I picked this book because I thought it would spawn some constructive thinking regarding global warming. As an aside, while I was flattered by so much prelude to an average novel which has already faded into relative obscurity, (is that because of the heretics, or because the religion of global warming has caught on? more on this in a sec.), I resisted the temptation to make serious comments back because (1) I thought you'd enjoy the novel more if I didn't talk it up or put it down (I think this would be a good rule), (2) I didn't want to express an opinion if I were to be burned at the carbon emissions stake, and (3) I wanted some more time to think about it. Obviously, there are some strong opinions (and facts!) involved in our group, and I don't mean to offend. Here goes:
About the Novel:
I didn't think the plot was very good, the characters were either too flat or too convincible, and I was almost bored at the “exciting conclusion”. That being said, I had read the book before I picked it, and I still picked it, because I like Chrichton's research—he looks into something, then takes a wild leap. For example, while cloning may be a reality, dinosaurs are still extinct—the same thought could apply to this book. The bibliography at the end was unparalleled for fiction and though the appendix had some weak sauce charts, I liked it as well.
About Global Warming:
I believe in global warming, the same way I believe in gravity or relativity. I don't think anyone would argue with these beliefs. I even believe, presumptive as it is, that humans can have an impact on the global temperature to some degree. I believe there may be other factors. These are all relatively scientific statements that somehow we've become comfortable with as “beliefs,” when they're really just facts. I enjoyed the article about environmentalism as religion to which Alvin pointed us, and I would refer you to it if you haven't read it.
I haven't done any personal research, and I've only read a little about it, but I can accept the fact that if you put CO2 in the air, energy will get trapped, and the global temperature on the whole has risen recently. I also enjoyed the website Karl pointed out, and would refer you to it as well. I don't feel particularly educated in this area, but having scratched the surface, I don't feel that I have the time I believe I would need to research to get to that point.
However, I think that there are present and practical reasons to “Go Green”--speculation has driven the cost of oil higher and higher. I like clean air and water, too. Personally, I ride my bike to work, live in a state with one of the higher percentages of renewable resources, and am studying to become a USGreenBuildingCouncil LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Accredited Professional.
The consumption of may change in 30 years, but the US is to coal as Saudia Arabia is to oil, and I don't foresee us getting rid of coal for a while. In my opinion we need now to establish Nuclear power, with electric and/or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. We need to do this now, because the infrastructure will take time.
Off my soap box—some questions:
Did you hate it how Evans is slowly convinced about the “falsities of global warming”? I think Chrichton does this a lot in his books, and it bugged a little in this book.
Is environmentalism a religion? Do most people understand global warming? Can we? Can we change the climate? Can we reverse our warming trend? Should we?
I consider myself a conservationalist, in that I think we should keep what we've got, clean up after ourselves and not destroy the beauty of the earth. What should I be doing to save the earth?
Is there anything good about buying carbon credits, or is it pure bunk?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
September's Book
I'd like some input on September's book. I have three possibilities in mind:
1) Most preferred: Andrew Skinner's Temple Worship: 20 Truths that will Bless Your Life. I took a class on Jerusalem from Dr. Skinner and found him insightful. The drawback of this option is I doubt anyone could get it through their library system.
2) Second preferred: Fareed Zakaria's Post-American World. I find Zakaria to be a very insightful voice with regards to foreign policy. This is a recent book, and so is probably in high demand in local library systems. I've got a request in, but don't imagine I'll see the book for at least several weeks.
3) Least preferred (but still a great option): JFK's Profiles in Courage. Although it was evidently ghostwritten by an adviser, I've found the vignettes of US Statesmen who stand up for what they believe in regardless of consequences to be inspiring in a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington way.
If I get no input I'll probably choose the first. If anyone doesn't feel that's feasible, let me know (either in the comments or private email) and I'll choose one of the other two.
1) Most preferred: Andrew Skinner's Temple Worship: 20 Truths that will Bless Your Life. I took a class on Jerusalem from Dr. Skinner and found him insightful. The drawback of this option is I doubt anyone could get it through their library system.
