and that we'd be better off pushing most of the responsibilities the federal government assumed over the past 75 years back down to the states and localities, particularly the social safety net (i.e. health care, social security, unemployment, etc.) I feel that administering it at a political level so far removed from community oversight is a recipe for corruption and inefficiency. Ideally I don't think the federal government should do much other than maintain interstate trade (mostly the interstate highway system) and work out foreign relations (including Defense, which has come to mean Offense, which is a whole different issue). Pretty much all other functions should devolve to at least the states if not the localities.
More Merrill Alums: If anyone has contact with other friends from our Helaman Halls days, please feel free to invite them to the symposium. I didn't spend a lot of time tracking down loose ends, but I'd certainly like to see more voices added to our mix. Furthermore, I'd be open to a discussion of extending membership to spouses or other friends who would like to participate.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Ryan and Jesse comments RE: gay marriage
I'm sorry to clog things, but wanted to pull this out of the comments. If I had more time I'd summarize...but copy-paste is so fast!
Ryan said...
Jesse, I find your comments extremely interesting. Thank you very much for sharing. Now, I don’t want to pry, and I’ll understand if you don’t comment, but I’m really interested in this issue as it pertains to the church. It seems to me that the First Presidency has put the weight of their calling into this issue and have evoked very strong and religiously charged language, asking people to devote "time and means" if I remember correctly, to encourage church members to be actively in favor of the marriage amendment in California. What would you do if you were in California? Do you have a moral obligation as a member of a democracy to speak you views, even if they aren’t in agreement with the church? Would publicly speaking those views undermine your commitments to the church? Or do your views make you more likely to view the teachings of church leaders as having a natural, as opposed to a divine, origin? I know I’m trending on delicate ground, but I feel these conversations are important to have somewhere. And this seems to be a group of very intelligent and accomplished people from many fields of study, who seem to have strong faith as well, so it seems like an ideal group of people to help me make sense of things. Just as a side note, I enjoyed reading an extensive interview with the apostle constitutional lawyer/judge, in which he talks of the prophet and the ERA amendment (he said the church couldn’t defend it’s position rationally, only could appeal to revelation), and about disagreeing with church positions, apostasy, etc. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary
July 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Jesse said...
I stated above that I believe the court was wrong to decide what they did. I further argued that this is not a question for the courts to decide. I think that is consistent with the church's position. I didn't say anything about my views on a constitutional amendment. I believe the amendment is meant as a check to perceived judicial overreach. I am therefore in agreement with it. I don't view that as inconsistent with what I've said elsewhere. It has seemed to me that, in the past, some leaders of the church have given insufficient thought to my earlier point: even if I personally believe something to be immoral that does not mean the government should force others to act in some way (take drug/alcohol laws for example). I deal with this conflict the way any of you would---through prayer, meditation, scripture study, etc.
July 20, 2008 6:08 PM
Ryan said...
I can sympathize with the feeling that this is judicial over-reach. But if I understand you, you like the California amendment but for a reason that is slightly different from the church's reasoning. Your focus is more on countering the judicial over-reach. I get the impression that if the people vote to strike down the amendment, then you would be at peace with that, because the people have had their say, they have countered a judicial over-reach? When you talk about not forcing people to do the moral thing,I think you're saying that the courts shouldn't force their sense of fairness on others, rather than saying that people shouldn't force their heterosexual values on others? Just trying to understand, because the first time around I got the impression you were talking about the latter, but now I think that you're talking about former.I was in Massachusetts, too, when this was all settled. And reading the newspapers that day I felt a sense of peace that though I was opposed to it, that our elective officials had voted for what they felt was right, and that many of them had struggled with it a lot, and that it appeared that a consensus had been reached. Most people seemed happy about it. I was glad that the constitution process had been followed and that all branches of government had been involved to some extent. I appreciate you're point of prayer and meditation, but there must also be study. I believe there is room in the church for honest differences of opinion, honest questioning, investigative study, and open dialogue. I kind of sympathize with Tennyson, "There lives more faith in honest doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds." But I really don't want to be a trouble maker about these things, so I won't push the issue. Just thought I would throw something out. I'm still an active church member with hope and belief. But I'm certainly on a journey to understand more. I think my training as a scientist has given me an appetite for asking a lot of annoying questions.
July 20, 2008 9:18 PM
Jesse said...
Ryan-Thanks for your comments and questions. I agree with your thoughts on dissent and active questioning. My only regret is that this is all taking place in the comments---and I'm trying to avoid comment discussion where possible. I'd move it to the main page if I had the time to quickly summarize or something.In any case my "not forcing morals" argument is about both the contexts you mentioned. Courts should interpret the laws as set forth by the constitution and legislation, period. I also am in favor of individual freedom---even if I personally disagree with it. I would not favor laws that restrict individual freedom for moral reasons. A law against homosexual acts, for example, I would not support.I also have to comment on the MA ruling. I disagree with your view that the issue was in any way properly "settled." The legislature delayed the vote until after state elections were held (which indicates that the amendment had broad support) and only voted after the supreme court found them in abdication of their responsibilities under the constitution. The amendment process required a second vote which took place later that year...needed 50 votes to be put before the voters...got 45 votes with 4 absent. My experience with MA politics has not been the least bit favorable---I can think of few more corrupt and less transparent institutions. Polls indicated the amendment would have passed had it been put before the voters.Anyway as I indicated I'm not that worried about the MA ruling...I just wouldn't personally hold it up as a model of the system working correctly.
Ryan said...
Jesse, I find your comments extremely interesting. Thank you very much for sharing. Now, I don’t want to pry, and I’ll understand if you don’t comment, but I’m really interested in this issue as it pertains to the church. It seems to me that the First Presidency has put the weight of their calling into this issue and have evoked very strong and religiously charged language, asking people to devote "time and means" if I remember correctly, to encourage church members to be actively in favor of the marriage amendment in California. What would you do if you were in California? Do you have a moral obligation as a member of a democracy to speak you views, even if they aren’t in agreement with the church? Would publicly speaking those views undermine your commitments to the church? Or do your views make you more likely to view the teachings of church leaders as having a natural, as opposed to a divine, origin? I know I’m trending on delicate ground, but I feel these conversations are important to have somewhere. And this seems to be a group of very intelligent and accomplished people from many fields of study, who seem to have strong faith as well, so it seems like an ideal group of people to help me make sense of things. Just as a side note, I enjoyed reading an extensive interview with the apostle constitutional lawyer/judge, in which he talks of the prophet and the ERA amendment (he said the church couldn’t defend it’s position rationally, only could appeal to revelation), and about disagreeing with church positions, apostasy, etc. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary
July 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Jesse said...
I stated above that I believe the court was wrong to decide what they did. I further argued that this is not a question for the courts to decide. I think that is consistent with the church's position. I didn't say anything about my views on a constitutional amendment. I believe the amendment is meant as a check to perceived judicial overreach. I am therefore in agreement with it. I don't view that as inconsistent with what I've said elsewhere. It has seemed to me that, in the past, some leaders of the church have given insufficient thought to my earlier point: even if I personally believe something to be immoral that does not mean the government should force others to act in some way (take drug/alcohol laws for example). I deal with this conflict the way any of you would---through prayer, meditation, scripture study, etc.
July 20, 2008 6:08 PM
Ryan said...
