Enough!
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
Our President, The Socialist
Normally the NY Post drives me crazy, but this article points out something I think is worth noting: President Obama is, as we all knew deep-down, a closet socialist.
The author, Kyle Smith, tries to draw up a distinction between communism and socialism, forgetting the two are sister governmental systems. The "communal property" vs "private property with government direction" face-off is, well, just degrees separation of the same evil rot. I suspect what he was trying to say was that President Obama talks about socialism as if it were communism--supposedly very removed from our current system--in order to claim he isn't socialist. A classic political move is to redefine bad things and good things so you can apply (or unapply) labels to yourself. People tend to take a lot longer to drop their emotional feelings regarding labels than they take to unknowingly have politicians change the definitions on them. Once someone controls definitions and terms, they always seem to win the debate.
I have to give him props for calling out the comment, and making it quite clear (heh, "now let me be clear...") that President Obama has a private self that he doesn't let slip--one that the American people would reject. I find it interesting of course that this would slip out after his second term was already rolling. There seems to be a lot of truth (er, scandal) slipping out now that he clinched the election again.
The author, Kyle Smith, tries to draw up a distinction between communism and socialism, forgetting the two are sister governmental systems. The "communal property" vs "private property with government direction" face-off is, well, just degrees separation of the same evil rot. I suspect what he was trying to say was that President Obama talks about socialism as if it were communism--supposedly very removed from our current system--in order to claim he isn't socialist. A classic political move is to redefine bad things and good things so you can apply (or unapply) labels to yourself. People tend to take a lot longer to drop their emotional feelings regarding labels than they take to unknowingly have politicians change the definitions on them. Once someone controls definitions and terms, they always seem to win the debate.
I have to give him props for calling out the comment, and making it quite clear (heh, "now let me be clear...") that President Obama has a private self that he doesn't let slip--one that the American people would reject. I find it interesting of course that this would slip out after his second term was already rolling. There seems to be a lot of truth (er, scandal) slipping out now that he clinched the election again.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Guns!
I've been meaning to write about guns and self defense for some time, but it's a complex subject, and I was never quite sure how to address it. I usually come at issues from a philosophical perspective, building up from principles to reach a conclusion, but sometimes other people just knock it out of the park going from data and hard-earned experience instead. So, rather than try this myself, I'll just put these two excellent items out there, and you should read them in their entirety:
Iowa State Daily article which explains why gun owners and gun rights advocates are digging in their heels.
And here is a good pile of stats to knock it the rest of the way out of the park:
Update: I found one more. These infographics seem like the new bold emphasis that used to appear during the 1800s. If you can get past that, they have a few more interesting stats from a recent DOJ report.
Iowa State Daily article which explains why gun owners and gun rights advocates are digging in their heels.
And here is a good pile of stats to knock it the rest of the way out of the park:
Update: I found one more. These infographics seem like the new bold emphasis that used to appear during the 1800s. If you can get past that, they have a few more interesting stats from a recent DOJ report.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Baby Potentials
Babies. Those tiny, soft, shining rays of sunshine that remind us of all that is innocent and precious in life. What is it about babies that makes our hearts melt and makes us carry them softly, carefully, and that they rivet our focus whenever we see them? Why do they cause nearly ever woman around to suddenly want to go to them and see them, coo at them, and talk about how beautiful they are? We all seem to have this reaction (even if many men are too macho to coo, inside they still think those babies are super-cute and make them feel a welling-up of fatherliness and a desire to protect them).
All of us feel that way, right? Right?
Wrong. The very existence of abortion (for reasons other than the mother's life being truly threatened by the pregnancy, or due to rape and incest) belies something that to me is utterly incomprehensible and horrifying. Abortion is one of those issues that people would talk about, but I didn't want to listen because it bothered me, and I figured it was rare and only done by misguided people who I had never met and likely never would. But this is wrong too. When I realized the estimates of how many abortions have been performed since the official "legalization" in Roe v. Wade (around 50 million), I realized that I surely know people who have willingly participated in this in one form or another. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which increases my odds of encountering people like this materially.
Since the onset of the Gosnell case (just google search it, you'll find enough reading material to keep you occupied for a long time, just be prepared because much of it is very graphic) I have contemplated whether his utter contempt for life really was an outlier or if this behavior is more pervasive than abortion advocates are letting on. I have recently read story after story after story (in addition to Gosnell) that leads me to conclude it's definitely worse than its advocates claim (ahem). But a tougher question exists: even if they aren't dirty or reckless like Kermit Gosnell, are they still just as evil?
To answer this question, we need to go back to first principles and to examining results (as I'm wont to do). I'm going to tackle this not from a religious perspective, but from a practical/logical human perspective, even though the religious perspective strengthens the case substantially. But without it, we can still make a very compelling case, without even getting to the consideration of when a spirit quickens a baby's body (although that is important).
What is life? Particularly what is human life? I think we all have a pretty good sense for that. There are esoteric scientific definitions, but generally we all understand with clarity that human beings have a consciousness and the ability to choose (some more easily than others, but unless a person is in a vegetative state and will never recover, the other variations in ability are not worth categorizing away from a full ability to choose). What, then, constitutes an important human life, one worth expending a great deal to save?
Let's start with an example. Suppose you have a ninety-year-old woman, who has lived a good, long, feisty life. She has much family, has contributed to her community, and has served many people. She is then diagnosed with a relatively advanced stage of cancer, and she is not likely to survive long. Even with extreme intervention, the latest techniques and procedures, and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, in all likelihood her life may be lengthened past where she would otherwise last at most six months. Both she and her family would likely agree, despite the heart-wrenching difficulty of the decision, that it is best to take some action: focus on quality of life management for the remainder of her time. And there's nothing alarming about that, although the situation is still saddening. If she had hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on her own medical care she might decide to go for it, but even then...probably not.
A second example, and this one is personal: there is a sixty-year-old woman who is suffering from the effects of cancer, and she has a lump of cancer dislodge and then come to rest in her brain, causing a stroke. She has great damage to her brain and is in a coma, very likely never to recover even after extensive brain surgery. Here pain management until she passes away is quite clearly the best course of action, even though it just breaks everyone's heart that this is the option left to them regarding a beloved woman's life.
And one more example: now there is a child, a cute little girl, ten years old, who is diagnosed with a relatively advanced stage of bone cancer. The family, the doctors, the community all band together to raise money, try the most effective techniques, pray, work, cry, and do everything they can to beat that cancer. Every possible resource available is brought to bear in saving the girl's life. She doesn't have a very high likelihood of making it, but nobody even bats an eye at the effort made to save her. And that is as it should be.
Why the difference? Why would we fight like mad to save the little girl, but not the ninety-year-old (still wonderful) lady? Why do we choose a non-interventionist, quality-of-life route for some, but pull out all the stops for others? The answer almost seems to obvious in hindsight: potential.
Human beings make judgment calls constantly. (That doesn't mean we're being judgmental, by the way.) We have to make small and large evaluations at nearly every juncture of our life. Whenever that pertains to other people we are of course urged to exercise caution, compassion, and forethought. So far so good.
When it comes to evaluating the value of a human life, things get very uncomfortable very fast. Many people default to trying to preserve every life in every way every time with all available resources, and that is an admirable default stance. But given the world has limited resources, we invariably end up seeing situations arise like I noted above; sometimes it's just not worth it to expend the resources, given the potential of the life we are trying to save. These decisions should be limited in frequency, and we all hope we don't have to get involved in them because they're never fun to make. But it happens, and we eventually get to participate in the calculus.
Generally speaking, people don't feel like it's the wrong decision to let someone go who is on their deathbed when there is clearly little to no potential left. We also have a very strong recoil when a life is ended when the individual otherwise had a lot of potential left. When a child dies, "they had their whole life ahead of them." This sentiment is natural, human, and good; it encourages us to protect the innocent, the young, and the defenseless. It is no fallacy to state that a young person who lost their life could have been "the next Einstein," an expression of the hope we have in the seemingly boundless potential of even a single life.
What then is the potential of a baby? Even if we try to obscure the humanity of the little creature growing inside of a mother by calling it a fetus or a zygote, or even if we try to minimize its importance by calling attention to the mother's consciousness and known ability to make choices, we cannot deny the potential of the baby. Specious arguments such as "if it were born right now it would die so there is no potential against the mother's choice" don't fly, because babies are not generally born preterm, and given the incredible potential of the person whose budding existence is already established, it would seem the mother's choice and the baby's obvious desire to live ought to be weighted heavily in favor of the baby. The potential for good done to all people by letting that individual baby live is simply too great to cast aside.
Yet there are various arguments some people make in favor of abortion. Some of them are narrow, based on limited circumstances, and some are very broad.
One limited argument regards the cases where the life of the mother is in grave danger in continuing the pregnancy. This is a strong argument: there do exist pregnancies such as this, and they can literally kill the mother, and usually the baby too as a result. Competent and accurate medical evaluations can arrive at the conclusion that continuing a pregnancy is just too dangerous.
In some cases this may simply be the best option. However, my wife and I have a friend that had an issue with her uterus (related to endemytriosis) where her pregnancies were very difficult, her babies born pretty early, and she would hemorrhage a lot. And I mean a LOT. With her second child, she was born quite early because the doctors decided they couldn't wait any longer and did an emergency C-section. The baby was in the NICU for quite some time, but survived and is now doing just fine. The third pregnancy, she began hemorrhaging even earlier, and the doctors were recommending she abort the pregnancy right away. She refused, and they waited as long as they could, and did the emergency C-section again. Her baby lived only a couple of weeks or less in the NICU. But if you asked her, she wouldn't have changed a thing. It was very hard on them, but worth it to do everything in their power to save the baby, contingent on making sure the mother herself was also protected adequately.
Modern medical technology, while not entirely eliminating the reason for abortions in these cases, is making them less necessary from a strict standpoint. And it is entirely a noble choice for a mother to do as this mother did: expend whatever resources are possible to save the baby.
Generally the main argument for abortion is "choice," or really the mother's choice. We'll talk more about that further below, but it is indeed a compelling situation when a pregnancy was thrust upon a woman (or teenage girl) against her will in any significant degree. As she truly didn't get a choice in the matter, the option of terminating the pregnancy may have some reason to it. There are often circumstances surrounding incest in particular where revelation of a pregnancy could clearly endanger the mother-to-be's life (an abuser in the home, etc).
But the root of these problems is that somebody is a criminal and deserves to be locked up for a long time, and the baby isn't the criminal and also got no choice in the matter. To take one person who had their will taken from them, and have them take it out on another person who also had no choice in the matter hardly seems like a good solution. The better avenue if possible (and it isn't always possible or easy, I'll admit) is to nail the criminal to the wall and remove them entirely from the life of the new mother. In conjunction with adoption, this is in my opinion the best outcome: the most life and potential is preserved, while the scumbag gets his comeuppance. The new mother does still have to endure what is undoubtedly a difficult pregnancy and potential stigma, but nevertheless she will have a clear conscience. A clear conscience is worth almost any price.
When Stalin, Hitler, and Franco began rounding up people with disabilities in those collectivist countries and exterminating them, the rest of the civilized world cried out in horror. How could anyone take an individual, much less one who cannot defend them self, and execute them simply because "they are a burden"? Our stomachs twist into a knot just thinking about it. Yet when a doctor offers to do tests on a pregnancy to look for genetic markers they usually are required to mention that the mother may choose to abort the pregnancy if an abnormality is found. My own wife always said, "why on earth would I take those tests when it wouldn't change my decision to fight to keep the baby?"
Many people are afraid of raising children with disabilities. It can be very difficult, very straining on the family finances, very taxing to deal with a child who never develops emotionally or can be properly reasoned with, etc. It is also hard to go through the process of birth with a baby who may not make it, or may not live very long after birth. These are very real concerns, and it will certainly be a life-changing event (but then again, having a child at all is a life-changing event). But we should ask: is it selfish? And what about the potential of a child with disabilities? What potential is there?
Let me illustrate with a couple of examples. Once I was at a regional conference for my church, and seated a few rows ahead of us was a particular family that had a few kids. There was a daughter, it seemed she was eight-ish years of age that had long straight dark hair, and her dad that had short but wavy hair. The daughter seemed wiggly, but was very affectionate with her father. He reciprocated, and seemed very happy to have his daughter leaning on him and snuggling with him. This continue for some time, and I thought to myself that must be a really good dad, as his daughter obviously adored her dad.