2) Second preferred: Fareed Zakaria's Post-American World. I find Zakaria to be a very insightful voice with regards to foreign policy. This is a recent book, and so is probably in high demand in local library systems. I've got a request in, but don't imagine I'll see the book for at least several weeks.
3) Least preferred (but still a great option): JFK's Profiles in Courage. Although it was evidently ghostwritten by an adviser, I've found the vignettes of US Statesmen who stand up for what they believe in regardless of consequences to be inspiring in a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington way.
If I get no input I'll probably choose the first. If anyone doesn't feel that's feasible, let me know (either in the comments or private email) and I'll choose one of the other two.
August Book, and more on SSM
Next month's book
So I just remembered that I have the book choice for next month (and I just realized that July is almost over). I had originally thought to do Obama's first book, "Dreams of My Father," but I'm all politicked out right now. (FYI, the book has very little to do with politics, and was written at a time when he was still pretty far removed from the political arena, which is why I think it's a very good way to judge his character).
Instead, I've selected The Third Policeman. It's a surrealist story by a not very widely known Irish author named Flann O'Brien. I read a review in the Atlantic on it a while back that peaked my interest (the connections to Lost helped as well).
I've not read it yet, but I have no reason to suspect objectionable content. I will warn people if I find any. I do, however, suspect that some may find it to be a very odd read, so you might want to read some of the reviews before deciding whether or not to buy it.
More on SSM
(this started as part of a comment on Peter's last post, and just started to get too big)
Regarding court decisions on SSM, I do believe that our governments, in basing any sort of law or benefit on marital status, and furthermore by creating mechanisms by which to "validate" a marriage, have created a government-sponsored institution of marriage. If government creates an institution, it also creates a right for individuals who meet the necessary criteria to belong to that institution. Therefore, the right to marry does exists. Just because there are qualifications on that right, does not mean it is not a right--e.g., there are many qualifications on free speech, nonetheless, it is a right.
The question before the courts, in my mind, was "is there a compeling reason for making gender a criteria for the right to marry?" The courts could not think of such a reason, and therefore they did what they had to do. It was this exact same framework that brought about the civil rights movement, and it is exactly this kind of purpose for which our judiciary exists. Now, the burden is upon the legislative branch to either write laws for which there is a clear and compelling secular reason, or upon us as a people to amend the constitution to explicitly define this right to marry.
Personally, I believe that, barring some compelling secular reason that I've so far not seen formulated, government should be marriage-agnostic. It should remove any reference to marriage in its laws and procedures. From a religious standpoint, does it really matter whether government recognizes my marriage?
So I just remembered that I have the book choice for next month (and I just realized that July is almost over). I had originally thought to do Obama's first book, "Dreams of My Father," but I'm all politicked out right now. (FYI, the book has very little to do with politics, and was written at a time when he was still pretty far removed from the political arena, which is why I think it's a very good way to judge his character).
Instead, I've selected The Third Policeman. It's a surrealist story by a not very widely known Irish author named Flann O'Brien. I read a review in the Atlantic on it a while back that peaked my interest (the connections to Lost helped as well).
I've not read it yet, but I have no reason to suspect objectionable content. I will warn people if I find any. I do, however, suspect that some may find it to be a very odd read, so you might want to read some of the reviews before deciding whether or not to buy it.
More on SSM
(this started as part of a comment on Peter's last post, and just started to get too big)
Regarding court decisions on SSM, I do believe that our governments, in basing any sort of law or benefit on marital status, and furthermore by creating mechanisms by which to "validate" a marriage, have created a government-sponsored institution of marriage. If government creates an institution, it also creates a right for individuals who meet the necessary criteria to belong to that institution. Therefore, the right to marry does exists. Just because there are qualifications on that right, does not mean it is not a right--e.g., there are many qualifications on free speech, nonetheless, it is a right.
The question before the courts, in my mind, was "is there a compeling reason for making gender a criteria for the right to marry?" The courts could not think of such a reason, and therefore they did what they had to do. It was this exact same framework that brought about the civil rights movement, and it is exactly this kind of purpose for which our judiciary exists. Now, the burden is upon the legislative branch to either write laws for which there is a clear and compelling secular reason, or upon us as a people to amend the constitution to explicitly define this right to marry.
