To me, the Fourth of July is a time to celebrate the the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, to reflect upon the idea of independence and what it means to be a nation of independent citizens. The people who emigrated from Europe to North America, like the indigenous people who populated the lands that came to be the United States, were very self reliant people. They had to rely solely upon themselves and the voluntary assistance of their neighbors to survive and thrive. Every person's primary focus was upon providing the necessities for survival for themselves and their families. Each lived close to nature and worked hard at coaxing nature to provide for their sustenance.
Self reliance means that one looks only to self to provide for his own needs, happiness and destiny. Self reliance means free from external control and constraint in action and judgment. Self reliance is the foundation of individual liberty. The people understood that the freedom to choose one's own path in life could be rewarded with a very happy existence or it could be rewarded by failure and misery. It is this same self reliance that gave birth to and instilled in the immigrants a strong belief in the liberty of the individual to run his own life. Since each person had to rely solely upon himself for his survival each person made his own choices and lived with the consequences. They had their neighbors to voluntarily help them in times of need and to provide for the settlement's defense, and they, likewise, voluntarily helped their neighbors. They understood and accepted that certain customs needed to be followed as they brought orderliness to the society, but they viewed any such governing body as the agent and servant of the members of the community. Those governing bodies made decisions regarding the defense and order of the community, to which each member of the community pledged his cooperation and support.
The new Americans grew to view any authority imposed by the existing British government as conflicting with their self reliance and individual liberty. The concept of a government three thousand miles away that dictated matters affecting their lives was contrary to the self reliant lives they were leading. Slowly, over time, the idea began to develop that they did not need a government which was not relevant to their lives and not responsive to their voices. Their settlements worked very well for them and were responsive to them. It was all the authority they needed and wanted. It is with generally held belief that when a government on another continent imposed edicts from above that the colonists would have no more of it and declared their independence.
At this particular time in history a group of unique individuals possessed by this spirit of self reliance and individual liberties came together to plan for the independence of the colonies of the United States of America. Many were men learned in the writings of the great European thinkers from the period called the Renaissance. Their original purpose was not to declare the colonies independent but to try and present their grievances to the British government. It was only when the government of King George III turned a deaf ear to their complaints that they began to think about and actually plan for independence.
To understand the gravities and burden of declaring the colonies independent think about the State of New Mexico, for example, considering declaring itself independent from the United States. One almost laughs out loud at the thought but consider what would be going through the peoples' minds if the thought were serious. It is a very heavy burden, especially knowing that the government will bring all its forces and resources to bear to prevent such independence. The signers knew that the chances of war were very high and chances of success were very slim. They knew many would die, many would be imprisoned and many would lose all their businesses, farms, homes and everything they had worked hard for. It was no light undertaking for the men who met to draft and sign the Declaration of Independence.
“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
Independence, liberty and self reliance can be very intimidating ideas, especially to those who do not really want the burdens that self reliance requires. Self reliance and individual liberty are both double edged swords. The freedom to chose one's own destiny is also the freedom to suffer for the choices made. The freedom to chose one's own destiny requires the responsibility of educating oneself so one can make wiser choices. The belief in individual liberty carries with it the responsibility to recognize and respect the rights of others to chose their own liberty. Self reliance and individual liberty means not being able to rely upon any other person, group or government to make one's way in this life. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence several were killed or captured and imprisoned by the British. About a dozen had their homes and businesses destroyed. Many were left bankrupt and penniless. Some never saw their families again. Freedom is not free.
It is this spirit that founded the United States of America. It is a spirit that did not look to any other person, group or government to provide the things that each colonists needed to survive and thrive. It is this spirit that believed in individual effort and the voluntary assistance on neighbors. Today, a lot of that spirit is alive in theory but dead in practice. The spirit of self reliance upon which the idea of individual liberty is founded is only practiced in part by the modern day recipients of the bounty of those colonists. Somewhere in our history the concept of voluntary assistance and charity became mandatory assistance and charity by government fiat. Many of the descendants from the original colonists now talk in terms of entitlements and “freedom from” instead of “freedom to.” Advocating such an idea would have gotten one run out of the colony at the time of the Declaration of Independence.
So on July 4 every year I still sit with my glass of Cabernet and read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, both incredible documents. I marvel at what those men and women brought forth at the founding of this Nation and I thank them with all my heart and spirit. I think of all the American citizens who have fought and and those who died to protect the ides that our founders gave us and I thank them with all my heart and spirit. I also think sadly about how we as a Nation have failed to live up to the original hopes, dreams and aspirations of those founders and protectors who gave so much to make and preserve us a Nation.
Today we celebrate our founders' and defenders' efforts and sacrifices but we dishonor their ideas and dreams in practice. If those founders could come back today for a visit they would marvel at our great productive capacity and tremendous progress as a Nation. But what would they think of our lack of self reliance and individual liberties. What would Patrick Henry say about the chains and slavery we have accepted?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Here We Go Again. Its Census Time.
It is time for the "Census" again. Time for the taking of information from American citizens via a procedure that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to use. Nonsense, you say. Not so, says I. Article 1, Section 2 provides for an "enumeration" to be taken for the purposes of apportioning the house of representatives. In fact, the word census is not even mentioned in the Constitution except in the 16th Amendment (direct tax amendment), which states that congress may levy taxes directly without regard to any census or enumeration. Another fact to consider is that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment confirms apportionment of the house of representatives by "counting" individuals. Nothing is said about inventorying property or anything else.
What is the difference between an enumeration and a census? An enumeration is a simple "head-count" of individuals. A census is an inventory of persons, property and other effects (e.g. information such as your income). Don't believe me. Look it up. What information is needed to apportion the house of representatives among the states? Only the number of individuals plus their respective addresses, ages and races. If you knew the history of the taking of any census and the disdain the Western Europeans and American colonists had for anything resembling a census then you would understand why the founders provided for an enumeration and stayed very far away from a census. Read about it. The traditional purpose of a census was to determine the wealth of a nation / people for the purposes of taxation.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no authority to take a census Congress has passed Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 122 and 144 providing for the taking of a comprehensive census of persons property and other effects. The law further makes failure to answer (provide the information) and/or the giving of false information criminal offenses. To answer a census takes a person's time (property) and requires providing information about that person's household (property) and other effects (property). So how does Congress square this taking of property with the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution provision that provides no private property shall be taken without just compensation? It doesn't even bother. The federal government, which is limited to those powers specifically set out in the Constitution or necessarily implied by it, just disregarded the fact that is had only limited power granted to it and passed laws providing for a comprehensive census. It is disturbing that a court ruling on the power of the federal government to take a census would find that census is what the founders really meant, notwithstanding the fact that the founders clearly avoided using the word census. Otherwise, the court would find that there is a substantial and compelling federal interest in taking the census. In other words, the ends justify the means. What is also disturbing is that the citizens of this Country have just accepted that Congress has to power to take a census and they freely provided all of the information requested.
I submit that once one has provided names, addresses, ages and races of the persons in one's household one has complied with the requirements of any enumeration authorized by the Constitution. Making a mountain out of a mole hill, you say. Not hardly, says I. We have grown so complacent about whether the federal government is doing only what we have authorized that we have lost sight of the fundamental relationship between the citizens and the federal government. Americans now assume that the federal government can do anything it wants because it has a very good reason for doing so (doesn't it always). Thus the federal government, knowing this, just does what it wants to. It does not matter that this information gathered by the census is useful, necessary or even beneficial. None of those reasons justify the federal government usurping powers it is not granted in the Constitution. If the information is necessary, useful and/or beneficial let the citizens amend the Constitution to provide for a census. If one does not insist that the federal government exercise only those powers granted or necessarily implied in the Constitution by “we the people” then what good is even having a constitution? Just let the federal government do as it wishes. Oh, you do anyway? Never mind.
