Who Cares?

It’s the left’s strongest argument: “We care”. They’re the bleeding hearts of America, the ones who look out for the poor, the sick, the elderly. But over the last century, since the birth of modern American progressivism, with the implementation of the progressive income tax, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and Welfare, how have we changed as a nation morally?

It seems fairly easy to note the moral decline of society over the last century, not just in sexual morality, but in charity and brotherhood, in honesty and integrity. Why is there a decline, when society becomes more and more charitable to those in need through government programs?

Some are apt to blame the decline of religion in our nation, and this is undoubtedly part of the reason. But the decline in religious acceptance hardly covers the scope of moral decay we’ve experienced over the decades. Even the religious tend to be less caring or honest than in years past.

What our society has lost sight of is the fact that morality is dependent on individual agency. How is a man good if he is compelled to be so? It cannot be. Neither is a man evil if so compelled. If force is the means by which moral ends are achieved, the physical benefit may be there, but the moral benefit is negated. Neither is the giver benefitted from his sacrifice, not the receiver grateful to the giver for it. No brotherhood is formed, no bonds built.

We have, as a society, deceived ourselves into believing that the moral ends must be achieved by whatever means necessary, and by so doing we will become a moral nation. Not so. Any reduction in the individual responsibility to achieve moral goals must necessarily cause us to become increasingly amoral. We see the trends today. We are becoming less concerned with the poor among us, less interested in those in poor health, families are loosing their bonds, because we instead turn to the state for the care of our fellowman. We are no longer responsible for them, we’ve passed that responsibility on, and have thus become disinterested.

We often teach obedience as a principle of strong moral character. But obedience is not moral. Whom you choose to obey is determined by your morality. Obedience to a master is no more moral than obedience to the devil. Subjecting one’s self to authority, which authority commands some purported moral act, is not moral. It is one’s obedience, not to authority, but to their personal and independent moral code that constitutes morality. Obedience to authority is called duty, but duty is only moral inasmuch as the duty falls within your own moral sphere.

Morality is self-sacrifice, giving of one’s own self for what that person perceives to be the greater cause. When that sacrifice is caused by force, there is no sacrifice. The subject must choose between the sacrifice and punishment, which punishment is typically greater than the sacrifice. Thus the true sacrifice would be disobedience. Whether you claim to be happy to do it or not makes no difference. Your sacrifice is none, your moral obligation to others is destroyed, and you instead find yourself a servant, not to your conscience, but only to the master you empowered.

As we turn more and more of our moral issues over to government, we, as a society, become increasingly amoral and immoral. It is no coincidence that the collectivist societies of the past and present were and are the most devoid of moral principle. Morality in such societies is often born of rebellion to authority, a recognition that totalitarian power is inadequate in its care for mankind. English citizens do not rally around their friends and family to raise funds for surgery (http://clarkkimble.com/). This kind of charity was taken from them by the state. Chinese don’t typically give 10% of their income to their church. Their religious beliefs and freedoms have been limited by their government.

Morality is an individual attribute, and must stay with the individual. There can be no such thing as collective morality. Calling for authority to forcibly achieve moral ends is not a moral platform. Neither is a willingness to subject one’s self to such authority. Morality is an individual choice to sacrifice one’s own values for higher values. May we fight for morality, and stop imprisoning our moral values to the state.

FairTax or Flat Tax?

The income tax was established by politicians for politicians. It gives politicians control over our entire economy as they choose. It was a Marxist strategy for a Marxist philosophy.

Those who favor tax reform are divided. Some favor the FairTax, a complete overhaul of the system, replacing all taxes with a single consumption tax. That means no income tax, social security tax, capital gains tax, estate tax, corporate income tax, property tax, etc, all to be replaced by a national sales tax of 23%. In addition, a monthly check would be sent to all households that would cover the cost of the taxes of necessities (food, shelter, etc), so that essentially no taxes are paid on the basics of life.

Others prefer a flat tax, keeping our current tax structure, but making the income tax rate an equal distribution instead of the current progressive income tax. This would mean that all would pay, say, 15%, rich or poor. This gives everyone a stake in the government, and would put more pressure on politicians to keep rates low.

So which is better?

On a strictly financial sense, the FairTax is better, eliminating the majority of the overhead of tax collection. Thus the waste is minimized and our tax dollars go further. The flat tax would keep the expensive IRS tax collection system in place.

The FairTax will not eliminate tax fraud, but will likely reduce it, as businesses would have to operate in the black market in order to cheat the government. For most businesses, the benefit would not be worth the risk, and considering nearly all of our expenditures are to large businesses, it would be very few of our purchases that we could even consider doing under the table. Most of the purchases of even the cheats and crooks of society are with legitimate businesses (grocery stores, clothing stores, etc.), so even they will be paying their share of taxes for the most part. The current tax structure allows for fraud on a much wider scale, as each individual can (and most do to some extent) cheat the government come April 15th.

From a moral standpoint, the FairTax eleminates Congress' ability to use the tax code to pick winners and losers, to favor certain industries or companies or even moral values over others. This power is weilded openly and wildly by those in power now.

Economically, the FairTax encourages saving and investing more than the current tax system. After all the economic theories are debated over saving, investing and consuming, ultimately it is investing that must be our focus. Can this be encouraged in a flat tax system? Sure. But it can also be discouraged just as easily if politicians in power choose consumption over investment, as we have today.

The flat tax is argued to have an advantage in feasibility. It would be far easier to just make a simple adjustment to the current tax code than to shock the system with a complete overhaul. This is true, but an overhaul is needed. Our thousands of pages of rules and exceptions to the rules is so inefficiant that even the former head of the IRS said it needs to be thrown out.

Philosophically, I've heard it argued more than once that God uses a flat tax. If it's good enough for God, than it's probably the best system. I've had to stew over this for a while. It's easy to see why it's a convincing argument for a God-fearing people. First, it's obvious why God wouldn't use a consumption tax. He can't have businesses collecting tithing for Him. Perhaps we could keep track of all our expenidtures and pay tithing from that, but that's impractical. But could it be that a flat tax just works better?

It came to me as I was studying up on the FairTax.

"Frank Chodorov... once observed that, by enacting the income tax, the American government was proclaiming that all belonged to the government, and whatever wealth the government did not seize from the person who created it should be looked on as a concession -- a gift from the government."

Before the income tax was enacted, the government was a service that the public chose to pay for. But that changed with the 16th Ammendment. The public was no longer given any right to choose whether to purchase the services of
the government, or how much. Instead their income was usurped, and the government chose how much of it each person could keep.

With this in mind, the distinction is obvious. All wealth does belong to God. I remember, when teaching the discussions, we would make that distinction when teaching tithing. In fact, the example they recomended using was to explain, if I gave you 10 dollars, but asked for 1 back, would you be okay with it?

No contrast that with government. Governments are services, little different from doctors or entertainers. We pay them for their services (defense and maintaining an economic infrastructure). Our wealth and property is not theirs to dictate to us what we can keep. Did the government give you that 10 dollars?

Thus the income tax is theft. It is immoral, and must be done away with. Government is not our god, not the creator of our wealth, and it has no claim on it except what we choose to pay it for its services. As Neal Boortz puts it, "income taxes are seized. Consumption taxes are paid. Which way do you want it?"

Who should have the money?

There’s a lot of talk right now about taxes and whether or not the “Bush tax cuts” should be extended or not. The left argues that the rich don’t need the excess, and the government, with its huge deficit, does. The right argues that any tax increases in the time of economic decline is a bad idea. Philosophically, they argue that it’s their earned money, their property, and we’re arguing whether or not to steal it from them.

I hear very few arguments of the economic virtues of letting them keep their money. It would seem that both left and right would at least agree that the rich don’t really need the money, but differ only in whether it’s moral to take it from them. But let us examine the economic impact of taxing the rich.

In the debate of the economic impact of taxes, we must examine each side of the debate for what happens with the money that is to be taxed. It’s tough to predict reliably what will happen to money in the possession of any one group. It’s a psychological issue requiring intimate knowledge of each individual’s mind. Each individual’s response depends on that person’s education, culture, persona, and many other factors and influences. Since we haven’t the ability to measure and analyze these details, we must deal in generalizations, using historical trends and (mostly accurate) stereotypes to predict popular response.