I can sympathize with the feeling that this is judicial over-reach. But if I understand you, you like the California amendment but for a reason that is slightly different from the church's reasoning. Your focus is more on countering the judicial over-reach. I get the impression that if the people vote to strike down the amendment, then you would be at peace with that, because the people have had their say, they have countered a judicial over-reach? When you talk about not forcing people to do the moral thing,I think you're saying that the courts shouldn't force their sense of fairness on others, rather than saying that people shouldn't force their heterosexual values on others? Just trying to understand, because the first time around I got the impression you were talking about the latter, but now I think that you're talking about former.I was in Massachusetts, too, when this was all settled. And reading the newspapers that day I felt a sense of peace that though I was opposed to it, that our elective officials had voted for what they felt was right, and that many of them had struggled with it a lot, and that it appeared that a consensus had been reached. Most people seemed happy about it. I was glad that the constitution process had been followed and that all branches of government had been involved to some extent. I appreciate you're point of prayer and meditation, but there must also be study. I believe there is room in the church for honest differences of opinion, honest questioning, investigative study, and open dialogue. I kind of sympathize with Tennyson, "There lives more faith in honest doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds." But I really don't want to be a trouble maker about these things, so I won't push the issue. Just thought I would throw something out. I'm still an active church member with hope and belief. But I'm certainly on a journey to understand more. I think my training as a scientist has given me an appetite for asking a lot of annoying questions.
July 20, 2008 9:18 PM
Jesse said...
Ryan-Thanks for your comments and questions. I agree with your thoughts on dissent and active questioning. My only regret is that this is all taking place in the comments---and I'm trying to avoid comment discussion where possible. I'd move it to the main page if I had the time to quickly summarize or something.In any case my "not forcing morals" argument is about both the contexts you mentioned. Courts should interpret the laws as set forth by the constitution and legislation, period. I also am in favor of individual freedom---even if I personally disagree with it. I would not favor laws that restrict individual freedom for moral reasons. A law against homosexual acts, for example, I would not support.I also have to comment on the MA ruling. I disagree with your view that the issue was in any way properly "settled." The legislature delayed the vote until after state elections were held (which indicates that the amendment had broad support) and only voted after the supreme court found them in abdication of their responsibilities under the constitution. The amendment process required a second vote which took place later that year...needed 50 votes to be put before the voters...got 45 votes with 4 absent. My experience with MA politics has not been the least bit favorable---I can think of few more corrupt and less transparent institutions. Polls indicated the amendment would have passed had it been put before the voters.Anyway as I indicated I'm not that worried about the MA ruling...I just wouldn't personally hold it up as a model of the system working correctly.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Just like the good old days
(This is starting to get too reminiscent of the old symposiums. Here I am, thinking I have a whole Sunday afternoon to catch up on things like sleep and sorting through pictures and home videos, when all of the sudden I'm drawn in . . . )
Taxes
So Jesse and I appear to agree that taxes are a mechanism to redistribute the costs of benefits that, due to market failures, are not adequately borne by those who receive them.
I also agree that, in fairness, positive externalities must be considered. For example, the benefits of technological progress justify intellectual property laws and rights. I even agree that productivity is a positive externality.
However, I believe that the market more than fairly compensates for productivity. I imagine that I also believe that the costs (negative externalities) that I outlined in my previous posts are much greater than Jesse believes. By not paying for these costs, our corporations and other owners of means of production are essentially stealing from not only the American people, but all of humanity.
In reponse to Alvin, this is how I justify the majority forcing the minority to pay higher taxes.
Of course, the major problem here is that the we can argue all we want about what the true costs and benefits of these externalities are. It's very difficult to argue one way or another. So what can do to try to quantify these costs and benefits?
One could attempt to do a meta-comparison by comparing results of our current American system to that of other countries (like GDP per capita--I find that that much more agreeable than unemployment). However, I am skeptical as to the validity of a multi-national comparison for a number of reasons. Our nation's wealth owes almost as much to historical happenstance of circumstances (i.e. our geographic location, free land as a safety valve to the poor for almost half our existence, large number of natural resources) and exploitation of other countries (both the past effects of imperilaism and our current exploitation of third world labor) as it does our current system, itself.
I am interested in a historical comparison of American taxation, productivity, and distribution of wealth. However, I've been too lazy to dig up hard numbers. I hate making claims I can't back up, but here's a go. I believe that the top marginal tax rate for most of the first 70-80 years of the last century was above 70%. In fact, during the middle of the century, it was over 90%. Thanks to Reagonomics, it very rapidly declined and is now about 35%. Meanwhile, 1% of the population now holds approximately 90% of our wealth (or something like that--this is where I need to do research). That ratio has been getting worse and worse, not coincidentally, at the same time the highest marginal tax rates have been falling. Likewise, poverty rates have been climbing in a very similar way.
I should take some time to argue why all of this is bad, because I'm sure there are apologists who would say it isn't, but I'm runing out of time before my kid wakes up. So, if anybody **cough**esse, wants to tell me argue why this isn't bad, that's fine with me. (But it's all fun and games, right Jesse--especially since I'll actually agree with you later on here).
Another question of importance is "what should we tax?" Jesse has argued that we should tax consumption. In general, I think this is a very bad idea, because it becomes an essentially regressive tax. Those who have the least amount of money spend the most (percentage-wise) on consumption, while those who have the most amount of money can afford to save money, avoid taxation, and then make even more money.
And while we're talking about savings, while I think we should stay out of debt and encourage a small amount of savings for emergencies, I think we should discourage people from saving large amounts of money. ANY amount of savings has a negative effect on the current economy, because it represents money that is not being put into circulation to make more money. So if we're going to encourage savings, it should be just the minimal amount to take care of reasonably expected emergencies.
Nature of Government
I'm with Elliott. We need to stop looking at government as being somebody else forcing something upon us, and more as a social contract in which we all participate.
But, what do we do about the fact that we can't all agree all the time? I think we all agree that we can't just have a society where everybody can do anything they want just so we can make sure that no one should have to be forced to do anything. We have a right to force people to abide by certain rules that interfere too much with the rights of others--i.e. no murder, no theft, not running red lights, etc.
So we're left to walk the line between "freedom of choice" and protection of other people's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The issues that we've been debating are all hard issues along that line. It's hard to say just where on this spectrum of "freedom of choice" and "protection of rights" things like pollution and ownership of limited resources belong.
Also, I was going to argue with Jesse's assessment that government is, for the most part, no different than any other entity, but I think I'll save that for another day.
Legislating from the Bench
It would probably be pretty easy for me to backtrack from this statement by saying I was being technical when I said that "judges do not legislate." Technically speaking, of course, they do not. They interpret laws. They merely provide their best interpretation of laws that are ambiguous, or strike down laws that Congress had no right to make in light of the constitution. Congress (and by extension, we, as a people) then have the power to make laws that are not ambiguous and/or do not violate the Constitution.
But I'm not going to back down here. When people say that judges legislate from the bench, what they are really saying is that the judges have a different interpretation than they do, but they are saying it in such a way as to dismiss the legitimacy of that interpretation and ascribe typically dishonorable motivations to the judges who hold that different interpretation.
Most of these judges have no aspiration to "legislate." Yes, some of these judges are not generally elected, but these are not people who are appointed on a whim, nor are these people who have no reason but partisanship for making their decisions. These are people with very methodical and thorough understandings of the law, which understandings cause them to hold oft-times difficult to categorize beliefs. For these beliefs and legal understandings, they at one point were appointed office by people we trusted enough to elect to office. The beliefs of these judges are, generally speaking, quite centrist. Their attitudes reflect the attitudes of different populations of the American people very well (which is unfortunate in many circumstances).
I guess what I'm getting at is that by dismissing judicial decisions as partisan-minded activism, we disrespect the judicial process, the judges themselves, and the opinions of the many Americans who hold the same beliefs as the judges. I'm not saying we have to agree with every decions handed down by a judge, or every opinion held by every American citizien, but we should at least take the time to respect the legitimacy of their opinion. Until we take the time to understand one another, all we are doing is yelling back and forth, getting no where.
Social Conservatism
So finally, on to the main topic of the day--social conservatism. I liked Alvin's story about someone trying to convince him to be a Democrat. I think I was in much the same frame of mind as Alvin coming out of BYU. I wish the BYU environment would more openly challenge students to develop political consciences for themselves. I think American Heritage was supposed to do this, but it didn't. Even in law school, by which time I'd become more liberal minded, it was difficult to have a fair and open discussion of politics.