Then she turned back in her chair, and I could see clearly she had Down syndrome. I had this initial reaction of shock, like I didn't expect a Downs child to act like that. But then I realized she was so full of love, and so is her dad. She was happy, and smiling, and living life to its fullest as well as any child could. Her dad was living life to its fullest as well. I envy that dad. I envy his relationship with his daughter. I envy his heart, and wish mine was as pure.
A number of years later, in high school, I recall a boy my age that was in a special wheelchair as he had very little motor function, and could barely speak at all. His name was Mark Peterson. I'm not sure, but I think he had cerebral palsy. After he would arrive on the bus, some random student would wheel him into the school, and another might jump in and take over, taking him to his first class, and so forth. I remember riding the elevator with him once and asking him where he was going, and I could barely make out what class he said. But everyone knew him, and it was also clear his mind was sharp, but his body didn't want to cooperate at all.
Some other kids in the school who had perfectly functioning bodies, but their minds didn't keep up as well were also around. I vividly recall one of them falling asleep at his desk in one of the regular classes they had him attend, and he left a big pool of saliva as he slept. The rest of us tried to not laugh or make a scene, but it was a little amusing of course. We did our best to include them, and make sure they didn't feel too out of place, even though I'm sure sometimes not everyone was totally sensitive to them.
Then came graduation. My high school graduating class had 630 students, and we filled Abravanel Hall in Salt Lake City with students and family. I was a valedictorian, and had tons of medals and honor cords hanging off of me that day. But that's not really what makes that day memorable for me; something else of far greater importance happened. After the speeches and whatnot, and everyone was going up to get their diplomas one at a time, they had Mark come up. I can't even write this without tearing up. As he was wheeled out, the entire hall erupted in a deafening roar of cheers and claps. Everyone stood up. He stayed up there for at least 5 minutes of this deafening roar, which far outstripped what anyone else received. I was in the front as a Valedictorian, and I could see Mark's face, his big smile and teary eyes. He was on top of the world. He was a hero to us all, and we let him know it. His face radiated the most bliss I think I've ever seen. I felt a warmth wash over me and stay with me; I realized that Mark had brought out pure, unfettered humanity and love from all of us. I never wanted that moment to end. I will forever remember what Mark did for all of us, by living and enduring. Right after the other boys with mental handicaps came up, and they got the same treatment. They were beaming, and were so happy. That was their moment, where we told them they were not one whit behind us. Their potential was being fulfilled in a big way that night.
So, I say to those who would abort a baby who appears to have a disability detected in-utero: how dare you. How dare you deny them the joy of life, in whatever degree they can experience it, even if it is very short? How dare you deny them the chance to experience the good and the bad, the pain and the pleasure, the disappointment and the joy of living? How dare you be so selfish as to deny the rest of us the inspiring moment when these individuals teach us to be human and to be compassionate? How dare you take my heroes from me, and from my children? Do you not realize what you can learn from them? Do you not realize the personal growth you experience by being brave and strong for their benefit? Do you not see that they represent all of us when we are weak, helpless, forgetful, obstinate, or when we misunderstand or just can't do things the way we want? They are our mirror, and our conduct concerning them is one of the truest measures of what is in our heart and soul. And they deserve our protection. They deserve that deafening roar of claps and cheers to tell them they are one of us and that we've got their back. I don't think Mark is alive anymore, as his disability took the lives of all of his siblings that had it (and most of them did) by the time they were 25 years old. But the effect he had on me and others I know is causing his potential to still be fulfilled today with grand and powerful echoes. Mark lived; oh how he lived and loved life. I will never forget him.
There are various other reasons given to justify abortion, such as undesired gender, convenience, "relationship complication," embarrassment, anger, bad timing, etc. I think it's safe to say that these are not strong reasons, and with respect to potential they can easily be discarded as invalid. When terminating a life for any of these reasons after an individual is born we would call it murder. So, if potential is a main operative concern with the calculus of saving or terminating a life when the question legitimately arises, why should we wait to call something murder until the baby has taken a breath? Does that mean we can kill someone who is on a heart-lung machine with impunity and not be jailed for it? Yes, forbidding the termination of pregnancy for these reasons will certainly impact the mother's life, and her subsequent choices. But really, is her choice taken from her, or is this instead just insisting on her accepting the consequences of her actions (which is not a concept in contravention of liberty and rights).
Look at it this way: you can make your choices, but you cannot choose the consequences. Many people try very strenuously to avoid the consequences of their choices and actions, but in the end it always catches up with them. You cannot run away from your choices forever. So, then, where is the choice?
Herein lies a major problem the world is experiencing these days. Pregnancy is being disconnected conceptually from sexual intercourse. People go around having sex, and then seem surprised when the female cohort turns up pregnant, as if lighting had struck them. Here is the principle people are missing: unless a woman has been through menopause, sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy. There are many methods of reducing the likelihood of pregnancy, but there is only one way to completely eliminate the chances of getting pregnant: don't have sex. Any person who decides that he or she is ready to have sex needs to realize they have decided they are ready to produce a baby. Despite the world's inane attempt at decoupling the two, the truth reigns supreme that sexual intercourse makes babies, and that is its primary function in the final analysis.
The choice is made when a man and a woman mutually consent and decide to have sexual intercourse. If they didn't want a baby, well, they were only fooling themselves. The consequence of pregnancy is a non-zero risk, and it is a risk they assume in the act. If the other legitimate reasons (life of the mother medically truly in danger, rape or incest) are not fulfilled, then taking the life of the baby to avoid the consequences is somewhat akin to killing a witness to a robbery and dumping the body so that you don't get caught. From a non-religious point of view that couple (or whoever instigated the decision to abort) is pure scum and it will probably catch up with them. From a religious (Judeo-Christian-Muslim) point of view, it is guaranteed to catch up with them if they don't repent deeply before their life itself runs out of time.
To argue that a mother's convenience or other minor issues relative to a baby's, say, potential century of lifetime experienced are more important flies in the face of reason. Anybody who truly feels that way, that a growing baby is nothing more than a lump of tissue or is a parasite to be discarded at will needs to take a long, deep look inside. If the principle of potential is ignored, the entire framework for what constitutes morality and murder in all societies comes unraveled. The endgame for that type of society is clearly not pretty.
However, many of these women who go through with abortions for these other reasons have been egged into it by someone. A selfish boyfriend, a selfish parent, a misguided but close friend, etc. Many of them are scared, and are damaged after the procedure is done. They deeply regret it, and remain confused and likely to not talk a lot about it. I do not believe that these women should bear the full burden of guilt, but their handlers should.
To answer one of the earlier questions, if a doctor performs abortions (for non-valid reasons as detailed) even with a clean, "safe" facility that otherwise appears fine, is he still evil? In my opinion, yes. I believe it appropriate to apply Jesus Christ's characterization of the pharisees to such doctors: whited sepulchers. They are pristine and white on the outside, but inside are full of dead [babies'] bones.
We should be compassionate and understanding to these women, as they need a forgiving and merciful group of people to welcome them and teach them a better way, one that preserves life and the boundless potential each tiny life brings. They are conceived in a careful cradle of life, by a mother who undoubtedly has trepidation and fear for her ability to take care of such an awesome responsibility: helping a child grow to fulfill their potential. We should inspire them to the desire to soon hold that soft, delicate and cute newborn baby to soak in the immense humanity that comes with that event. Even if they are to give up the baby to a desirous adoptive couple, their life will forever be changed for the better, and we need to help them see the grand potential of letting that pregnancy run its natural course.
It does not take a village to raise a child (it takes a family), but the village needs to defend the child, and all children, and all mothers. We carry deep within us the seeds of greatness, and it is our responsibility by virtue of having life to defend others' lives, especially those who cannot do so for themselves. We must treat each conceived baby, no matter what their stage of existence, as precious and inspiring. We should regard them as having the capability to change the entire world for the better. And we should help each mother see that their baby will change her life dramatically for the better, if she will allow that change to occur. We must support them, cheer them on, and cheer their beautiful children on. We must carry them up to life's graduations where they can hear the deafening roar of claps and cheers of their fellow men, women and angels who also carry the same heavenly potential as they do, making it clear that they are one of us, and that we will never forget them.
Always remember: when God wants to change the world, he sends a baby.
All of us feel that way, right? Right?
The Specter of Gosnell
Wrong. The very existence of abortion (for reasons other than the mother's life being truly threatened by the pregnancy, or due to rape and incest) belies something that to me is utterly incomprehensible and horrifying. Abortion is one of those issues that people would talk about, but I didn't want to listen because it bothered me, and I figured it was rare and only done by misguided people who I had never met and likely never would. But this is wrong too. When I realized the estimates of how many abortions have been performed since the official "legalization" in Roe v. Wade (around 50 million), I realized that I surely know people who have willingly participated in this in one form or another. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which increases my odds of encountering people like this materially.
Since the onset of the Gosnell case (just google search it, you'll find enough reading material to keep you occupied for a long time, just be prepared because much of it is very graphic) I have contemplated whether his utter contempt for life really was an outlier or if this behavior is more pervasive than abortion advocates are letting on. I have recently read story after story after story (in addition to Gosnell) that leads me to conclude it's definitely worse than its advocates claim (ahem). But a tougher question exists: even if they aren't dirty or reckless like Kermit Gosnell, are they still just as evil?
To answer this question, we need to go back to first principles and to examining results (as I'm wont to do). I'm going to tackle this not from a religious perspective, but from a practical/logical human perspective, even though the religious perspective strengthens the case substantially. But without it, we can still make a very compelling case, without even getting to the consideration of when a spirit quickens a baby's body (although that is important).
Life's Importance
What is life? Particularly what is human life? I think we all have a pretty good sense for that. There are esoteric scientific definitions, but generally we all understand with clarity that human beings have a consciousness and the ability to choose (some more easily than others, but unless a person is in a vegetative state and will never recover, the other variations in ability are not worth categorizing away from a full ability to choose). What, then, constitutes an important human life, one worth expending a great deal to save?
Let's start with an example. Suppose you have a ninety-year-old woman, who has lived a good, long, feisty life. She has much family, has contributed to her community, and has served many people. She is then diagnosed with a relatively advanced stage of cancer, and she is not likely to survive long. Even with extreme intervention, the latest techniques and procedures, and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, in all likelihood her life may be lengthened past where she would otherwise last at most six months. Both she and her family would likely agree, despite the heart-wrenching difficulty of the decision, that it is best to take some action: focus on quality of life management for the remainder of her time. And there's nothing alarming about that, although the situation is still saddening. If she had hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on her own medical care she might decide to go for it, but even then...probably not.
A second example, and this one is personal: there is a sixty-year-old woman who is suffering from the effects of cancer, and she has a lump of cancer dislodge and then come to rest in her brain, causing a stroke. She has great damage to her brain and is in a coma, very likely never to recover even after extensive brain surgery. Here pain management until she passes away is quite clearly the best course of action, even though it just breaks everyone's heart that this is the option left to them regarding a beloved woman's life.
And one more example: now there is a child, a cute little girl, ten years old, who is diagnosed with a relatively advanced stage of bone cancer. The family, the doctors, the community all band together to raise money, try the most effective techniques, pray, work, cry, and do everything they can to beat that cancer. Every possible resource available is brought to bear in saving the girl's life. She doesn't have a very high likelihood of making it, but nobody even bats an eye at the effort made to save her. And that is as it should be.
Why the difference? Why would we fight like mad to save the little girl, but not the ninety-year-old (still wonderful) lady? Why do we choose a non-interventionist, quality-of-life route for some, but pull out all the stops for others? The answer almost seems to obvious in hindsight: potential.
Potential
Human beings make judgment calls constantly. (That doesn't mean we're being judgmental, by the way.) We have to make small and large evaluations at nearly every juncture of our life. Whenever that pertains to other people we are of course urged to exercise caution, compassion, and forethought. So far so good.
When it comes to evaluating the value of a human life, things get very uncomfortable very fast. Many people default to trying to preserve every life in every way every time with all available resources, and that is an admirable default stance. But given the world has limited resources, we invariably end up seeing situations arise like I noted above; sometimes it's just not worth it to expend the resources, given the potential of the life we are trying to save. These decisions should be limited in frequency, and we all hope we don't have to get involved in them because they're never fun to make. But it happens, and we eventually get to participate in the calculus.