Let’s start with the left’s argument for redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. Theoretically, because the wealthy already have their wealth building infrastructure established, their wealth will continue to grow, while the poor will now have the ability to establish their own. Thus you increase the pool of wealth creators to include all parties, thus expanding economic growth. Theoretically it sounds nice. But practically it’s never worked. After all our redistribution efforts, welfare, progressive income tax, etc, the poor still remain poor. And after all of our foreign aid to poor nations, they yet remain just as poor as before. Why?

When a lower income family gets a bonus check, what do they do with it? Most likely, they spend it. They buy the 60” flat screen TV they’ve always wanted, they go on the cruise they could never afford before, they use the money to live a little richer for a short period of time. This is the typical response. Alternatively they save the money for a rainy day. The spending a predictable response. The poor tend to develop a sense of envy toward the lifestyles of the rich and the famous. Celebrity lives are closely examined by the lower classes, an unerring sign of this envy. Predictably, as soon as a poor family obtains sufficient wealth, they use it to purchase the lifestyle they’ve longed for. But once this wealth is consumed, it is gone, and the poor remain in their state.

What does this consumption do for our economic state? Keynes argued that consumption is the driver of economic growth. In a nutshell, if you buy a coat for $100, the coat maker will use the $100 he just gained and spend, say, $90 of it on a watch. The watch maker then spends $80 of his $90 on shoes, etc. Thus that $100, if not saved, gets passed around and creates many times its value (multiplier effect) in goods. Instead of being a saved $100, worth about the value of a coat, it has produced a coat, a watch, shoes, etc, worth far more than $100 because it was passed around. This was the concept behind the stimulus bill.

But look deeper at the argument. Does it really hold water? Money is simply a medium by which we exchange goods and services. If we removed the cash medium, I’m really trading my services for a coat. Let’s say I produce TVs. I exchange a TV, or a portion of one, for a coat. The coat maker now has a TV. What does he do with it? He can either keep it, or trade it with the watch maker for a watch. The coat maker now has a watch, and the watch maker now has a TV. So the watch maker, needing shoes, trades the TV for shoes. The point is that the money used to trade did not create a multiplier of wealth. The $100 wasn’t really worth $1000 after it was passed around. It simply aided in the exchange of such goods. I once had a TV that I made, now I have a coat. The watch maker once had a watch, now he has shoes. Substitute $100 for the TV, and you have what really happens today. We each may be better off than before, but it is because of the trade of our goods (I needed the coat more than the TV I made), not a multiplier effect. There aren’t 10 TVs at the end of the exchanging.

Now, let’s consider if we let the rich keep their money. What do rich people do with money? Rich people are rich because they put their wealth to work. Money can create more money if wisely invested. How many rich people do you know who saved their way to wealth? The don’t save their money, they invest it or spend it, and they invest far more than they spend.

What does this do for the economy? Let’s consider the multiplier that we discussed earlier. If I had $100 and instead of spending or saving it, I invested it in my TV business, and purchased equipment that cut my costs by $10, the TVs that I make, which once cost $110, would now cost $100. How does that affect the economy? It boosts demand (lower prices = higher demand). If demand goes up, supply must go up (unless there is a resource shortage). Production goes up, I make more money (which I can invest or spend), I hire more workers, and everyone else gets to pocket the $10 that they otherwise would have had to spend to get a TV. More people have a TV and the standard of living goes up.

Consumption is just trade, and trade makes us all wealthier insomuch that the goods we receive are worth more to us than that which we give. But there is a point at which we stagnate, where we have what we want which we can afford (in relation to our own production level), and we don’t want more except what we can’t afford. (Of course, once you hit this point you just save until you can afford what you want, but the growth is very slow.) In a stagnant economy, where we all just produce what we produce at the current prices and levels (i.e. no investment), we all would reach this point rather quickly considering the ease of trade. Also take note that some goods and services are literally consumed. Once they are used up, they are gone, and no longer benefit us. It is wealth destroyed (this does not necessarily mean the one-time expense is not worth it if your life experience benefits sufficiently from it).

In other words, it is not consumption that drives economic growth. Consumption (trade) just optimizes our current overall wealth. Take note that consumption spending has not declined in this recession. It has remained fairly stable throughout the downturn. It is investment spending that has dropped, causing a stagnant economy. Economic growth is in reducing prices so that more people can afford the goods they once could not. It is in creating new products that benefit us. It is investment that creates growth.

As such, we must consider who is the driver of innovation and invention. Who should have the money in question? Should we take from the rich and give to the poor? By so doing, we take money from investors and give to consumers. If we desire growth, we must seek the opposite: consume less and invest more. No, we wouldn’t accomplish this by taxing the poor and redistributing it to the rich. But there are many ways to do it: investment incentives, the FairTax, etc. But we must not let the investing class be destroyed if we are to save our economy.

Bargaining Power

We find it argued by those who favor greater government control that trade exchanges are frequently imbalanced, that one side of the trade gets a better deal than the other. This exploitation is caused by one side’s “bargaining power” being greater than the other. Thus it is argued that, in order to maintain proper trade balance, government must intervene to equalize bargaining power.

It makes sense. Almost all trades, in fact, are not entirely 1 for 1 in trade value. One person gets a better deal than the person they traded with. Yet they make the trade anyway. Why? Because they are getting more value from the trade. Just because one person is coming out more ahead than the other doesn’t mean they don’t both come out ahead. Otherwise no trade would occur.

But with that said, let’s explore the concept of “bargaining power” a little further. The idea is that one party has greater leverage in the deal, thus having power to skew the deal away from its perfect equilibrium towards a better bargain for the one party. First, let’s dispel with the notion of perfect equilibrium. There is no such thing. In each individual trade, the values on both sides of the trade are inherently unequal. No two people value any one item or service exactly the same, let alone two. Thus the real values in the trade are in the eye of the beholder. So trade is never equal. But each trade is such that both parties are richer because of it. It can be argued that there is an equilibrium in a macroeconomic sense, that the overall market can find its balance, which point is generally indicated by price. This is only true as a conceptual value, as the macroeconomic value is simply the average of all individual trades. You can’t assign a value to a trade between producing society and consuming society, as these entities are conceptual and imaginary, and not an actual representation of any one trade. No one individual trade will match the macroeconomic average of values. So it is silly to argue for government to chase an imaginary target through regulation.

Now, let’s address the idea of leverage. If one party has leverage, he may be able to achieve a better deal in a trade than otherwise. But what is this leverage? How does he get it? Most leverage is caused by an undersupply. If there is a shortage of supply, and the item in demand is hard to get, the seller has leverage to charge more than the item would normally cost if supply met the demand. This “price gouging”, however, is not an exercise in exploitation. It is, rather, a natural and correct reaction of the market to match supply with demand. If the supply is short, we must reduce the demand in order to match it. This is done by increasing the price. If we don’t, the demand stays much higher than the supply. If this is the case, it becomes a matter of first come first served until the supply is gone. In this scenario, those who want or need the item the most don’t necessarily obtain it. It is a poor distribution mechanism, and doesn’t maximize the trade value for the supplier. It’s a lose-lose. We must let prices adjust to balance the supply with demand. This isn’t leverage, it’s a market adjustment.

What else can be used as leverage? Time? In some cases, prompt supply can be a factor. If you need an item now, you have to find a supplier that has been holding supply of the item for such a case. This leverage can also lead to paying higher prices. However, this is again a market adjustment, as a middleman is holding a product at his own expense, for your convenience of purchasing the product whenever you need it. If you don’t have time restrictions, you don’t need to pay for the convenience of the middleman.

Leverage of force or intimidation is illegal, as it should be. Fraud also.

There is no legal “bargaining power” that is not market caused and good for the market. It’s a myth. Sometimes it’s good for some people to be unable to afford something. Prices have to adjust demand so that resources get allocated to the people who need it most. If we try to “fix” the problem, we instead throw the market out of balance, and cause the problems we are becoming accustomed to from our government. Thanks Uncle Sam.

The New American Language

Freedom. It’s one of the most beloved words in America. I’ve recently heard this word used in the context of “freedom from poverty”, used as an argument for wealth redistribution tactics of the left. I’ve also heard “freedom from disease” as an argument for the health care reform bill. We need to fight for these freedoms, they claim. And I wonder, what is this new freedom they’ve invented?