What is the difference between an enumeration and a census? An enumeration is a simple "head-count" of individuals. A census is an inventory of persons, property and other effects (e.g. information such as your income). Don't believe me. Look it up. What information is needed to apportion the house of representatives among the states? Only the number of individuals plus their respective addresses, ages and races. If you knew the history of the taking of any census and the disdain the Western Europeans and American colonists had for anything resembling a census then you would understand why the founders provided for an enumeration and stayed very far away from a census. Read about it. The traditional purpose of a census was to determine the wealth of a nation / people for the purposes of taxation.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no authority to take a census Congress has passed Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 122 and 144 providing for the taking of a comprehensive census of persons property and other effects. The law further makes failure to answer (provide the information) and/or the giving of false information criminal offenses. To answer a census takes a person's time (property) and requires providing information about that person's household (property) and other effects (property). So how does Congress square this taking of property with the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution provision that provides no private property shall be taken without just compensation? It doesn't even bother. The federal government, which is limited to those powers specifically set out in the Constitution or necessarily implied by it, just disregarded the fact that is had only limited power granted to it and passed laws providing for a comprehensive census. It is disturbing that a court ruling on the power of the federal government to take a census would find that census is what the founders really meant, notwithstanding the fact that the founders clearly avoided using the word census. Otherwise, the court would find that there is a substantial and compelling federal interest in taking the census. In other words, the ends justify the means. What is also disturbing is that the citizens of this Country have just accepted that Congress has to power to take a census and they freely provided all of the information requested.
I submit that once one has provided names, addresses, ages and races of the persons in one's household one has complied with the requirements of any enumeration authorized by the Constitution. Making a mountain out of a mole hill, you say. Not hardly, says I. We have grown so complacent about whether the federal government is doing only what we have authorized that we have lost sight of the fundamental relationship between the citizens and the federal government. Americans now assume that the federal government can do anything it wants because it has a very good reason for doing so (doesn't it always). Thus the federal government, knowing this, just does what it wants to. It does not matter that this information gathered by the census is useful, necessary or even beneficial. None of those reasons justify the federal government usurping powers it is not granted in the Constitution. If the information is necessary, useful and/or beneficial let the citizens amend the Constitution to provide for a census. If one does not insist that the federal government exercise only those powers granted or necessarily implied in the Constitution by “we the people” then what good is even having a constitution? Just let the federal government do as it wishes. Oh, you do anyway? Never mind.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Ham Radio Is Changing
About every three months my ham club, the Highland Lakes Amateur Radio Club, holds a Sunday afternoon workshop on some topic that is of interest to enough people to make it worth while. The workshops are not limited to members and anyone who is interested can attend. The Club has held construction workshops where we built antennas for emergency use, technical lectures about antenna principles, practical workshops on the use of the new power connectors, the use of an antenna modeling program and several workshops on how to set up, configure and use the digital keyboard modes. We try to stay abreast of established and changing technology in our hobby. All of the workshops held have had a pretty good turnout and almost everyone attending has commented that the workshops are very helpful.
Not too long ago I attended an informal get-together of hams where there was a discussion of the coming digital revolution in our hobby. During the discussion of digital voice one old timer commented that it was regrettable that the world of ham radio as we know it was changing. After thinking about that for a minute I told him that I thought it was a good thing, which was met with a “Harrump, I beg your pardon.” I told him that ham radio is a constantly changing hobby. It changed when AM came on the scene. It changed again when single sideband arrived. It is changing again as digital emissions become the primary mode of operations. I said that we should be thankful it did and does or we would all still be using spark gap transmitters.
There are many digital keyboard modes: that is, computer via radio to radio and computer. They run the gamut from slow and narrow bandwidths to fast and wide bandwidths The descriptions of each mode along with how each one sounds are are found at: http://www.wb8nut.com/digital.html Have a look and listen at your leisure. Hams have and are working on improving email like messaging from station to station via radio and station to Internet via radio. In emergencies hams can transmit such messages for emergency agencies and for health and welfare inquiries.
Then there is digital voice. One manufacturer has a system called D-Star, which is somewhat popular but uses a privately owned vocoder. Other manufacturers also offer primitive digital voice systems but they likewise use proprietary vocoders. See
Not too long ago I attended an informal get-together of hams where there was a discussion of the coming digital revolution in our hobby. During the discussion of digital voice one old timer commented that it was regrettable that the world of ham radio as we know it was changing. After thinking about that for a minute I told him that I thought it was a good thing, which was met with a “Harrump, I beg your pardon.” I told him that ham radio is a constantly changing hobby. It changed when AM came on the scene. It changed again when single sideband arrived. It is changing again as digital emissions become the primary mode of operations. I said that we should be thankful it did and does or we would all still be using spark gap transmitters.
There are many digital keyboard modes: that is, computer via radio to radio and computer. They run the gamut from slow and narrow bandwidths to fast and wide bandwidths The descriptions of each mode along with how each one sounds are are found at: http://www.wb8nut.com/digital.html Have a look and listen at your leisure. Hams have and are working on improving email like messaging from station to station via radio and station to Internet via radio. In emergencies hams can transmit such messages for emergency agencies and for health and welfare inquiries.
Then there is digital voice. One manufacturer has a system called D-Star, which is somewhat popular but uses a privately owned vocoder. Other manufacturers also offer primitive digital voice systems but they likewise use proprietary vocoders. See
Most human beings naturally resist technological change. The older we get the more we resist changes in our lives. For the most part, however, change has been good for humankind. It has brought us the marvelous age in which we live and promises even more wonders in the future. Some of my older ham friends still use AM (bloated bandwidth mode) below 21 MHz. Some think that all true hams can and still do operate CW. To those friends I say enjoy your modes of operation. There is room for all of us in this hobby. Make sure, however, that you make room for and do not interfere with the new modes for they are the future of Ham Radio.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Ham Radio Encouragement I Received
My father and a neighbor introduced me to the art and science of radio communications when I was in the fifth grade living in Beaumont, Texas. For my 12th birthday my father gave me the Boy's First Book of Radio and a neighbor gave me an old hardback Radio Handbook. From those publications I built a crystal radio and with some effort got it working. I could only receive about three local AM broadcast stations but it was a marvel to me. Later I built a one tube regenerative radio and after much experimenting got it working. I put up a better antenna and I could hear not only local stations but stations as far away as Houston, San Antonio and Dallas. Sometime later I added a one tube audio amplifier with a speaker. I was fascinated that I could pull electronic signals containing information out of the air from equipment I had built.
In 1955 and 1956 neither my father nor our neighbor had any time to devote to being ham radio operators. They were both construction engineers in the oil industry and spent a lot of time on job sites scattered all around the State of Texas. So, other than occasional encouragement, I was pretty much on my own with my world of radios. In the Summer of 1956 my father took me to his employer's (Sun Oil Company) geophysical lab where he introduced me to two engineers who were hams. After spending some time with them and then going over to the home of one to see the equipment in his “shack” I was hooked. I wanted to be a ham radio operator.
In 1956 I had my first paper route, which gave me a little extra money left over after parent mandated savings. I ordered the ARRL License Manual and purchased a code key from one of the two hams I had met. I took my audio amplifier apart and rebuilt it as a code practice oscillator. I rewound the coil on my regenerative radio as the two hams advised and eventually I was able to receive the 80 meter ham band. I slowly learned and then copied CW every evening that I could.
