M & M

Fundamental world views: individualism vs collectivism

2010-05-25T11:49:00.000-07:00

A recent spat in the media about Rand Paul being unfairly cornered on decades-old civil rights legislation and the resulting discussion has highlighted the fundamental divide in politics today. Indeed, it represents the fundamental divide in human thought across political parties, time, ages, races, and location: individualism vs. collectivism.

While I cannot do it justice here, a proper understanding of what these two terms are is treated at length in Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, a read that is highly recommended. In brief, individualism is a philosophy that holds individual, natural rights as sacred, condemning violence of any kind against others except for self defense (or defense of those who cannot defend themselves). It embodies the concept of sovereignty, which is that we are free to choose and act for ourselves, so long as we do not infringe the rights of others. The natural result of this basic philosophy is some familiar rights we all know about: private property rights, the right to the fruits of one's own labor, freedom of speech and religious expression, the right to self-defense, and so forth.

On the other side of the divide is collectivism, or a philosophy that individual rights are not as important as the group (whatever that may be), and that all members of the group should be equal (sometimes even strictly equal). Collectivism's goals roughly can be summed up in this: everyone should "make it," no matter what their differences are. Where individual discrepancies become too large, they are reigned in via redistribution, coercion or other methods so as to restore equality.

Fruits of Collectivism

Just as individualism has natural results and natural frameworks that arise from it, so does collectivism. A couple of philosophies of government fall into this category: socialism and communism. The intent to eliminate the poor or the downtrodden (economic equality) is an obvious underpinning for socialism, although degrees and strategies for implementation vary widely.

But for a moment, envision the results of such a philosophy. If the desire for equality overrides individuality, which individuals decide what equality really means? There are some objective measures of equality (for example, some aspects of people financial situations can be measured numerically), but the reality is that human beings engage in subjective valuation of what they encounter; recall the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure." If someone else decides what you can have in order to be equal to your neighbor, that may actually feel like a terrible injustice due to your own subjective valuation.

What's more, those who decide what should be given or taken are in a position of relative importance compared to those who do not have this power, and that those with that power tend towards abuse of their position, thus destroying the equality mean to belie the whole apparatus. In addition, if many individuals in the group agree with the current rulers, what happens when a different set of ruler gain control, and what was allowed and provided for equality's sake before is now changed to something else? This reliance on experts or benevolent dicatators necessarily will mean that, while some will agree with their actions, some will not due to individual differences that cannot be ignored. Those who do not agree, though, generally will not have the power to counter that which they do not agree with.

History is rife with examples where socialism and communism had those in charge abusing their position to silence dissent (for the betterment of the whole of course!), to gain economic advantage (separate housing programs for the regular people than for the party leaders), etc.

What's more, policies and laws that put individualism on the back seat compared to collectivist goals have fundamental effects on overall wealth and standars of living even when there is no abuse of power. They largely stem from the fact that, if one is going to be taken care of and "made equal" to his peers despite personal differences, then much of the motivation to excel and produce the effort necessary to benefit himself or society is largely lost. If responsibility for earning and working hard can be pushed on someone else without repercussions, the natural human temptation is to indulge that laziness.

The effect of the removal of motivation is that, on the whole, society becomes poorer and has a lower standard of living. This result occurs because on average, people work less and produce less, and these things are the fundamental underpinnings of a standard of living for a society. Where there is no nope to excel in an area beyond one's peers or to enjoy the fruits of such, most will not bother to try. Advancement and financial stability will slowly decelerate. The weight of those who take more than they give (called externalities in philosophy) will eventually gain critical mass and cause a collapse of the system. This is precisely what happened in the USSR, a sad tale confirming the drag placed on a society under a collectivist government. Underscoring the rot that was occurring in soviet society was the refrain spoken there: "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

A final note: another form of government that can be classified as collectivist is corporatism, widely regarded as a synonym of fascism. In this case, there is generally a two-tier system of equality, with the merging of government and corporate interests forming an elite oligarchy at the top which enjoys many extra benefits and power, with those in the lower tier exercising some form of socialism or crony capitalism in an attempt to enter the ruling class or mitigate their losses. It can be classed in form as socialism for the rich, where the redistributions are not strictly toward equality, but tend to move upward to the ruling class, and downward to the poorest in order to secure their allegiance, fleecing the middle and working classes who are given no political power. It is really a more corrupt, obfuscated form of socialism.

Implementation of Collectivism

We have touched on this to some degree already, but it is important to further expound on the methods through which each worldview is implemented. It must be noted that human beings are, broadly speaking, self-interested beings. Self interest is not necessarily selfishness, however; a self-interested being may find great reward in providing volunteer service for other people, rationally seeking for net benefit of everyone around himself or herself. It can take on many forms and is a manifestation of that same subjective valuation that is inherent to each individual's makeup and experience.