I know of a man who is free from sickness (he is well cared for), free from starvation (3 meals a day), free from violence (he’s protected by security). But this man is not free at all. He’s in prison.

“Freedom from” is not freedom. In fact, the methods proposed to provide this freedom from undesirable circumstance are the very antithesis of freedom. Freedom is the non-existence of an exerted force directed at the manipulation of people to do something. It is the absence of coercion, a constraint of choice or action. By compelling people to be free from poverty you must take away some freedom.

Rights are given to us by God. But now health care is apparently a “right”. How so? They’re right in a sense, we have a right to have health care, just as we have the right to have property. But these are not rights given to us by God, nor government. We have the right to obtain these things if we choose to and work for them. But my house, my car, my golf clubs, are properties I obtained through my work. I have no right to them if my obtaining of them requires me to strip another of their right to liberty or property.

And what about justice? It once meant that anyone who infringed on your rights of life, liberty, or property had to make fair compensation for the crime. Now it means that we all should have the same amount of stuff. So we must steal what was justly earned by some to give to others to achieve justice?

Equality once meant that everyone got treated the same by the law. Now it means that the law must treat people unequally based on their race or gender or income in order to balance society and make everyone the same.

Once these words were the powerful roots of the American society, held sacred in the hearts of Americans. Now they are empty shells of words, just as able to mean its opposite as it is its definition. Statists (I almost said liberals, but that word was also usurped, once meaning one whose philosophy is founded in liberty) have taken advantage of the emotional ties attached to these words and usurped them to bring that wave of emotional passion to their own plight, even though they stand as literal opposition to the very meanings of those words.

We’ve lost our language.

Make Mine Freedom

This cartoon is from 1948. Apparently it was pretty far fetched back then...

The Battlefield of Ideas

Now, in the heat of the electorate debates, there is a lot of talk about ideas. Who has the best ideas? Who has the most ideas? And everyone seems to fall for it. We want someone who is innovative and clever at solving our problems, don’t we?

Liberals in particular make this argument, that they have the ideas to make America better. But conservatives are not short on their own ideas to fix the country. Politicians tout the number of bills they’ve proposed and passed, the programs they’ve created, the solutions they’ve supported. And we are drawn to this like flies to the fire. We want smart people governing us, we want people with ideas.

When we elect people with ideas, and give them the power to implement these ideas, we actually have an interesting and devastating side-effect. We destroy ideas. The world is a battlefield of ideas. Individuals in different locales and different circumstances are constantly working on the best ideas for their own situation. These individual ideas compete with each other, and the best ideas emerge as others see success and imitate it. But when we choose to push the idea making to politicians, we limit the idea-making to a very few, reducing our battlefield of ideas to a mere catfight. We monopolize the market of ideas, thus cutting off the majority of minds from contributing to the progress of the whole.

I recently read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov, which pins the fate of the universe on a decision between individual freedom and the system of Gaia, a world whose inhabitants share a mental connection, thus the world itself was essentially one big mind. Ultimately Gaia was chosen in the novel, a premise supposed to support the utopian liberal ideology of collectivism. But we are not, nor ever can be Gaia. We are individuals. Regardless of how collectively we organize, our thoughts are our own. If we could link our minds and share each other’s knowledge, then a case could be made. But we can’t, and the conclusion of this particular story is non-applicable.

In reality, we would achieve a far greater summation of universal intelligence through freedom than collectivism. The reason is that community intelligence in a free society is essentially a summation of the discoveries, ideas and knowledge of all individuals. Bad ideas are implemented, as are good ideas. The good ideas produce better results, while the bad ideas quickly fizzle. Thus good ideas alone are universally adopted, and the number of these ideas far exceeds the number of ideas any single person can conjure.

In a collectivist society, community intelligence is but the sum of the community leaders alone, for it is only they who implement ideas. Ideas by non-leaders must either rely on the concurrence of the leaders for their implementation or they are stifled completely without any consideration at all (depending on the open-mindedness of the leadership). Thus there is no competition, no experimentation, and a very limited pool of political thought. All ideas from leadership, good or bad, are automatically universally adopted by force. The large size of the investment into any bad ideas from leadership, along with a lack of alternative ideas, as well as the typical stubbornness of the idea-maker to admit error, tend to prolong the life of these bad ideas often to excruciating lengths, doing far more damage than good.

The only benefit to such a collectivist system, which is obviously the focal point of proponents’ arguments, is the ability to get good ideas universally adopted almost immediately (by force). But a risk-reward analysis would hardly show that the possible benefit outweighs the risk. You leave these ideas in the hands of very few, who, from past experience (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao), achieved their leadership status because of their abilities to act without regard to moral values, and of course ruled the same manner. Members of such societies are doomed to suffer the bad ideas of these rulers.

A free society grows in only good ideas, only having small subsets suffering through short periods of bad ideas until they are weeded out, while the whole only adopts those that prove good. And the progress, or the number of good ideas implemented, far exceeds the possibilities achievable to a dictator or a small group of leaders. And the smaller the groups you break the whole into, the greater the number of ideas, and the faster the overall growth and progress.

We need to be breaking our communities up, not unifying them into a collective whole. We’ve already proven the concept of freedom. Why would we give that up? Stop electing innovators.

Energy Independence

We’ve heard since the 60’s presidents and politicians promising to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have actively sought energy independence, to produce our own energy ourselves. We hate depending on the oil barons of the middle east and OPEC for our standard of life. We think that we are throwing away money from our nation to foreign nations, giving up our wealth to make them rich.

It’s time we stop the stupidity and rethink the logic.

We’ve had the resources and capability to achieve energy independence for decades, but have chosen not to pursue it. Chosen. Yes, our political thinkers have created a crisis in our foreign oil trade that has given them talking points for a generation. But we have plenty of oil all around our nation in offshore deposits, shale, natural gas, and other mostly untapped resources. Why are they untapped? Because the leaders of the nation have chosen environmental priorities over energy independence. Is it a bad decision? Not necessarily, if that’s what our priorities are. But it does mean that energy independence is not as important to us as many try to make it out to be.

Why is it so vital to so many that we achieve independence in our energy sources? Some argue that national security is checked by the unstable trade relations. We pay for our foreign oil in military costs. But we are not at danger because of oil trade. The trade, if anything, strengthens our foreign relations (it is our end of the trade, as buyers, that is in danger of emotional reaction). We are not hated because we buy their oil. Is it for financial reasons? Economically speaking, if we could produce the energy cheaper here, we would already be doing it. If you were to remodel your kitchen, and determined that with your skills and resources could do it yourself for $5000, but found a contractor who bid the job at $3000, would it be financially advisable to do it yourself? If someone else can do it for cheaper than you yourself can, it actually hurts you financially to do it yourself. Is it because our dependence on their oil puts us in a vulnerable economic position where they could strip us of our energy source if they chose?

The fact of the matter is that we choose the trade because it is economically wise. It is cheaper to buy from foreign nations, and we should be grateful to them for providing the resources at such an affordable price. If, at any time, those nations chose to cut their business with us for political, religious or any other reasons, or if they raise their prices to where their oil would be economically inadvisable, we simply have to stop doing business with them. Can we produce the energy ourselves? Absolutely. And if became so expensive as to significantly affect our standard of life, we could choose to prioritize our local oil resources over our concerns for the environment, and get rid of the restrictions that currently are keeping us from doing it ourselves. Many of us already do.

So this is the point I’m driving at: we are already energy independent! We could produce the energy we need by ourselves if we should choose to. But we choose not to. We are not dependent on foreign nations for our energy, but because they provide it cheaper than we can ourselves (again, because we have self-imposed restrictions on our oil and energy industry which have driven up the prices), we buy it from them instead. It’s a voluntary trade, it is optional, and therefore no dependency exists.

Our constant focus on energy independence has resulted in the proposal to voluntarily cut ties with our foreign providers. We want to reject the $3000 bid and do it ourselves. We can, certainly. But remember it’s going to cost us $5000. And I can’t think of any good reason to forfeit the $2000 we save through trade.