Generally speaking, people don't feel like it's the wrong decision to let someone go who is on their deathbed when there is clearly little to no potential left. We also have a very strong recoil when a life is ended when the individual otherwise had a lot of potential left. When a child dies, "they had their whole life ahead of them." This sentiment is natural, human, and good; it encourages us to protect the innocent, the young, and the defenseless. It is no fallacy to state that a young person who lost their life could have been "the next Einstein," an expression of the hope we have in the seemingly boundless potential of even a single life.
What then is the potential of a baby? Even if we try to obscure the humanity of the little creature growing inside of a mother by calling it a fetus or a zygote, or even if we try to minimize its importance by calling attention to the mother's consciousness and known ability to make choices, we cannot deny the potential of the baby. Specious arguments such as "if it were born right now it would die so there is no potential against the mother's choice" don't fly, because babies are not generally born preterm, and given the incredible potential of the person whose budding existence is already established, it would seem the mother's choice and the baby's obvious desire to live ought to be weighted heavily in favor of the baby. The potential for good done to all people by letting that individual baby live is simply too great to cast aside.
Arguments
Yet there are various arguments some people make in favor of abortion. Some of them are narrow, based on limited circumstances, and some are very broad.
Life of the mother in danger
One limited argument regards the cases where the life of the mother is in grave danger in continuing the pregnancy. This is a strong argument: there do exist pregnancies such as this, and they can literally kill the mother, and usually the baby too as a result. Competent and accurate medical evaluations can arrive at the conclusion that continuing a pregnancy is just too dangerous.
In some cases this may simply be the best option. However, my wife and I have a friend that had an issue with her uterus (related to endemytriosis) where her pregnancies were very difficult, her babies born pretty early, and she would hemorrhage a lot. And I mean a LOT. With her second child, she was born quite early because the doctors decided they couldn't wait any longer and did an emergency C-section. The baby was in the NICU for quite some time, but survived and is now doing just fine. The third pregnancy, she began hemorrhaging even earlier, and the doctors were recommending she abort the pregnancy right away. She refused, and they waited as long as they could, and did the emergency C-section again. Her baby lived only a couple of weeks or less in the NICU. But if you asked her, she wouldn't have changed a thing. It was very hard on them, but worth it to do everything in their power to save the baby, contingent on making sure the mother herself was also protected adequately.
Modern medical technology, while not entirely eliminating the reason for abortions in these cases, is making them less necessary from a strict standpoint. And it is entirely a noble choice for a mother to do as this mother did: expend whatever resources are possible to save the baby.
Rape or incest
Generally the main argument for abortion is "choice," or really the mother's choice. We'll talk more about that further below, but it is indeed a compelling situation when a pregnancy was thrust upon a woman (or teenage girl) against her will in any significant degree. As she truly didn't get a choice in the matter, the option of terminating the pregnancy may have some reason to it. There are often circumstances surrounding incest in particular where revelation of a pregnancy could clearly endanger the mother-to-be's life (an abuser in the home, etc).
But the root of these problems is that somebody is a criminal and deserves to be locked up for a long time, and the baby isn't the criminal and also got no choice in the matter. To take one person who had their will taken from them, and have them take it out on another person who also had no choice in the matter hardly seems like a good solution. The better avenue if possible (and it isn't always possible or easy, I'll admit) is to nail the criminal to the wall and remove them entirely from the life of the new mother. In conjunction with adoption, this is in my opinion the best outcome: the most life and potential is preserved, while the scumbag gets his comeuppance. The new mother does still have to endure what is undoubtedly a difficult pregnancy and potential stigma, but nevertheless she will have a clear conscience. A clear conscience is worth almost any price.
Deformities and disabilities
When Stalin, Hitler, and Franco began rounding up people with disabilities in those collectivist countries and exterminating them, the rest of the civilized world cried out in horror. How could anyone take an individual, much less one who cannot defend them self, and execute them simply because "they are a burden"? Our stomachs twist into a knot just thinking about it. Yet when a doctor offers to do tests on a pregnancy to look for genetic markers they usually are required to mention that the mother may choose to abort the pregnancy if an abnormality is found. My own wife always said, "why on earth would I take those tests when it wouldn't change my decision to fight to keep the baby?"
Many people are afraid of raising children with disabilities. It can be very difficult, very straining on the family finances, very taxing to deal with a child who never develops emotionally or can be properly reasoned with, etc. It is also hard to go through the process of birth with a baby who may not make it, or may not live very long after birth. These are very real concerns, and it will certainly be a life-changing event (but then again, having a child at all is a life-changing event). But we should ask: is it selfish? And what about the potential of a child with disabilities? What potential is there?
Let me illustrate with a couple of examples. Once I was at a regional conference for my church, and seated a few rows ahead of us was a particular family that had a few kids. There was a daughter, it seemed she was eight-ish years of age that had long straight dark hair, and her dad that had short but wavy hair. The daughter seemed wiggly, but was very affectionate with her father. He reciprocated, and seemed very happy to have his daughter leaning on him and snuggling with him. This continue for some time, and I thought to myself that must be a really good dad, as his daughter obviously adored her dad.
Then she turned back in her chair, and I could see clearly she had Down syndrome. I had this initial reaction of shock, like I didn't expect a Downs child to act like that. But then I realized she was so full of love, and so is her dad. She was happy, and smiling, and living life to its fullest as well as any child could. Her dad was living life to its fullest as well. I envy that dad. I envy his relationship with his daughter. I envy his heart, and wish mine was as pure.
A number of years later, in high school, I recall a boy my age that was in a special wheelchair as he had very little motor function, and could barely speak at all. His name was Mark Peterson. I'm not sure, but I think he had cerebral palsy. After he would arrive on the bus, some random student would wheel him into the school, and another might jump in and take over, taking him to his first class, and so forth. I remember riding the elevator with him once and asking him where he was going, and I could barely make out what class he said. But everyone knew him, and it was also clear his mind was sharp, but his body didn't want to cooperate at all.
Some other kids in the school who had perfectly functioning bodies, but their minds didn't keep up as well were also around. I vividly recall one of them falling asleep at his desk in one of the regular classes they had him attend, and he left a big pool of saliva as he slept. The rest of us tried to not laugh or make a scene, but it was a little amusing of course. We did our best to include them, and make sure they didn't feel too out of place, even though I'm sure sometimes not everyone was totally sensitive to them.
Then came graduation. My high school graduating class had 630 students, and we filled Abravanel Hall in Salt Lake City with students and family. I was a valedictorian, and had tons of medals and honor cords hanging off of me that day. But that's not really what makes that day memorable for me; something else of far greater importance happened. After the speeches and whatnot, and everyone was going up to get their diplomas one at a time, they had Mark come up. I can't even write this without tearing up. As he was wheeled out, the entire hall erupted in a deafening roar of cheers and claps. Everyone stood up. He stayed up there for at least 5 minutes of this deafening roar, which far outstripped what anyone else received. I was in the front as a Valedictorian, and I could see Mark's face, his big smile and teary eyes. He was on top of the world. He was a hero to us all, and we let him know it. His face radiated the most bliss I think I've ever seen. I felt a warmth wash over me and stay with me; I realized that Mark had brought out pure, unfettered humanity and love from all of us. I never wanted that moment to end. I will forever remember what Mark did for all of us, by living and enduring. Right after the other boys with mental handicaps came up, and they got the same treatment. They were beaming, and were so happy. That was their moment, where we told them they were not one whit behind us. Their potential was being fulfilled in a big way that night.
So, I say to those who would abort a baby who appears to have a disability detected in-utero: how dare you. How dare you deny them the joy of life, in whatever degree they can experience it, even if it is very short? How dare you deny them the chance to experience the good and the bad, the pain and the pleasure, the disappointment and the joy of living? How dare you be so selfish as to deny the rest of us the inspiring moment when these individuals teach us to be human and to be compassionate? How dare you take my heroes from me, and from my children? Do you not realize what you can learn from them? Do you not realize the personal growth you experience by being brave and strong for their benefit? Do you not see that they represent all of us when we are weak, helpless, forgetful, obstinate, or when we misunderstand or just can't do things the way we want? They are our mirror, and our conduct concerning them is one of the truest measures of what is in our heart and soul. And they deserve our protection. They deserve that deafening roar of claps and cheers to tell them they are one of us and that we've got their back. I don't think Mark is alive anymore, as his disability took the lives of all of his siblings that had it (and most of them did) by the time they were 25 years old. But the effect he had on me and others I know is causing his potential to still be fulfilled today with grand and powerful echoes. Mark lived; oh how he lived and loved life. I will never forget him.
Other reasons
There are various other reasons given to justify abortion, such as undesired gender, convenience, "relationship complication," embarrassment, anger, bad timing, etc. I think it's safe to say that these are not strong reasons, and with respect to potential they can easily be discarded as invalid. When terminating a life for any of these reasons after an individual is born we would call it murder. So, if potential is a main operative concern with the calculus of saving or terminating a life when the question legitimately arises, why should we wait to call something murder until the baby has taken a breath? Does that mean we can kill someone who is on a heart-lung machine with impunity and not be jailed for it? Yes, forbidding the termination of pregnancy for these reasons will certainly impact the mother's life, and her subsequent choices. But really, is her choice taken from her, or is this instead just insisting on her accepting the consequences of her actions (which is not a concept in contravention of liberty and rights).
Look at it this way: you can make your choices, but you cannot choose the consequences. Many people try very strenuously to avoid the consequences of their choices and actions, but in the end it always catches up with them. You cannot run away from your choices forever. So, then, where is the choice?
Herein lies a major problem the world is experiencing these days. Pregnancy is being disconnected conceptually from sexual intercourse. People go around having sex, and then seem surprised when the female cohort turns up pregnant, as if lighting had struck them. Here is the principle people are missing: unless a woman has been through menopause, sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy. There are many methods of reducing the likelihood of pregnancy, but there is only one way to completely eliminate the chances of getting pregnant: don't have sex. Any person who decides that he or she is ready to have sex needs to realize they have decided they are ready to produce a baby. Despite the world's inane attempt at decoupling the two, the truth reigns supreme that sexual intercourse makes babies, and that is its primary function in the final analysis.
The choice is made when a man and a woman mutually consent and decide to have sexual intercourse. If they didn't want a baby, well, they were only fooling themselves. The consequence of pregnancy is a non-zero risk, and it is a risk they assume in the act. If the other legitimate reasons (life of the mother medically truly in danger, rape or incest) are not fulfilled, then taking the life of the baby to avoid the consequences is somewhat akin to killing a witness to a robbery and dumping the body so that you don't get caught. From a non-religious point of view that couple (or whoever instigated the decision to abort) is pure scum and it will probably catch up with them. From a religious (Judeo-Christian-Muslim) point of view, it is guaranteed to catch up with them if they don't repent deeply before their life itself runs out of time.
To argue that a mother's convenience or other minor issues relative to a baby's, say, potential century of lifetime experienced are more important flies in the face of reason. Anybody who truly feels that way, that a growing baby is nothing more than a lump of tissue or is a parasite to be discarded at will needs to take a long, deep look inside. If the principle of potential is ignored, the entire framework for what constitutes morality and murder in all societies comes unraveled. The endgame for that type of society is clearly not pretty.
However, many of these women who go through with abortions for these other reasons have been egged into it by someone. A selfish boyfriend, a selfish parent, a misguided but close friend, etc. Many of them are scared, and are damaged after the procedure is done. They deeply regret it, and remain confused and likely to not talk a lot about it. I do not believe that these women should bear the full burden of guilt, but their handlers should.
To answer one of the earlier questions, if a doctor performs abortions (for non-valid reasons as detailed) even with a clean, "safe" facility that otherwise appears fine, is he still evil? In my opinion, yes. I believe it appropriate to apply Jesus Christ's characterization of the pharisees to such doctors: whited sepulchers. They are pristine and white on the outside, but inside are full of dead [babies'] bones.