Personally, I believe that, barring some compelling secular reason that I've so far not seen formulated, government should be marriage-agnostic. It should remove any reference to marriage in its laws and procedures. From a religious standpoint, does it really matter whether government recognizes my marriage?
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
Constitutional Law
One of my favorite things about my career as an appellate lawyer is the amount of constitutional law I get to deal with on a regular basis. In fact, I have a case pending in the California Supreme Court interpreting the constitutional right to an unbiased trial judge. There is no question that we have a federal constitutional right to a trial before an unbiased judge who is fair in fact. What is left open, is whether that right further includes the right to a trial before a judge who is free from the mere appearance of bias. Should make for an interesting opinion from the Cal Supremes.
I would like to make a few comments as to the notion of the Constitution being a living document. The Framers had great insight and wisdom in drafting a document that would be vague or ambiguous enough to allow for changing circumstances, but yet clear and concise enough to withstand the erosion of time and stand as an ensign to the world of an inspired declaration of self-government. The danger in simply concluding that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to interpretation as circumstances change is that if we go too far in such a direction, we lose the contextual tether which explains the Framers' intentions. By the same token if we unyieldingly keep the Constitution moored to 18th century thought, we run the risk of finding untenable or even unpalpable interpretations of that document in a society that has certainly evolved in the last 200 years. Consequently, there must be a middle ground. Contextualism and originalism which seeks to understand the original intent of the Framers is an excellent starting point for constitutional interpretation. However, it would be unwise to neglect or ignore the lessons of the last 200 years. By and large, I have found that the United States Supreme Court does a good job in reaching that balance.
Perhaps in a later post I will say a thing or two about legislating from the bench. In the interim, and in a related vein, I am interested to hear what the outside world (outside of California) has to say about our Supreme Court's recent ruling on gay marriage. My office, sadly, lost that case. This was a classic example of judicial activism in which the high court decided to legislate from the bench on the definition of marriage. I am most interested in hearing good secular arguments for why marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman -- take God, the Plan of Salvation, and any other spiritual doctrine out of the mix and what compelling arguments are left?
I would like to make a few comments as to the notion of the Constitution being a living document. The Framers had great insight and wisdom in drafting a document that would be vague or ambiguous enough to allow for changing circumstances, but yet clear and concise enough to withstand the erosion of time and stand as an ensign to the world of an inspired declaration of self-government. The danger in simply concluding that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to interpretation as circumstances change is that if we go too far in such a direction, we lose the contextual tether which explains the Framers' intentions. By the same token if we unyieldingly keep the Constitution moored to 18th century thought, we run the risk of finding untenable or even unpalpable interpretations of that document in a society that has certainly evolved in the last 200 years. Consequently, there must be a middle ground. Contextualism and originalism which seeks to understand the original intent of the Framers is an excellent starting point for constitutional interpretation. However, it would be unwise to neglect or ignore the lessons of the last 200 years. By and large, I have found that the United States Supreme Court does a good job in reaching that balance.
Perhaps in a later post I will say a thing or two about legislating from the bench. In the interim, and in a related vein, I am interested to hear what the outside world (outside of California) has to say about our Supreme Court's recent ruling on gay marriage. My office, sadly, lost that case. This was a classic example of judicial activism in which the high court decided to legislate from the bench on the definition of marriage. I am most interested in hearing good secular arguments for why marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman -- take God, the Plan of Salvation, and any other spiritual doctrine out of the mix and what compelling arguments are left?
On Judges
A few quick comments on Alvin's post below:
1. I have not read the Rex E. Lee book mentioned below but it sounds interesting---maybe someone should select it for the book club?
2. I'd like to emphasize that when Alvin criticizes "conservatives" below for inconsistency he is referring, in my opinion, to social conservatives. Having called myself a conservative earlier I think it's important to differentiate---I do not consider myself a social conservative and there are many conservatives who would not favor prayer in school/abortion restrictions etc. This is another example of where I think party affiliation can be misleading.