The Founders' Mistake

I've been rereading the Constitution of the United States recently, as it had been several years since I’d done so. I still find the document to be largely a brilliant piece of creativity and innovation, an inspired system designed for the minimizing of the forfeited individual powers to the State. Yet, while I believe it to be divinely inspired, it was still written by the hands of men, and is imperfect. The biggest mistake found in our Constitution is in Article 1, Section 8: the enumeration of powers given to the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The first notable issue jumps right out at you. The size. Congress was conceded more powers than it merited. Too many concessions were made. As a result, Congress was able to grow its power to unreasonable proportions.

Let’s go through the powers individually, and revise the list as if I were writing the Constitution.

1) The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I would like this power to be limited. In fact, I would prefer this power to stay in the hand of the people, as it is the people who are the customer of the State’s services. The State may choose to raise its prices, but like any service, the customer may choose not to buy. All tax changes should pass a 60% popular vote before ratification. They did, interestingly, insert a critical note that all taxes “shall be uniform throughout the United States”, but that went out the window with the unconstitutional progressive income tax.

2) To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

This was a bad idea. Obviously. The ability to borrow can and probably should be available to the Congress, but only in very strictly limited cases, such as war (and not for wars we don’t really need to be in… I don’t want Congress declaring wars just so they can borrow money). These cases should be specifically outline, with careful limits even in these cases, as well as defined rules for repayment.

3) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Again, bad idea. Congress should not have power to regulate interstate commerce, nor foreign trade. Regulations such as tariffs and protectionist rules and taxes is bad economics. It hurts the nation as a whole, and helps only a very specific few who quite frankly don’t deserve to be helped at our expense. And the costs far outweigh the benefits. I will have to delve further into why protectionism is bad policy at a future time, but interstate and foreign trade should be open and regulated only by antitrust rules.

4) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

This is fine, but note the word uniform. Our laws have become far from uniform.

5) To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Yes, Congress should be allowed to fix the standard of measures. But I don’t like them holding power to coin money or regulate the value of it or other currencies. Bad idea. By giving them this power, they can (and do) use currency manipulation to their advantage. It may help them, but it always works out badly for the American public, and is potentially disastrous. Rules for coinage and currency regulation should be specifically defined in the Constitution, unchangeable except by 2/3s or 3/4s vote amendment. These rules should include a value backed currency, and specific rules for recessionary scenarios. Stable currency is the backbone of a stable economy. If we don’t have well known, consistent rules for our currency, uncertainty will prevent economic growth.

6) To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Sure.

7) To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

I’m not so sure this is referring to mail couriers. What’s a post road? I wonder if these aren’t referring to the posts they used to have in settlements that were basically community visitor centers. The government has no business in the mail business, and needs to get out. Public (federal) visitor centers and federal buildings are an acceptable power for Congress, but again must be kept under control.

8) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

What?? Why? Science and innovation is important because it benefits mankind. If it benefits mankind, people pay for it. Why does government need to subsidize it? I don’t like this power being given to Congress.

9) To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

I think I’d rather this power be in the hands of the Judicial Branch, but okay.

10) To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Okay, provided those crimes are committed against us.

11) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Yes.

12) To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

The power to raise Armies should belong to the Executive Branch. Appropriating money should belong to Congress. I’m unsure what the two year term limit means, but there should be limits constitutionally defined for non-wartime and wartime scenarios.

13) To provide and maintain a Navy;

Same as above.

14) To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Sure, but limit the allowable rules to include enrollment/draft regulations, war crimes, and funding. Leave the military conduct rules and strategies to the Executive Branch.

15) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

This was obviously added for a different time period. I believe they’re talking about a police force. The military is sufficient to repel invasions and the police can squash insurrections. Yet it should be noted that military power should be granted judiciously for use against internal insurrections. We should be careful lest we find ourselves fighting for our own freedom against our own military.

16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Police forces should belong to the States, with partial federal funding for the enforcement of federal law. Congress should have no power with respect to them except in defining federal laws and granting funds.

17) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

This power ought to be limited as well. Government has proven reckless and irresponsible in their spending on buildings, using this power for special interests and pet projects. There ought to be an enumeration of acceptable buildings Congress is empowered to construct, as well as constitutional rules limiting the funds available for such projects. Adding to this list of buildings would be done by constitutional amendment only.

18) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Their primary duty is to make the laws to protect each citizens rights to life, liberty, property, and well-being. Their law-making abilities were granted far too much privilege in this section of the Constitution, and thus we find federal laws overseeing all miniscule aspects of our lives. Rather than protecting our rights, they’ve usurped them through law making. If I were to rewrite the Constitution, I would be concise and clear as to which powers the Congress is given, and it would not be a long list.

Remember the 9th and 10th Amendments:

9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Any powers not enumerated in that list of 18 powers are ours, not to be usurped by the Congress. Congress's attempts to govern our businesses and lives as they see fit is, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, unconstitutional. But the powers granted it in the Constitution were too great, and allowed Congress to build its power to where it is now, and that was the biggest mistake the Founders made.

Moral Inequality (Prop 8)

I feel the need to respond to the news of the debate over Proposition 8, now in judicial turmoil. We’ve heard the arguments on each side of the debate over the California amendment defining legal marriage to be recognized only between man and woman. But in the fray of the debate, the core principles of the American ideology are lost. We are missing the real issue, and I think it’s time we found it.

The current debate is between party lines. Democrats call for equality, that gay couples deserve the right to express their love for each other through matrimonial ceremony. I have a hard time giving this argument any significant play in my mind. It’s an emotional and unreasoned argument. It is akin to a call for women to be allowed to use the men’s restroom and vice versa on the grounds of equality. Civil unions could be accomplished in a ceremonious way if that was really the intent. Most civil unions receive similar tax benefits to married couples. What they really seek is that label of “marriage”, which they would regard as a social acceptance for their life choice.

The majority of Republicans simply do not regard such a life choice as socially acceptable. Marriage was defined by God millennia ago, and we have no right to change its definition. Homosexuality is sin, and thus to legalize it is to corrupt the moral makeup of our society. The majority of religious parents fear justifiably that legal acceptance of gay marriage will result in the indoctrination of their children with lessons of acceptance for what they consider a sin in the public schools.

While each side argues on the moral grounds of their personal beliefs, we blind ourselves to this simple principle: we are free. The concept of America is founded in the fact that all men are made up of distinct moral codes. Each individual comes to a personal conclusion of what he or she believes to be right and wrong. While large groups may come to an agreement on certain principles, no two individuals come an agreement on all ideals. Yet with this infinitely diverse moral makeup, America came together to agree on this one critical ideal, that we are moral agents to ourselves. Provided we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of our fellowman, we are given the privilege to believe as our conscience dictates.

The premise of the debate over Proposition 8 is contrary to the American core. Each side purports moral superiority over the other, thus intending to dictate the nationally acceptable moral standards for all. Should we dictate that all citizens of our nation recognize gay couples as legitimate? (There are already arguments from some that doctors should be forced to provide some procedures (i.e. abortions) even if they are contrary to the moral beliefs of that doctor. Would this type of thinking lead to the obliging of the very churches who preach the immorality of homosexuality to marry the very couples they condemn?) Or should we forcibly deny those who do not believe homosexuality to be sin the freedom to marry as they wish?

The answer is neither. That one individual, or group of individuals, should dictate the moral standards for another against their will is as un-American as it gets. Could we so quickly forget the plight of our founding Pilgrims as they fled the religious dictatorship of Europe?

Government has no role in determining the constitution of marriage. It is a religious rite, established by God (or by the churches if you do not believe in God), intended primarily for the stability of the family. There is no reason, except for the purposes of control and power, for government to assume any role in determining the makeup of a marriage. The only reasons I can conjure for even legal recognition of a marriage is for the establishment of the contractual obligations made in marriage (this can be done voluntarily without recognition of marriage, so this is a non-argument) and for the ability to treat couples and families differently than other citizens (i.e. tax breaks for kids, etc.). Yet, while subsidizing children or giving government preferences to families may seem commendable, it is again a socialist maneuver to force support of one group’s moral ideals on others.

Giving government control and influence over the family situation gives it a power we do not want it to have. If the family becomes dependent on the government for its support, we have lost our autonomy and liberty. Let us stop calling for the government to insert itself in our morals and families, regardless of our personal moral preferences. Let us keep our free agency.

Leave marriage to the churches.

Bigger Gov't = Bigger Idiocy

My latest post on Rational Conservatism:

http://rationalbias.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/bigger-govt-bigger-idiocy/

Quick Thoughts on Light

Some quick thoughts that I want to explore further...