What we should do
We should be compassionate and understanding to these women, as they need a forgiving and merciful group of people to welcome them and teach them a better way, one that preserves life and the boundless potential each tiny life brings. They are conceived in a careful cradle of life, by a mother who undoubtedly has trepidation and fear for her ability to take care of such an awesome responsibility: helping a child grow to fulfill their potential. We should inspire them to the desire to soon hold that soft, delicate and cute newborn baby to soak in the immense humanity that comes with that event. Even if they are to give up the baby to a desirous adoptive couple, their life will forever be changed for the better, and we need to help them see the grand potential of letting that pregnancy run its natural course.
It does not take a village to raise a child (it takes a family), but the village needs to defend the child, and all children, and all mothers. We carry deep within us the seeds of greatness, and it is our responsibility by virtue of having life to defend others' lives, especially those who cannot do so for themselves. We must treat each conceived baby, no matter what their stage of existence, as precious and inspiring. We should regard them as having the capability to change the entire world for the better. And we should help each mother see that their baby will change her life dramatically for the better, if she will allow that change to occur. We must support them, cheer them on, and cheer their beautiful children on. We must carry them up to life's graduations where they can hear the deafening roar of claps and cheers of their fellow men, women and angels who also carry the same heavenly potential as they do, making it clear that they are one of us, and that we will never forget them.
Always remember: when God wants to change the world, he sends a baby.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Fundamental world views: individualism vs collectivism
A recent spat in the media about Rand Paul being unfairly cornered on decades-old civil rights legislation and the resulting discussion has highlighted the fundamental divide in politics today. Indeed, it represents the fundamental divide in human thought across political parties, time, ages, races, and location: individualism vs. collectivism.
While I cannot do it justice here, a proper understanding of what these two terms are is treated at length in Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, a read that is highly recommended. In brief, individualism is a philosophy that holds individual, natural rights as sacred, condemning violence of any kind against others except for self defense (or defense of those who cannot defend themselves). It embodies the concept of sovereignty, which is that we are free to choose and act for ourselves, so long as we do not infringe the rights of others. The natural result of this basic philosophy is some familiar rights we all know about: private property rights, the right to the fruits of one's own labor, freedom of speech and religious expression, the right to self-defense, and so forth.
On the other side of the divide is collectivism, or a philosophy that individual rights are not as important as the group (whatever that may be), and that all members of the group should be equal (sometimes even strictly equal). Collectivism's goals roughly can be summed up in this: everyone should "make it," no matter what their differences are. Where individual discrepancies become too large, they are reigned in via redistribution, coercion or other methods so as to restore equality.
Fruits of Collectivism
Just as individualism has natural results and natural frameworks that arise from it, so does collectivism. A few philosophies of government fall into this category, among them are socialism and communism. The stated intent to eliminate the poor or the downtrodden (economic equality) is an obvious underpinning for socialism, although degrees and strategies for implementation vary widely.
But for a moment, envision the results of such a philosophy. If the desire for equality overrides individuality, which individuals decide what equality really means? There are some objective measures of equality (for example, some aspects of people financial situations can be measured numerically), but the reality is that human beings engage in subjective valuation of what they encounter; recall the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure." If someone else decides what you can have in order to be equal to your neighbor, that may actually feel like a terrible injustice due to your own subjective valuation.
What's more, those who decide what should be given or taken are in a position of relative importance compared to those who do not have this power, and that those with that power tend towards abuse of their position, thus destroying the equality meant to belie the whole apparatus. In addition, if many individuals in the group agree with the current rulers, what happens when a different set of rulers gain control, and what was allowed and provided for equality's sake previously is now changed to something else? This reliance on experts or benevolent dictators necessarily will mean that, while some will agree with their actions, some will not due to individual differences that cannot be ignored. Those who do not agree, though, generally will not have the power to counter that which they do not agree with.
History is rife with examples where socialism and communism had those in charge abusing their position to silence dissent (for the supposed betterment of the whole of course!) to gain economic advantage, such as separate housing programs for the regular people than for the party leaders, etc.
What's more, policies and laws that put individualism on the back seat compared to collectivist goals have fundamental effects on overall wealth and standards of living even when there is no abuse of power. They largely stem from the fact that, if one is going to be taken care of and "made equal" to his peers despite personal differences, then much of the motivation to excel and produce the effort necessary to benefit himself or society is largely lost. If responsibility for earning and working hard can be pushed on someone else without repercussions, the natural human temptation is to indulge that laziness.
The effect of the removal of motivation is that, on the whole, society becomes poorer and has a lower standard of living. This occurs because on average people work less and produce less; work and production are the fundamental underpinnings of a standard of living for a society. Where there is no hope to excel in an area beyond one's peers or to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, most will not bother to try. Advancement and financial stability will slowly decelerate. The weight of those who take more than they give (called externalities in philosophy) will eventually gain critical mass and cause a collapse of the system. This is precisely what happened in the USSR, a sad tale confirming the drag placed on a society under collectivist government. Underscoring the rot that was occurring in soviet society was the refrain spoken there: "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
A final note: another form of government that can be classified as collectivist is corporatism, widely regarded as a synonym of fascism. In this case, there is generally a two-tier system of equality, with the merging of government and corporate interests forming an elite oligarchy at the top which enjoys many extra benefits and power, with those in the lower tier exercising some form of socialism or crony capitalism in an attempt to enter the ruling class or mitigate their losses. It can be classed in form as socialism for the rich, where the redistribution is not strictly toward equality; instead it tends to move upward to the ruling class and downward to the poorest in order to secure the consent of the masses. It fleeces the middle and working classes who are given no political power. It is simply a more visibly corrupt, obfuscated form of socialism, but the results are generally the same in the end.
Implementation of Collectivism
We have touched on this to some degree already, but it is important to further expound on the methods through which each worldview is implemented. It must be noted that human beings are, broadly speaking, self-interested beings. Self interest is not necessarily selfishness, however; a self-interested being may find great reward in providing volunteer service for other people, rationally seeking a net benefit of everyone around himself or herself. It can take on many forms and is a manifestation of that same subjective valuation that is inherent to each individual's makeup and experience.
Collectivism's goal of equality also takes on various forms: equality of race, equality of financial situations, equality of actions, equality of feelings, etc. In order to provide equality, however, individual differences in a given area must be reduced or removed. Being naturally at odds with subjective valuations in some individuals, this imposition of equality on those who would need to change their valuations provides a choice for collectivists: let them choose, or coerce them into being subject to the collective's rules aimed to create the equality. It is readily apparent that if a choice is provided then equality can never be generally achieved for an entire nation, as those who do not wish to participate will simply act or speak in such a way to contradict the set terms of equality, thus destroying any perception of having reached the goal.
Of necessity, then, collectivist regimes impose the rules of equality by coercion and by force. Any arrangement where people join the collective by choice and remain by choice is not collectivism, it is simply individualism where many choose to band together for common benefit, by contract! This fact that the use of force is necessarily for collectivist governments is evident: under socialism, for example, what happens when an individual does not pay their taxes to aid in redistribution of wealth (toward the aim of economic equality)? They are harassed, fined, and ultimately jailed. In the United States, IRS enforcement agents are even issued a badge and a gun, and if you physically resist their efforts to arrest you for violation of these rules, you could conceivably end up shot and killed in the process.
When everyone is forced to comply with collectivist policies then any complaint about the policies or their implementation are met with disdain, as the individual is often painted as not desirous of equality. In the case of racial equality (a noble goal), they are painted as racist. In the case of economic equality, they are painted as greedy, or as one who hates the poor, and so forth. This perception management is necessary for collectivism, as any admission that the use of force does not justify the ends (equality) would destroy the whole regime.
Fruits of Individualism
On the other hand, individualism stresses as sacred individual natural rights, and that those rights do not come from government, but from God or nature. And individual's rights cannot require another to do anything, such as provide a service, buy a product, or say (or not say) any particular thing, etc. An individual's rights allows them to utilize their life, time, resources, and private property how they see fit, so long as they do not infringe the same right for others. An individual's rights also extend to the opportunity to enter into exchanges and contracts with others freely, so long as all parties to any transaction agree and are not misled or coerced (more on this below).
Note that this broad right to do or say as one pleases does not extend indefinitely; one cannot lie or commit fraud, as knowingly spreading falsehood can easily be classed as an infringement of others' right to their agency (free choice). Providing misleading information naturally impugns another's ability to make proper choices, and as such is a violation of natural rights. In addition, along with each right comes responsibility to act appropriately and within the bounds of that right (e.g. don't violate the rights of others), and to uphold and defend others' rights to the same.
By deduction, it can easily be found that if all individuals acted within their rights, with self interest, a set of natural structures arise. First, is the free market, which is simply describing in aggregate many individuals engaging in exchanges and contracts with each other freely. Within this system, pursuing one's self interest is generally called capitalism. Capitalism is a system of freedom for contract and exchange, and nothing more and nothing less.
The next system that arises naturally and desirably is a limited government. No free society will be comprised of perfect individuals, and thus some lying, fraud, and violation of other individual rights is bound to take place. Individuals have a right to enforce their own individual rights, and to request help from others in enforcing just consequences for violation of rights (a natural consequence of a violation of rights is a loss of at least some rights for the offender, pursuant to the offense). Limited government achieves these ends by being delegated the authority to act for individuals in defense of their rights (not exclusively, but nonetheless the authority is given). This delegation of authority is done by consent, trust, and benefits all of society when appropriately discharged; for specific functions government can increase efficiency, justice, and order in defending natural rights, particularly for those who do not have the capability to defend themselves properly.
Among many other benefits of individualism, the natural result is that individuals will pursue exchanges that will tend to be beneficial to themselves under whatever subjective valuation they espouse. The other side of any exchange will also do so, and the matching of the two parties results in mutually beneficial transactions. The information that flows throughout the whole society about these transactions serves to direct the ebb and flow of markets, production, and labor, and if all of these are unencumbered by intervention by third parties (where no rights have been violated), it results in a constant improvement in overall wealth and standard of living. A metaphor typical of this type of improvement is "a rising tide lifts all boats" as all of society is made richer.
It is true that tolerance is required under these arrangements. The freedom to do or speak as one pleases dictates that one must tolerate differences of opinion and subjective valuation, and not spuriously equate just any action to a violation of natural rights. Those differences are precisely what makes the entire system of individualism function: they provide the dynamics and diversity that absorbs shocks and changes over time, and encourages the natural flow towards an equilibrium of the highest wealth possible.
Implementation of Individualism
It becomes somewhat impractical for individuals to enforce consequences for rights violations themselves, and there will obviously be some controversy and chaos resulting from it if someone is claiming they are enforcing their rights appropriately while the alleged offender or others say the alleged victim is not. Naturally, a neutral third party should be agreed upon by both parties, and by agreement their determination of guilt must be accepted. The obvious implementation of this in society is government, and a particularly relevant example is the court system. As a check on the court system, a jury is also provided (again, if you insist on your own rights being enforced, you have an obligation to help others enforce theirs, and thus sit on a jury as needed) for similar goals of ensuring neutrality and proper enforcement of natural rights.
The government is also a natural result of individuals who would rather not have to provide for certain common needs for large-scale events, such as war defense, negotiation with other nations, etc. Realize, however, that government cannot legitimately exist by itself; rather, it exists by contract with individuals writ large, however implicit that contract may be. In the United States, agreement to the contract is implicit, but the contract itself is explicit (the US Constitution). The contract is not intended to limit the freedom of individuals but rather to limit the power of government so that it only performs the duties assigned to it as a proxy for them. The government should not be able to perform any duty, even in aggregate, that the individuals that are party to the contract cannot do for themselves in their own individual sphere (self defense, rights enforcement, contracts, and so on).
As a result, individualism rejects the notion that the government may use force to abridge any individual right if the individual has not violated another's right: a person may not be punished before they commit a crime. This circumscribes nearly all regulation and control that government may exercise, and strictly limits its size and power; it is also desirable for the contract with government to strictly limit the delegated power, in order to keep it from abridging the rights of the individuals that authorize its existence.
There are various strategies for keeping other people and government in check so as to not allow a drifting away from its ideal limited functions. Checks and balances between departments and branches are a prominent method. Another is federalism, which is breaking up government horizontally instead of vertically (checks and balances between branches are a vertical separation); federalism is the separation of power between, for example, states and the federal government in the United States, or even the separation of power between states and counties. It emphasizes that keeping power delegated more locally gives individuals more opportunity to check government and keep it from overstepping its bounds, as their voice is maximized in a locality.