One day right after school was out for the Summer of 1957 I decided I was ready to try for my license. At that time the Novice license could be given by a ham over the age of 21 so I met with the two hams and took my first test. Also, in those days the person administering the exam did not grade it but sent it to the FCC. The hams who administered my exam, however, looked over my answers and told me that I passed. I had to wait 6 weeks for the test materials to go to the FCC field office in Beaumont then to Pennsylvania and for my license to come back from the FCC. The hams suggested I spend my waiting time building a two band 6AG7 / 6L6 pi output 35 watt transmitter and putting up a dipole antenna, which I did. In 1957 the local electronics stores had most of the parts one needed and the remaining parts could be salvaged from old radios. So I collected the parts and built the transmitter. I put up the antenna using some wire my dad salvaged from a job site. I ordered four crystals from an advertisement in back of the License Manual.
I continued to listen to 80 and 40 meters and copy CW almost every night, improving my speed and proficiency. Occasionally I would tune up the band and hear some hams using AM. There were also some hams using a new funny voice mode that sounded like duck talk called Single Side Band. I had to rewire a couple of places in my transmitter but eventually I got it to work into a 75 watt light bulb. In the meantime, and unbeknown to me, my dad and the two hams had gotten together and selected, and my dad and mom bought a Hallicrafters S-38D receiver, which they presented to me on the day my ticket arrived from the FCC. I could not believe my good fortune. It had a big beautiful slide rule dial with a separate band spread scale. I installed a knife switch for my antenna change over between the transmitter and the receiver, set up my station and went to listening to hams on my new receiver. It was a magic time for me.
The very next evening I heard another novice ham calling CQ on 80 meters. When he paused I nervously threw the knife switch to transmit and tapped out his call several times on the key followed by DE (this is) and my KN5HWH call several times, closing with a K (over). I threw the knife switch back to receive and waited. Nothing. Perhaps he did not hear me. Perhaps he did not tune to my frequency. Perhaps my transmitter is not putting out enough power. Perhaps my antenna was not performing. After a moment of silence that seemed like an eternity there he was, calling me back. I had my first QSO (contact) that evening. I became a devoted ham radio operator for life at that moment.
I made a number of CW contacts during my time as a Novice. I went on to upgrade to the Technician license and later the General license. In addition to CW I have used AM, FM and SSB. Currently, I am learning all of the new digital modes. I now hold an Amateur Extra license. I am an ARRL VE (volunteer examiner), an ARRL certified instructor and I participate in classes and examinations for prospective ham operators. I am involved in Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES). I have participated in many ham field days, emergency services (my first one was Hurricane Carla in 1961 at the Beaumont Red Cross headquarters) and many activities in my more than fifty years as a ham. I have made a lot of good life-long friends in the hobby. I have thoroughly enjoyed every minute of my time spent being a ham. It is all because of the support I received from my father, a neighbor and my father's friends.
What do young folks today have to compare with my introduction to amateur radio? The world. There is not only ham radio, which is entering the digital communications era, they can build and experiment with computers. They can learn to program them or to write code for games and other applications. They can build and work on automobiles, especially the coming “green” cars. They can build airplanes, rockets, robots or a myriad of things. There are so many things they can do if they are encouraged and helped along the way. I was fortunate in having a father and several of his friends help me pursue my interest. If you see or know of some youngster to whom you can lend a hand and some advice in his/her quest to learn something you are familiar with please do so. You may help him/her develop a career path or a life long hobby or maybe just help him/her learn the right path through life. At the very least you may get him/her off the couch and out from in front of that mind-wasting boob tube or some time-wasting game unit and on the way he/she really wants to go.
In 1955 and 1956 neither my father nor our neighbor had any time to devote to being ham radio operators. They were both construction engineers in the oil industry and spent a lot of time on job sites scattered all around the State of Texas. So, other than occasional encouragement, I was pretty much on my own with my world of radios. In the Summer of 1956 my father took me to his employer's (Sun Oil Company) geophysical lab where he introduced me to two engineers who were hams. After spending some time with them and then going over to the home of one to see the equipment in his “shack” I was hooked. I wanted to be a ham radio operator.
In 1956 I had my first paper route, which gave me a little extra money left over after parent mandated savings. I ordered the ARRL License Manual and purchased a code key from one of the two hams I had met. I took my audio amplifier apart and rebuilt it as a code practice oscillator. I rewound the coil on my regenerative radio as the two hams advised and eventually I was able to receive the 80 meter ham band. I slowly learned and then copied CW every evening that I could.
One day right after school was out for the Summer of 1957 I decided I was ready to try for my license. At that time the Novice license could be given by a ham over the age of 21 so I met with the two hams and took my first test. Also, in those days the person administering the exam did not grade it but sent it to the FCC. The hams who administered my exam, however, looked over my answers and told me that I passed. I had to wait 6 weeks for the test materials to go to the FCC field office in Beaumont then to Pennsylvania and for my license to come back from the FCC. The hams suggested I spend my waiting time building a two band 6AG7 / 6L6 pi output 35 watt transmitter and putting up a dipole antenna, which I did. In 1957 the local electronics stores had most of the parts one needed and the remaining parts could be salvaged from old radios. So I collected the parts and built the transmitter. I put up the antenna using some wire my dad salvaged from a job site. I ordered four crystals from an advertisement in back of the License Manual.
I continued to listen to 80 and 40 meters and copy CW almost every night, improving my speed and proficiency. Occasionally I would tune up the band and hear some hams using AM. There were also some hams using a new funny voice mode that sounded like duck talk called Single Side Band. I had to rewire a couple of places in my transmitter but eventually I got it to work into a 75 watt light bulb. In the meantime, and unbeknown to me, my dad and the two hams had gotten together and selected, and my dad and mom bought a Hallicrafters S-38D receiver, which they presented to me on the day my ticket arrived from the FCC. I could not believe my good fortune. It had a big beautiful slide rule dial with a separate band spread scale. I installed a knife switch for my antenna change over between the transmitter and the receiver, set up my station and went to listening to hams on my new receiver. It was a magic time for me.
The very next evening I heard another novice ham calling CQ on 80 meters. When he paused I nervously threw the knife switch to transmit and tapped out his call several times on the key followed by DE (this is) and my KN5HWH call several times, closing with a K (over). I threw the knife switch back to receive and waited. Nothing. Perhaps he did not hear me. Perhaps he did not tune to my frequency. Perhaps my transmitter is not putting out enough power. Perhaps my antenna was not performing. After a moment of silence that seemed like an eternity there he was, calling me back. I had my first QSO (contact) that evening. I became a devoted ham radio operator for life at that moment.
I made a number of CW contacts during my time as a Novice. I went on to upgrade to the Technician license and later the General license. In addition to CW I have used AM, FM and SSB. Currently, I am learning all of the new digital modes. I now hold an Amateur Extra license. I am an ARRL VE (volunteer examiner), an ARRL certified instructor and I participate in classes and examinations for prospective ham operators. I am involved in Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES). I have participated in many ham field days, emergency services (my first one was Hurricane Carla in 1961 at the Beaumont Red Cross headquarters) and many activities in my more than fifty years as a ham. I have made a lot of good life-long friends in the hobby. I have thoroughly enjoyed every minute of my time spent being a ham. It is all because of the support I received from my father, a neighbor and my father's friends.