I've been doing a lot of thinking on faith, hope, and charity lately. While doing so, I had an epiphony. I realized that hope is the light we have in our life. Despair, on the other hand, is that lack of light which is darkness. As I realized this, I realized the following:

• Faith is the vision of the light produced by others, particularly God.
• Hope is the light we produce internally.
• Charity is the light we expel from ourselves to be seen by others.

I believe this to be more literal than figurative. I'll keep thinking about it.

While I'm on the topic, let me open a quick vote. I've decided to start collecting my thoughts on faith, hope, and charity in a book format. Should I target it toward an LDS audience or a broader Christian one? If I target the LDS, I can delve a little deeper into the doctrines and correlate them to other doctrines particular to the LDS faith. But targeting the general Christian faith could help a greater number of people. I don't really have high hopes of really marketing my thoughts either way, but I need to decide which way to go before getting started. What do you think?

Hating Our Heroes

http://rationalbias.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/hating-our-heroes/

New Thoughts on Hope

I’ve come to a conclusion on my search for an understanding on hope. I would like to delve more deeply into the topic in the future, but for the time being, my conclusions are to my soul’s satisfaction.

Hope is a product of faith. Hope is the true expectation of good things to come. Just as faith is the understanding and knowledge of things as they are, hope is the knowledge and understanding of blessings to come.

As such, hope requires first that one has faith in God and His ability to bless. Then one must repent of their sins and put themselves in a state of good grace before God. Finally, they must live the laws upon which the blessings are predicated. When these steps are achieved, hope is born in the soul of that person, a hope for the blessings promised by God.

Hope is the creator of happiness. It is the producer of light. A man without hope is a man without light. Our future glory depends on the amount of light we will have created in ourselves through the Light of Christ.

So we must reconcile ourselves with God, and earn hope through obedience in order to find joy in this life and glory to come.

New Blog

Hey guys, just a heads up. I've been invited to contribute to a new blog: http://rationalbias.wordpress.com. Here's a link to my bio: http://bit.ly/cUBqui. I only know one other contributor, but from the few posts that have been posted, they all sound pretty bright.

Check it out and bookmark it. I'll post most of my political stuff over there now (I'll link to it from here).

Keynes Vs. The Tech Industry

Why are economists so opposed to deflation? Deflation, they argue, leads to money hoarding, dropping aggregate demand. People won’t spend money if they expect prices to drop even further in the future. This is the basis behind Keynesian economics. Prevent deflation, even if it means inflation. Print, borrow, and spend money to keep demand up.

This philosophy is founded in the expected economical reaction to expected psychological responses to economic activities. Deflation, caused by the improvement of production, thus lowering prices for goods and services, sets off a sort of a panic in mankind. The “animal spirits” cause us to hoard our wealth, with the expectation of lower prices in the future. This hoarding sets off a cycle of deflation. Money is not spent, demand drops, causing supply to shrivel and prices to drop further, the economy gets in a bind, the hoarding gets worse as, not only are they holding out for the best price, but they’re now protecting their wealth in the difficult economic environment, and the cycle spirals downward. It has a logic to it that you can follow. But the basis of all our government economical decisions are based on the unproven theories of people’s reactions to certain economical factors.

But we have some examples to look at now that illustrate this process and society’s actual responses to deflationary forces. One good example, and most obvious to me since I work in it, is the tech industry. I remember when I was younger and the new 486 processors came out. The were running at 33MHz processor speeds, with 100MB HDDs, and 256K RAM, and the new CD ROM technology. This incredible machine ran you ~$2,000. A few years later that same machine was just a few hundred dollars, and the new machines had the Pentium Processors at 100MHz, with 500MB HDDs and 1MB RAM, and a writeable CD ROM for ~$2,000. Today we have 3GHz (3,000MHz) processors, 1TB (1,000,000MB) HDDs, and 4GB (4,000MB) RAM with DVD/CD rewritable drives for under $500. The tech industry is deflation at its finest.

So let us psychoanalyze the industry’s economic situation. Do you remember the time when everyone said, “I’m holding out on buying a computer because as soon as you get one it’s already obsolete”? Do you remember people holding off on buying a computer because prices kept pummeling down, and they didn’t want to pay full price for the latest and greatest? Absolutely. So, Keynes was right… sort of.

How did the tech industry respond? How did it survive? Tech survives by its ability to innovate new technologies, create new useful gadgets and gizmos, and to optimize its own production. Deflation kept happening, yet tech was still making profits by reducing costs and selling new ideas.

Eventually people realized that the deflation wasn’t going to stop. Holding out to get the best deal was just delaying their own gratification. There would always be a better deal later on, and that would never change. Eventually you have to just decide that it’s time to buy.

And what was the result of the tech industry deflation? Twenty years ago I played one of the best games of all time, The Oregon Trail, on an Apple IIe at school. That same game could be played on a pocket watch now. We have incredible games in 3D now, our cell phones are more powerful than the PCs we had 5 years ago. We have the entire internet at our fingertips anywhere we go. I was out wakeboarding on a lake in the mountains with some friends a few days ago. We had a question about something, my buddy whipped out his iPhone, and looked up the answer. In the middle of a lake! In the mountains! But most amazingly, everyone has a computer and a cell phone. Everyone. 30 years ago a poor person may or may not have heard of a computer. 20 years ago many poor families weren’t so poor that they didn’t own a Nintendo. 10 years ago almost everyone had a PC, regardless of financial status. Today, the number of cell phone users in Africa is astounding as it approaches 50%. The tech industry has boomed as the whole world has come to demand its products. The world has boomed as the technology it has been provided at an incredibly affordable price has improved the quality of life and the productivity of business across the globe. I’m struggling to see the “lose” in this supposed lose-lose situation.

Perhaps we need to rethink this “animal spirits” concept and cheer these deflationary market forces rather than fear them.

The Kids Aren't Alright

My generation grew up learning why we have to help others via government aid. Greed, selfishness, egotism are the buzzwords to describe capitalists, while socialists are bleeding hearts. It’s incredibly interesting to me that the youth grow up itching to find their own identity, to get out on their own, to get out from under the rules of their parents and be their own self. Then they find themselves expressing their individuality entrenched in the politics of collectivism. They are led by propaganda into the pop culture theme that you’ve got to screw the man, and be yourself, and then help others (or yourself) by taking from the man.

The young generation has been duped. They are taught by the progressive movement that they can be their own self much better if they become collectivists. Individualism, on the other hand, is evil, as it leaves people to suffer and leads inevitably to inequality.

We who couldn’t wait to be out on our own, out from the tyrannical rule of our parents, our generation, is the generation to relentlessly seek the tyranny of government and forfeit our individuality in order to achieve the utopian concept of literal equality. Generation X, wake up! We’ve been lied to! Our individuality will not survive the forfeiture of freedom. Liberty and individuality are one in the same. You can’t be who you want to be when you have no freedom.

The individualist movement that was born out of the Renaissance was a defection from collectivist principles that ruled the world at the time. Individualism, the foundational philosophy behind capitalism, is not synonymous with egotism, selfishness, or greed. True, there are many who have these personal traits, but there are more who are humble, selfless and charitable. In fact, the true egotists are the power hungry who seek to control others, those who believe themselves to be so much wiser than all other individuals as to believe it better to rule them. You are too dumb to know what’s best for you, so you will now do what we tell you.

We must learn that literal equality does not and cannot exist. We are different. We have different talents and abilities. We have different personalities. We want different things. We are not the same. Thus equality cannot exist except as it pertains to rights and liberties.

Of all the generations, this is the generation that ought to shun collectivism and embrace individualism. It is individualism that embraces the ideology we truly believe.

The Guilt Death Spiral

The effects of sin are far more profound than we typically speak of. I was meditating over the concept of repentance when I came to understand far more completely the full depths of the consequences of sin. It is far more profound, dangerous, and vital to understand than the simple causality of sin = repentance or hell. It is far deeper even than the consequences listed in the talks and lessons we receive in church each week.

When we sin, not only is there a literal consequence attached to it, but there is a sociological consequence as well. The literal consequence is a result of justice. Many times the consequence is immediate and natural. Sometimes the consequence, when the culprit is caught, is a punishment enforced by a justice system. Other times the consequence is postponed until final judgment and hell fire. But we believe that regardless of when the consequences are suffered, they are unavoidably suffered until justice is satisfied.