3. Scott wrote awhile back that he favored a "living constitution" approach and Karl has mentioned his dislike for the term "legislating from the bench." I disagree with them on the role of the judiciary but would like to understand their position better. My question for them: is it possible, in your opinion, for the supreme court to wrongly decide a case, or to overreach? If so, on what basis would you decide that?
4. I have recently become a bit of a supreme court junkie. This is almost entirely due to one site: http://www.oyez.org/. You can listen to the oral arguments for almost any recent case before the court. You can also read the opinions (which you can do at other sites also of course). It has given me a greater respect for all the justices---most especially those with whom I disagree---and I highly recommend spending some time there. I will warn you that it may make you, like me, desperately wish you had another life to live to study constitutional law.
1. I have not read the Rex E. Lee book mentioned below but it sounds interesting---maybe someone should select it for the book club?
2. I'd like to emphasize that when Alvin criticizes "conservatives" below for inconsistency he is referring, in my opinion, to social conservatives. Having called myself a conservative earlier I think it's important to differentiate---I do not consider myself a social conservative and there are many conservatives who would not favor prayer in school/abortion restrictions etc. This is another example of where I think party affiliation can be misleading.
3. Scott wrote awhile back that he favored a "living constitution" approach and Karl has mentioned his dislike for the term "legislating from the bench." I disagree with them on the role of the judiciary but would like to understand their position better. My question for them: is it possible, in your opinion, for the supreme court to wrongly decide a case, or to overreach? If so, on what basis would you decide that?
4. I have recently become a bit of a supreme court junkie. This is almost entirely due to one site: http://www.oyez.org/. You can listen to the oral arguments for almost any recent case before the court. You can also read the opinions (which you can do at other sites also of course). It has given me a greater respect for all the justices---most especially those with whom I disagree---and I highly recommend spending some time there. I will warn you that it may make you, like me, desperately wish you had another life to live to study constitutional law.
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.
Friday, July 18, 2008
So cool to hear you guys break it down—makes me nostalgic for the non-virtual symposium.
Here are some of my thoughts on the recent Jesse/Karl government/taxes topic. First off, I think its pretty much impossible to be objective; 'help the poor' I think is accurate but carries an emotional load–it inclines us to empathize with towards those that are being helped. I would say the same thing about a description 'subset of people forcing another subset of people. . .'—sounds like dispassionate language but its still using terms that incline us empathize with one side, the people people being forced.
So here's my own subjective spin. The government isn't (and i'm speaking in ideal terms here), a subset of people, it is the people; we as a collective reached a decision—because as citizens we have implicitly agreed to abide by the decisions of the whole—when I am 'forced' to pay a parking ticket, I'm really just abiding by a decision that I had a say in—a decision that 'we' made—because I had a say in it, maybe 'force' is the wrong word—its different than 'force' for a surf in the feudal system.
On an unrelated note, where is Chris Garcia? he's the one the named it the symposium if memory serves. I think its someone's job to find him.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Religious expression for $12
Actually, after I receive payment from Amazon for reselling the copy I purchased, my total out of pocket expense will be about 1/2 that. Reading your comments on the book has actually been more valuable than reading the book itself. I understand that it was the author's first book, and I did enjoy the end (for multiple reasons), but when I finished reading it I wanted to write my own book: Why Men Hate Reading Books about Why Men Hate Going to Church. The premise will be stated on the first page, but I will spend a few chapters quoting some people and rehashing my beginning statements.
But now on to productive matters, I will respond to some of your comments and add a few of my own.
Peter: I too saw Murrow's insinuation that all "masculine behaviors" should be welcomed/encouraged was an absurdity.
Your comment that no one should be comfortable spiritually brought to mind a couple of quotes that I have heard: "We as leaders are to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable." "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."
Jesse: Did your stake president read the book? What kind of commentary did he offer on it?
Paul: I got to thinking why it is that I am still active in the church. It was an interesting mental exercise. I believe what has made a difference for me is the caring leaders (men and women) that I had as a youth, along with a great group of friends that had strong values; I can also recall family prayer and scripture study leading to personal spiritual experiences that still serve as a personal anchor.