Additionally, individualism is based upon core principles, rejecting the notion that other people may rule them; it is the ultimate expression of individual sovereignty, and other levels of sovereignty are built purely upon individual free association. Thus, individuals are ruled by principles and laws made pursuant to those principles, and not by "men." This rule of law is a central tenet of individualism, which holds forth that other people cannot make decisions for any individual where he/she has the ability to make that decision, and that individual actions are governed by laws that are applied equally to all.
Polar Opposites
The fundamental difference between collectivism and individualism then is the use of force vs. the use of agency. Individualism is the supremacy of the individual and their right to choose their own actions, so long as they do not harm another or another's property. Collectivism is simply a veiled form of totalitarianism, where a desire for equality is used to trump individual rights.
It can also be said that collectivism aims to provide "freedom from worry". This is clearly an invalid use of the word freedom, where by having choice forcibly taken away in certain matters the subjects are somehow made more free. If collectivism removes the worry of failure, that certainly cannot be described as freedom. In addition to the unintended consequences of such a goal, it goes against the very grain of choice, as those who wish to opt out are not allowed to do so. When agency is destroyed the utopian goal of equality and removal of concern creates not a utopia but a nightmare and a totalitarian's playpen.
Between the two worldviews, it can be seen that collectivism is a dangerous system based upon, in effect, slavery and control and theft (redistribution). Individualism provides true freedom and is most likely to obtain an increasing standard of living and net benefit to all participants. While there are individual risks and responsibilities that must be shouldered, individualism provides equality of opportunity in that every individual is free to work as hard as they would like, and is free to seize opportunities as they come, but is not free to force those opportunities to come via coercion.
Truly the world views are actually between freedom and slavery.
Note: please see Liberalism by Mises for a wealth in good information on the subject, although he treats it through the term neoliberalism rather than just collectivism. But he's really talking about the same thing.
While I cannot do it justice here, a proper understanding of what these two terms are is treated at length in Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, a read that is highly recommended. In brief, individualism is a philosophy that holds individual, natural rights as sacred, condemning violence of any kind against others except for self defense (or defense of those who cannot defend themselves). It embodies the concept of sovereignty, which is that we are free to choose and act for ourselves, so long as we do not infringe the rights of others. The natural result of this basic philosophy is some familiar rights we all know about: private property rights, the right to the fruits of one's own labor, freedom of speech and religious expression, the right to self-defense, and so forth.
On the other side of the divide is collectivism, or a philosophy that individual rights are not as important as the group (whatever that may be), and that all members of the group should be equal (sometimes even strictly equal). Collectivism's goals roughly can be summed up in this: everyone should "make it," no matter what their differences are. Where individual discrepancies become too large, they are reigned in via redistribution, coercion or other methods so as to restore equality.
Fruits of Collectivism
Just as individualism has natural results and natural frameworks that arise from it, so does collectivism. A few philosophies of government fall into this category, among them are socialism and communism. The stated intent to eliminate the poor or the downtrodden (economic equality) is an obvious underpinning for socialism, although degrees and strategies for implementation vary widely.
But for a moment, envision the results of such a philosophy. If the desire for equality overrides individuality, which individuals decide what equality really means? There are some objective measures of equality (for example, some aspects of people financial situations can be measured numerically), but the reality is that human beings engage in subjective valuation of what they encounter; recall the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure." If someone else decides what you can have in order to be equal to your neighbor, that may actually feel like a terrible injustice due to your own subjective valuation.
What's more, those who decide what should be given or taken are in a position of relative importance compared to those who do not have this power, and that those with that power tend towards abuse of their position, thus destroying the equality meant to belie the whole apparatus. In addition, if many individuals in the group agree with the current rulers, what happens when a different set of rulers gain control, and what was allowed and provided for equality's sake previously is now changed to something else? This reliance on experts or benevolent dictators necessarily will mean that, while some will agree with their actions, some will not due to individual differences that cannot be ignored. Those who do not agree, though, generally will not have the power to counter that which they do not agree with.
History is rife with examples where socialism and communism had those in charge abusing their position to silence dissent (for the supposed betterment of the whole of course!) to gain economic advantage, such as separate housing programs for the regular people than for the party leaders, etc.
What's more, policies and laws that put individualism on the back seat compared to collectivist goals have fundamental effects on overall wealth and standards of living even when there is no abuse of power. They largely stem from the fact that, if one is going to be taken care of and "made equal" to his peers despite personal differences, then much of the motivation to excel and produce the effort necessary to benefit himself or society is largely lost. If responsibility for earning and working hard can be pushed on someone else without repercussions, the natural human temptation is to indulge that laziness.
The effect of the removal of motivation is that, on the whole, society becomes poorer and has a lower standard of living. This occurs because on average people work less and produce less; work and production are the fundamental underpinnings of a standard of living for a society. Where there is no hope to excel in an area beyond one's peers or to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, most will not bother to try. Advancement and financial stability will slowly decelerate. The weight of those who take more than they give (called externalities in philosophy) will eventually gain critical mass and cause a collapse of the system. This is precisely what happened in the USSR, a sad tale confirming the drag placed on a society under collectivist government. Underscoring the rot that was occurring in soviet society was the refrain spoken there: "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
A final note: another form of government that can be classified as collectivist is corporatism, widely regarded as a synonym of fascism. In this case, there is generally a two-tier system of equality, with the merging of government and corporate interests forming an elite oligarchy at the top which enjoys many extra benefits and power, with those in the lower tier exercising some form of socialism or crony capitalism in an attempt to enter the ruling class or mitigate their losses. It can be classed in form as socialism for the rich, where the redistribution is not strictly toward equality; instead it tends to move upward to the ruling class and downward to the poorest in order to secure the consent of the masses. It fleeces the middle and working classes who are given no political power. It is simply a more visibly corrupt, obfuscated form of socialism, but the results are generally the same in the end.
Implementation of Collectivism
We have touched on this to some degree already, but it is important to further expound on the methods through which each worldview is implemented. It must be noted that human beings are, broadly speaking, self-interested beings. Self interest is not necessarily selfishness, however; a self-interested being may find great reward in providing volunteer service for other people, rationally seeking a net benefit of everyone around himself or herself. It can take on many forms and is a manifestation of that same subjective valuation that is inherent to each individual's makeup and experience.
Collectivism's goal of equality also takes on various forms: equality of race, equality of financial situations, equality of actions, equality of feelings, etc. In order to provide equality, however, individual differences in a given area must be reduced or removed. Being naturally at odds with subjective valuations in some individuals, this imposition of equality on those who would need to change their valuations provides a choice for collectivists: let them choose, or coerce them into being subject to the collective's rules aimed to create the equality. It is readily apparent that if a choice is provided then equality can never be generally achieved for an entire nation, as those who do not wish to participate will simply act or speak in such a way to contradict the set terms of equality, thus destroying any perception of having reached the goal.
Of necessity, then, collectivist regimes impose the rules of equality by coercion and by force. Any arrangement where people join the collective by choice and remain by choice is not collectivism, it is simply individualism where many choose to band together for common benefit, by contract! This fact that the use of force is necessarily for collectivist governments is evident: under socialism, for example, what happens when an individual does not pay their taxes to aid in redistribution of wealth (toward the aim of economic equality)? They are harassed, fined, and ultimately jailed. In the United States, IRS enforcement agents are even issued a badge and a gun, and if you physically resist their efforts to arrest you for violation of these rules, you could conceivably end up shot and killed in the process.
When everyone is forced to comply with collectivist policies then any complaint about the policies or their implementation are met with disdain, as the individual is often painted as not desirous of equality. In the case of racial equality (a noble goal), they are painted as racist. In the case of economic equality, they are painted as greedy, or as one who hates the poor, and so forth. This perception management is necessary for collectivism, as any admission that the use of force does not justify the ends (equality) would destroy the whole regime.
Fruits of Individualism
On the other hand, individualism stresses as sacred individual natural rights, and that those rights do not come from government, but from God or nature. And individual's rights cannot require another to do anything, such as provide a service, buy a product, or say (or not say) any particular thing, etc. An individual's rights allows them to utilize their life, time, resources, and private property how they see fit, so long as they do not infringe the same right for others. An individual's rights also extend to the opportunity to enter into exchanges and contracts with others freely, so long as all parties to any transaction agree and are not misled or coerced (more on this below).
Note that this broad right to do or say as one pleases does not extend indefinitely; one cannot lie or commit fraud, as knowingly spreading falsehood can easily be classed as an infringement of others' right to their agency (free choice). Providing misleading information naturally impugns another's ability to make proper choices, and as such is a violation of natural rights. In addition, along with each right comes responsibility to act appropriately and within the bounds of that right (e.g. don't violate the rights of others), and to uphold and defend others' rights to the same.
By deduction, it can easily be found that if all individuals acted within their rights, with self interest, a set of natural structures arise. First, is the free market, which is simply describing in aggregate many individuals engaging in exchanges and contracts with each other freely. Within this system, pursuing one's self interest is generally called capitalism. Capitalism is a system of freedom for contract and exchange, and nothing more and nothing less.
The next system that arises naturally and desirably is a limited government. No free society will be comprised of perfect individuals, and thus some lying, fraud, and violation of other individual rights is bound to take place. Individuals have a right to enforce their own individual rights, and to request help from others in enforcing just consequences for violation of rights (a natural consequence of a violation of rights is a loss of at least some rights for the offender, pursuant to the offense). Limited government achieves these ends by being delegated the authority to act for individuals in defense of their rights (not exclusively, but nonetheless the authority is given). This delegation of authority is done by consent, trust, and benefits all of society when appropriately discharged; for specific functions government can increase efficiency, justice, and order in defending natural rights, particularly for those who do not have the capability to defend themselves properly.
Among many other benefits of individualism, the natural result is that individuals will pursue exchanges that will tend to be beneficial to themselves under whatever subjective valuation they espouse. The other side of any exchange will also do so, and the matching of the two parties results in mutually beneficial transactions. The information that flows throughout the whole society about these transactions serves to direct the ebb and flow of markets, production, and labor, and if all of these are unencumbered by intervention by third parties (where no rights have been violated), it results in a constant improvement in overall wealth and standard of living. A metaphor typical of this type of improvement is "a rising tide lifts all boats" as all of society is made richer.
It is true that tolerance is required under these arrangements. The freedom to do or speak as one pleases dictates that one must tolerate differences of opinion and subjective valuation, and not spuriously equate just any action to a violation of natural rights. Those differences are precisely what makes the entire system of individualism function: they provide the dynamics and diversity that absorbs shocks and changes over time, and encourages the natural flow towards an equilibrium of the highest wealth possible.
Implementation of Individualism
It becomes somewhat impractical for individuals to enforce consequences for rights violations themselves, and there will obviously be some controversy and chaos resulting from it if someone is claiming they are enforcing their rights appropriately while the alleged offender or others say the alleged victim is not. Naturally, a neutral third party should be agreed upon by both parties, and by agreement their determination of guilt must be accepted. The obvious implementation of this in society is government, and a particularly relevant example is the court system. As a check on the court system, a jury is also provided (again, if you insist on your own rights being enforced, you have an obligation to help others enforce theirs, and thus sit on a jury as needed) for similar goals of ensuring neutrality and proper enforcement of natural rights.
The government is also a natural result of individuals who would rather not have to provide for certain common needs for large-scale events, such as war defense, negotiation with other nations, etc. Realize, however, that government cannot legitimately exist by itself; rather, it exists by contract with individuals writ large, however implicit that contract may be. In the United States, agreement to the contract is implicit, but the contract itself is explicit (the US Constitution). The contract is not intended to limit the freedom of individuals but rather to limit the power of government so that it only performs the duties assigned to it as a proxy for them. The government should not be able to perform any duty, even in aggregate, that the individuals that are party to the contract cannot do for themselves in their own individual sphere (self defense, rights enforcement, contracts, and so on).
As a result, individualism rejects the notion that the government may use force to abridge any individual right if the individual has not violated another's right: a person may not be punished before they commit a crime. This circumscribes nearly all regulation and control that government may exercise, and strictly limits its size and power; it is also desirable for the contract with government to strictly limit the delegated power, in order to keep it from abridging the rights of the individuals that authorize its existence.