What do young folks today have to compare with my introduction to amateur radio? The world. There is not only ham radio, which is entering the digital communications era, they can build and experiment with computers. They can learn to program them or to write code for games and other applications. They can build and work on automobiles, especially the coming “green” cars. They can build airplanes, rockets, robots or a myriad of things. There are so many things they can do if they are encouraged and helped along the way. I was fortunate in having a father and several of his friends help me pursue my interest. If you see or know of some youngster to whom you can lend a hand and some advice in his/her quest to learn something you are familiar with please do so. You may help him/her develop a career path or a life long hobby or maybe just help him/her learn the right path through life. At the very least you may get him/her off the couch and out from in front of that mind-wasting boob tube or some time-wasting game unit and on the way he/she really wants to go.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
LABELING AND NAME-CALLING: FALSE ARGUMENTS
I have noticed that in the presentation of opinions about certain national affairs (labeled news analysis) and even in discussions among my friends and acquaintances there seems to be more labeling and name-calling going on instead of dealing with the other person's arguments. Labeling and name-calling does not in any manner deal with the issues being discussed.
Example:
Pro: Pregnancy is something that only women have to endure. Therefore, the issue of the choice to have or not have an abortion is strictly an issue that concerns women. Men should remain quite about it, unless asked for their counsel and advice by the women in their lives.
Con: Anyone who believes that is an immoral liberal. Killing babies is a murder.
This non-argument, also called irrational argument, is so common today that we have become insensitive to it. In my college rhetoric and logic classes I learned that this type of response was called an Intimidation Argument. It is not an argument at all but a method of postponing espousing or answering an argument on the issue being presented. This tactic prevents a discussion of the merits and lack thereof of the issues that need to be discussed by the citizens.
One of my favorite philosophers wrote about this tactic of non-argument in the following manner.
Argument from Intimidation
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . “[It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.” (From the writings of Ayn Rand)
Also see Handbook of Logical Fallacies: http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/FALLACYS.HTM
The biggest non-arguments today seems to be the labeling of a person's position as liberal or conservative, implying such person is not worthy of belief because he or she is of a certain political persuasion. How does that get us to a reasonable conclusion about the issue? What is it about a position one tends to disagree with makes one resort to such labeling rather than putting forth a contrary argument?
Labeling an opponent and/or his argument can also be done in a very deceptive manner.
Example:
Pro: The administration is proposing a large bailout stimulus to help large private businesses with a view of preventing the recession from becoming a depression.
Con: That is untenable. What the administration is proposing is going to make America a socialist state.
No discussion of whether the bailout is an economically sound idea. No discussion of whether there is any downside to the bailout. No discussion of whether the bailout is legally possible under our constitutional system. There is not even any request or challenge to define terms. How then can any conclusion, or even compromise, be reached by the participants or the audience?
In such an atmosphere people have no opportunity to explore the merits and lack of merits of a proposal since it is assumed by one side to be bad and all discussion is prevented by name-calling. Why then is one surprised that the citizens of this Nation are so divided? (besides the fact that there are only two major political parties). The good points and bad points of a proposal are best explored when “thrown into” the market place of open debate, but that is not happening in America today.
A more appropriate argument would be:
Pro: The administration is proposing a large bailout stimulus to help large private businesses, with a view of preserving jobs and preventing the recession from becoming a depression.
Con: This economic condition is a natural consequence of the economy being operated in an improper manner and is necessary to correct the economy. The administration is looking at the economy in the short run and has not explained how the stimulus will effect the economy in the long run. Also, the administration has not answered the arguments of over three hundred senior economists that that the stimulus will put America into an indebtedness from which it cannot recover considering the declining productive age population.
I would request that in the future as you listen to the “talking heads” and “pundits” (not meant derogatorily) discussing various issues you particularly make note of the use of this irrational argument technique. This is not like calling an automobile a Buick or calling an undocumented immigrant an illegal immigrant. Those labels are names or classes – not arguments.
Next up, the use of deceptive labeling to imply the appropriateness or inappropriateness of positions and organizations.
Example:
Pro: Pregnancy is something that only women have to endure. Therefore, the issue of the choice to have or not have an abortion is strictly an issue that concerns women. Men should remain quite about it, unless asked for their counsel and advice by the women in their lives.
Con: Anyone who believes that is an immoral liberal. Killing babies is a murder.
This non-argument, also called irrational argument, is so common today that we have become insensitive to it. In my college rhetoric and logic classes I learned that this type of response was called an Intimidation Argument. It is not an argument at all but a method of postponing espousing or answering an argument on the issue being presented. This tactic prevents a discussion of the merits and lack thereof of the issues that need to be discussed by the citizens.
One of my favorite philosophers wrote about this tactic of non-argument in the following manner.
Argument from Intimidation
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . “[It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.” (From the writings of Ayn Rand)
Also see Handbook of Logical Fallacies: http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/FALLACYS.HTM
The biggest non-arguments today seems to be the labeling of a person's position as liberal or conservative, implying such person is not worthy of belief because he or she is of a certain political persuasion. How does that get us to a reasonable conclusion about the issue? What is it about a position one tends to disagree with makes one resort to such labeling rather than putting forth a contrary argument?
Labeling an opponent and/or his argument can also be done in a very deceptive manner.
Example:
Pro: The administration is proposing a large bailout stimulus to help large private businesses with a view of preventing the recession from becoming a depression.
Con: That is untenable. What the administration is proposing is going to make America a socialist state.
No discussion of whether the bailout is an economically sound idea. No discussion of whether there is any downside to the bailout. No discussion of whether the bailout is legally possible under our constitutional system. There is not even any request or challenge to define terms. How then can any conclusion, or even compromise, be reached by the participants or the audience?
In such an atmosphere people have no opportunity to explore the merits and lack of merits of a proposal since it is assumed by one side to be bad and all discussion is prevented by name-calling. Why then is one surprised that the citizens of this Nation are so divided? (besides the fact that there are only two major political parties). The good points and bad points of a proposal are best explored when “thrown into” the market place of open debate, but that is not happening in America today.
A more appropriate argument would be:
Pro: The administration is proposing a large bailout stimulus to help large private businesses, with a view of preserving jobs and preventing the recession from becoming a depression.
Con: This economic condition is a natural consequence of the economy being operated in an improper manner and is necessary to correct the economy. The administration is looking at the economy in the short run and has not explained how the stimulus will effect the economy in the long run. Also, the administration has not answered the arguments of over three hundred senior economists that that the stimulus will put America into an indebtedness from which it cannot recover considering the declining productive age population.
I would request that in the future as you listen to the “talking heads” and “pundits” (not meant derogatorily) discussing various issues you particularly make note of the use of this irrational argument technique. This is not like calling an automobile a Buick or calling an undocumented immigrant an illegal immigrant. Those labels are names or classes – not arguments.
Next up, the use of deceptive labeling to imply the appropriateness or inappropriateness of positions and organizations.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The American Welfare State
I have blogged and otherwise written recently about the US becoming a social welfare state similar to England and France in the 1950s and 1960s. The lessons of history from that period in Europe are apparently going unheeded. In England today there is a strong push for a revival of its welfare state. See the following link
http://www.cepr.org/PUBS/Bulletin/meets/465.htm
Today, America is headed in the same direction. The US is rapidly on its way to becoming a social welfare state. When a large portion of the citizens start speaking of "welfare rights," "right to health care." "inequality of distribution of income" and "community service duties" then the mindset is present to set a nation that stands for individual rights on the path to tribal collectivism. The lessons of history are being completely ignored, even history as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. The words of the Nations founders are being ignored. The history of American innovation and progress in technology, of the arts and sciences and progress in human standards of living are being ignored.