Collectivism's goal of equality also takes on various forms: equality of race, equality of financial situations, equality of actions, equality of feelings, etc. In order to provide equality, however, individual differences in a given area must be reduced or removed. Being naturally at odds with subjective valuations in some individuals, this imposition of equality on those who would need to change their valuations provides a choice for collectivists: let them choose, or coerce them into being subject to the collective's rules aimed to create the equality. It is readily apparent that if a choice is provided then equality can never be achieved, as those who do not wish to participate will simply act or speak in such a way to contradict the set terms of equality, thus destroying any perception of having reached the goal.

Of necessity, then, collectivist regimes impose the rules of equality by coercion and by force. Any arrangement where people join the collective by choice and remain by choice is not collectivism, it is simply individualism where many choose to band together for common benefit, by contract! This fact that the use of force is necessarily for collectivist governments is evident: under socialist governments, for example, what happens when an individual does not pay their taxes to aid in redistribution of wealth (toward the aim of economic equality)? They are harassed, fined, and ultimately jailed. In the United States, IRS enforcement agents are even issued a badge and a gun, and if you physically resist their efforts to arrest you for violation of these rules, you could conceivably end up shot and killed in the process.

When everyone is forced to comply with collectivist policies, any complaint about the policies are met with disdain, as the individual is often painted as not desirous of equality. In the case of racial equality (a noble goal), they are painted as racist. In the case of economic equality, they are painted as greedy, or as one who hates the poor, and so forth. This perception management is necessary for collectivism, as any admission that the use of force does not justify the ends (equality) would destroy the whole regime.

Fruits of Individualism

On the other hand, individualism stresses as sacred individual natural rights. And individual's rights cannot require another to do anything, such as provide a service, buy a product, or say (or not say) any particular thing, etc. An individual's rights allows them to utilize their life, time, resources, and private property how they see fit, so long as they do not infringe the same right for others. An individual's rights also extend to the opportunity to enter into exchanges and contracts with others freely, so long as all parties to any transaction agree and are not misled (more on this below).

Note that this broad right to do or say as one pleases does not extend indefinitely; one cannot lie or commit fraud, as knowingly spreading falsehood can easily be classed as an infringement of others' right to their agency (free choice). Providing misleading information naturally impugns another's ability to make proper choices, and as such is a violation of natural rights. In addition, along with each right comes responsibility, to act appropriately and within the bounds of that right (e.g. don't violate the rights of others), and to uphold and defend others' rights to the same.

By deduction, it can easily be found that if all individuals acted within their rights, with self interest, a set of natural structures arise. First, is the free market, which is simply describing in aggregate many individuals engaging in exchanges and contracts with each other freely. Within this system, pursuing one's self interest is generally called capitalism. Capitalism is a system of freedom for contract and exchange, and nothing more and nothing less.

The next system that arises naturally and desirably is a limited government. No free society will be comprised of perfect individuals, and thus some lying, fraud, and violation of other individual rights is bound to take place. Individuals have a right to enforce their own individual rights, and to request help from others in enforcing just consequences for violation of rights (a natural consequence of a violation of rights is a loss of at least some rights for the offender, pursuant to the offense).

Among many other benefits of individualism, the natural result is that individuals will pursue exchanges that will tend to be beneficial to themselves under whatever subjective valuation they espouse. The other side of any exchange will also do so, and the matching of the two parties results in mutually beneficial transactions. The information that flows throughout the whole society about these transactions serves to direct the ebb and flow of markets, production, and labor, and if all of these are unencumbered by intervention by third parties (where no rights have been violated), it results in a constant improvement in overall wealth and standard of living.

It is true that tolerance is required under these arrangements. The freedom to do or speak as one pleases dictates that one must tolerate differences of opinion and subjective valuation. Those differences are precisely what makes the entire system of individualism function. They provide the dynamics and diversity that absorbs shocks and changes over time, and encourages the natural flow towards an equilibrium of the highest wealth possible.

Implementation of Individualism

It becomes somewhat impractical for individuals to enforce consequences for rights violations themselves, and there will obviously be some controversy and chaos resulting from it if someone is claiming they are enforcing their rights appropriately, when the alleged offender says they are not. Naturally, a neutral third party should be agreed upon by both parties, and by agreement their determination of guilt must be accepted. The obvious implementation of this in society is government, and a particularly relevant example is the court system. As a check on the court system, a jury is also provided (again, if you insist on your own rights being enforced, you have an obligation to help others enforce theirs, and thus sit on a jury as needed) for similar goals of ensuring neutrality and proper enforcement of natural rights.

The government is also a natural result of individuals who would rather not have to provide for certain common needs for large-scale events, such as war defense, negotiation with other nations, etc. Realize, however, that government cannot legitimately exist by itself; rather, it exists by contract with individuals writ large, however implicit that contract may be. In the United States, agreement to the contract is implicit, but the contract itself is explicit (the US Constitution). The contract is not intended to limit the freedom of individuals, but rather to limit the power of government so that it only performs the duties assigned to it as a proxy for individuals. The government should not be able to perform any duty, even in aggregate, that the individuals that are party to the contract cannot do for themselves in their own individual sphere (self defense, rights enforcement, contracts, and so on).