The first time I ever forced myself to actually build my political consience from the ground up, I became a libertarian (this was for about a year right after 2001--obviously, I have since changed my mind on many issues). The most difficult aspect to accept of libertarianism was, for me, the idea of being socially liberal. I never made it all the way there, but to this day I still believe there are a lot of "private" issues that the government has no business being involved in.
For a while, one of these was gay marriage. Morally, I'm opposed to it. Emotionally, my revulsion to homosexuality is complicated by the fact that one of my sisters is gay. Intellectually, I think my opinion is similar to Jesse's--except I would argue that it was perfectly legitimate for the court to decide what they did. I question whether government has any role endorsing any kind of religious institution, and thus I question whether government should endorse marriage. The fact that this is the only political issue I've ever seen the church become involved in, however, has me looking for ways to intellectually reconcile things. So, anyone out there have good secular arguments for it? Particularly since, as a California citize, I need to decide how to vote?
Taxes
So Jesse and I appear to agree that taxes are a mechanism to redistribute the costs of benefits that, due to market failures, are not adequately borne by those who receive them.
I also agree that, in fairness, positive externalities must be considered. For example, the benefits of technological progress justify intellectual property laws and rights. I even agree that productivity is a positive externality.
However, I believe that the market more than fairly compensates for productivity. I imagine that I also believe that the costs (negative externalities) that I outlined in my previous posts are much greater than Jesse believes. By not paying for these costs, our corporations and other owners of means of production are essentially stealing from not only the American people, but all of humanity.
In reponse to Alvin, this is how I justify the majority forcing the minority to pay higher taxes.
Of course, the major problem here is that the we can argue all we want about what the true costs and benefits of these externalities are. It's very difficult to argue one way or another. So what can do to try to quantify these costs and benefits?
One could attempt to do a meta-comparison by comparing results of our current American system to that of other countries (like GDP per capita--I find that that much more agreeable than unemployment). However, I am skeptical as to the validity of a multi-national comparison for a number of reasons. Our nation's wealth owes almost as much to historical happenstance of circumstances (i.e. our geographic location, free land as a safety valve to the poor for almost half our existence, large number of natural resources) and exploitation of other countries (both the past effects of imperilaism and our current exploitation of third world labor) as it does our current system, itself.
I am interested in a historical comparison of American taxation, productivity, and distribution of wealth. However, I've been too lazy to dig up hard numbers. I hate making claims I can't back up, but here's a go. I believe that the top marginal tax rate for most of the first 70-80 years of the last century was above 70%. In fact, during the middle of the century, it was over 90%. Thanks to Reagonomics, it very rapidly declined and is now about 35%. Meanwhile, 1% of the population now holds approximately 90% of our wealth (or something like that--this is where I need to do research). That ratio has been getting worse and worse, not coincidentally, at the same time the highest marginal tax rates have been falling. Likewise, poverty rates have been climbing in a very similar way.
I should take some time to argue why all of this is bad, because I'm sure there are apologists who would say it isn't, but I'm runing out of time before my kid wakes up. So, if anybody **cough**esse, wants to tell me argue why this isn't bad, that's fine with me. (But it's all fun and games, right Jesse--especially since I'll actually agree with you later on here).
Another question of importance is "what should we tax?" Jesse has argued that we should tax consumption. In general, I think this is a very bad idea, because it becomes an essentially regressive tax. Those who have the least amount of money spend the most (percentage-wise) on consumption, while those who have the most amount of money can afford to save money, avoid taxation, and then make even more money.
And while we're talking about savings, while I think we should stay out of debt and encourage a small amount of savings for emergencies, I think we should discourage people from saving large amounts of money. ANY amount of savings has a negative effect on the current economy, because it represents money that is not being put into circulation to make more money. So if we're going to encourage savings, it should be just the minimal amount to take care of reasonably expected emergencies.
Nature of Government
I'm with Elliott. We need to stop looking at government as being somebody else forcing something upon us, and more as a social contract in which we all participate.
But, what do we do about the fact that we can't all agree all the time? I think we all agree that we can't just have a society where everybody can do anything they want just so we can make sure that no one should have to be forced to do anything. We have a right to force people to abide by certain rules that interfere too much with the rights of others--i.e. no murder, no theft, not running red lights, etc.
So we're left to walk the line between "freedom of choice" and protection of other people's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The issues that we've been debating are all hard issues along that line. It's hard to say just where on this spectrum of "freedom of choice" and "protection of rights" things like pollution and ownership of limited resources belong.
Also, I was going to argue with Jesse's assessment that government is, for the most part, no different than any other entity, but I think I'll save that for another day.
Legislating from the Bench
It would probably be pretty easy for me to backtrack from this statement by saying I was being technical when I said that "judges do not legislate." Technically speaking, of course, they do not. They interpret laws. They merely provide their best interpretation of laws that are ambiguous, or strike down laws that Congress had no right to make in light of the constitution. Congress (and by extension, we, as a people) then have the power to make laws that are not ambiguous and/or do not violate the Constitution.
But I'm not going to back down here. When people say that judges legislate from the bench, what they are really saying is that the judges have a different interpretation than they do, but they are saying it in such a way as to dismiss the legitimacy of that interpretation and ascribe typically dishonorable motivations to the judges who hold that different interpretation.
Most of these judges have no aspiration to "legislate." Yes, some of these judges are not generally elected, but these are not people who are appointed on a whim, nor are these people who have no reason but partisanship for making their decisions. These are people with very methodical and thorough understandings of the law, which understandings cause them to hold oft-times difficult to categorize beliefs. For these beliefs and legal understandings, they at one point were appointed office by people we trusted enough to elect to office. The beliefs of these judges are, generally speaking, quite centrist. Their attitudes reflect the attitudes of different populations of the American people very well (which is unfortunate in many circumstances).
I guess what I'm getting at is that by dismissing judicial decisions as partisan-minded activism, we disrespect the judicial process, the judges themselves, and the opinions of the many Americans who hold the same beliefs as the judges. I'm not saying we have to agree with every decions handed down by a judge, or every opinion held by every American citizien, but we should at least take the time to respect the legitimacy of their opinion. Until we take the time to understand one another, all we are doing is yelling back and forth, getting no where.
Social Conservatism
So finally, on to the main topic of the day--social conservatism. I liked Alvin's story about someone trying to convince him to be a Democrat. I think I was in much the same frame of mind as Alvin coming out of BYU. I wish the BYU environment would more openly challenge students to develop political consciences for themselves. I think American Heritage was supposed to do this, but it didn't. Even in law school, by which time I'd become more liberal minded, it was difficult to have a fair and open discussion of politics.
The first time I ever forced myself to actually build my political consience from the ground up, I became a libertarian (this was for about a year right after 2001--obviously, I have since changed my mind on many issues). The most difficult aspect to accept of libertarianism was, for me, the idea of being socially liberal. I never made it all the way there, but to this day I still believe there are a lot of "private" issues that the government has no business being involved in.
For a while, one of these was gay marriage. Morally, I'm opposed to it. Emotionally, my revulsion to homosexuality is complicated by the fact that one of my sisters is gay. Intellectually, I think my opinion is similar to Jesse's--except I would argue that it was perfectly legitimate for the court to decide what they did. I question whether government has any role endorsing any kind of religious institution, and thus I question whether government should endorse marriage. The fact that this is the only political issue I've ever seen the church become involved in, however, has me looking for ways to intellectually reconcile things. So, anyone out there have good secular arguments for it? Particularly since, as a California citize, I need to decide how to vote?