A human being has four basic human rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of one's own destiny (happiness) and to die. There are other human rights associated with the right to liberty. In a welfare state your life and labor are controlled by the state for its benefit, your liberty is curtailed to choices consistent with the common good, the pursuit of your chosen destiny is limited by the state and since your labor contribution is needed by the collective you do not have the right to die until the state says so; generally, when you consume more than you produce.
Today, the United States is over five trillion dollars in debt. As of this date 25% of that debt is financed by foreign nations. Japan tops the list (with $644 billion), followed by China ($350 billion), United Kingdom ($239 billion) and oil exporting countries ($100 billion). That totals one and a third trillion dollars. This is the soft underbelly of the US. Its Achilles heel. The US now proposes to spend an additional one trillion dollars above its multi-trillion dollar budget that it does not have and cannot internally finance. It already has a huge Social Security burden and a Medicare burden that in a few years will sink the boat. The US is engaged in two very costly wars. How long do those in power think this can continue? They respond that the productive ability of American will recoup these temporary debts. Really! How? When? Do they really believe that the productive ability of America is infinite? The population over sixty-five is increasing and the productive age population supporting all of this debt and obligations is declining. It appears to me that America's productive ability is being outsourced to other nations or otherwise diminishing. This is not the American that weathered the depression of the thirties, a world war, built the American Dream and put men on the moon.
Our children and grandchildren are being slowly pushed into welfare state serfdom by the failure of those in power to fully comprehend the path upon which they have put the US. A welfare state, like Icarus, soars high with lofty ideas about the Utopia to come and like our Greek friend there seems to be no comprehension of the power of the natural consequences (Sun) of welfare state status. Once established there is only one path a welfare state can take: 1)continued slow decline in productivity with eventual shortages of goods and services; 2) decline in international political and diplomatic power; 3) high debt and eventual disrespect for and/or devaluation of its currency; 4) financial collapse; and 5) eventual bankruptcy. It can, at any time, reverse its course and try to cease being a welfare state, but that is very difficult. England during the Thacher years almost accomplished the reversal. France is trying to do so today. This is the path the previous and the current congresses and administrations have chosen for our children and grandchildren. Those of us who know better than to take this path are tacitly consenting to the process.
My father grew to adulthood during the Great Depression and, as a young man, had his life interrupted to fight in World War Two. He had more “life sayings” than a doctor has tongue depressors. Two of those he told me when I was very young and repeated them often were “nothing in life is free.” and “there is no free lunch.” He called this natural human law. To put it in Newtonian language for you Ubergeeks, for every payee there is and equal an opposite payor. These sayings are as true as any of the natural laws. Humans cannot escape them.
My late father-in-law, who held degrees from Harvard and MIT, including a doctorate in physical chemistry, and who wrote the still current definitive college text book on Cost Optimization Engineering, often lamented about what was happening to American productivity. His most often stated example was about all of the auto workers that used to work for Detroit auto makers who were now working for the government counting the imported cars from elsewhere. He was concerned about the overburden of benefits and extra costs the American workers carried, which alone prevented them from being the most productive workers in the world. That trend continues today. Of all of the job layoffs you have read or heard about recently how many of them were US government employees? None.
The citizens have found the keys to the treasury and there is no stopping what is to follow. My children and grandchildren, and your children and grandchildren, have my deepest sympathies for where they are headed and what they will endure. They are on the event horizon of a black hole. They also have my apologies for not doing more to try and prevent them from being sold into serfdom. Dad and his generation would have known what to do and done it. Alas, I knew but did nothing.
http://www.cepr.org/PUBS/Bulletin/meets/465.htm
Today, America is headed in the same direction. The US is rapidly on its way to becoming a social welfare state. When a large portion of the citizens start speaking of "welfare rights," "right to health care." "inequality of distribution of income" and "community service duties" then the mindset is present to set a nation that stands for individual rights on the path to tribal collectivism. The lessons of history are being completely ignored, even history as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. The words of the Nations founders are being ignored. The history of American innovation and progress in technology, of the arts and sciences and progress in human standards of living are being ignored.
A human being has four basic human rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of one's own destiny (happiness) and to die. There are other human rights associated with the right to liberty. In a welfare state your life and labor are controlled by the state for its benefit, your liberty is curtailed to choices consistent with the common good, the pursuit of your chosen destiny is limited by the state and since your labor contribution is needed by the collective you do not have the right to die until the state says so; generally, when you consume more than you produce.
Today, the United States is over five trillion dollars in debt. As of this date 25% of that debt is financed by foreign nations. Japan tops the list (with $644 billion), followed by China ($350 billion), United Kingdom ($239 billion) and oil exporting countries ($100 billion). That totals one and a third trillion dollars. This is the soft underbelly of the US. Its Achilles heel. The US now proposes to spend an additional one trillion dollars above its multi-trillion dollar budget that it does not have and cannot internally finance. It already has a huge Social Security burden and a Medicare burden that in a few years will sink the boat. The US is engaged in two very costly wars. How long do those in power think this can continue? They respond that the productive ability of American will recoup these temporary debts. Really! How? When? Do they really believe that the productive ability of America is infinite? The population over sixty-five is increasing and the productive age population supporting all of this debt and obligations is declining. It appears to me that America's productive ability is being outsourced to other nations or otherwise diminishing. This is not the American that weathered the depression of the thirties, a world war, built the American Dream and put men on the moon.
Our children and grandchildren are being slowly pushed into welfare state serfdom by the failure of those in power to fully comprehend the path upon which they have put the US. A welfare state, like Icarus, soars high with lofty ideas about the Utopia to come and like our Greek friend there seems to be no comprehension of the power of the natural consequences (Sun) of welfare state status. Once established there is only one path a welfare state can take: 1)continued slow decline in productivity with eventual shortages of goods and services; 2) decline in international political and diplomatic power; 3) high debt and eventual disrespect for and/or devaluation of its currency; 4) financial collapse; and 5) eventual bankruptcy. It can, at any time, reverse its course and try to cease being a welfare state, but that is very difficult. England during the Thacher years almost accomplished the reversal. France is trying to do so today. This is the path the previous and the current congresses and administrations have chosen for our children and grandchildren. Those of us who know better than to take this path are tacitly consenting to the process.
My father grew to adulthood during the Great Depression and, as a young man, had his life interrupted to fight in World War Two. He had more “life sayings” than a doctor has tongue depressors. Two of those he told me when I was very young and repeated them often were “nothing in life is free.” and “there is no free lunch.” He called this natural human law. To put it in Newtonian language for you Ubergeeks, for every payee there is and equal an opposite payor. These sayings are as true as any of the natural laws. Humans cannot escape them.
My late father-in-law, who held degrees from Harvard and MIT, including a doctorate in physical chemistry, and who wrote the still current definitive college text book on Cost Optimization Engineering, often lamented about what was happening to American productivity. His most often stated example was about all of the auto workers that used to work for Detroit auto makers who were now working for the government counting the imported cars from elsewhere. He was concerned about the overburden of benefits and extra costs the American workers carried, which alone prevented them from being the most productive workers in the world. That trend continues today. Of all of the job layoffs you have read or heard about recently how many of them were US government employees? None.
The citizens have found the keys to the treasury and there is no stopping what is to follow. My children and grandchildren, and your children and grandchildren, have my deepest sympathies for where they are headed and what they will endure. They are on the event horizon of a black hole. They also have my apologies for not doing more to try and prevent them from being sold into serfdom. Dad and his generation would have known what to do and done it. Alas, I knew but did nothing.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Verbs with Direction
Someone asked me the other day to turn-up the thermostat. I told them it was attached to the wall with screws and I could not do so without a screwdriver, which I did not have. They seemed quite puzzled and exasperated by my answer and proceeded to go-over and make the desired adjustment to the thermostat.