As a result, individualism rejects the notion that the government may use force to abridge any individual right if the individual has not violated another's right: a person may not be punished before they commit a crime. This circumscribes nearly all regulation and control that government may exercise, and strictly limits its size and power; it is also desirable for the contract with government to strictly limit its power, in order to keep it from abridging the rights of the individuals that authorize its existence.

There are various strategies for keeping other people, and government, in check so as to not allow the drift away from its ideal limited functions. Checks and balances between departments and branches is a prominent one. Another is federalism, which is breaking up government horizontally instead of vertically (which is what checks and balances between branches are); this is the separation of power between, for example, states and the federal government in the United States, or even the separation of power between states and counties, and so forth. It emphasizes that placing power more locally gives individuals more opportunity to check government and keep it from overstepping its bounds.

Additionally, individualism is based upon core principles, and rejects the notion that other people may rule them; it is the ultimate expression of individual sovereignty, and other levels of sovereignty are built purely upon individual free association. Thus, individuals are ruled by principles and laws made pursuant to those principles, and not by "men." This rule of law is a central tenet of individualism, which holds forth that other people cannot make decisions for any individual, and that their actions are governed by laws that are applied equally to all individuals.

Polar Opposites

The fundamental difference between collectivism and individualism then is the use of force vs. the use of agency. Individualism is the supremacy of the individual and their right to choose their own actions, so long as they do not harm another or another's property. Collectivism is simply a veiled form of totalitarianism, where a desire for equality trumps individual rights.

It can also be said that collectivism aims to provide "freedom from worry" about certain issues. This is clearly an invalid use of the word freedom (as representing choice), where by having choice taken away in certain matters the subjects are somehow made more free. If collectivism removes the worry of failure, that cannot be described as freedom. In addition to the unintended consequences of such a goal, it goes against the very grain of choice, as those who wish to opt out are not allowed to do so. Agency is destroyed, and the utopian goal of equality and removal of concern creates not a utopia, but a nightmare and a totalitarian's playpen.

Between the two worldviews, it can be seen that collectivism is a dangerous system based upon, in effect, slavery and control and theft (redistribution). Individualism provides true freedom and is most likely to obtain an increasing standard of living and net benefit to all participants. Individualism provides equality of opportunity, in that every individual is free to work as hard as they would like, and is free to seize opportunities as they come, but is not free to force those opportunities to come via coercion.

Truly the world views are actually between freedom and slavery.

Note: please see Liberalism by Mises for a wealth in good information on the subject, although he treats it through the term neoliberalism rather than just collectivism. But he's really talking about the same thing.

Proportional slavery

2009-10-16T23:49:00.000-07:00

Are we just slaves?

No really, this is a serious question. A person can be enslaved in various ways due to their own bad choices, and of course by the choices of others. But is it possible that many of us (if not our entire nation) are really for all practical purposes enslaved, but too distracted to realize it?

Now before you stop reading, let's frame the question in a slightly different context. Were the African American people in the South prior to the Civil War slaves? You can't seriously be asking that question, you must be thinking. Yes, I am asking it, although I know the answer as well as you do. Perhaps they were just "part slaves" because some of them managed to save up enough money to buy their own freedom (yes, many of them were paid). Thus, some were able to leave through the prescribed means of the system they were under. Maybe that makes them only, say, 90% slaves?

This flies in the face of reason. They were 100% enslaved, pure and simple whether they were paid or not. It is morally repugnant to argue otherwise. They did not have control over their own lives in any meaningful sense, or control over their own decisions, as their opportunities were limited artificially by their masters on purpose. Any of them caught trying to escape were returned to their enslavement and punished or even killed.

Now take a deep breath, forget for just a moment all of your preconceived notions about our own current situation, and hop on this train of thought for a little ride.

What is This Freedom You Speak of?

What does it mean to be free? Not a little bit free, but truly free? And why is freedom so important? The answer lies within the minds and hearts of every human being. While Locke and the Founding Fathers and others have done a wonderful job helping us to understand the answers, we usually need not go further than what our own conscience tells us. The meaning of freedom is strikingly simple: agency, ownership, and responsibility. But those words are too broad left alone, so let's define them further following our intuition.

To have agency is to be able to make choices without coercion. Nobody is to take away that agency from you unless you specifically harmed another's agency. In philosophical parlance, this is called violence against another individual or their natural rights, whether it is physical in nature or not. You have a fundamental, God-given right to live your life the way you see fit, so long as you do not infringe the right of others to do the same. If you do infringe someone else's right to live their life the way they see fit, that person (and society at large, and thus the government by delegation) has a legal opportunity to ensure justice is met and that you are punished accordingly. But that is the only time you may justly be deprived of your right to agency in any way (for justice's sake).