Social Conservatism and Gay Marriage
Ryan asked me in a comment to my previous post to explain my not being a "social conservative". The issues he asks about are abortion, gay marriage, birth control, abstinence education. Yes this is what I mean by "social conservative" issues. It would take a book to really describe my views on all these issues, but the brief answer is that I do not believe the government should be involved in most of them. I am as against Mike Huckabee and Harriet Miers (proponents of "social conservative" big government and judicial activism) as I am left-wing judicial activism and big government. Briefly on some issues:
1. Birth control. I'm not sure the "Right to privacy" here was correctly decided. I should read more about it and form a more educated opinion. But in any case I see no reason for the government to be involved here.
2. Abortion. Before "life" begins (life here defined as having rights separate from the mother) this is the same as #1. But of course the government should be involved in infanticide, so it comes down to when this "life" begins. A very hard question. Is it too hard to be left up to 9 unelected judges? Or too hard to be left to the tyranny of the majority? This one will require its own post later.
3. Gay Marriage. Beasley asks below for secular arguments against gay marriage. Mine are secular but only sort of against gay marriage. The question, again, is why is government in the marriage business? How would my life be different if the government recognized no marriages? The only difference is that I would not receive certain benefits the government now provides to married couples---but I would still be married of course. So government is involved because people originally saw a positive externality (here we go again) from marriage and government played a role to maintain/encourage that institution. If that is the case we need to ask whether that externality still makes sense and whether gay marriage generates the same externality. That is an interesting and difficult question. It most certainly is not a "rights" issue---the government does not grant a "right" to marriage, it confers benefits on those contributing a positive externality. It would be fine, for example, for the government to recognize no marriages at all---marriage is not a "right" given you by the government (imagine the government recognizing no one's right to speech or due process...marriage is just not the same). It is totally inappropriate therefore to be decided by the courts. If states believe positive externalities are generated by gay marriages they can encourage them if they want through legislation. But the court cannot find "rights" to things that were never "rights" to begin with. The California court (like my own MA court), seems to view itself as being in the "fairness" business---confusing rulings on which laws are "fair" with which laws violate rights. Marriage laws may be totally unfair to single people---in the same way that income tax laws may be totally unfair to rich people---but these are not "rights" issues for the court to decide.
4. Prayer in school. Government should not be involved.
Ok this is longer than I intended (as usual). I believe in limited government---that applies equally to things I like as it does to things I dislike. This is consistent with my earlier points to Karl on taxation---it is not enough to say "I should not have an abortion" in the same way it is not enough to say "I should help the poor". The question is whether one group of people (the majority, maybe) should force another group of people to do something. Compulsion is the issue here.
By the way I feel I should mention I haven't always been in agreement with church leadership here. The church has involved itself in "moral" issues and encouraged us to do the same. I believe it has sometimes failed to appreciate the distinction above---just because I believe something is immoral does not mean I should force others to act in some way.
And with that I'm off to PEC :)
1. Birth control. I'm not sure the "Right to privacy" here was correctly decided. I should read more about it and form a more educated opinion. But in any case I see no reason for the government to be involved here.
2. Abortion. Before "life" begins (life here defined as having rights separate from the mother) this is the same as #1. But of course the government should be involved in infanticide, so it comes down to when this "life" begins. A very hard question. Is it too hard to be left up to 9 unelected judges? Or too hard to be left to the tyranny of the majority? This one will require its own post later.
3. Gay Marriage. Beasley asks below for secular arguments against gay marriage. Mine are secular but only sort of against gay marriage. The question, again, is why is government in the marriage business? How would my life be different if the government recognized no marriages? The only difference is that I would not receive certain benefits the government now provides to married couples---but I would still be married of course. So government is involved because people originally saw a positive externality (here we go again) from marriage and government played a role to maintain/encourage that institution. If that is the case we need to ask whether that externality still makes sense and whether gay marriage generates the same externality. That is an interesting and difficult question. It most certainly is not a "rights" issue---the government does not grant a "right" to marriage, it confers benefits on those contributing a positive externality. It would be fine, for example, for the government to recognize no marriages at all---marriage is not a "right" given you by the government (imagine the government recognizing no one's right to speech or due process...marriage is just not the same). It is totally inappropriate therefore to be decided by the courts. If states believe positive externalities are generated by gay marriages they can encourage them if they want through legislation. But the court cannot find "rights" to things that were never "rights" to begin with. The California court (like my own MA court), seems to view itself as being in the "fairness" business---confusing rulings on which laws are "fair" with which laws violate rights. Marriage laws may be totally unfair to single people---in the same way that income tax laws may be totally unfair to rich people---but these are not "rights" issues for the court to decide.
4. Prayer in school. Government should not be involved.
Ok this is longer than I intended (as usual). I believe in limited government---that applies equally to things I like as it does to things I dislike. This is consistent with my earlier points to Karl on taxation---it is not enough to say "I should not have an abortion" in the same way it is not enough to say "I should help the poor". The question is whether one group of people (the majority, maybe) should force another group of people to do something. Compulsion is the issue here.
By the way I feel I should mention I haven't always been in agreement with church leadership here. The church has involved itself in "moral" issues and encouraged us to do the same. I believe it has sometimes failed to appreciate the distinction above---just because I believe something is immoral does not mean I should force others to act in some way.
And with that I'm off to PEC :)
Saturday, July 19, 2008
A Lawyer Looks at the Constitution by Rex E. Lee
First, let me make a confession. It was not long after I left BYU that someone was trying to convince me to become a Democrat. This person made several convincing arguments, and my only comeback was "Yeah, but they believe in abortion." I was very naive. I now think voting based on the abortion issue is silly, and it's an easy excuse not to think about the many other issues. While I'm still pretty uneducated, I have learned a lot since BYU, but I blame all of you (and BYU) for not educating me about important political issues a lot sooner.
Anyway, as part of my quest to become a reasonably informed citizen, I just read "A Lawyer Looks at the Constitution", by Rex E. Lee. My uncle, a lawyer, said it's his favorite book on the Constitution, but unfortunately, it is no longer in print (so we can never read it for book club). So I thought I'd throw out some of the things I've learned, and you can tell me how much more I need to learn.
1. The book never talks about political parties or liberal/conservative judges. The supreme court has obviously had to make a lot of tough decisions, but 98% of the time I found myself completely agreeing with their decision and admiring them for their wisdom and forethought. That's a much higher percent of the time than I agree with the President or Congress. So I guess I don't really worry too much about what judges the president will appoint. Because all nominees need approval from the Senate, I think that weeds out most of the most extreme individuals.
2. I think I'm finally understanding what politicians are saying when they use Karl's least favorite phrase, "legislating from the bench". While technically it is not possible, there are certainly examples in history where that phrase might apply. (for you lawyers out there, Lee cites Lochner v. New York and the substantive interpretation of Due Process as an example)
He also says that Roe vs. Wade falls into this category. The decision cites a right of "privacy" which is not found anywhere in the Constitution. He also quickly points out, however, that the same reasoning that protects family planning in Roe v. Wade might also protect the people someday against a law limiting family size, like they have in China. He also points out that the rulings that made prayer in school illegal is what protects the religious rights those that want prayer in school so highly value.
Rex Lee comes down in favor of the reasoning that made prayer in school illegal and against the reasoning in Roe v. Wade. I'm not one to argue with the great Rex Lee. It is a slippery slope in allowing the courts to interpret things into the Constitution that aren't there. So far, we've generally had a pretty reasonable supreme court, but the potential for abuse is certainly there. I can understand the "living document" line of thinking, but if the times are really changing, then lets change the constitution through the amendment process not through the supreme court. However, I think most conservatives are wrong in the way they want to pick and choose. They are against "legislating from the bench" when it works against them (abortion), but they are for it when it works for them (school prayer or in the future, family size).
3. I learned that before the 14th amendment the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and that states could make laws discriminating against religion, etc. So when Buchanan said he could do nothing to help the Mormons, technically he was correct.
4. The government was designed to be inefficient. This protects us, as frustrating as it is. However, much of what our government does that directly effects each one of us is done by government bureaucracies (like my very own FDA), and these bureaucracies are not directly accountable to the people. They are the "4th branch" of the government. I guess I already knew this, but this area is key to most government philosophies.