Ryan: I briefly shared a few things from the book with my elders quorum when we discussed Elder Ballard's recent talk about women and the Church. They didn't have much to say regarding a possible feminization of religion. It was interesting to discuss how many people outside the Church view LDS women as being oppressed by some great patriarchal order. That is not the case. In an article on fairlds.org titled "The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace" the author points out that "LDS women have had early access to suffrage, healing, religious ceremonies, autonomous leadership in Relief Society, and access to coeducation at a time when much of the nation still struggled to accept the idea."
A couple of observations related to some other comments that have been made: Most of the recent converts I know are of middle to low income/education status. Most of the less active members in the Church are middle to low income/education status. A friend of mine who was baptized last summer commented on the high percentage of highly educated men and women in the church and in the church leadership. He is a college drop-out so he felt a little uncomfortable about it at first.
Another member, this one inactive, is put off by most efforts to fellowship him. His wife said to me a few weeks ago that if I want to fellowship him there's going to have to be a service project involved. He likes work, he avoids social events.
Summary: unenjoyable book, highly enjoyable discussion
But now on to productive matters, I will respond to some of your comments and add a few of my own.
Peter: I too saw Murrow's insinuation that all "masculine behaviors" should be welcomed/encouraged was an absurdity.
Your comment that no one should be comfortable spiritually brought to mind a couple of quotes that I have heard: "We as leaders are to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable." "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."
Jesse: Did your stake president read the book? What kind of commentary did he offer on it?
Paul: I got to thinking why it is that I am still active in the church. It was an interesting mental exercise. I believe what has made a difference for me is the caring leaders (men and women) that I had as a youth, along with a great group of friends that had strong values; I can also recall family prayer and scripture study leading to personal spiritual experiences that still serve as a personal anchor.
Ryan: I briefly shared a few things from the book with my elders quorum when we discussed Elder Ballard's recent talk about women and the Church. They didn't have much to say regarding a possible feminization of religion. It was interesting to discuss how many people outside the Church view LDS women as being oppressed by some great patriarchal order. That is not the case. In an article on fairlds.org titled "The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace" the author points out that "LDS women have had early access to suffrage, healing, religious ceremonies, autonomous leadership in Relief Society, and access to coeducation at a time when much of the nation still struggled to accept the idea."
A couple of observations related to some other comments that have been made: Most of the recent converts I know are of middle to low income/education status. Most of the less active members in the Church are middle to low income/education status. A friend of mine who was baptized last summer commented on the high percentage of highly educated men and women in the church and in the church leadership. He is a college drop-out so he felt a little uncomfortable about it at first.
Another member, this one inactive, is put off by most efforts to fellowship him. His wife said to me a few weeks ago that if I want to fellowship him there's going to have to be a service project involved. He likes work, he avoids social events.
Summary: unenjoyable book, highly enjoyable discussion
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.
Books Past, Present and Future
Greetings from IL. I'm currently visiting my parents in the Land of Lincoln. Ryan, if you want to get together for lunch on Monday. I'll be driving through Champaign on my way back to MD, though you may want to read this post before you decide if you're busy or not. I've been very intrigued by the comments here, and I've been wanting to post for a while. It's funny how hard it can be to find time for something when you're on vacation.
Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I finally got the
On a tangential note, I was called to the Young Men's Organization about a year ago, and I was very surprised because I didn't think they called people with my personality type to Young Men's. It's typically the more popular, manly men. For example, we had an activity this year where we built potato cannons. The majority of the YM's leaders and youth were very excited about this activity. It's very manly/cool to shoot things, start them on fire, etc. However, I was not at all interested in such things as a youth, and I have not acquired these tastes as I've grown older. I guess, according to this book, I've become too "feminized" for the YM's program. Now, I realize there is still a way for me to be helpful in YM, as not every youth is into guns, archery, and fire, but we are certainly not in the majority.
Books future:I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
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.
Chrichton in the time of cholera
Though the word heresy may now be tainted by your modern 'enlightened' perspective, it was once a perfectly nobel specious accusation.