Ownership is the concept of controlling a limited, scarce resource that you have earned or intrinsically have. Among the things you automatically own are your time, your talents, and the fruit of your labor; although the latter may just be a manifestation of your time and talents. You have a right to control what you produce, and a right to control what you already legally own such as land, houses, financial assets, etc. You also have a right to enter into a transaction with anybody else (note, I said anybody) to exchange something you own for something that you want, as long as the other party in the transaction agrees. You cannot force them to agree to any terms, and they cannot force you, but you voluntarily agree together to a set of terms that are favorable to (hopefully) both parties. In such transactions of resources, information in the marketplace from yours or others' previous transactions inform the terms. This exchange forms the core of what is called a free market, and when viewed on a large economic scale it is referred to as capitalism. The free exchange of goods via contracts, and the producing of new goods by those using their rightfully owned resources is all there is to capitalism.(1) If anybody coerces you into not being able to transact the way you and another party wish to, or threatens you with violence of any kind if you do not give up some of what you own (your time, work, talents, property, etc.), then they are infringing your natural(2) right to ownership.

Responsibility at its core is the requirement that you not infringe the two basic rights of agency and ownership, and that you uphold these rights in all of their proper manifestations for others completely. Anything less is essentially advocating a form of slavery! (Let that sink in for a moment.) There are some additional responsibilities, such as a responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions. This includes receiving the application of justice. It includes a responsibility to not retaliate against someone or attempt to curb his or her use of their natural rights when they have not infringed the natural rights of others. It includes providing for any children you have; e.g. you had an opportunity and choice to engage in sexual intercourse with another willing person, but you do not have an inherent right to then avoid the consequences of doing so. As your children grow in their capacity to exercise their agency, you have a responsibility to let them actually do so and allow them to face the consequences of their actions. Of course, you should teach them as much as you can along the way so that they choose to use their agency wisely.

Are We Free Today?

The foregoing principles all make sense, and they form a simple framework against which we can decide what promotes freedom and what does not. But here is where the ears usually get plugged, when we start applying this to our current situation. Let's start with a candidate that people have accepted for far too long: income tax. There isn't a single person I know that would like to have taxes raised, or really be taxed much at all (there are those strange creatures out there who do, but they are rare). We inherently understand that taxes are bad, and we all have this awful helplessness deep down about them that they might just be immoral and not the best way to do things. However, we convince ourselves that our government wouldn't function without them and that they are somehow a necessary evil. But are they really necessary? It has been discovered that if we were to take away all of the federal personal income tax receipts from the government, and reduce government by that size, we would have a federal government about the size it was in...1999. Yes, you read that right. We could have a 1999-sized government, with zero personal income tax. Perchance it is not so necessary after all?

Individual income tax is identifiable as not a necessary evil, but it is even worse than just being unnecessary. It can be easily shown that it is a violation of property rights; it is a form of slavery. It is estimated that we individually work until around March or April every year to cover the taxes we pay that year. For those that claim you can get out of it by dropping below the poverty line, or not having a job, does that seem like much of a choice? In that state we can't live, or else we live on the dole and essentially are advocating the slavery of the rest of society to pay for us. The choice is to accept slavery either way. You may have heard some people in government refer to our tax system as voluntary. But is it really? What happens if you have income but do not pay your income tax? Eventually, you will get a notice from the IRS. If you ignore it for long they will send armed agents to your house, who will kill you if you resist, or throw you in jail if you don't resist but don't pay. So, if you don't agree to an obfuscated form of slavery, they will subject you to overt slavery and a complete loss of freedom. Oh and by the way, if you leave the country but are still a US citizen, you still owe your taxes, and they will still eventually get you. If you do a private transaction and do not pay taxes on any income, it is in the tax code that even barter of that nature is taxable on the dollar value of whatever you transacted. In practical terms there is no escape.

Another example is the use of dollars (Federal Reserve Notes) themselves. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply along with its cohorts the banks as they engage in fractional reserve lending. They have depreciated the value of the dollar by over 95% since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. While there were financial panics before that (due to banks doing the same thing by overissuing specie!), the overall value of what people owned stayed largely stable, if not being subject to a slightly deflationary environment. Slow deflation actually rewards savers modestly, and is not to be feared. Nowadays if you save your money the Fed essentially will tax it via inflation of the money supply. What's worse is that due to the mechanics of monetary velocity, the rich and politically well-connected get the newly printed dollars first and can spend it before prices rise, and you get stuck with the bill indirectly. Your property is stolen.

No problem, let's use a different currency, you say? By law, you cannot. You are expressly forbidden to create a new currency, even one backed by gold (thus not being nearly so subject to the problem of inflation), or else the Secret Service will raid your operation and throw you in jail. Nope, only the Federal Reserve and their friends the bankers are allowed to counterfeit money, and you must accept the damage they do to your own savings and asset values.