There are various strategies for keeping other people and government in check so as to not allow a drifting away from its ideal limited functions. Checks and balances between departments and branches are a prominent method. Another is federalism, which is breaking up government horizontally instead of vertically (checks and balances between branches are a vertical separation); federalism is the separation of power between, for example, states and the federal government in the United States, or even the separation of power between states and counties. It emphasizes that keeping power delegated more locally gives individuals more opportunity to check government and keep it from overstepping its bounds, as their voice is maximized in a locality.
Additionally, individualism is based upon core principles, rejecting the notion that other people may rule them; it is the ultimate expression of individual sovereignty, and other levels of sovereignty are built purely upon individual free association. Thus, individuals are ruled by principles and laws made pursuant to those principles, and not by "men." This rule of law is a central tenet of individualism, which holds forth that other people cannot make decisions for any individual where he/she has the ability to make that decision, and that individual actions are governed by laws that are applied equally to all.
Polar Opposites
The fundamental difference between collectivism and individualism then is the use of force vs. the use of agency. Individualism is the supremacy of the individual and their right to choose their own actions, so long as they do not harm another or another's property. Collectivism is simply a veiled form of totalitarianism, where a desire for equality is used to trump individual rights.
It can also be said that collectivism aims to provide "freedom from worry". This is clearly an invalid use of the word freedom, where by having choice forcibly taken away in certain matters the subjects are somehow made more free. If collectivism removes the worry of failure, that certainly cannot be described as freedom. In addition to the unintended consequences of such a goal, it goes against the very grain of choice, as those who wish to opt out are not allowed to do so. When agency is destroyed the utopian goal of equality and removal of concern creates not a utopia but a nightmare and a totalitarian's playpen.
Between the two worldviews, it can be seen that collectivism is a dangerous system based upon, in effect, slavery and control and theft (redistribution). Individualism provides true freedom and is most likely to obtain an increasing standard of living and net benefit to all participants. While there are individual risks and responsibilities that must be shouldered, individualism provides equality of opportunity in that every individual is free to work as hard as they would like, and is free to seize opportunities as they come, but is not free to force those opportunities to come via coercion.
Truly the world views are actually between freedom and slavery.
Note: please see Liberalism by Mises for a wealth in good information on the subject, although he treats it through the term neoliberalism rather than just collectivism. But he's really talking about the same thing.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Proportional slavery
Are we just slaves?
No really, this is a serious question. A person can be enslaved in various ways due to their own bad choices, and of course by the choices of others. But is it possible that many of us (if not our entire nation) are for all practical purposes enslaved, but too distracted to realize it?
Now before you stop reading, let's frame the question in a slightly different context. Were the African American people in the South prior to the Civil War slaves? You can't seriously be asking that question, you must be thinking. Yes, I am asking it, although I know the answer as well as you do. Perhaps they were just "part slaves" because some of them managed to save up enough money to buy their own freedom (yes, many of them were paid). Thus, some were able to leave through the prescribed means of the system they were under. Maybe that makes them only, say, 90% slaves?
This flies in the face of reason. They were 100% enslaved, pure and simple whether they were paid or not. It is morally repugnant to argue otherwise. They did not have control over their own lives in any meaningful sense, or control over their own decisions, as their opportunities were limited artificially by their masters on purpose. Any of them caught trying to escape were returned to their enslavement and punished or even killed.
Now take a deep breath, forget for just a moment all of your preconceived notions about our own current situation, and hop on this train of thought for a little ride.
What is This Freedom You Speak of?
What does it mean to be free? Not a little bit free, but truly free? And why is freedom so important? The answer lies within the minds and hearts of every human being. While Locke and the Founding Fathers and others have done a wonderful job helping us to understand the answers, we usually need not go further than what our own conscience tells us. The meaning of freedom is strikingly simple: agency, ownership, and responsibility. But those words are too broad left alone, so let's define them further following our intuition.
To have agency is to be able to make choices without coercion. Nobody is to take away that agency from you unless you specifically harmed another's agency. In philosophical parlance, this is called violence against another individual or their natural rights, whether it is physical in nature or not. You have a fundamental, God-given right to live your life the way you see fit, so long as you do not infringe the right of others to do the same. If you do infringe someone else's right to live their life the way they see fit, that person (and society at large, and thus the government by delegation) has a legal opportunity to ensure justice is met and that you are punished accordingly. But that is the only time you may justly be deprived of your right to agency in any way (for justice's sake).
Ownership is the concept of controlling a limited, scarce resource that you have earned or intrinsically have. Among the things you automatically own are your time, your talents, and the fruit of your labor; although the latter may just be a manifestation of your time and talents. You have a right to control what you produce, and a right to control what you already legally own such as land, houses, financial assets, etc. You also have a right to enter into a transaction with anybody else (note, I said anybody) to exchange something you own for something that you want, as long as the other party in the transaction agrees. You cannot force them to agree to any terms, and they cannot force you, but you voluntarily agree together to a set of terms that are favorable to (hopefully) both parties. In such transactions of resources, information in the marketplace from yours or others' previous transactions inform the terms. This exchange forms the core of what is called a free market, and when viewed on a large economic scale it is referred to as capitalism. The free exchange of goods via contracts, and the producing of new goods by those using their rightfully owned resources is all there is to capitalism.(1) If anybody coerces you into not being able to transact the way you and another party wish to, or threatens you with violence of any kind if you do not give up some of what you own (your time, work, talents, property, etc.), then they are infringing your natural(2) right to ownership.
Responsibility at its core is the requirement that you not infringe the two basic rights of agency and ownership, and that you uphold these rights in all of their proper manifestations for others completely. Anything less is essentially advocating a form of slavery! (Let that sink in for a moment.) There are some additional responsibilities, such as a responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions. This includes receiving the application of justice. It includes a responsibility to not retaliate against someone or attempt to curb his or her use of their natural rights when they have not infringed the natural rights of others. It includes providing for any children you have; e.g. you had an opportunity and choice to engage in sexual intercourse with another willing person, but you do not have an inherent right to then avoid the consequences of doing so. As your children grow in their capacity to exercise their agency, you have a responsibility to let them actually do so and allow them to face the consequences of their actions. Of course, you should teach them as much as you can along the way so that they choose to use their agency wisely.
Are We Free Today?
The foregoing principles all make sense, and they form a simple framework against which we can decide what promotes freedom and what does not. But here is where the ears usually get plugged, when we start applying this to our current situation. Let's start with a candidate that people have accepted for far too long: income tax. There isn't a single person I know that would like to have taxes raised, or really be taxed much at all (there are those strange creatures out there who do, but they are rare). We inherently understand that taxes are bad, and we all have this awful helplessness deep down about them that they might just be immoral and not the best way to do things. However, we convince ourselves that our government wouldn't function without them and that they are somehow a necessary evil. But are they really necessary? It has been discovered that if we were to take away all of the federal personal income tax receipts from the government, and reduce government by that size, we would have a federal government about the size it was in...1999. Yes, you read that right. We could have a 1999-sized government, with zero personal income tax. Perchance it is not so necessary after all?
Individual income tax is identifiable as not a necessary evil, but it is even worse than just being unnecessary. It can be easily shown that it is a violation of property rights; it is a form of slavery. It is estimated that we individually work until around March or April every year to cover the taxes we pay that year. For those that claim you can get out of it by dropping below the poverty line, or not having a job, does that seem like much of a choice? In that state we can't live, or else we live on the dole and essentially are advocating the slavery of the rest of society to pay for us. The choice is to accept slavery either way. You may have heard some people in government refer to our tax system as voluntary. But is it really? What happens if you have income but do not pay your income tax? Eventually, you will get a notice from the IRS. If you ignore it for long they will send armed agents to your house, who will kill you if you resist, or throw you in jail if you don't resist but don't pay. So, if you don't agree to an obfuscated form of slavery, they will subject you to overt slavery and a complete loss of freedom. Oh and by the way, if you leave the country but are still a US citizen, you still owe your taxes, and they will still eventually get you. If you do a private transaction and do not pay taxes on any income, it is in the tax code that even barter of that nature is taxable on the dollar value of whatever you transacted. In practical terms there is no escape.
Another example is the use of dollars (Federal Reserve Notes) themselves. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply along with its cohorts the banks as they engage in fractional reserve lending. They have depreciated the value of the dollar by over 95% since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. While there were financial panics before that (due to banks doing the same thing by overissuing specie!), the overall value of what people owned stayed largely stable, if not being subject to a slightly deflationary environment. Slow deflation actually rewards savers modestly, and is not to be feared. Nowadays if you save your money the Fed essentially will tax it via inflation of the money supply. What's worse is that due to the mechanics of monetary velocity, the rich and politically well-connected get the newly printed dollars first and can spend it before prices rise, and you get stuck with the bill indirectly. Your property is stolen.
No problem, let's use a different currency, you say? By law, you cannot. You are expressly forbidden to create a new currency, even one backed by gold (thus not being nearly so subject to the problem of inflation), or else the Secret Service will raid your operation and throw you in jail. Nope, only the Federal Reserve and their friends the bankers are allowed to counterfeit money, and you must accept the damage they do to your own savings and asset values.
But otherwise we still have a lot of freedom, right? It can't go too far beyond that, we might surmise. Well, let's take something seemingly very disconnected with any of this and see. You go out and buy a bottle of Sprite. You got paid yesterday, so inflation isn't an issue, and you're a poor college student who doesn't make enough money to pay taxes. (Scratch that, make it Coke because you have a project due and need to stay up working on it.) You do a quick, arms-length transaction that benefits the store owner and yourself, with no taxes involved besides sales tax, but that was voluntary on your part to purchase the soda, so that's relatively better. No problem.
Or is there no problem? Take a look at the label, and you'll notice on the ingredient list (ha! that list is there mandated by law, increasing the cost of production!) that there is no cane sugar, but instead it contains high fructose corn syrup. What has that got to do with anything? The question is why do they use the real sugar in Coke in other countries (even in Europe) but not the US? It is due to stifling regulation on the price of sugar, presumably to protect american sugar producers. All it has really done is give us Coke that doesn't taste as good, and high sugar prices, not to mention other knock-on effects of price fixing. Price fixing is inherently anti-freedom, because it ties the hands of other parties in transactions such that they can't transact the way that is in their own best interest. It inserts a third party by force of law into every transaction, who has the power to dictate terms to one or both parties. It is a form of coercion, in an area that the coercive party has no business sticking their nose.
We can find thousands upon thousands of such examples. It permeates our lives, even though it appears largely hidden from view at first. Just because we cannot see them easily does not mean the problems do not exist, or that they are not going to destroy our freedom entirely in the end. An undiscovered cancer often does not manifest any symptoms until it is too late, or nearly so. These distortions and reductions of freedom benefit a powerful few at the expense of the many.
The Curse of Collectivism
There are certain ideologies promoting the common good or doing our part, but in reality the common good is far and away best achieved in the freest society. Are there poor among us? Set up a charity, and take voluntary donations. Is there lying and fraud? Investigate, punish, and apply justice for those who have had their rights violated, but never punish a crime before it is committed.(3)
Every form of collectivism (be it corporatism/fascism, socialism, communism, chrony capitalism, and any number of other -isms) is just an immoral justification for the reduction of individual freedom; their tantalizing promise of everyone being equal in unjustifiable ways is really just a pretty face on a maggot-infested ideology that has proven to provide misery for those subject to it, time and again. Don't fall for the siren call of wealth redistribution or of giving up a little liberty for a little security. In all cases, you will effectively lose your wealth, your liberty, and your security, and be left to beg at the hands of those who you thought would be your saviors.
Proportional Slavery
Are we slaves? Maybe just 10% slaves? Maybe 30% slaves? Are we enslaved at all? If so, and we do nothing about it, are we not truly 100% slaves? Do our masters just hide that reality nicely behind a facade of conventional wisdom and public demonization of anyone who would dare contravene the status quo?(4)
Take a moment to stop and ponder this the next time you see your taxes taken out of your paycheck, or hear about government regulation and intervention either here or abroad, or about bankers and elites getting bailed out while you are still paying your taxes, or any number of other indicators that something is not quite right in the Land of the Free. If you listen closely enough, you might just hear the crack of a whip, the cocking of an oppressor's gun, or the clatter of the chains around your ankles.