Maybe the thesis of this book has merit—elites manipulating the fear of the masses for profit—but i might stick it to Haliburton before Greenpeace. I do think its irresponsible to deny climate-change though. In the 19th century, the Michael Chrichton types were telling us that the microscopic germs causing cholera epidemics were a fantasy of fear-mongering scientists—no need to dig up London and put in a sewage system.
At this point in time the science is pretty clear: If we put sewage in the water, people will get sick, if we put CO2 in the air, energy will be trapped.
Maybe the thesis of this book has merit—elites manipulating the fear of the masses for profit—but i might stick it to Haliburton before Greenpeace. I do think its irresponsible to deny climate-change though. In the 19th century, the Michael Chrichton types were telling us that the microscopic germs causing cholera epidemics were a fantasy of fear-mongering scientists—no need to dig up London and put in a sewage system.
At this point in time the science is pretty clear: If we put sewage in the water, people will get sick, if we put CO2 in the air, energy will be trapped.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Virtues and Vices and Understanding the Difference
First off the recent Pew Center survey of religious feeling, particularly the gender demographics details, seem to be somewhat relevant. Looking at the data, what we see about a 45/55 male/female split in affiliation with Christian religions and the opposite in non-Christian religions (eg Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Unitarianism). We also see dramatically more men than women identifying as atheist (70/30) or agnostic (64/36). Also, if you look at more of the Pew data, there is a definite correlation between religions with high male representation and less frequent church attendance. This would seem to support the basic premise of the book that man tend to favor belief systems that don't rely on frequent meetings. (Also, interestingly, there is a high correlation between high male identification and high average educational levels, which might indicate that men favor intellectual, rather than emotional or charismatic, approaches to belief).
I think that Murrow repeatedly conflated two things in his book: "masculine" spiritual virtues, such as bravery, sacrifice, etc. and natural (in the Mosiah 3:19 sense) male behaviors, such as slovenliness, rowdiness, competitiveness, etc. He seems to argue that we need to embrace all these behaviors at once, which I think is absurd. His focus on making men "comfortable" by turning the spiritual thermostat of our churches (at the expense of a little discomfort from the women) seems antithetical, to me, of the whole purpose of church. No one should be comfortable, spiritually. We should all be spurred on to overcome those aspects of our personalities which are not in tune with God. Whether those aspects are typically male or female.
So some of his suggestions I think would result in a positive corrective to femininization (if that's a real trend, and some of his anecdotes particularly regarding "praise" sessions seem somewhat persuasive) of religion, and some of his suggestions I think would amount to destroying the religion in order to increase church attendance.
On a personal level, I have noticed as a result of reading this book that I've begun to focus my personal prayers and study on what Murrow (and society, I suppose) considers more masculine virtues. Rather than solely praying for more kindness, compassion, and patience, I've also been praying for greater strength, bravery, and willingness to sacrifice. I don't know whether the church is systemically unbalanced in this area (I tend to doubt it) but I believe that I personally can learn something from this lesson.
I particularly found Murrow's suggestion to encourage spiritual apprenticeship or mentoring between male generations to be interesting. One of the things I find difficult in life is that I live so far away from my father, and am unable to turn to him for advice and teaching on a lot of subjects. One of the things I've appreciated in church is the example of older men who can give me advice on the issues that a 30-year-old husband, young father, second counselor, home owner typically face. I don't know if a more formalized relationship would be even better (Murrow's "discipleship"), but I know that it's one of the greatest blessings I can identify of my church attendance.
As for the question of young men, I don't really know. In our ward I know that the YM and YW programs are dramatically different: the YM get together to play sports, or go hiking, or learn a new skill (largely through the Boy Scouts program). The YW get together to talk and watch movies and eat ice cream. Our girls tend to be much sillier and goofier and funnier than our boys (an aspect that I think Murrow mistakenly attributes as "masculine") . I think our YMs program is doing a much better job with the less significant portion of Murrow's conflation: we're making boys feel more comfortable, but we're failing in teaching them the important spiritual aspects of what it takes to be a man. We're pandering to their nature and not appealing to their spirits. And I think its the spiritual aspects that will push them to missionary service and lifetime dedication to the church.