But otherwise we still have a lot of freedom, right? It can't go too far beyond that, we might surmise. Well, let's take something seemingly very disconnected with any of this and see. You go out and buy a bottle of Sprite. You got paid yesterday, so inflation isn't an issue, and you're a poor college student who doesn't make enough money to pay taxes. (Scratch that, make it Coke because you have a project due and need to stay up working on it.) You do a quick, arms-length transaction that benefits the store owner and yourself, with no taxes involved besides sales tax, but that was voluntary on your part to purchase the soda, so that's relatively better. No problem.

Or is there no problem? Take a look at the label, and you'll notice on the ingredient list (ha! that list is there mandated by law, increasing the cost of production!) that there is no cane sugar, but instead it contains high fructose corn syrup. What has that got to do with anything? The question is why do they use the real sugar in Coke in other countries (even in Europe) but not the US? It is due to stifling regulation on the price of sugar, presumably to protect american sugar producers. All it has really done is give us Coke that doesn't taste as good, and high sugar prices, not to mention other knock-on effects of price fixing. Price fixing is inherently anti-freedom, because it ties the hands of other parties in transactions such that they can't transact the way that is in their own best interest. It inserts a third party by force of law into every transaction, who has the power to dictate terms to one or both parties. It is a form of coercion, in an area that the coercive party has no business sticking their nose.

We can find thousands upon thousands of such examples. It permeates our lives, even though it appears largely hidden from view at first. Just because we cannot see them easily does not mean the problems do not exist, or that they are not going to destroy our freedom entirely in the end. An undiscovered cancer often does not manifest any symptoms until it is too late, or nearly so. These distortions and reductions of freedom benefit a powerful few at the expense of the many.

The Curse of Collectivism

There are certain ideologies promoting the common good or doing our part, but in reality the common good is far and away best achieved in the freest society. Are there poor among us? Set up a charity, and take voluntary donations. Is there lying and fraud? Investigate, punish, and apply justice for those who have had their rights violated, but never punish a crime before it is committed.(3)

Every form of collectivism (be it corporatism/fascism, socialism, communism, chrony capitalism, and any number of other -isms) is just an immoral justification for the reduction of individual freedom; their tantalizing promise of everyone being equal in unjustifiable ways is really just a pretty face on a maggot-infested ideology that has proven to provide misery for those subject to it, time and again. Don't fall for the siren call of wealth redistribution or of giving up a little liberty for a little security. In all cases, you will effectively lose your wealth, your liberty, and your security, and be left to beg at the hands of those who you thought would be your saviors.

Proportional Slavery

Are we slaves? Maybe just 10% slaves? Maybe 30% slaves? Are we enslaved at all? If so, and we do nothing about it, are we not truly 100% slaves? Do our masters just hide that reality nicely behind a facade of conventional wisdom and public demonization of anyone who would dare contravene the status quo?(4)

Take a moment to stop and ponder this the next time you see your taxes taken out of your paycheck, or hear about government regulation and intervention either here or abroad, or about bankers and elites getting bailed out while you are still paying your taxes, or any number of other indicators that something is not quite right in the Land of the Free. If you listen closely enough, you might just hear the crack of a whip, the cocking of an oppressor's gun, or the clatter of the chains around your ankles.

And finally you will smell a hint of true freedom, coming from just past the edge of the plantation. It is within reach, if we are principled enough to obtain it.

Notes:

1 - The recent attacks on capitalism as the culprit for the current great recession completely dumbfound me. We do not have true capitalism, for starters; we have limited capitalism occuring in segments of the market despite the intervention by the government and distortions from what is now been documented as rampant fraud. Greed is not the fundamental unit of capitalism; hard work and freedom are the fundamental units. A person may be completely driven by the desire to do good and collect money to give to charity and flourish under capitalism, just like the next guy who is driven to collect money to buy a mansion. Those drives have nothing to do with capitalism.

2 - Note the word natural here; for religious folks, this is synonymous with God-given. The implication here is that these rights predate and supersede government authority. This was well understood by the Founding Fathers, who sought to codify a big giant check against the government in favor of these rights in the US Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights.

3 - This is not to suggest you shouldn't try to stop a crime in progress. However, if someone has not committed a crime, regulations that purport to prevent crime or other "bad things" generally really are just used to provide barriers to entry in a market or cause other distortions, and they don't actually prevent the crimes very well anyway.

4 - Someone remarked the other day that they had really been bothered by President Obama's handling of dissenting views against his policies. They noted that his response is to make fun of and demean (usually subtly) any who oppose the policies he is pushing for. He is by no means alone in this behavior.

Analysis of HR 3200, the national health care bill

2009-07-31T12:34:00.000-07:00

A few of the statements in this analysis could be construed as unneeded alarmism, but if even half of their assessment is true, this is very scary material indeed:

http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf

If you take a look at my last post, you'd realize that a government-sponsored health care system is fundamentally immoral due to the theft factor, and the chilling effect it has on individual liberty. However, the extent of this bill catapults it deep into the territory of medical tyranny. There is nothing positive in this bill, and a cursory reading should be enough to convince any rational human being that the total cost of medical care will not be better under this scheme. In addition, the loss of individual liberty to determine medical care decisions unfettered given the rightful resources the individual has access to will be destroyed to a very large degree.