Last night I wandered off into thoughts about how many American English idioms there are made from verb-preposition combinations: verbs with direction. I started thinking about what it would be like to be a foreigner just learning American English and hearing those common sayings.
His first exposure might be in a hotel after he arrived in America and the housekeeper ask him if he wanted his bed turned-down for the night. Then, the next day he is offered a job that he is told that someone has turned-down. He thinks of the housekeeper turning-down the other applicant.
The old phrase “he turned-up missing simply does not compute. If that housekeeper, however, gets to the former applicant he may turn-up in proper condition for the night.
If you tell someone to turn-down the television are you asking him make it ready for use at night? If you tell someone to turn-up the radio are you asking them to make the radio hotter?
What are you asking if you tell someone to turn-back the covers? When one says the military turned-back the enemy does that mean they plan to get in bed together?
We drive pick-up trucks that do not do any picking at all. Aren't they really put-in and take-out trucks? When you go to pick-up your wife does that mean you will be putting her in the truck? Does it at least mean you will be lifting her off the ground? When we tell our children to pick-up their toys does this mean go put the toys in the truck? Does one ever pick-down?
If you reach above your head and pull-down an apple from a tree did you not pick-down the apple? Why did you pick-on that particular apple tree by picking-out that specific apple? Did you pick-over its fruit before selecting that apple?
When your children talk-back to you do you say you are not going to put-up with that? Then later do you tell your children to put-up their toys? Do they tell you they are not going to do so? Do you wonder why?
What do you really mean when you say something should be put-away? Does put-away mean different things depending upon whether the thing to be put-away is a skateboard, the family pet, or grandpa?
What is the difference between a house that is torn-up and one that is torn-down? Is there a point where it is so torn-up that it cannot be fixed-up and should be torn-down?
If they haul-off the debris from a house that is torn-down do they also haul-on materials to build-up a new structure? Do they do so with a haul-on truck? Why can't one build-up the new structure? Don't rivers build-up sand bars?
What is the difference between shutting-down and shutting-up? Would an elderly shut-in who is told to shut-up be shut-out of the group and perhaps shut-down emotionally. Would it make a difference if I tell the workmen on a completed job to shut-up instead of shut-down?
Why do we always start-up the car and later it has to be shut-down? If we are going to a friend's house do we not start-down the road?
If your passenger tells you to slow-up and you slow-down instead should he be offended? Should he tell you when to speed-up? If he told you to speed-down the road would he want you to go slower or faster?
Can your friend really come-over to your house? How would he do so?
If you go to the drive-in window of a local fast food place and you are leaving is it now a drive-out window? Do you think people really intend to build drive-through windows? What is meant by a drive-in bank?
Does an airplane really take-on passengers? Is that different than a person who takes-in a boarder? Shouldn't the airplane also take-in passengers? Do they really want you to get-on the plane? If you really do try to get-on the plane will they not get-on you? (Thanks George).
It seems logical that one would only take-out the trash and bring-in the groceries. If you go to a restaurant and order take-out are you asking for trash?
At night do you put-out the cat? If the cat has knocked-over your favorite vase are you are put-out with the cat? Why? Neither of you knocked-over a bank.
A cartoon I remember is of a man facing a paper towel dispenser in a restroom. On the front of the dispenser were the words “pull-down: tear-up.” So the man pulls the dispenser down from the wall and tears it apart.
There are many, many more but I have already devoted far too much time to this endeavor. The bottle of Cabernet is now empty and so am I.
Last night I wandered off into thoughts about how many American English idioms there are made from verb-preposition combinations: verbs with direction. I started thinking about what it would be like to be a foreigner just learning American English and hearing those common sayings.
His first exposure might be in a hotel after he arrived in America and the housekeeper ask him if he wanted his bed turned-down for the night. Then, the next day he is offered a job that he is told that someone has turned-down. He thinks of the housekeeper turning-down the other applicant.
The old phrase “he turned-up missing simply does not compute. If that housekeeper, however, gets to the former applicant he may turn-up in proper condition for the night.
If you tell someone to turn-down the television are you asking him make it ready for use at night? If you tell someone to turn-up the radio are you asking them to make the radio hotter?
What are you asking if you tell someone to turn-back the covers? When one says the military turned-back the enemy does that mean they plan to get in bed together?
We drive pick-up trucks that do not do any picking at all. Aren't they really put-in and take-out trucks? When you go to pick-up your wife does that mean you will be putting her in the truck? Does it at least mean you will be lifting her off the ground? When we tell our children to pick-up their toys does this mean go put the toys in the truck? Does one ever pick-down?
If you reach above your head and pull-down an apple from a tree did you not pick-down the apple? Why did you pick-on that particular apple tree by picking-out that specific apple? Did you pick-over its fruit before selecting that apple?
When your children talk-back to you do you say you are not going to put-up with that? Then later do you tell your children to put-up their toys? Do they tell you they are not going to do so? Do you wonder why?
What do you really mean when you say something should be put-away? Does put-away mean different things depending upon whether the thing to be put-away is a skateboard, the family pet, or grandpa?
What is the difference between a house that is torn-up and one that is torn-down? Is there a point where it is so torn-up that it cannot be fixed-up and should be torn-down?
If they haul-off the debris from a house that is torn-down do they also haul-on materials to build-up a new structure? Do they do so with a haul-on truck? Why can't one build-up the new structure? Don't rivers build-up sand bars?
What is the difference between shutting-down and shutting-up? Would an elderly shut-in who is told to shut-up be shut-out of the group and perhaps shut-down emotionally. Would it make a difference if I tell the workmen on a completed job to shut-up instead of shut-down?
Why do we always start-up the car and later it has to be shut-down? If we are going to a friend's house do we not start-down the road?
If your passenger tells you to slow-up and you slow-down instead should he be offended? Should he tell you when to speed-up? If he told you to speed-down the road would he want you to go slower or faster?
Can your friend really come-over to your house? How would he do so?
If you go to the drive-in window of a local fast food place and you are leaving is it now a drive-out window? Do you think people really intend to build drive-through windows? What is meant by a drive-in bank?
Does an airplane really take-on passengers? Is that different than a person who takes-in a boarder? Shouldn't the airplane also take-in passengers? Do they really want you to get-on the plane? If you really do try to get-on the plane will they not get-on you? (Thanks George).
It seems logical that one would only take-out the trash and bring-in the groceries. If you go to a restaurant and order take-out are you asking for trash?
At night do you put-out the cat? If the cat has knocked-over your favorite vase are you are put-out with the cat? Why? Neither of you knocked-over a bank.
A cartoon I remember is of a man facing a paper towel dispenser in a restroom. On the front of the dispenser were the words “pull-down: tear-up.” So the man pulls the dispenser down from the wall and tears it apart.
There are many, many more but I have already devoted far too much time to this endeavor. The bottle of Cabernet is now empty and so am I.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Defining the Terms
Recently, some public figures were talking in the press about the US becoming a socialist nation because of the effects of the stimulus package. An article appeared in Newsweek magazine essentially saying similar things. It was said that some fear the US is going to takeover and nationalized banks. Some are concerned that the US is going to take control of the auto industry. Some say the public, thus the government, now own the big investment houses. Last night, on my usual mental wandering that usually occur when I have my evening Cabernet, I thought about that. My first thought was of my dad who always made us define our terms before we had any serious discussion. I can hear him now saying “get the book.”