So, to conclude my rambling rant, while I think the book was completely misguided, terribly written, annoyingly repetitive and full of mischaracterizations, weak generalizations, and ideological conflations, I'm glad to learn some good lessons from it. My takeaway will be to be more observant regarding balance within the spiritual focus of myself, my family and my ward.
I think that Murrow repeatedly conflated two things in his book: "masculine" spiritual virtues, such as bravery, sacrifice, etc. and natural (in the Mosiah 3:19 sense) male behaviors, such as slovenliness, rowdiness, competitiveness, etc. He seems to argue that we need to embrace all these behaviors at once, which I think is absurd. His focus on making men "comfortable" by turning the spiritual thermostat of our churches (at the expense of a little discomfort from the women) seems antithetical, to me, of the whole purpose of church. No one should be comfortable, spiritually. We should all be spurred on to overcome those aspects of our personalities which are not in tune with God. Whether those aspects are typically male or female.
So some of his suggestions I think would result in a positive corrective to femininization (if that's a real trend, and some of his anecdotes particularly regarding "praise" sessions seem somewhat persuasive) of religion, and some of his suggestions I think would amount to destroying the religion in order to increase church attendance.
On a personal level, I have noticed as a result of reading this book that I've begun to focus my personal prayers and study on what Murrow (and society, I suppose) considers more masculine virtues. Rather than solely praying for more kindness, compassion, and patience, I've also been praying for greater strength, bravery, and willingness to sacrifice. I don't know whether the church is systemically unbalanced in this area (I tend to doubt it) but I believe that I personally can learn something from this lesson.
I particularly found Murrow's suggestion to encourage spiritual apprenticeship or mentoring between male generations to be interesting. One of the things I find difficult in life is that I live so far away from my father, and am unable to turn to him for advice and teaching on a lot of subjects. One of the things I've appreciated in church is the example of older men who can give me advice on the issues that a 30-year-old husband, young father, second counselor, home owner typically face. I don't know if a more formalized relationship would be even better (Murrow's "discipleship"), but I know that it's one of the greatest blessings I can identify of my church attendance.
As for the question of young men, I don't really know. In our ward I know that the YM and YW programs are dramatically different: the YM get together to play sports, or go hiking, or learn a new skill (largely through the Boy Scouts program). The YW get together to talk and watch movies and eat ice cream. Our girls tend to be much sillier and goofier and funnier than our boys (an aspect that I think Murrow mistakenly attributes as "masculine") . I think our YMs program is doing a much better job with the less significant portion of Murrow's conflation: we're making boys feel more comfortable, but we're failing in teaching them the important spiritual aspects of what it takes to be a man. We're pandering to their nature and not appealing to their spirits. And I think its the spiritual aspects that will push them to missionary service and lifetime dedication to the church.
So, to conclude my rambling rant, while I think the book was completely misguided, terribly written, annoyingly repetitive and full of mischaracterizations, weak generalizations, and ideological conflations, I'm glad to learn some good lessons from it. My takeaway will be to be more observant regarding balance within the spiritual focus of myself, my family and my ward.
Heresy
I may not strongly disagree with Elliott's view on the science of global warming---but isn't "dissing" without reading and the use of the word "heresy" pretty supportive of Crichton's argument (as I understand it from the summary on Amazon) here?
I figure some will enjoy the political/environmentalism commentary, others will enjoy a thrilling (I assume given the author) bit of pure fiction.
I figure some will enjoy the political/environmentalism commentary, others will enjoy a thrilling (I assume given the author) bit of pure fiction.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Not into it
So, State of Fear? I guess I'm gonna dis on this book without reading it— just for the climate change heresy.
July's Book-State of Fear
http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0066214130
State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Since I am morally responsible for the content of this book, I have to recommend that you skip the first Chapter-it is not essential, and the rest of the book is clean(er). While I did check out Milton Friedman from the library, I felt obliged to pick a novel--if nothing else, the Bibliography is good (honest!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)