The solution to our high cost of medical care is not more government. It is less. People think that our current medical insurance system and HMO setup is a free-market construct; it is not. Legislation in the 70's helped create HMOs, and legislation earlier than that created Medicare/Medicaid, which have had a detrimental effect on medical care costs, and have been abject failures by any cost measure.

Our insurance system is broken, because it is not insurance: does your auto insurance policy pay for oil changes, or replacing your brakes? Why not? Because then it wouldn't be insurance! There is a way to reduce the cost of medical care. Bear with me, and I'll put forward a tax-less, efficient, fair, and ultimately low-cost system that has much less bureaucracy to boot.

This goes back to simple economics. How do you get the best price for a service in the marketplace? Honest price discovery. Do we currently know how much medical services should cost (ergo do we have real price discovery)? No, we obviously don't under our current system. Normal economic transactions take place between two individual entities, with no intermediary that has the authority to tell them what they can buy or sell for. Naturally the two parties will try to maximize their end of the deal, and there is nothing immoral about that. Their backdrop is the published prices that others are paying for the same exchange, and that informs the parameters of what is acceptable. In addition, as there is more demand for the service or good, it affects the price as there is more or less competition for the same resources (services, goods). All of this helps to rapidly facilitate the discovery of what the real price for the service or good is, if left unfettered by others (third parties), such as the government (via regulation and/or price fixing) or insurance companies (attempting to do the same thing), or fraud by one of the parties. Hunting down and punishing fraud is one of the only legitimate functions of the government, and it directly helps with proper price discovery.

What we have in our health care today are two external parties inhibiting price discovery: the government, and insurance companies. For the government's part, via Medicare and Medicaid they are engaging in price fixing; and, via regulation of HMOs and insurance plans (always "for our own good, and for the consumer!") the parties' hands are tied to some extent on one side or other of medical service transactions. For the insurance companies part, aside from dealing with government regulation, they form a third party in nearly all medical transactions that inhibit price discovery by patient and doctor.

Think about it: does the average Joe really know how much he pays for medical services? He knows what his co-pays are if he has insurance. If he has no insurance, he either gets no services or goes to the ER, and may not end up paying anyway, so he doesn't know what the costs truly are there either. Because the insurance company is the intermediary, and they have the power to set the price, neither the patient nor the doctor know how much they can get for the transaction. The insurance company has a (possibly regulated) maximum they will pay for any service, and they don't necessarily publish it. The doctor has no idea what that is, but he/she knows that if they charge less than the maximum, the insurance plan will happily pay out the lesser amount. So, they charge really high rates, and the insurance company says "nope!" and gives them their internal maximum payout instead. The patient, meanwhile, has no idea what was paid, and really has no say even if they did know. They only see what their co-pays are, and what the insurance company charges in premiums that come out of their paycheck, which ultimately has nearly nothing to do with what their medical care actually costs.

Some say that supply/demand and price discovery don't apply to medical care. They argue that there will always be infinite demand for medical services. This is complete hogwash, and anyone who says it either has ulterior motives or doesn't understand economics or psychology. If the patient does not have access to the prices for their medical treatment beforehand, how can they decide whether to seek the treatment or not? The patient will always default to the maximum care, because their insurance plan costs will stay largely fixed if they do. If the doctor has no access to prices beforehand, and the patient appears to just say yes to everything, they're going to perform the maximum number of services they can justify, and charge the maximum amount for each. There is nothing immoral about this; it is just the natural result of the signals everyone is sending each other, but obviously it is horribly inefficient. The infinite demand that people argue exists only appears to exist as a distortion in the market due to a lack of price discovery. The result of inhibited price discovery is that costs automatically and naturally go to the highest amount that is affordable. That means literally that the costs would go to infinity if there was an infinite supply of money. Since there is not, it caps out when people are tapped out financially and reach their economic pain threshold.

In understanding the problem properly, the solution immediately jumps out of the page at you. The problem is not greedy doctors, or even greedy businessmen, or even illegal immigrants going into ERs and getting expensive (for us down the line) free (for them) medical care. The problem is threefold:

Patients do not pay directly for their medical care, so they never see what they paid.
Prices for medical care are not published beforehand; you can't know what it will cost you until after you get the service. (By the way, isn't this fraudulent?)
There is an intermediary with nearly sole authority to set prices; the patient literally has almost no say in the matter.

The solution is simple, and we'll hit the obvious benefits afterward:

Patients must pay directly for their medical care. They may contract with an insurance company to cover unanticipated and rare care (such as emergencies or unexpected problems like cancer), but that must be all that such a policy can cover. If they cannot afford the care, the provider has no obligation to provide the care to them, even if they will die as a result. That sounds harsh, but that is the price of freedom.
Every service must have a pre-published price by the care provider (so that even emergency work is still performed in a market-controlled environment that can be contested in court), or the patient must be notified fully of costs individually before a service is rendered. As much as doctors might hate dealing with the business aspect of their practice, they must.
Regulation must be removed that is inhibiting the use of more generics, or drugs produced in other countries, or holistic healing strategies (I'm not much for them, but people should be free to use them if they want). E.g. real competition in the drug space needs to be opened up.