But these consequences are only a part of the effects of sin. And, having failed to learn and understand the other parts, we have put ourselves in grave danger of underestimating the power of sin, and thus we fall prey to it far easier than we ought.

It’s a concept that I call the guilt death spiral. Guilt is an interesting effect of sin. Why we feel it is somewhat of a mystery. Do we have a natural and inherent yearning to be right with God? Is it something God created in us to encourage righteous living? We’ve never even really learned what it is. I think D&C 19:20 gives us some insight into this. “Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.” I think it’s guilt that they tasted. It’s some kind of spiritual punishment, accompanied or caused by the withdrawal of the Spirit.

Regardless of what, specifically, it is, guilt is a natural byproduct of sin. All feel it when they do something immoral, whether they believe it to be immoral in their mind or not. This is due to their inherent spiritual understanding of what is right and wrong, the Light of Christ, their conscience. This spiritual suffering throws us into a downward spiral. Our guilt racks us, causing a real, but spiritual, pain, a pain that can be incredibly severe relative to the severity of the sin (“how hard to bear ye know not”). It is a wound that will continue to bleed if not tended to. This pain causes feelings of animosity and hatred towards ourselves. It is a strange idea to hate one’s self, but it is you who caused the pain, and thus you who deserves the blame.

When we find ourselves with guilt-induced pain, we confront a decision.

We may choose to let the wound bleed. A surprisingly many either choose this path or are forced onto this path (as I will describe below). They feel that the pain is deserved and justified. They feel that, in order to satisfy justice, they must suffer the pain. This is not untrue, which make the practice commendable, though pitiful. Many have come to try to explain this depression in chemical and scientific terms, but a vast majority of these cases are incurred by the guilt of sin. Sadly, many sins hold such a harsh spiritual consequence as to seemingly exceed the capacity of most men and women to suffer. Thus, as they permit themselves to suffer it, they find themselves in such torment as to wish to end it by whatever means possible. Some turn to drugs, others to other distractions, but these only last for a moment. Several turn to death as an escape, a cheap and easy exit, as they well know, but an exit nonetheless. I could never understand suicidal feelings until recently. It made no sense for someone to have such little value of their life as to choose to forfeit it just to escape a guilty conscience. I now understand that I thought that way because I had never suffered the extreme guilt that other have. It is an unfortunate choice, because this suffering, as we know, will not end with death, and suicide accomplishes nothing except rid one’s self of their chance to escape it while in mortality. But, considering most of these do not understand post-mortality, it is an understandable choice.

We may choose to numb the pain by justification. This does not heal the wound, and allows it to bleed, but we can stop the pain. This is easily the most popular choice. We feel that what we did is wrong in our spirit, but we convince our mind that our spirit is wrong. We do this by pointing to others who are seemingly happy while committing the same error. We try to find logical reasoning for why our sin is justified. We convince ourselves that the sin is less severe than it feels. Thus we numb the pain and do not have to endure it. But part of the justification is proving to yourself that the sin is not so bad. So you do it again. At this point, either the guilt becomes so great that it cannot be ignored, or you successfully convince your mind and accustom your spirit to the sin. At this point, the past-feeling point, the sin becomes routine. If and when this happens, you find yourself in a dangerous situation where your conscience is numbed and other sins now seem less dangerous. This is where the spiral comes in. We might start by justifying small mistakes. But when we pass feeling those sins, we begin to fall easily to other sins. At those, the same process applies, and we must justify or suffer. Accustomed to and high on justification, we find ourselves trapped in this spiral that pulls us to greater and greater guilt. If we are unable to break from the spiral, we end up in a situation where we become racked by a guilt too great to justify. At this point, depression sets in, as described above. If this break-out point is too low, the depression will be too severe and again may lead to extreme self-hatred and suicidal desires. If there is no break-out point, there can be no light in that person, and they are left to the darkness.

The only way to break out of the guilt death spiral early is to choose to repent. This is often difficult to choose because we must immediately accept the consequences of our sin, suffer, fix and forsake it. These consequences are much less desirable than the prospect of skipping them by justification. But by suffering through the punishment of our admitted error, we put ourselves in a position where our guilt may be erased by the Atonement. The spiritual consequences of our sin was already suffered by Christ, thus the torment is not set on our spirit. How this works is a mystery to me still, but it is a miracle regardless of our understanding of it. Thus we may, as Alma, have our guilt taken, our torment stopped, and our spirit truly healed, and thus break out of the guilt death spiral and return to life and happiness.

May we get off the spiral path toward, not just spiritual death, but a torment so great that it may ultimately cause us to choose physical death. May we step up, face the guilt and consequences, and repent, and thus save ourselves from the pain at the end of the spiral. And let us praise Christ for the chance.

Obedience

I was sitting in chuch this afternoon listening to the speaker discuss obediece to God's laws as our ultimate goal. That wasn't the point he was making, but that was how he was speaking of it. That's how we always speak of it.

Achieving complete obedience to all of God's laws is not our objective. What is it we are trying to become? We are trying to become as God is. Is God an obedient servant? We are learning to be masters, not servants. That is our goal.

So why are we asked to become God's servants our whole mortal lives?

A couple of things. First, how do you become a master? Each of us had to start as a student, an apprentice, a servant before aquiring the knowledge and skills to be able to do something on our own. We are learning to be gods. Until we are ready, we cannot be entrusted with such responsibilities.

Second, it must be noted that this mortality is only a small part of the path to divinity. There is still much to come. What is to come is very little known, and that which is known is not widely known (for good reason). Our training in mortality is only a small part toward godhood.

But the purpose of mortality is primarily to obtain, develop, and govern a body (our spiritual development happened prior to mortality). We learn to do this completely and thoroughly by following the training program God has given us, known as the gospel. We obey because we must if we are to learn the lessons needed to become divine.

Obedience isn't the ends we seek, it's the means to those ends. Making the distinction allows us to see our path more clearly, understand the purpose of the commandments, and thus make obedience to these laws more meaningful.

Love and Humility

Reverence, admiration, adoration, all such terms are descriptors of the concept of love. Sympathy, compassion, pity, also are apparent qualities of love. But having the feelings of the former precludes the feelings of the latter. Yet we use the same work to describe them both.

This confusion of definitions has become a source of grave misunderstanding in our society. The love we may have for our fellowman is unclear, depending entirely on our opinion of that person. The great, the wise, the successful, the kind, the strong, the beautiful, the intelligent, we hold these people up in love and admiration. The lowly, weak, unfortunate, and pitiful, we hold these people down in love and compassion.

What kind of love do you feel for the man who has destroyed his life through drugs and poor decisions? What kind of love do you feel for God? Are they the same thing?

I believe that the over-use and improper use of the word love has corrupted its meaning. We are taught to love our enemies, the weak, the poor, the distressed. Instead we pity them. We justify this by claiming it is love, but it is not. Do you really believe that God holds pity for these of His children?

We love the things that make men great. We love things that are god-like. We love men and women for their quality. When we are told to love others, we are not being asked to love them for their weaknesses. We aren’t even being asked to love them in spite of their weaknesses. We are being asked to love them for their strengths. For you cannot love any other way.

We have become a society of a faltering and dying love. We applaud the weak and despise the strong. We are asked to give our all to the new definition of love, to compassion and pity, rather than our former love of heroes and greatness. We admire those who debase themselves so that others do not feel below them. We no longer glorify the efforts of the strong and determined, but instead the once estranged plight of the incapable and lazy. We have replaced our heroes with victims.

We are taught the virtues of humility, but have corrupted its meaning. Man is not a creature to be debased. We are not meant to remain weak or ignorant. We are not meant to restrain our potential, but to achieve and grow it. We are given talents to magnify them. We are meant to be great. Humility and greatness are indeed congruent, as Christ exemplified. Do you not believe that Christ knew who he was? He surely knew he was greater than us all. Yet was he not the exemplar of humility?

Humility and love are synonymous and closely related, and both their meanings have been corrupted in similar ways. Humility has nothing to do with debasing one’s self to the level of others. It is quite the opposite. It is being strong for others to look to. It is being willing to lift those who are not. It is seeing others for their strengths (love), and lifting them in their weaknesses. It is seeing your own weaknesses and striving to make them strong.