OK, my kid is crying, so I guess I'll stop there. I already offended Ryan enough with my last post that he didn't want to have lunch with me. And the more I say, I'm probably only digging myself into a bigger hole.
PS I just read Elliott's post about taxes, and he said the law about taxes is the will of the majority so we are not being forced to pay so much as abiding by a group decision. This was interesting after reading so much about the Constitution and how the Constitution protects the rights of the minority. Obviously, high taxes are not against the Constitution, and I'm not arguing that they should be. However, I think the topic of the rights of the majority to tell the minority what to do with their money is an interesting one, and I'm looking forward to additional insight.
Anyway, as part of my quest to become a reasonably informed citizen, I just read "A Lawyer Looks at the Constitution", by Rex E. Lee. My uncle, a lawyer, said it's his favorite book on the Constitution, but unfortunately, it is no longer in print (so we can never read it for book club). So I thought I'd throw out some of the things I've learned, and you can tell me how much more I need to learn.
1. The book never talks about political parties or liberal/conservative judges. The supreme court has obviously had to make a lot of tough decisions, but 98% of the time I found myself completely agreeing with their decision and admiring them for their wisdom and forethought. That's a much higher percent of the time than I agree with the President or Congress. So I guess I don't really worry too much about what judges the president will appoint. Because all nominees need approval from the Senate, I think that weeds out most of the most extreme individuals.
2. I think I'm finally understanding what politicians are saying when they use Karl's least favorite phrase, "legislating from the bench". While technically it is not possible, there are certainly examples in history where that phrase might apply. (for you lawyers out there, Lee cites Lochner v. New York and the substantive interpretation of Due Process as an example)
He also says that Roe vs. Wade falls into this category. The decision cites a right of "privacy" which is not found anywhere in the Constitution. He also quickly points out, however, that the same reasoning that protects family planning in Roe v. Wade might also protect the people someday against a law limiting family size, like they have in China. He also points out that the rulings that made prayer in school illegal is what protects the religious rights those that want prayer in school so highly value.
Rex Lee comes down in favor of the reasoning that made prayer in school illegal and against the reasoning in Roe v. Wade. I'm not one to argue with the great Rex Lee. It is a slippery slope in allowing the courts to interpret things into the Constitution that aren't there. So far, we've generally had a pretty reasonable supreme court, but the potential for abuse is certainly there. I can understand the "living document" line of thinking, but if the times are really changing, then lets change the constitution through the amendment process not through the supreme court. However, I think most conservatives are wrong in the way they want to pick and choose. They are against "legislating from the bench" when it works against them (abortion), but they are for it when it works for them (school prayer or in the future, family size).
3. I learned that before the 14th amendment the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and that states could make laws discriminating against religion, etc. So when Buchanan said he could do nothing to help the Mormons, technically he was correct.
4. The government was designed to be inefficient. This protects us, as frustrating as it is. However, much of what our government does that directly effects each one of us is done by government bureaucracies (like my very own FDA), and these bureaucracies are not directly accountable to the people. They are the "4th branch" of the government. I guess I already knew this, but this area is key to most government philosophies.
OK, my kid is crying, so I guess I'll stop there. I already offended Ryan enough with my last post that he didn't want to have lunch with me. And the more I say, I'm probably only digging myself into a bigger hole.
PS I just read Elliott's post about taxes, and he said the law about taxes is the will of the majority so we are not being forced to pay so much as abiding by a group decision. This was interesting after reading so much about the Constitution and how the Constitution protects the rights of the minority. Obviously, high taxes are not against the Constitution, and I'm not arguing that they should be. However, I think the topic of the rights of the majority to tell the minority what to do with their money is an interesting one, and I'm looking forward to additional insight.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
On progressive taxes
So many political topics have been mentioned here...so little time to respond. I'll start by recommending Mr. Friedman once again, this time in video form. At http://www.ideachannel.tv/ you can now watch the original PBS specials "Free to Choose" which help with background I don't have time to write here.
I was hoping to write a significant preface to introduce some of the core principles which guide my views on specific topics but, well, I honestly just don't have time to think it all through. So here's my cliff notes version:
1. People are selfish
2. Governments, corporations, non-profits, etc. are just entities through which some group of people act---they are not therefore exempt from #1.
3. Government is unique among these entities in that it acts by compulsion---it acts with the ultimate threat of force.
I find these useful in mentally translating many ideas about the role of government. For example, "we should help the poor" is hard to disagree with, but "some subset of people (the government) should force some other subset of people to help some third subset of people" is more complicated (in every sense). You may certainly still agree with it---the subset of people represented by the government may have legitimate claim to take from one group and give to another---but I think it's unfair to avoid thinking the question through by clever use of semantics.
As an aside to this point I'll briefly mention how important I think "compulsion" is to think about here. At the risk of citing scripture in a political discussion, I note the Lord speaks of compulsory means several times. For example, in D&C 121:46. The united order has frequently been compared to "communism" of some sort but had this important difference---no one was compelled to give. I'm not saying all compulsion is therefore unholy or something, and don't want to dwell on this point. But I think my semantic argument above is not as trivial as it might first appear.
Ok, feel free to ignore all the above if you'd like. I don't mean to make this an abstract philosophy discussion. But I figure I may make use of all that as we go along.
Ok on to a specific topic. I figure I might as well start with Karl on progressive taxes.
Let's start with point 2. Karl argues here, and elsewhere, that taxation is a tool to correct externalities---actions a person takes which affect other people but for which he/she is not fully compensated (positively or negatively). I could not agree more---this is a basic and fundamental principle of economics. Correcting for externalities is certainly not contrary to economic conservatism. Often externalities are simply the result of incompletely specified property rights---the air I breathe is not owned by anyone so there is no market mechanism to compensate me for the pollution you put into it. Karl argues that one role of government is to tax actions which generate negative externalities (pollution), and I would add subsidizing actions which generate positive externalities (education).
I would add several externalities to the list. First, saving money. When you or I save money, we lower interest rates by reducing the demand for debt (and/or increasing the supply). As others have noted, Americans in general and our federal government in particular carry large debts. My saving lowers the cost of other individuals' debts as well as the federal government's. Not to mention that my savings act as "insurance" against needing other taxpayers to bail me out later on. How might policies "internalize" (to use an economist term---meaning to cause the cost/benefit of the externality to be reflected in the individual decision maker's utility function) saving as a positive externality?
1. Lower capital gains taxes. My wages are taxed, if I then spend everything I pay no additional federal taxes. If I save my money it will be taxed again. This distorts the save/consume decision toward consuming and away from saving.
2. Tax consumption, not income. This would directly tax the negative externality (consumption) and not the positive one.
Which of these policies are favored by any single democrat holding federal office?
Another externality to add: productive businesses and people. Productive businesses employ people and create wealth. I would argue this is as significant a positive externality as you will find as it enables all others. How much better off are you because great people and businesses made this country as wealthy as it is today? As a positive externality this should then be subsidized, yet it is taxed. If my business is productive I pay higher taxes than if my business is not.
You may argue the cost-benefit implies that taxing productivity (in both businesses and individuals) is worthwhile, but you cannot ignore the cost. If I were to argue that taxing pollution is a bad idea because it will be harmful to the economy (a cost-benefit analysis) how much sympathy would I find from the left? Yet our tax code in effect subsidizes pollution (by taxing productivity) and this fact is inadmissable in most debates I've had with leftists on taxation. You just can't have it both ways.
As I mentioned, I view this positive externality as large and worth encouraging. Why is the U.S. the richest nation in the world today? Why is unemployment in the U.S. 4-5% while it is 10-14% in Europe? Why have so many of the products we use today come from the U.S., and so few from elsewhere? I believe it is because we have maintained a strong incentive to be productive and am very cautious about policies which would discourage it.