That's it. A true free market in medical care, and catastrophic insurance only for the rare occurrences. The benefits are, again, many:

People will begin to take care of themselves better and act like hypochondriacs less when they have to foot the bill. The demand for services will naturally be reduced to a sustainable level (and that pesky infinite demand goes out the window).
Doctors will be forced to compete with each other, and will be forced to establish reasonable prices for their services. Doctors who are worth the money, or cost less, will be favored, bring up quality and bringing down cost overall.
People will have the freedom to get their medication from other countries or sources, if they so choose. More competition, less fat cats on pharma street.
If a person goes to the ER unnecessarily, and suddenly they get told what it's going to cost or are forced to foot the bill or go bankrupt, they won't come back for trivial things. Voila, fewer economic externalities.
Doctors and patients will generate better relationships, and will tend to observe medical care from a more objective, cost-effective viewpoint. They will make better decisions, and there will be no need for government-mandated end-of-life decision management, which is incredibly scary. Instead, we will have informed decisions and people taking responsibility for their own choices. Less blame, fewer lawsuits, more efficiency, more personal health care.
Vastly reduced bureaucracy: fewer in-network/out-of-network problems, more choices, less paperwork (other than price agreements), and less government, which means fewer taxes as well.
More charity. When somebody really needs help, and they can't pay for it, and there is no government backstop, it is amazing how much the american people step up to the plate and help take care of it. When there is government intervention, people tend to say, "I pay my taxes, so I've already done my part." Or doctors say, "I deal with medicare and medicaid, I don't need to do anything pro-bono, the government is covering it." If they knew those things weren't there, they would, where it is at all economically viable, perform services pro-bono, or charity groups would spring up to raise money where doctors cannot afford it.

It's so simple, yet I am continually amazed at how many people do not realize that a true non-government, free-market solution will solve all of the same problems as nationalized health care, but with vastly less cost and overhead, and it retains individual liberty perfectly at the same time.

HR 3200 is and will be a complete disaster. It is not the way to fix our medical care; simple, proper economics is the way.

Vetting Political Decisions via a Framework of Liberty

2009-05-30T22:57:00.000-07:00

How did Satan become the devil? His final mistake was that he placed a desire to have everyone do what is right above a desire to have them choose for themselves to do what is right. When they all would all be funneled through doing the right thing, he would get all of the glory. (See here for some additional detail, from the LDS book The Pearl of Great Price.)

We often can figure out what is right and wrong; we inherently know, given a sick child who requires a simple $20 medication to get on the road to recovery, that we ought to be personally ready to donate the $20 if we can. But it also really tugs at our heart strings when there are millions of these situations all across the country and we can't solve them all. We are aware of that construct called the government that could seemingly allow us to make sure the problems are rectified, by getting all of our fellow citizens on board to solve the problem together. Surely if everyone donates some, we could cover it, right?

Agency and Liberty

Agency and its sisters liberty and freedom, are among the greatest gifts that we possess as inhabitants of this planet. That we have the ability to choose our actions is perhaps the one attribute that separates us from all other beings. Agency gives us the ability to learn, to experience life, and to mold and direct our experiences. Liberty bequeaths to us personal growth, knowledge, and ultimately the ability to express love, hate, fear, faith, and true charity.

Without agency, we are nothing. There would be no point to our existence, and indeed our very existence simply wouldn't matter. Not to put too fine a point on it, but our agency is a gift that is to be defended to the point of losing our lives, even if we die only in an effort to secure or guard agency for others to exercise. There is no limit to the good that can be done with the gift of agency.

If you will hear it, we all chose agency before we started our mortal existence on our little planet. All of us have cherished it at some point in our lives; even the most insidious murderers and tyrants that have lived thrilled with the discovery that they could control their actions, and produce desired consequences from those actions when they were children. That some of us choose to do evil things with our liberty does not diminish from the goodness and wonder of liberty itself; it only shows the power it engenders.

Liberty carries with it certain conditions. You can choose your actions, but you cannot always choose the consequences of your actions (except by acting or not). If a young girl becomes sexually active, chances are she will eventually end up pregnant. If a boy decides to smoke a cigarette, he may become addicted and have a very hard time breaking the habit later.

Another condition is that we are ultimately responsible for our decisions. Often there are powerful forces that make it very hard to choose alternate actions (sometimes due to our previous choices), but nevertheless we are responsible in great measure for what we choose to do. An obvious corollary of this screams loud and clear:

We ultimately have nobody to blame but ourselves, and the sooner we accept that the sooner we can begin fixing our actions.