I had not dealt seriously with this term since shortly after I left college. I needed to refresh my memory on just what the term socialism meant. I had a feeling that the term was being misused by those self-elected representatives of the people. So, I got out one of my old college textbooks and checked with Wikipedia, the Webster On-line Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. (I believe in being cautious. I wear suspenders with a belt). I got the book, dad. I found the following.
Socialism:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation
That seems pretty simple. The government owns the land, equipment and materials as well as the processes for producing and distributing goods and services. China is one example, although it is allowing more private ownership than in the past. Venezuela is trying to become a socialist nation and President Chavez is nationalizing as fast as he can. although he is not anywhere near there yet. So how is it that the US is becoming a socialist nation? Is the bailout money being used to acquire government ownership of any means of production?
My understanding is that investment in and regulation of the means of production and distribution does not mean ownership by the state. One could argue that the regulations, whether enacted directly by the government or attached as strings to any investment made by it, could be such as it resulted in de facto state ownership. From what I can tell, however, the elected officials are not removing any economically viable business from private ownership. At least not at this time. In fact, it seems to me that they are taking great care to make sure these privately owned behemoth companies survive. (Whether a publicly held company [shareholders] is actually privately owned is a subject for another mental wandering)
About half way through the second glass of Cabernet, it occurred to me that what the elected US government officials are doing may well result in this Country moving more toward the European style welfare state of the 1950s and 60s, and like the ones that exist today in Denmark and Sweden. Those were not good days for England and France. I remember the stories of poor production and distribution of goods and services in those two countries. Stories about shortages of goods and services, poor health care, no innovation and a poorer standard of living for many.
Welfare State:
A model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility in theory ought to be comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered and universally applied to citizens as a "right". Welfare state can also mean the creation of a "safety net" of minimum standards of varying forms of welfare.
A welfare state can, of course, have a socialist economic system, or a capitalist economic system or one of many variations between the two. Most European welfare states retained basic private property and private means of production and distribution but the government owned some portion of major industries. All businesses as well as property ownership were heavily regulated and assessed (taxed) for the “public good.” They never converted over to a socialist economy. Today, most European countries have backed away from the old social welfare state system because of the “free market” idea and its resulting increased wealth and standard of living that are sweeping across the world. The fundamental problem with a welfare state is that it will eventually bankrupt itself by providing ever increasing welfare and free services to its citizens. It is simply a matter of economic reality (and history). Besides, as the old saying goes, do you really want a bunch of people who could not make a profit running a house of ill repute in Nevada making rules for your welfare?
History has shown that where there is private ownership of property and the means of production and distribution the majority of the people under that system fare better than those in welfare states. The prime examples in the world today are, first, Russia and China, who had no where near the productive capacity of free market states until each began to relax the rules and let the free market start working. Second, most of those countries that have socialist economies are nonproductive, agrarian societies. Third, the governing planners are never concerned with any individual's welfare, but rather, the welfare of the society as a whole.
I learned long ago that most people in the world simply want to be left alone to grow their own rice to feed their families, to be able to raise their families without interference and to believe in whatever they wanted to believe in. Most people desire to be free from unnecessary government interference and free from demands by nosy people who think they know what is best for everyone. There is no right or wrong in any economic system or any particular type of government. (I am sure that this statement will be the subject of a future mental wandering). It is simply a matter of what works best for the society (tribe) as a whole, what is sustainable in the long run and what produces and distributes enough to take care of the society's needs. Remember always, that society is merely an abstract phrase for a group of real, living, breathing individuals.
I would enjoy hearing your comments on the subject. Caveat. Bring your textbooks, dictionaries, and Cabernet.
I had not dealt seriously with this term since shortly after I left college. I needed to refresh my memory on just what the term socialism meant. I had a feeling that the term was being misused by those self-elected representatives of the people. So, I got out one of my old college textbooks and checked with Wikipedia, the Webster On-line Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. (I believe in being cautious. I wear suspenders with a belt). I got the book, dad. I found the following.
Socialism:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation
That seems pretty simple. The government owns the land, equipment and materials as well as the processes for producing and distributing goods and services. China is one example, although it is allowing more private ownership than in the past. Venezuela is trying to become a socialist nation and President Chavez is nationalizing as fast as he can. although he is not anywhere near there yet. So how is it that the US is becoming a socialist nation? Is the bailout money being used to acquire government ownership of any means of production?
My understanding is that investment in and regulation of the means of production and distribution does not mean ownership by the state. One could argue that the regulations, whether enacted directly by the government or attached as strings to any investment made by it, could be such as it resulted in de facto state ownership. From what I can tell, however, the elected officials are not removing any economically viable business from private ownership. At least not at this time. In fact, it seems to me that they are taking great care to make sure these privately owned behemoth companies survive. (Whether a publicly held company [shareholders] is actually privately owned is a subject for another mental wandering)
About half way through the second glass of Cabernet, it occurred to me that what the elected US government officials are doing may well result in this Country moving more toward the European style welfare state of the 1950s and 60s, and like the ones that exist today in Denmark and Sweden. Those were not good days for England and France. I remember the stories of poor production and distribution of goods and services in those two countries. Stories about shortages of goods and services, poor health care, no innovation and a poorer standard of living for many.
Welfare State:
A model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility in theory ought to be comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered and universally applied to citizens as a "right". Welfare state can also mean the creation of a "safety net" of minimum standards of varying forms of welfare.
A welfare state can, of course, have a socialist economic system, or a capitalist economic system or one of many variations between the two. Most European welfare states retained basic private property and private means of production and distribution but the government owned some portion of major industries. All businesses as well as property ownership were heavily regulated and assessed (taxed) for the “public good.” They never converted over to a socialist economy. Today, most European countries have backed away from the old social welfare state system because of the “free market” idea and its resulting increased wealth and standard of living that are sweeping across the world. The fundamental problem with a welfare state is that it will eventually bankrupt itself by providing ever increasing welfare and free services to its citizens. It is simply a matter of economic reality (and history). Besides, as the old saying goes, do you really want a bunch of people who could not make a profit running a house of ill repute in Nevada making rules for your welfare?
History has shown that where there is private ownership of property and the means of production and distribution the majority of the people under that system fare better than those in welfare states. The prime examples in the world today are, first, Russia and China, who had no where near the productive capacity of free market states until each began to relax the rules and let the free market start working. Second, most of those countries that have socialist economies are nonproductive, agrarian societies. Third, the governing planners are never concerned with any individual's welfare, but rather, the welfare of the society as a whole.
I learned long ago that most people in the world simply want to be left alone to grow their own rice to feed their families, to be able to raise their families without interference and to believe in whatever they wanted to believe in. Most people desire to be free from unnecessary government interference and free from demands by nosy people who think they know what is best for everyone. There is no right or wrong in any economic system or any particular type of government. (I am sure that this statement will be the subject of a future mental wandering). It is simply a matter of what works best for the society (tribe) as a whole, what is sustainable in the long run and what produces and distributes enough to take care of the society's needs. Remember always, that society is merely an abstract phrase for a group of real, living, breathing individuals.