This applies as well to Karl's last two points: overthrowing the tyranny of wealth and ensuring a land of opportunity. What country exceeds the U.S. in this regard? Isn't this part of the reason immigrants have come here for centuries? Does Europe afford greater opportunity? Less tyranny of one social class over others? My experience and study of macroeconomics indicates those countries with less regulation, smaller government and less redistribution of income have greater upward mobility than those with more progressive policies. I just see no evidence of the contention in point #4.
As for point 1, income seems a noisy proxy here. I know lots of folks at Harvard who will go on to make little money but have spent 12 years gaining a world class education. Shouldn't many of us (Ryan and I for example) have been taxed a lot for the opportunity to work toward at PhD which is certainly not necessary for us to make a living? How about those born wealthy who squander it? How about those born with little who just work really hard? How about those who emigrate and manage to make something for themselves? How about those who save their money?
And if you're going to tax based on what they've received shouldn't you also consider what they've contributed? Here income seems a noisy proxy as well.
Ok this is getting too long. I believe government should encourage positive externalities and discourage negative ones. Progressive income taxes are exactly the opposite.
I was hoping to write a significant preface to introduce some of the core principles which guide my views on specific topics but, well, I honestly just don't have time to think it all through. So here's my cliff notes version:
1. People are selfish
2. Governments, corporations, non-profits, etc. are just entities through which some group of people act---they are not therefore exempt from #1.
3. Government is unique among these entities in that it acts by compulsion---it acts with the ultimate threat of force.
I find these useful in mentally translating many ideas about the role of government. For example, "we should help the poor" is hard to disagree with, but "some subset of people (the government) should force some other subset of people to help some third subset of people" is more complicated (in every sense). You may certainly still agree with it---the subset of people represented by the government may have legitimate claim to take from one group and give to another---but I think it's unfair to avoid thinking the question through by clever use of semantics.
As an aside to this point I'll briefly mention how important I think "compulsion" is to think about here. At the risk of citing scripture in a political discussion, I note the Lord speaks of compulsory means several times. For example, in D&C 121:46. The united order has frequently been compared to "communism" of some sort but had this important difference---no one was compelled to give. I'm not saying all compulsion is therefore unholy or something, and don't want to dwell on this point. But I think my semantic argument above is not as trivial as it might first appear.
Ok, feel free to ignore all the above if you'd like. I don't mean to make this an abstract philosophy discussion. But I figure I may make use of all that as we go along.
Ok on to a specific topic. I figure I might as well start with Karl on progressive taxes.
Let's start with point 2. Karl argues here, and elsewhere, that taxation is a tool to correct externalities---actions a person takes which affect other people but for which he/she is not fully compensated (positively or negatively). I could not agree more---this is a basic and fundamental principle of economics. Correcting for externalities is certainly not contrary to economic conservatism. Often externalities are simply the result of incompletely specified property rights---the air I breathe is not owned by anyone so there is no market mechanism to compensate me for the pollution you put into it. Karl argues that one role of government is to tax actions which generate negative externalities (pollution), and I would add subsidizing actions which generate positive externalities (education).
I would add several externalities to the list. First, saving money. When you or I save money, we lower interest rates by reducing the demand for debt (and/or increasing the supply). As others have noted, Americans in general and our federal government in particular carry large debts. My saving lowers the cost of other individuals' debts as well as the federal government's. Not to mention that my savings act as "insurance" against needing other taxpayers to bail me out later on. How might policies "internalize" (to use an economist term---meaning to cause the cost/benefit of the externality to be reflected in the individual decision maker's utility function) saving as a positive externality?
1. Lower capital gains taxes. My wages are taxed, if I then spend everything I pay no additional federal taxes. If I save my money it will be taxed again. This distorts the save/consume decision toward consuming and away from saving.
2. Tax consumption, not income. This would directly tax the negative externality (consumption) and not the positive one.
Which of these policies are favored by any single democrat holding federal office?
Another externality to add: productive businesses and people. Productive businesses employ people and create wealth. I would argue this is as significant a positive externality as you will find as it enables all others. How much better off are you because great people and businesses made this country as wealthy as it is today? As a positive externality this should then be subsidized, yet it is taxed. If my business is productive I pay higher taxes than if my business is not.
You may argue the cost-benefit implies that taxing productivity (in both businesses and individuals) is worthwhile, but you cannot ignore the cost. If I were to argue that taxing pollution is a bad idea because it will be harmful to the economy (a cost-benefit analysis) how much sympathy would I find from the left? Yet our tax code in effect subsidizes pollution (by taxing productivity) and this fact is inadmissable in most debates I've had with leftists on taxation. You just can't have it both ways.
As I mentioned, I view this positive externality as large and worth encouraging. Why is the U.S. the richest nation in the world today? Why is unemployment in the U.S. 4-5% while it is 10-14% in Europe? Why have so many of the products we use today come from the U.S., and so few from elsewhere? I believe it is because we have maintained a strong incentive to be productive and am very cautious about policies which would discourage it.
This applies as well to Karl's last two points: overthrowing the tyranny of wealth and ensuring a land of opportunity. What country exceeds the U.S. in this regard? Isn't this part of the reason immigrants have come here for centuries? Does Europe afford greater opportunity? Less tyranny of one social class over others? My experience and study of macroeconomics indicates those countries with less regulation, smaller government and less redistribution of income have greater upward mobility than those with more progressive policies. I just see no evidence of the contention in point #4.
As for point 1, income seems a noisy proxy here. I know lots of folks at Harvard who will go on to make little money but have spent 12 years gaining a world class education. Shouldn't many of us (Ryan and I for example) have been taxed a lot for the opportunity to work toward at PhD which is certainly not necessary for us to make a living? How about those born wealthy who squander it? How about those born with little who just work really hard? How about those who emigrate and manage to make something for themselves? How about those who save their money?
And if you're going to tax based on what they've received shouldn't you also consider what they've contributed? Here income seems a noisy proxy as well.
Ok this is getting too long. I believe government should encourage positive externalities and discourage negative ones. Progressive income taxes are exactly the opposite.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Progressive Taxes
As I promised Alvin, here’s my explanation of what I don’t like about Ron Paul’s platform. As I have already explained, I believe that there are a large number of roles that government should serve, in aggregate requiring a much larger government than Ron Paul would like. I won’t bore everyone with another discussion of that.
In addition to the issue of the role of government, I also disagree with his position on how the costs of government should be apportioned—i.e. taxes. So, for the rest of this post, I’ll make the case for highly progressive taxes (not so much that there’s a complete redistribution of wealth, mind you).
1. The greater your wealth, the more you’ve benefitted from the American system
I believe people should be taxed in proportion to the benefit they’ve received from the American system. But wait, you may argue, don’t the poor receive more welfare services, and therefore don’t they benefit more? I disagree. This argument first of all characterizes benefits as zero-sum. But I believe that every American benefits from such services—e.g. businesses benefit by having healthy, effective workers who aren’t constantly worrying about paying doctors bills or having a roof over their heads, markets benefit consumers who can spend money buying goods instead of on basic necessities, motorists benefit from mass-transit programs by having less crowded roads, land values benefit because the homeless have somewhere to go so where they don’t create a public nuisance, and so on.
Or, put another way, to determine the benefit each American receives from the American system, one must ask how much of their wealth would exist but for the American system. Think about the impact of stable markets, police forces, protected property rights, intellectual property rights, military forces, freedom of choice (particularly from a consumption standpoint), freedom of speech, and so on in creating an environment in which Americans may accrue wealth. Clearly, all Americans benefit from this system, but a wealthy person has likely benefitted much more from the system than a homeless person.
2. Some wealth must be redistributed to correct deficiencies of free markets
Just a short point, but still important. Employers should have to pay for hidden costs, such as pollution, healthcare and other necessities that keep their workforce alive and so on. Yet, so few do. See my discussion of free markets.