And finally you will smell a hint of true freedom, coming from just past the edge of the plantation. It is within reach, if we are principled enough to obtain it.
Notes:
1 - The recent attacks on capitalism as the culprit for the current great recession completely dumbfound me. We do not have true capitalism, for starters; we have limited capitalism occuring in segments of the market despite the intervention by the government and distortions from what is now been documented as rampant fraud. Greed is not the fundamental unit of capitalism; hard work and freedom are the fundamental units. A person may be completely driven by the desire to do good and collect money to give to charity and flourish under capitalism, just like the next guy who is driven to collect money to buy a mansion. Those drives have nothing to do with capitalism.
2 - Note the word natural here; for religious folks, this is synonymous with God-given. The implication here is that these rights predate and supersede government authority. This was well understood by the Founding Fathers, who sought to codify a big giant check against the government in favor of these rights in the US Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights.
3 - This is not to suggest you shouldn't try to stop a crime in progress. However, if someone has not committed a crime, regulations that purport to prevent crime or other "bad things" generally really are just used to provide barriers to entry in a market or cause other distortions, and they don't actually prevent the crimes very well anyway.
4 - Someone remarked the other day that they had really been bothered by President Obama's handling of dissenting views against his policies. They noted that his response is to make fun of and demean (usually subtly) any who oppose the policies he is pushing for. He is by no means alone in this behavior.
No really, this is a serious question. A person can be enslaved in various ways due to their own bad choices, and of course by the choices of others. But is it possible that many of us (if not our entire nation) are for all practical purposes enslaved, but too distracted to realize it?
Now before you stop reading, let's frame the question in a slightly different context. Were the African American people in the South prior to the Civil War slaves? You can't seriously be asking that question, you must be thinking. Yes, I am asking it, although I know the answer as well as you do. Perhaps they were just "part slaves" because some of them managed to save up enough money to buy their own freedom (yes, many of them were paid). Thus, some were able to leave through the prescribed means of the system they were under. Maybe that makes them only, say, 90% slaves?
This flies in the face of reason. They were 100% enslaved, pure and simple whether they were paid or not. It is morally repugnant to argue otherwise. They did not have control over their own lives in any meaningful sense, or control over their own decisions, as their opportunities were limited artificially by their masters on purpose. Any of them caught trying to escape were returned to their enslavement and punished or even killed.
Now take a deep breath, forget for just a moment all of your preconceived notions about our own current situation, and hop on this train of thought for a little ride.
What is This Freedom You Speak of?
What does it mean to be free? Not a little bit free, but truly free? And why is freedom so important? The answer lies within the minds and hearts of every human being. While Locke and the Founding Fathers and others have done a wonderful job helping us to understand the answers, we usually need not go further than what our own conscience tells us. The meaning of freedom is strikingly simple: agency, ownership, and responsibility. But those words are too broad left alone, so let's define them further following our intuition.
To have agency is to be able to make choices without coercion. Nobody is to take away that agency from you unless you specifically harmed another's agency. In philosophical parlance, this is called violence against another individual or their natural rights, whether it is physical in nature or not. You have a fundamental, God-given right to live your life the way you see fit, so long as you do not infringe the right of others to do the same. If you do infringe someone else's right to live their life the way they see fit, that person (and society at large, and thus the government by delegation) has a legal opportunity to ensure justice is met and that you are punished accordingly. But that is the only time you may justly be deprived of your right to agency in any way (for justice's sake).
Ownership is the concept of controlling a limited, scarce resource that you have earned or intrinsically have. Among the things you automatically own are your time, your talents, and the fruit of your labor; although the latter may just be a manifestation of your time and talents. You have a right to control what you produce, and a right to control what you already legally own such as land, houses, financial assets, etc. You also have a right to enter into a transaction with anybody else (note, I said anybody) to exchange something you own for something that you want, as long as the other party in the transaction agrees. You cannot force them to agree to any terms, and they cannot force you, but you voluntarily agree together to a set of terms that are favorable to (hopefully) both parties. In such transactions of resources, information in the marketplace from yours or others' previous transactions inform the terms. This exchange forms the core of what is called a free market, and when viewed on a large economic scale it is referred to as capitalism. The free exchange of goods via contracts, and the producing of new goods by those using their rightfully owned resources is all there is to capitalism.(1) If anybody coerces you into not being able to transact the way you and another party wish to, or threatens you with violence of any kind if you do not give up some of what you own (your time, work, talents, property, etc.), then they are infringing your natural(2) right to ownership.
Responsibility at its core is the requirement that you not infringe the two basic rights of agency and ownership, and that you uphold these rights in all of their proper manifestations for others completely. Anything less is essentially advocating a form of slavery! (Let that sink in for a moment.) There are some additional responsibilities, such as a responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions. This includes receiving the application of justice. It includes a responsibility to not retaliate against someone or attempt to curb his or her use of their natural rights when they have not infringed the natural rights of others. It includes providing for any children you have; e.g. you had an opportunity and choice to engage in sexual intercourse with another willing person, but you do not have an inherent right to then avoid the consequences of doing so. As your children grow in their capacity to exercise their agency, you have a responsibility to let them actually do so and allow them to face the consequences of their actions. Of course, you should teach them as much as you can along the way so that they choose to use their agency wisely.
Are We Free Today?
The foregoing principles all make sense, and they form a simple framework against which we can decide what promotes freedom and what does not. But here is where the ears usually get plugged, when we start applying this to our current situation. Let's start with a candidate that people have accepted for far too long: income tax. There isn't a single person I know that would like to have taxes raised, or really be taxed much at all (there are those strange creatures out there who do, but they are rare). We inherently understand that taxes are bad, and we all have this awful helplessness deep down about them that they might just be immoral and not the best way to do things. However, we convince ourselves that our government wouldn't function without them and that they are somehow a necessary evil. But are they really necessary? It has been discovered that if we were to take away all of the federal personal income tax receipts from the government, and reduce government by that size, we would have a federal government about the size it was in...1999. Yes, you read that right. We could have a 1999-sized government, with zero personal income tax. Perchance it is not so necessary after all?
Individual income tax is identifiable as not a necessary evil, but it is even worse than just being unnecessary. It can be easily shown that it is a violation of property rights; it is a form of slavery. It is estimated that we individually work until around March or April every year to cover the taxes we pay that year. For those that claim you can get out of it by dropping below the poverty line, or not having a job, does that seem like much of a choice? In that state we can't live, or else we live on the dole and essentially are advocating the slavery of the rest of society to pay for us. The choice is to accept slavery either way. You may have heard some people in government refer to our tax system as voluntary. But is it really? What happens if you have income but do not pay your income tax? Eventually, you will get a notice from the IRS. If you ignore it for long they will send armed agents to your house, who will kill you if you resist, or throw you in jail if you don't resist but don't pay. So, if you don't agree to an obfuscated form of slavery, they will subject you to overt slavery and a complete loss of freedom. Oh and by the way, if you leave the country but are still a US citizen, you still owe your taxes, and they will still eventually get you. If you do a private transaction and do not pay taxes on any income, it is in the tax code that even barter of that nature is taxable on the dollar value of whatever you transacted. In practical terms there is no escape.
Another example is the use of dollars (Federal Reserve Notes) themselves. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply along with its cohorts the banks as they engage in fractional reserve lending. They have depreciated the value of the dollar by over 95% since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. While there were financial panics before that (due to banks doing the same thing by overissuing specie!), the overall value of what people owned stayed largely stable, if not being subject to a slightly deflationary environment. Slow deflation actually rewards savers modestly, and is not to be feared. Nowadays if you save your money the Fed essentially will tax it via inflation of the money supply. What's worse is that due to the mechanics of monetary velocity, the rich and politically well-connected get the newly printed dollars first and can spend it before prices rise, and you get stuck with the bill indirectly. Your property is stolen.
No problem, let's use a different currency, you say? By law, you cannot. You are expressly forbidden to create a new currency, even one backed by gold (thus not being nearly so subject to the problem of inflation), or else the Secret Service will raid your operation and throw you in jail. Nope, only the Federal Reserve and their friends the bankers are allowed to counterfeit money, and you must accept the damage they do to your own savings and asset values.
But otherwise we still have a lot of freedom, right? It can't go too far beyond that, we might surmise. Well, let's take something seemingly very disconnected with any of this and see. You go out and buy a bottle of Sprite. You got paid yesterday, so inflation isn't an issue, and you're a poor college student who doesn't make enough money to pay taxes. (Scratch that, make it Coke because you have a project due and need to stay up working on it.) You do a quick, arms-length transaction that benefits the store owner and yourself, with no taxes involved besides sales tax, but that was voluntary on your part to purchase the soda, so that's relatively better. No problem.
Or is there no problem? Take a look at the label, and you'll notice on the ingredient list (ha! that list is there mandated by law, increasing the cost of production!) that there is no cane sugar, but instead it contains high fructose corn syrup. What has that got to do with anything? The question is why do they use the real sugar in Coke in other countries (even in Europe) but not the US? It is due to stifling regulation on the price of sugar, presumably to protect american sugar producers. All it has really done is give us Coke that doesn't taste as good, and high sugar prices, not to mention other knock-on effects of price fixing. Price fixing is inherently anti-freedom, because it ties the hands of other parties in transactions such that they can't transact the way that is in their own best interest. It inserts a third party by force of law into every transaction, who has the power to dictate terms to one or both parties. It is a form of coercion, in an area that the coercive party has no business sticking their nose.
We can find thousands upon thousands of such examples. It permeates our lives, even though it appears largely hidden from view at first. Just because we cannot see them easily does not mean the problems do not exist, or that they are not going to destroy our freedom entirely in the end. An undiscovered cancer often does not manifest any symptoms until it is too late, or nearly so. These distortions and reductions of freedom benefit a powerful few at the expense of the many.
The Curse of Collectivism
There are certain ideologies promoting the common good or doing our part, but in reality the common good is far and away best achieved in the freest society. Are there poor among us? Set up a charity, and take voluntary donations. Is there lying and fraud? Investigate, punish, and apply justice for those who have had their rights violated, but never punish a crime before it is committed.(3)
Every form of collectivism (be it corporatism/fascism, socialism, communism, chrony capitalism, and any number of other -isms) is just an immoral justification for the reduction of individual freedom; their tantalizing promise of everyone being equal in unjustifiable ways is really just a pretty face on a maggot-infested ideology that has proven to provide misery for those subject to it, time and again. Don't fall for the siren call of wealth redistribution or of giving up a little liberty for a little security. In all cases, you will effectively lose your wealth, your liberty, and your security, and be left to beg at the hands of those who you thought would be your saviors.
Proportional Slavery
Are we slaves? Maybe just 10% slaves? Maybe 30% slaves? Are we enslaved at all? If so, and we do nothing about it, are we not truly 100% slaves? Do our masters just hide that reality nicely behind a facade of conventional wisdom and public demonization of anyone who would dare contravene the status quo?(4)
Take a moment to stop and ponder this the next time you see your taxes taken out of your paycheck, or hear about government regulation and intervention either here or abroad, or about bankers and elites getting bailed out while you are still paying your taxes, or any number of other indicators that something is not quite right in the Land of the Free. If you listen closely enough, you might just hear the crack of a whip, the cocking of an oppressor's gun, or the clatter of the chains around your ankles.
And finally you will smell a hint of true freedom, coming from just past the edge of the plantation. It is within reach, if we are principled enough to obtain it.
Notes:
1 - The recent attacks on capitalism as the culprit for the current great recession completely dumbfound me. We do not have true capitalism, for starters; we have limited capitalism occuring in segments of the market despite the intervention by the government and distortions from what is now been documented as rampant fraud. Greed is not the fundamental unit of capitalism; hard work and freedom are the fundamental units. A person may be completely driven by the desire to do good and collect money to give to charity and flourish under capitalism, just like the next guy who is driven to collect money to buy a mansion. Those drives have nothing to do with capitalism.
2 - Note the word natural here; for religious folks, this is synonymous with God-given. The implication here is that these rights predate and supersede government authority. This was well understood by the Founding Fathers, who sought to codify a big giant check against the government in favor of these rights in the US Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights.