If we continue down this path of revering the weak and hating the strong, we will ultimately all become weak and despicable, and society will fall. We must despise weakness. Do not make the weak comfortable in their weakness, for that is not love, but instead push them to become strong.

Let us be great again, and again love greatness.

The Higher Education Fraud

I just read an article on the current higher education bubble, which could burst at any time. But the author makes an interesting point that, while some degrees and the skills and education that accompany it may be worth the cost of their tuition (i.e. computer programming, nursing, or engineering), many others are not.

This observation caused me to view the modern higher education system in a new light. It’s a messed up system, a communist system, where everyone pays the same tuition, regardless of what they get in return. How in the world this system has lasted as long as it has blows me away. No wonder so many professors feel that socialist principles work. But in reality, it doesn’t work. Schools have resorted to defrauding many of their students of their education value. They come to school, pay their dues, and expect to come out ready and able to earn back their investment doing what it is their interests have caused them to pursue. But many of them find their education to be useless. A man called into a radio show I was listening to the other day, and when asked what he does for a living, he quipped “Well, I was a history major in college, so, of course, I’m a sales manager.” It’s funny because it's very true. So many college graduates have enslaved themselves to the huge debts of ever rising tuition costs, only to find themselves lacking the earning power to pay back the debt.

This, as the author of the article noted, is likely to change in the coming years. The hype of the value of education has led to an enormous bubble, and people are realizing that the value of the education, in many cases, does not equal the costs of tuition. Education could be the next bubble to burst.

But this discussion has caused me to see a way to reform higher education in a way that would work much better for all students. This reformation is based in the actual value of education. Each degree would be assigned its market value, and therefore the cost of tuition will vary based on the value of the degree. No longer do we have women’s studies degrees costing the same as an engineering degrees, or world religion majors paying the same as business students. Instead, students would pay for the value of the education they receive, of course factoring in the market value of the positions the students can obtain, the ability of the school to place the students in those positions, the ammount of instruction that cannot be easily self-taught, and other factors. Thus, a school that has a prestigious medical program can charge more for their degree than Bo Diddley Tech’s medical program. MIT’s engineering program can charge much more than ITT Tech. But MIT's music program doesn't cost $60,000 a year also.

Really, the markets should have caused this change decades ago. Specialty schools indeed have such market factors in play already. But state-run universities and competing private universities have long been promoting their education as essential to all, regardless of the path they choose. They deceive young, gullible students and their parents into believing that the value they will get far exceeds the costs. In some cases this is true, but in many others it is not. It is fraud, and it is sad that it is such a blatant and prominent fraud.

Privatize the Prisons

Overcrowded prisons. It’s a problem indeed. Our culture has become so corrupt that our prisons are completely full, and we don’t have room for any new convicts. What’s more, these prisons are very expensive, and cost taxpayers a bundle. Building new prisons is more costly than we can afford, with the budgets already broken as it is. Yes, a real problem.

Solution: Privatize it.

How in the world do you privatize a prison?

Prison convicts are capable laborers. They have chosen to use their skills for ill conceived schemes contrary to the laws of the land. But they have skills. To just coupe them up behind bars, shooting the breeze is a ridiculous waste of wealth. They are moochers, not producing any value to society, but sucking out their life sustenance from it. Why in the world are they not at least providing for themselves?

Think of it this way. A businessman produces a certain product. He needs cheap labor to produce it. The government sells a prison full of cheap labor to this businessman, passing the duties of securing them, feeding and housing them, protecting them, etc. to the business. The business then gets a decent sized labor force, employing the prisoners in the work of their business. It’s really not a bad trade at all. The business maintains the prison, keeps prisoners secured, feeds them, disciplines them when necessary, educates and trains them, and puts them to work. The government not only is rid of the responsibility of securing and providing for these convicts, but they are paid to get rid of it.

There will have to be audits and assurances that the 8th Amendment rights aren’t being violated, and that the prisoners are being treated fairly. But overall, the responsibilities for these prisoners fall to the businessmen. I hesitate to make the comparison, but it really is akin to the slave trade of old. These convicts have, by their improper infringement on the rights of others, forfeit their own rights as citizens, and therefore have lost their rights of liberty. They are then, by definition, slaves of the state. The state has every right, as slave owners did in the past, to sell their slave property to others who would certainly use them far more efficiently than the state does.

A prison, run by a business, will be run like a business. Those who are productive will be compensated. Those who are not will be incentivized. Again, protections will necessarily be in place to ensure that cruel and unusual is not a part of the incentivizing. But certainly positive incentives, and occasional negative ones, will prod prisoners to be better and do more. Prisoners could even be paid. Weird concept, I know. But wouldn’t it be a great if a convict could earn savings through hard work, so that a decent sized fund is there waiting for him when he gets out, thus enabling him to make a new start for himself? Or he could continue to provide for his family while behind bars. And the time in a real, productive, legal business will give them skills and experience that will help them get work when they get released.

Let’s let the private market have a crack at the problem. I bet it fixes itself better than anyone would have hoped for.

A Search For Hope

Hope. It’s kind of the buzz word these days. We hear it all over political speeches and General Conference talks. It’s a word that inspires a positive premonition in us. But what is it?

A few months ago I considered writing a book on the 3 core principles of the Gospel outlined by Paul: faith, hope, and charity (see 1 Cor 13:13). I’ve given some thoughts on faith and love in previous posts. The topics are deep and interesting and certainly substantive enough to fill a book.

But hope… We’ve lost our understanding of hope. And I’m having a hard time trying to rediscover it.

What is hope? Is it an expectation of better things to come? That’s how we have it defined in our modern lingo. But isn’t that faith? Or are they the same? Paul certainly implied that they’re different.

I have yet to find a definition that feels right. Please feel free to comment any thoughts you may have.

So far, I have only figured out that hope is a byproduct of faith. Moroni 7:40-42 shows this. “Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope” (v. 42).

Elder Wilford W. Andersen pointed this out in his address in the Saturday morning session in this last Conference. “Hope comes from faith in Jesus Christ. He has already overcome the world and has promised that He will wipe away our tears if we will only turn to Him and believe and follow. Some who at this very moment feel desperate or discouraged may wonder how they can possibly regain hope. If you are one of those, remember that hope comes as a result of faith. If we would build our hope, we must build our faith.”

I believe that the list that Paul gave us was not, in fact, just a list of primary gospel principles. Note that he indicates that the greatest of these is charity. Is charity really more important than faith? No, that’s not what he meant by “greatest”. What I believe he was saying is that it is a step by step process. Charity, as Christ possessed it, is the ultimate goal. But faith is our starting point, which leads to hope, which hope then leads us to our goal of charity.

I feel that this is an important piece that we’re missing. If we are lacking in charity, we must first grow our hope, just as we must increase our faith in order to build hope. It’s not like it’s an automated process, where if we have faith we automatically beget hope, and hope automatically produces charity. No, we must preach charity just like we preach faith. We must work to have each of these things. So hope must be striven for. But if we are to obtain it, it would certainly help to understand it.

Government "Solutions"

Thomas Sowell once pointed out that, when it comes to economic matters, generally there really aren’t any solutions, only tradeoffs. If this is true, than it is a vital concept for the American public to grasp, as our politicians continue to bombard us with their “solutions” to our economic woes. If there are no solutions, we ought to be far more skeptical of the proposals they try to push.

Incumbent Utah Senator Bob Bennett had a segment on a local radio show, where he pitched his campaign platform. He described his private sector experience and success, and pointed to that as evidence of his ability to produce innovative solutions for the American people. This hacked me off. I called into the program the next day to express my displeasure. “We don’t want government to provide innovative solutions”, I told host Bob Lonsberry. “We don’t want them to provide solutions of any kind. We want them to leave us alone so we can solve our own problems.”

Let’s examine Dr. Sowell’s claim for a minute. Economically speaking, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. He didn’t blanket this statement over all cases, but said it is typically the case. Is it? If so, when is it so, and when is it not?

In private industry, are there solutions? Absolutely. Creative ideas to make businesses solvent and successful abound. Are these just tradeoffs, allowing one business to thrive solely at the expense of the failure of another? This is a commonly held notion, but is absolutely false. The world is not a pie, where taking a bigger slice means less for the rest of us. If you produce more via hard work and innovation, and are therefore more successful, it is because you have added to the pie, making the pie bigger. Thus economic solutions do indeed exist in wealth producing industries.