3. Some wealth must be redistributed to overthrow the tyranny of wealth
Obviously, wealth confers great economic power. Nor would I doubt that anyone would argue that economic power translates into political power. Is there any difference between having that kind of power vested in a monarchy and having that kind of power vested in an upper class smaller than it has been in who knows how long? Or, perhaps even more applicable to today’s world, should we allow large global corporations to govern over us? Take, for example, the power of global oil corporations, which, in the interests of preserving their own wealth/power, have for decades now translated their wealth into a political force for unnaturally suppressing the demand for clean, renewable energy, even though clean, renewable energy clearly would bring great benefit to the American people.
4. Some wealth must be redistributed to ensure that America remains a land of opportunity
I believe that the highly progressive taxes present in the middle of the last century served a purpose that “free land” once served for America—giving people a chance to build wealth from scratch. But now, with the wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, it is becoming increasingly hard for certain segments of the population to create wealth.
Though America is still a system where those born into poverty can escape it, it is a system where increasingly few actually do escape it because escape is just so difficult. We watch movies like "The Pursuit of Happyness" and feel good inside that we live in a land where people can pull themselves up by the bootstrap, but we deceive ourselves into thinking that everyone can do what Will Smith (I mean the character played by Will Smith, of course) did. Personally, I don't know if I'd be able to do what he did, if I were in the same shoes.
Taxing the wealthy to provide services to make it easier to escape poverty would ensure that America does not cease to be a land of opportunity for those who are in poverty. And as I stated before, this is not a zero-sum proposition. When we increase the standard of living for the least of us, we benefit all Americans.
In addition to the issue of the role of government, I also disagree with his position on how the costs of government should be apportioned—i.e. taxes. So, for the rest of this post, I’ll make the case for highly progressive taxes (not so much that there’s a complete redistribution of wealth, mind you).
1. The greater your wealth, the more you’ve benefitted from the American system
I believe people should be taxed in proportion to the benefit they’ve received from the American system. But wait, you may argue, don’t the poor receive more welfare services, and therefore don’t they benefit more? I disagree. This argument first of all characterizes benefits as zero-sum. But I believe that every American benefits from such services—e.g. businesses benefit by having healthy, effective workers who aren’t constantly worrying about paying doctors bills or having a roof over their heads, markets benefit consumers who can spend money buying goods instead of on basic necessities, motorists benefit from mass-transit programs by having less crowded roads, land values benefit because the homeless have somewhere to go so where they don’t create a public nuisance, and so on.
Or, put another way, to determine the benefit each American receives from the American system, one must ask how much of their wealth would exist but for the American system. Think about the impact of stable markets, police forces, protected property rights, intellectual property rights, military forces, freedom of choice (particularly from a consumption standpoint), freedom of speech, and so on in creating an environment in which Americans may accrue wealth. Clearly, all Americans benefit from this system, but a wealthy person has likely benefitted much more from the system than a homeless person.
2. Some wealth must be redistributed to correct deficiencies of free markets
Just a short point, but still important. Employers should have to pay for hidden costs, such as pollution, healthcare and other necessities that keep their workforce alive and so on. Yet, so few do. See my discussion of free markets.
3. Some wealth must be redistributed to overthrow the tyranny of wealth
Obviously, wealth confers great economic power. Nor would I doubt that anyone would argue that economic power translates into political power. Is there any difference between having that kind of power vested in a monarchy and having that kind of power vested in an upper class smaller than it has been in who knows how long? Or, perhaps even more applicable to today’s world, should we allow large global corporations to govern over us? Take, for example, the power of global oil corporations, which, in the interests of preserving their own wealth/power, have for decades now translated their wealth into a political force for unnaturally suppressing the demand for clean, renewable energy, even though clean, renewable energy clearly would bring great benefit to the American people.
4. Some wealth must be redistributed to ensure that America remains a land of opportunity
I believe that the highly progressive taxes present in the middle of the last century served a purpose that “free land” once served for America—giving people a chance to build wealth from scratch. But now, with the wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, it is becoming increasingly hard for certain segments of the population to create wealth.
Though America is still a system where those born into poverty can escape it, it is a system where increasingly few actually do escape it because escape is just so difficult. We watch movies like "The Pursuit of Happyness" and feel good inside that we live in a land where people can pull themselves up by the bootstrap, but we deceive ourselves into thinking that everyone can do what Will Smith (I mean the character played by Will Smith, of course) did. Personally, I don't know if I'd be able to do what he did, if I were in the same shoes.
Taxing the wealthy to provide services to make it easier to escape poverty would ensure that America does not cease to be a land of opportunity for those who are in poverty. And as I stated before, this is not a zero-sum proposition. When we increase the standard of living for the least of us, we benefit all Americans.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Texans, Debt, and the Environment
This is my third attempt at posting my thoughts on politics. The first time I hit post only to find that my 10 month old had unplugged the modem. The second failed attempt was lost in cyberspace and may still show up at some point. Here's hoping the third time is the charm. First some responses to what's already been said:
Glenn, good job solving the toilet paper mystery.
Karl, I agree with Mr. Lattin that you gave up on the Texan bandwagon too soon. You should have waited for Ron Paul. More explanation below.
Scott, for me, the death penalty and abortion aren't so contradictory because they are about tying the consequence to the action. When you abort a baby, you avoid the natural consequence of what you have done, and you can argue if the death penalty is a natural consequence but there should definitely be severe consequences for certain actions. Now that being said, I am against the death penalty, though more because it costs too much to go through the legal system and does little or nothing to deter people from committing serious crimes.
If I could only have one thing from my government leaders, I would ask for a balanced budget/reduction of the deficit. Clinton got lucky that the economy was booming and balanced the budget for a while, but none of the current Presidential candidates even suggested such things (except for Ron Paul). To balance the budget, we would have to get out of Iraq and come up with a plan for Social Security. I didn't vote for Bush in the last election because he took spending to a whole new level (the war, expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, etc.). In general, I'm in favor of lower taxes, but if higher taxes are necessary, that's fine IF you are going to spend my money wisely.
Now I don't think we need to go back to the gold standard like Ron Paul does, but can we please spend less than we take in? If we didn't spend so much on interest every year, we could have a lot more money for everything else. McCain is going to cut back on earmarks, but the real spending is in Defense, Entitlements, and Interest. That's where the cuts need to be made.
Another issue I'd like to bring up is this Cap and Trade nonsense. On NPR they had someone arguing for and against a Cap and Trade system, and it was a pretty one-sided argument. Now, I'm all for doing something for the environment (Pollution is bad regardless of its effect on global warming.), so go ahead and levy a Carbon Tax. But this Cap and Trade system is unnecessarily complex, hasn't worked a bit in Europe, and it has political corruption and bureaucracy written all over it. Someone explain this one to me because both party's candidates think this is a great idea. Also, what are your thoughts on the Democrats proposal for a 21st century Tennessee Valley Authority (aka green collar jobs) to install solar panels on everyone's house?
I read/listened to Obama's book, and I was gung ho Obama for a while (after Romney and Paul dropped out). But then the Democratic primary stretched on, and he tried to show how much more liberal he was then Hillary. And I just couldn't stomach the talk about how evil free trade agreements are and how evil it is to make lots of money. I hate listening to McCain even more, but I might vote for him simply to have the Congress and White House of opposite parties. Things tend to work better that way.
Glenn, good job solving the toilet paper mystery.
Karl, I agree with Mr. Lattin that you gave up on the Texan bandwagon too soon. You should have waited for Ron Paul. More explanation below.
Scott, for me, the death penalty and abortion aren't so contradictory because they are about tying the consequence to the action. When you abort a baby, you avoid the natural consequence of what you have done, and you can argue if the death penalty is a natural consequence but there should definitely be severe consequences for certain actions. Now that being said, I am against the death penalty, though more because it costs too much to go through the legal system and does little or nothing to deter people from committing serious crimes.