3 - This is not to suggest you shouldn't try to stop a crime in progress. However, if someone has not committed a crime, regulations that purport to prevent crime or other "bad things" generally really are just used to provide barriers to entry in a market or cause other distortions, and they don't actually prevent the crimes very well anyway.
4 - Someone remarked the other day that they had really been bothered by President Obama's handling of dissenting views against his policies. They noted that his response is to make fun of and demean (usually subtly) any who oppose the policies he is pushing for. He is by no means alone in this behavior.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Analysis of HR 3200, the national health care bill
A few of the statements in this analysis could be construed as unneeded alarmism, but if even half of their assessment is true, this is very scary material indeed:
http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf
If you take a look at my last post, you'd realize that a government-sponsored health care system is fundamentally immoral due to the theft factor, and the chilling effect it has on individual liberty. However, the extent of this bill catapults it deep into the territory of medical tyranny. There is nothing positive in this bill, and a cursory reading should be enough to convince any rational human being that the total cost of medical care will not be better under this scheme. In addition, the loss of individual liberty to determine medical care decisions unfettered given the rightful resources the individual has access to will be destroyed to a very large degree.
The solution to our high cost of medical care is not more government. It is less. People think that our current medical insurance system and HMO setup is a free-market construct; it is not. Legislation in the 70's helped create HMOs, and legislation earlier than that created Medicare/Medicaid, which have had a detrimental effect on medical care costs, and have been abject failures by any cost measure.
Our insurance system is broken, because it is not insurance: does your auto insurance policy pay for oil changes, or replacing your brakes? Why not? Because then it wouldn't be insurance! There is a way to reduce the cost of medical care. Bear with me, and I'll put forward a tax-less, efficient, fair, and ultimately low-cost system that has much less bureaucracy to boot.
This goes back to simple economics. How do you get the best price for a service in the marketplace? Honest price discovery. Do we currently know how much medical services should cost (ergo do we have real price discovery)? No, we obviously don't under our current system. Normal economic transactions take place between two individual entities, with no intermediary that has the authority to tell them what they can buy or sell for. Naturally the two parties will try to maximize their end of the deal, and there is nothing immoral about that. Their backdrop is the published prices that others are paying for the same exchange, and that informs the parameters of what is acceptable. In addition, as there is more demand for the service or good, it affects the price as there is more or less competition for the same resources (services, goods). All of this helps to rapidly facilitate the discovery of what the real price for the service or good is, if left unfettered by others (third parties), such as the government (via regulation and/or price fixing) or insurance companies (attempting to do the same thing), or fraud by one of the parties. Hunting down and punishing fraud is one of the only legitimate functions of the government, and it directly helps with proper price discovery.
What we have in our health care today are two external parties inhibiting price discovery: the government, and insurance companies. For the government's part, via Medicare and Medicaid they are engaging in price fixing; and, via regulation of HMOs and insurance plans (always "for our own good, and for the consumer!") the parties' hands are tied to some extent on one side or other of medical service transactions. For the insurance companies part, aside from dealing with government regulation, they form a third party in nearly all medical transactions that inhibit price discovery by patient and doctor.
Think about it: does the average Joe really know how much he pays for medical services? He knows what his co-pays are if he has insurance. If he has no insurance, he either gets no services or goes to the ER, and may not end up paying anyway, so he doesn't know what the costs truly are there either. Because the insurance company is the intermediary, and they have the power to set the price, neither the patient nor the doctor know how much they can get for the transaction. The insurance company has a (possibly regulated) maximum they will pay for any service, and they don't necessarily publish it. The doctor has no idea what that is, but he/she knows that if they charge less than the maximum, the insurance plan will happily pay out the lesser amount. So, they charge really high rates, and the insurance company says "nope!" and gives them their internal maximum payout instead. The patient, meanwhile, has no idea what was paid, and really has no say even if they did know. They only see what their co-pays are, and what the insurance company charges in premiums that come out of their paycheck, which ultimately has nearly nothing to do with what their medical care actually costs.
Some say that supply/demand and price discovery don't apply to medical care. They argue that there will always be infinite demand for medical services. This is complete hogwash, and anyone who says it either has ulterior motives or doesn't understand economics or psychology. If the patient does not have access to the prices for their medical treatment beforehand, how can they decide whether to seek the treatment or not? The patient will always default to the maximum care, because their insurance plan costs will stay largely fixed if they do. If the doctor has no access to prices beforehand, and the patient appears to just say yes to everything, they're going to perform the maximum number of services they can justify, and charge the maximum amount for each. There is nothing immoral about this; it is just the natural result of the signals everyone is sending each other, but obviously it is horribly inefficient. The infinite demand that people argue exists only appears to exist as a distortion in the market due to a lack of price discovery. The result of inhibited price discovery is that costs automatically and naturally go to the highest amount that is affordable. That means literally that the costs would go to infinity if there was an infinite supply of money. Since there is not, it caps out when people are tapped out financially and reach their economic pain threshold.
In understanding the problem properly, the solution immediately jumps out of the page at you. The problem is not greedy doctors, or even greedy businessmen, or even illegal immigrants going into ERs and getting expensive (for us down the line) free (for them) medical care. The problem is threefold:
HR 3200 is and will be a complete disaster. It is not the way to fix our medical care; simple, proper economics is the way.
http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf
If you take a look at my last post, you'd realize that a government-sponsored health care system is fundamentally immoral due to the theft factor, and the chilling effect it has on individual liberty. However, the extent of this bill catapults it deep into the territory of medical tyranny. There is nothing positive in this bill, and a cursory reading should be enough to convince any rational human being that the total cost of medical care will not be better under this scheme. In addition, the loss of individual liberty to determine medical care decisions unfettered given the rightful resources the individual has access to will be destroyed to a very large degree.
The solution to our high cost of medical care is not more government. It is less. People think that our current medical insurance system and HMO setup is a free-market construct; it is not. Legislation in the 70's helped create HMOs, and legislation earlier than that created Medicare/Medicaid, which have had a detrimental effect on medical care costs, and have been abject failures by any cost measure.
Our insurance system is broken, because it is not insurance: does your auto insurance policy pay for oil changes, or replacing your brakes? Why not? Because then it wouldn't be insurance! There is a way to reduce the cost of medical care. Bear with me, and I'll put forward a tax-less, efficient, fair, and ultimately low-cost system that has much less bureaucracy to boot.
This goes back to simple economics. How do you get the best price for a service in the marketplace? Honest price discovery. Do we currently know how much medical services should cost (ergo do we have real price discovery)? No, we obviously don't under our current system. Normal economic transactions take place between two individual entities, with no intermediary that has the authority to tell them what they can buy or sell for. Naturally the two parties will try to maximize their end of the deal, and there is nothing immoral about that. Their backdrop is the published prices that others are paying for the same exchange, and that informs the parameters of what is acceptable. In addition, as there is more demand for the service or good, it affects the price as there is more or less competition for the same resources (services, goods). All of this helps to rapidly facilitate the discovery of what the real price for the service or good is, if left unfettered by others (third parties), such as the government (via regulation and/or price fixing) or insurance companies (attempting to do the same thing), or fraud by one of the parties. Hunting down and punishing fraud is one of the only legitimate functions of the government, and it directly helps with proper price discovery.
What we have in our health care today are two external parties inhibiting price discovery: the government, and insurance companies. For the government's part, via Medicare and Medicaid they are engaging in price fixing; and, via regulation of HMOs and insurance plans (always "for our own good, and for the consumer!") the parties' hands are tied to some extent on one side or other of medical service transactions. For the insurance companies part, aside from dealing with government regulation, they form a third party in nearly all medical transactions that inhibit price discovery by patient and doctor.
Think about it: does the average Joe really know how much he pays for medical services? He knows what his co-pays are if he has insurance. If he has no insurance, he either gets no services or goes to the ER, and may not end up paying anyway, so he doesn't know what the costs truly are there either. Because the insurance company is the intermediary, and they have the power to set the price, neither the patient nor the doctor know how much they can get for the transaction. The insurance company has a (possibly regulated) maximum they will pay for any service, and they don't necessarily publish it. The doctor has no idea what that is, but he/she knows that if they charge less than the maximum, the insurance plan will happily pay out the lesser amount. So, they charge really high rates, and the insurance company says "nope!" and gives them their internal maximum payout instead. The patient, meanwhile, has no idea what was paid, and really has no say even if they did know. They only see what their co-pays are, and what the insurance company charges in premiums that come out of their paycheck, which ultimately has nearly nothing to do with what their medical care actually costs.
Some say that supply/demand and price discovery don't apply to medical care. They argue that there will always be infinite demand for medical services. This is complete hogwash, and anyone who says it either has ulterior motives or doesn't understand economics or psychology. If the patient does not have access to the prices for their medical treatment beforehand, how can they decide whether to seek the treatment or not? The patient will always default to the maximum care, because their insurance plan costs will stay largely fixed if they do. If the doctor has no access to prices beforehand, and the patient appears to just say yes to everything, they're going to perform the maximum number of services they can justify, and charge the maximum amount for each. There is nothing immoral about this; it is just the natural result of the signals everyone is sending each other, but obviously it is horribly inefficient. The infinite demand that people argue exists only appears to exist as a distortion in the market due to a lack of price discovery. The result of inhibited price discovery is that costs automatically and naturally go to the highest amount that is affordable. That means literally that the costs would go to infinity if there was an infinite supply of money. Since there is not, it caps out when people are tapped out financially and reach their economic pain threshold.
In understanding the problem properly, the solution immediately jumps out of the page at you. The problem is not greedy doctors, or even greedy businessmen, or even illegal immigrants going into ERs and getting expensive (for us down the line) free (for them) medical care. The problem is threefold:
- Patients do not pay directly for their medical care, so they never see what they paid.
- Prices for medical care are not published beforehand; you can't know what it will cost you until after you get the service. (By the way, isn't this fraudulent?)
- There is an intermediary with nearly sole authority to set prices; the patient literally has almost no say in the matter.
- Patients must pay directly for their medical care. They may contract with an insurance company to cover unanticipated and rare care (such as emergencies or unexpected problems like cancer), but that must be all that such a policy can cover. If they cannot afford the care, the provider has no obligation to provide the care to them, even if they will die as a result. That sounds harsh, but that is the price of freedom.
- Every service must have a pre-published price by the care provider (so that even emergency work is still performed in a market-controlled environment that can be contested in court), or the patient must be notified fully of costs individually before a service is rendered. As much as doctors might hate dealing with the business aspect of their practice, they must.
- Regulation must be removed that is inhibiting the use of more generics, or drugs produced in other countries, or holistic healing strategies (I'm not much for them, but people should be free to use them if they want). E.g. real competition in the drug space needs to be opened up.
- People will begin to take care of themselves better and act like hypochondriacs less when they have to foot the bill. The demand for services will naturally be reduced to a sustainable level (and that pesky infinite demand goes out the window).
- Doctors will be forced to compete with each other, and will be forced to establish reasonable prices for their services. Doctors who are worth the money, or cost less, will be favored, bring up quality and bringing down cost overall.
- People will have the freedom to get their medication from other countries or sources, if they so choose. More competition, less fat cats on pharma street.
- If a person goes to the ER unnecessarily, and suddenly they get told what it's going to cost or are forced to foot the bill or go bankrupt, they won't come back for trivial things. Voila, fewer economic externalities.
- Doctors and patients will generate better relationships, and will tend to observe medical care from a more objective, cost-effective viewpoint. They will make better decisions, and there will be no need for government-mandated end-of-life decision management, which is incredibly scary. Instead, we will have informed decisions and people taking responsibility for their own choices. Less blame, fewer lawsuits, more efficiency, more personal health care.
- Vastly reduced bureaucracy: fewer in-network/out-of-network problems, more choices, less paperwork (other than price agreements), and less government, which means fewer taxes as well.
- More charity. When somebody really needs help, and they can't pay for it, and there is no government backstop, it is amazing how much the american people step up to the plate and help take care of it. When there is government intervention, people tend to say, "I pay my taxes, so I've already done my part." Or doctors say, "I deal with medicare and medicaid, I don't need to do anything pro-bono, the government is covering it." If they knew those things weren't there, they would, where it is at all economically viable, perform services pro-bono, or charity groups would spring up to raise money where doctors cannot afford it.
HR 3200 is and will be a complete disaster. It is not the way to fix our medical care; simple, proper economics is the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)