What about government? Government produces nothing. It is completely and entirely a service sector. The services they provide are paid for with the wealth produced in productive industries. Thus any solution they invent cannot, by nature, come from an increase in production of wealth. They produce no wealth. Government tends to treat the economy as a pie because for them it is. They can only increase the size of their slice by taking from other slices. Any solution they invent cannot come from government. Unless they find a way to govern private industries to become more efficient and productive than they are now of their own accord, they cannot increase the size of the pie. Thus any solution can only involve moving one part of the pie to another. There indeed are only tradeoffs.

Many argue that moving this money around could result in a more effectively balanced distribution, so industries can grow better. Actually, the typical argument is to take from the rich industries to give to poor people. This will, they argue, give the poor a chance to improve their station and get the ball rolling for higher education and thus higher wages. Is it possible then? Could a well-planned redistribution of wealth create a more effective growth rate for the economy? Yes, it’s possible. But those who argue for it don’t understand the mechanism that’s already in place.

If an industry has the potential to create good returns, and produce high amounts of wealth, but lacks sufficient funds to get the ball rolling, what happens? If an industry indeed has a strong plan for growth, investors from across the world are more than willing to fund the project, with the expectation of a decent return on their investment. What about the argument that poor people need some help getting started? Banks are already very willing to invest in students by giving them loans to get through school. Why is it, then, that some people choose not to go to school? Is it because they can’t find a way to pay tuition? No, it’s because they either don’t like school, or they don’t feel it’s a good investment of their time and future earnings. It’s their choice to not attend school. If you give them more money, is that decision going to change? No. You’re not investing in them, you’re donating to them. There is no return on investment. It is simply a wealth transfer.

When we come to understand wealth and money, we will learn that Wall Street is not the enemy of the nation. It is not the cause of a huge and unfair maldistribution of our resources and wealth. It is exactly the opposite. It is the most effective system available to put all the resources exactly where they can best be used.

Government, on the other hand, is the economic enemy of the nation. It’s kind of strange to think about it that way. But Government “solutions” are not solutions, but tradeoffs. And in nearly all cases, these tradeoffs are for the worse, simply because they move money away from the ideal balance that was established naturally by more prudent investors who are willing to put their own money on the line for these companies.

Let government deal with social issues as they will. But we need to stop them from providing any more economic “solutions”.

The Food Standard

I’ve been doing a little bit of study on monetary policy the last couple of days. It’s interesting to see the different viewpoints on how money works. Most of these views fall short of a true and full understanding. As a result, the policies proposed by politicians, economists, and analysts have certainly fallen far short of able to accurately manipulate currencies to produce the desired results.

Politicians, having almost no concept of wealth and money, find it personally advantageous to increase the monetary supply, thus giving themselves “free” funds to buy power and support with. The Federal Reserve has mistakenly dedicated itself to attempting to control interests rates rather than the money supply. Interest rates cannot be accurately controlled, nor should they be manipulated. The money supply, on the other hand is fully in their power, and they’ve done a terrible job with it.

Money used to be real. For centuries they used precious metals as trading mediums. These metals had real value to those people, and thus the value of the traded item was esteemed equivalent to the value of the metal. America, during the 17th century, used tobacco as their trading medium. Again, a certain value of tobacco was traded for an equivalent value of goods. Eventually America went back to gold for their trade medium. Each Federal Reserve note (dollar) represented an amount of gold stored by the Fed. Theoretically, you could have returned the note and received the gold you owned.

Decades ago, however, our politicians got tired of being tied to a physical commodity for their currency. It allowed for no currency manipulation, thus preventing them from exploiting the contemporary economic theories to their advantage. So they got rid of the requirement. Now a dollar theoretically still represents a value, but it is just a representation. The value it holds is imaginary, it is not contracted to anything of real value. Thus it only successfully serves as a currency if the people who possess them agree upon their value. This is a very risky and unstable system.

First, it allows for, and even encourages monetary manipulation. The mere possibility itself promotes skepticism, but when currency is manipulated, trust in its value naturally and correctly diminishes. Second, it creates an imaginary market, a market of value. Value does not itself have a value. It is not a product to be traded. It is an idea, an opinion. Thus the currency market is false and unstable, having no real foundation. And third, establishing an economy on imaginary currency provides no safety net to fall to. There is no physical resource behind the paper to use in a crisis. If the currency loses its value, you are left with nothing but empty promises.

Because of these issues, many have called for a return to the gold standard. Thus there would be a valuable resource behind every dollar bill, and actual resources in the bank if and when we run into hard times. But is gold really what we want to be turning to in a crisis? What value does gold really have? It is a great value when economies are good, because it is relatively rare and nice to look at. But if we need to use it to get the economy moving again, of what use would it be? Would foreign nations give us their resources in exchange for gold if they needed those resources as well? What good does gold do for them? The high value that we have put on gold is the same as the value we’ve given to the dollar. There is no real value except what we imagine it to be.

To illustrate the point, if everyone considered gold to be unpleasant to look at, would it still be valuable? If the answer is no, then its entire value is based on an opinion. It is imaginary. And if economies fail, the imaginary value of gold will suddenly disappear.

Instead, money should be based on something of real value, something useful. What, if there was no money, would be of such value that he who had a lot would be considered rich, and he who didn’t was poor? What would people trade their products and services in order to obtain? This is a stable resource, the resource on which we should base our currency.

The answer that came to my mind was food.

Consider that as a scenario. Our monetary system is based on non-perishable food and seeds. Fort Knox is a huge storehouse of food. The Federal Reserve is a reserve of food. All banks are food banks. Supermarkets would still exists, but we could pick up basic canned food items from the bank if we wished. Each can deposited to the bank returned a market dollar value in currency. The currency is then used as it is today. But if ever needed, the money could be returned for cans of food. That currency note is actually tied to food, so when you pay for something in cash, you are trading food for that item.

At first I wondered if this would not lead to inflation. All of sudden money really could grow on trees after all. Farm production would certainly increase. This is what happened in the 17th century with tobacco. The number of tobacco farmers grew quickly, and the tobacco production grew to huge surplus levels, and thus the value of the tobacco dropped significantly. This was one of the earliest known problems with inflation. Would having a food based currency not lead to the same issue? Well, not really. If the supply surplus is huge, than the value of food could certainly drop, just like anything else. But of all things, food is the one thing that can never collapse in value. Its demand will never diminish.

Inflation would not actually happen until the surplus covered the world, since food is of great value to all nations. Selling food to foreign nations for their resources would be easy. Thus our surplus would serve, not only to provide a safety net in case of collapse, but also as barter items for foreign trade. So food would not begin to lose value until the entire world was covered with food. An interesting solution to the world’s starvation problems. At this point, if the production of food was to continue to increase, and inflation began to happen, the free market would naturally balance the production. New food producers would stop popping up as they become less profitable, and service industries would grow instead. Food, and thus money, would find its natural and optimal balance, and thus promote the optimal conditions for economic growth.

I see only a couple of issues with using a food standard for currency. First is determining a system of what foods to buy, and what the value of each item is. Quality and taste determine the value of food. This could be resolved with market values, as the food market would never cease to exist. But I could foresee issues with food companies fighting over determined market values. Of course, these issues would be resolved with markets as well. Banks will try to get the most food for the buck. So will consumers. Competing food producers will fight for the most buck for the food. Competition between banks and consumers will give producers fair prices. Competition between producers will give banks and consumers fair value.

The other issue that I foresee is that of the perishability of food. A system would have to be worked out that food is not stored away for too long and is cycled properly. The system would likely be somewhat complex, and would require government to administer it (you all know how I feel about adding to government responsibilities). But it is certainly something that could be worked out.

Once we replace our trade from exchanging items of value for currency of imagined value to exchanging things of value for a currency of real and unimagined value, the economy no longer will be held in submission to the whims of politicians, but be freed to grow at a rate never before imagined. If we were to use food, the only universal and irreplaceable staple of life, we would accomplish the most stable and perfect base for trade that’s ever been tried. And we would find it easier to sleep, knowing that we all have more than a year’s supply of food stored up all across the nation.