If I could only have one thing from my government leaders, I would ask for a balanced budget/reduction of the deficit. Clinton got lucky that the economy was booming and balanced the budget for a while, but none of the current Presidential candidates even suggested such things (except for Ron Paul). To balance the budget, we would have to get out of Iraq and come up with a plan for Social Security. I didn't vote for Bush in the last election because he took spending to a whole new level (the war, expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, etc.). In general, I'm in favor of lower taxes, but if higher taxes are necessary, that's fine IF you are going to spend my money wisely.
Now I don't think we need to go back to the gold standard like Ron Paul does, but can we please spend less than we take in? If we didn't spend so much on interest every year, we could have a lot more money for everything else. McCain is going to cut back on earmarks, but the real spending is in Defense, Entitlements, and Interest. That's where the cuts need to be made.
Another issue I'd like to bring up is this Cap and Trade nonsense. On NPR they had someone arguing for and against a Cap and Trade system, and it was a pretty one-sided argument. Now, I'm all for doing something for the environment (Pollution is bad regardless of its effect on global warming.), so go ahead and levy a Carbon Tax. But this Cap and Trade system is unnecessarily complex, hasn't worked a bit in Europe, and it has political corruption and bureaucracy written all over it. Someone explain this one to me because both party's candidates think this is a great idea. Also, what are your thoughts on the Democrats proposal for a 21st century Tennessee Valley Authority (aka green collar jobs) to install solar panels on everyone's house?
I read/listened to Obama's book, and I was gung ho Obama for a while (after Romney and Paul dropped out). But then the Democratic primary stretched on, and he tried to show how much more liberal he was then Hillary. And I just couldn't stomach the talk about how evil free trade agreements are and how evil it is to make lots of money. I hate listening to McCain even more, but I might vote for him simply to have the Congress and White House of opposite parties. Things tend to work better that way.
Monday, June 23, 2008
The establishment and the 1980 primaries
I thought Karl's assertion about neither of the current POTUS candidates being establishment was interesting. I'm not sure what "establishment" means; sort of the opposite of populist, I suppose. I think both candidates are well aligned with factions within their party, but not the factions which have most recently held power.
In the case of Obama, I think the alignment is best represented by the endorsement of Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter for the Dem nomination in 1980. His campaign was seen as an insurgence by the liberal wing against the somewhat centrist platform of Carter, and the push away from centrism which Kennedy and colleagues forced on the Dem platform probably contributed significantly to Reagan's win. The Mondale and Dukakis candidacies perpetuated the leftist insurgence within the party, while the Clinton/Gore presidency was a move back to the pragmatic center. Kerry strikes me as a leftist who wanted to appear centrist, and I view his nomination as a transition between the power of the two factions.
In the case of McCain, I see him as very much in the mode of Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford Republicans, who had little interest in domestic politics, and who adopted a realpolitik approach to foreign policy. This faction was represented in the 1980 primary by George H.W. Bush. Like the Dems, the Republican party also had an insurgence in 1980. In this case it was by the Reagan-led alliance of small-goverment Goldwater acolytes, Christian social conservatives and anti-Soviet foreign policy ideologues. Unlike the Kennedy-led Dem insurgence, the Reaganites won, and have held sway over the party up through the current presidency (including George HW Bush's single term).
So, while I think it's accurate to say both candidates are from until recently out-of-power factions within their respective parties, I wouldn't describe either of them as non-Establishment. Now Ralph Nader, on the other hand...
I see this election as very much in the mold of the 1980 election, with McCain playing the role of Carter and Obama the role of Reagan. And I think the outcome will likely be similar. On a personal level, I was pulling for Romney and then Clinton, and currently support McCain. While I was initially intrigued by Obama, I soon realized that despite his "purple" appeal to independents and his inspirational rhetoric, his policy and personality were very unappealing to me.
In the case of Obama, I think the alignment is best represented by the endorsement of Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter for the Dem nomination in 1980. His campaign was seen as an insurgence by the liberal wing against the somewhat centrist platform of Carter, and the push away from centrism which Kennedy and colleagues forced on the Dem platform probably contributed significantly to Reagan's win. The Mondale and Dukakis candidacies perpetuated the leftist insurgence within the party, while the Clinton/Gore presidency was a move back to the pragmatic center. Kerry strikes me as a leftist who wanted to appear centrist, and I view his nomination as a transition between the power of the two factions.
In the case of McCain, I see him as very much in the mode of Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford Republicans, who had little interest in domestic politics, and who adopted a realpolitik approach to foreign policy. This faction was represented in the 1980 primary by George H.W. Bush. Like the Dems, the Republican party also had an insurgence in 1980. In this case it was by the Reagan-led alliance of small-goverment Goldwater acolytes, Christian social conservatives and anti-Soviet foreign policy ideologues. Unlike the Kennedy-led Dem insurgence, the Reaganites won, and have held sway over the party up through the current presidency (including George HW Bush's single term).
So, while I think it's accurate to say both candidates are from until recently out-of-power factions within their respective parties, I wouldn't describe either of them as non-Establishment. Now Ralph Nader, on the other hand...
I see this election as very much in the mold of the 1980 election, with McCain playing the role of Carter and Obama the role of Reagan. And I think the outcome will likely be similar. On a personal level, I was pulling for Romney and then Clinton, and currently support McCain. While I was initially intrigued by Obama, I soon realized that despite his "purple" appeal to independents and his inspirational rhetoric, his policy and personality were very unappealing to me.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Things are gonna change, I can feel it
(The title, by the way, originates from song lyrics that just popped into my head, and though I am actually for the first time in my post-Republican life "proud of my country"--er, perhaps I shouldn't quote candidates wives--rather, I mean to say optimistic that positive change in politics is possible, I by no means feel that change is inevitable).
Paul, I agree with almost everything you're saying except, particularly with regards to the increasing ineffeciency of our two-party system over the last few decades. Too many people treat politics as entertainment. Parties are like sports teams. People follow them without questioning their agendas. In fact, as you and Jesse both note, the parties seem to dictate most people's politics.
However, I don't agree with your skepticism about the parties being vehicles for change, partly because I don't see any other force capable of effecting change. But, more importantly, I believe we are currently witnessing a reclamation of the parties by the people. Both candidates are, in many ways, outsiders to their own parties. The old guards of neither party "wanted" their candidates--but the people have spoken.
Regarding your request for opinions into the judiciary, perhaps you should propose a more specific topic, because I could go on for a while. However, I should say that there two types of comments about the judiciary that bug me--(1) any comment that that includes the phrase "legislating from the bench"--if you want to say that you don't agree with an interpretation put forth by the court, that's fine, but the judiciary does not legislate; (2) any comment that suggests that any judge is somehow in the pocket of one party or another.
As for Jesse, I'm really looking forward to a good discussion about free markets.
Paul, I agree with almost everything you're saying except, particularly with regards to the increasing ineffeciency of our two-party system over the last few decades. Too many people treat politics as entertainment. Parties are like sports teams. People follow them without questioning their agendas. In fact, as you and Jesse both note, the parties seem to dictate most people's politics.
However, I don't agree with your skepticism about the parties being vehicles for change, partly because I don't see any other force capable of effecting change. But, more importantly, I believe we are currently witnessing a reclamation of the parties by the people. Both candidates are, in many ways, outsiders to their own parties. The old guards of neither party "wanted" their candidates--but the people have spoken.
Regarding your request for opinions into the judiciary, perhaps you should propose a more specific topic, because I could go on for a while. However, I should say that there two types of comments about the judiciary that bug me--(1) any comment that that includes the phrase "legislating from the bench"--if you want to say that you don't agree with an interpretation put forth by the court, that's fine, but the judiciary does not legislate; (2) any comment that suggests that any judge is somehow in the pocket of one party or another.
As for Jesse, I'm really looking forward to a good discussion about free markets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)