I would enjoy hearing your comments on the subject. Caveat. Bring your textbooks, dictionaries, and Cabernet.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Defining Liberal and Conservative
I am an news and information junkie. I cannot get enough. I am addicted. I watch the news, listen to the news and read the news a couple of hours every day. I have not the slightest idea why I input all of this news and information into my aging brain. I really cannot do anything with it except hopefully form opinions on issues, which I like to think are informed opinions. Alas, having information from which to form opinions is no longer in vogue. The airwaves and the Internet are jammed with opinions not based upon accurate information or upon careful analysis. It seems to me that the news today is analyzed from a political perspective rather than from a basic set of personal principles: a creed. Today, a person or idea is labeled either a conservative or a liberal based upon one's political perspective and so the the vast majority of opinions presented tend to be one or the other, with each one claiming to present the exclusive "fair and balanced" position. It seems to me that a person is rarely ever a pure conservative or liberal. The fact that no clear and concise definition of those two terms is at hand makes the opinions proffered even less informed. Each presenter hurls the terms liberal and conservative at the other side as if they were the ultimate derogatory nuclear bombs. What if reality is that we are all somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative. It is entirely possible that we are all pragmatists.
Everyone has an idea of what is conservative and what is liberal, but do we all have the same idea. For example, is giving women the right to vote a liberal or a conservative position. In the late 1890s up to the 1930s it was most certainly a liberal idea. Is it still a liberal idea in Western countries today now that women in those countries have the right to vote? What about in some other countries, mainly in the Near East and Middle East? In such countries it would not only be considered liberal but blasphemously so. Do the definitions of what issues are liberal and what issues are conservative change with time? Do such definitions change with place? When you call an idea or someone liberal or conservative do you mean the same thing as I understand the words liberal or conservative? Well in the overwhelming desire to aid good communications I will proceed to define the terms.
Lest start with the term liberal. Liberalism, according the Wikipedia, is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals. Liberals, or at least constitutional liberalism, encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government. This seems to me to be exactly the thinking of the founders of this nation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal). But wait, don't conservatives also claim to believe in these same values. Something does not compute.
Looking again at Wikipedia we find that liberalism appears in two broad forms: Classical liberalism, which emphasizes the importance of individual liberty, and social liberalism which emphasizes some kind of redistribution of wealth.[7] Those who identify themselves as classical liberals, to distinguish themselves from social liberals, oppose all government regulation of business and the economy, with the exception of laws against force and fraud, and support free market laissez-faire capitalism. Oh Darn. there are two entirely different types of liberals. It appears that the founders of this Country would be labeled classical liberals, but not modern day liberals. How the deuce do we distinguish between a classical liberal and a social liberal? Which one is meant when one says a person or position is liberal? Wikipedia says In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest.
So, the United States is a country that was founded by classical liberals but is currently being run by modern liberals, who have beliefs that are different from those of the founders. To make this even more confusing, Wikipedia says that in Europe, the term liberalism is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. Say what? Even the use of the term liberal today means something entirely different in different places. So, if I say to a person from Europe visiting in the United States that a certain idea is liberal he may well understand what I am saying as something entirely different from what I mean.
Lets see if the term conservative is a bit easier. I remember from my study of American History that when the Republic was being founded the conservatives wanted to remain part of England and retain the monarchy. Wikipedia says in Western politics today the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought started by Edmund Burke and similar thinkers. Now I remember studying the Englishman's philosophy* in college so this one should be much easier. Conservative political parties have diverse views; the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, the Republican Party in the United States, the Conservative Party in Britain, and the Liberal Party of Australia are all major conservative parties with varying positions. Wait a minute- multiple Burke's? Views, not philosophies? Reading further, conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism, libertarian conservatism as well as support for a strong military. Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So modern conservatism is a merger of classical liberalism and social conservatism, leaving out social liberalism.
Thus we have the modern definitions:
Liberalism mean the belief in a system that supports business regulation and redistribution of wealth for the common good as well as a government of sufficient size and power to accomplish it. Liberals may or may not believe in individual freedom, a republican form of government, a capitalist economic system or democratically elected officials (although most in the United States probably do). Those are apparently not part of the main core beliefs of liberalism.
Conservatism means a belief in individual freedom, freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of government, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property and a transparent system of government, all from classical liberalism, as well as fiscal conservatism (frugality? restraint?). Core conservatives beliefs do not espouse a belief in any particular system of government (aristocracy, oligarchy, monarchy) as long it is based upon the rule of law (but again, most in the United States probably believe in a democratic republic).
This must mean that George W. Bush was in fact a modern day liberal and that Bill Clinton was in fact a modern day conservative based upon what each did while in office. Right? Having established definitions for the terms how do I know that another person using those terms means the same thing as the definitions I have derived? You know what? I am too old to worry about it. I at least know what I mean and I have decided that I am a classical liberal pragmatist. You can go look this one up for yourself. I am going to watch the news.
* I must confess that my minor is in Political Philosophy.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The so-called Fairness Doctrine
The old Equal Time Rule, often called the Fairness Doctrine has recently reared its head. Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have mentioned in passing that it may be time to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Even former President Bill Clinton seems to have become an apostle of reviving the doctrine. It is highly unlikely to even see a Senate committee room but the mere mention of it has caused much wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.
The Fairness Doctrine was a federal rule that required broadcasters (but not newspapers or magazines) to present opposing views on controversial subjects. The Rule was abolished in 1987. The Rule required a broadcaster to present a view in opposition to the one it presented on what the Federal Communications Commission decided was a controversial subjects and to present that opposing view at the broadcaster's own expense and not the oppositions expense. The results was to chill free expression of views on anything that coould be considered controversial.
As I sat thinking about that several thoughts came to mind. Everything in the U.S. these days is a controversial subject. It would be easy to create a controversy over breathing in public, which spreads germs and disease. I wonder what it would be like if all of the atheist in the country demanded equal time from christian broadcasters to espouse atheism, equal in time to the christian doctrines promoted?
There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. One of the reasons people start a publishing or broadcasting business is to influence public opinion. They certainly want to influence public opinion to a view with which the publisher / broadcaster agrees. This has been the case since shortly after Gutenberg created a printing press. The creation of radio and television did not change that. In fact, it made it even more inviting. Making a broadcaster give equal air time to any view which the broadcaster does not agree and not allowing the broadcaster to charge market rates for those opposing views is a taking of private property (use of equipment, personnel, electrical service, etc) without just compensation. This is a violation oft the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
I do not believe that a new Fairness Doctrine will be reinacted but if one is, I assume that at least five of the nine Supremes will have the courage to rule the government has committed a foul. Just some thoughts while thinking.
The Fairness Doctrine was a federal rule that required broadcasters (but not newspapers or magazines) to present opposing views on controversial subjects. The Rule was abolished in 1987. The Rule required a broadcaster to present a view in opposition to the one it presented on what the Federal Communications Commission decided was a controversial subjects and to present that opposing view at the broadcaster's own expense and not the oppositions expense. The results was to chill free expression of views on anything that coould be considered controversial.
As I sat thinking about that several thoughts came to mind. Everything in the U.S. these days is a controversial subject. It would be easy to create a controversy over breathing in public, which spreads germs and disease. I wonder what it would be like if all of the atheist in the country demanded equal time from christian broadcasters to espouse atheism, equal in time to the christian doctrines promoted?
There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. One of the reasons people start a publishing or broadcasting business is to influence public opinion. They certainly want to influence public opinion to a view with which the publisher / broadcaster agrees. This has been the case since shortly after Gutenberg created a printing press. The creation of radio and television did not change that. In fact, it made it even more inviting. Making a broadcaster give equal air time to any view which the broadcaster does not agree and not allowing the broadcaster to charge market rates for those opposing views is a taking of private property (use of equipment, personnel, electrical service, etc) without just compensation. This is a violation oft the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
I do not believe that a new Fairness Doctrine will be reinacted but if one is, I assume that at least five of the nine Supremes will have the courage to rule the government has committed a foul. Just some thoughts while thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