We've all heard the excuse, "the devil made me do it." The truth is, Satan lost the battle and he was not given the ability to coerce our every action. He is a powerful influence, but we cannot blame him. We must be prepared to take the bull by the horns, and own up to our actions. We are the masters of our own fate. This understanding allows us to find our own limits, and at what point we must begin to rely on the goodness of others to accomplish what we desire. True liberty engenders humility, and a higher likelihood of people leaning on each other in a sincere and synergistic fashion to accomplish goals for the greater good of society and the individual, without compromising individual liberty. Collectivists should be ashamed of themselves for thinking coercion via government can do better.

Finally, we must note that our agency does affect others. Our right to do something ends when we limit the agency of others where it is not justified. In other words, when we act we must consider carefully the effects that our actions have on others. We are only to act in a way that limits the agency of others when it is strictly justified (and the 'just' part of the word is key): if our neighbor murders someone else, we as a society have the responsibility to enforce consequences on our neighbor, even if that means depriving them of their liberty (as they just did the their victim). But we cannot do so until they commit the crime, and we must only do so commensurately with the crime. There is more to this simplistic view, but nonetheless the principles are true.

Government

Herein lies the great dilemma of every good person on the earth. By passing a law to get everyone to do the right thing (whatever it is we think that may be), is it really the same as if we were to try to educate everyone and convince them via the evidence and proper emotional appeal that it's a good idea? To get them to act of their own free will given the facts? These suffering people need our help, do they not, so is any degree of coercion justified?

I wish to introduce a concept that has made a deep impression on me. I will let a better man than I teach it:

Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.
—George Washington, 1797

So, suppose we pass a law that guarantees all the little children are taken care of by everyone contributing a little via a system of taxation. Is it the same as if they chose to help, just as you would spring to help that one little child who needed the $20 medication? The answer is a resounding no. Government is force, and it cannot be thought of rationally in any other terms. It is to be used only when force is truly justified, and the criteria for this should be very restrictive for obvious reasons.

Let's illustrate this in a small microcosm to shed some light on the issue. Suppose we have a child who is very sick, and needs the $20 of medication. You are in the room, your neighbor is in the room, and a police officer (representing the government) is also there. You don't have all $20, but you and your neighbor combined could scrounge up the cash without too much trouble. So you turn to the police officer, and instruct him (with his trusty gun at his side) to go through your wallet and your neighbor's wallet and find $10 each, and go get the medicine for the child. You and your neighbor both are not bankrupted by this, and the child is cured.

There's only one problem. Curing the child by reaching into your neighbor's wallet is theft. If you had stolen money directly from your neighbor to buy the medication with the proclamation, "it is for the greater good!" would that be okay? Note that I didn't state whether the neighbor wanted to volunteer the $10 or not. It doesn't matter. You (and the officer) have violated your neighbor's individual liberty and effectively committed theft against his will to do something seemingly benevolent. You saved a child, isn't that worth it? If you think that is worth it, then at what point do you draw the line?

The line must be drawn as soon as the choice goes beyond your own. If your neighbor murdered the child in cold blood, then the officer should arrest him and he loses his freedom as a direct consequence for doing so. But if the neighbor is otherwise not involved with the child, then he has no requirement to pay the $10. He has a moral obligation to help where he can; but the government cannot and should not enforce that, or else the original motivation (charity and love) is lost.

Consider a few of the unanticipated consequences of forcing people to help others in this manner.

Those who are helped become dependent on the government, and may assume that they will always be helped. They may develop an entitlement problem, and begin to demand the government solve other problems for them at the expense of others. They are less likely to find a way to fix their situation for the long run, because they know that due to the 'benevolence' of the people via the government they'll be taken care of.
Those who are forced to hand over money to the government may then not go out of their way to help anyone individually, even when they can, because they are "doing their part" already as, say, a taxpayer. (Yes, our income taxation system in the US is definitely forced because if you don't pay, armed officers eventually arrest you and you face still penalties and/or prison time.)
The helper and the helped become disconnected, and people over time lose a sense of what it means to help, who they are helping, and whether what they are doing is helping at all. Those who are helped lose a sense of gratitude, and in fact begin to view the nameless masses helping them as if they are not hurt at all by any of this.

Negative knock-on effects from government intervention always show up in the long term, especially when it boils down to a question of agency.

How to Save the World

We all have an innate desire to provide relief from pain and suffering. There is nothing wrong with this desire; in fact, it is definitely a good quality to nurture. But how we choose to do the helping is a seminal question. The right question to ask is not just, "how do we save the world?" but rather, "how do we save the world, the right way?"

Think of the US invasion of Iraq in the 2003-2010 time frame. The US invaded, toppled the government, and established a regime that is based on democratic elections and a constitution (the latter being the more important aspect, but that's a discussion for later). Our soldiers fought insurgents and others, being told and believing that they were giving freedom to the Iraqi people. Those soldiers had the best of intentions, and their hearts were not in the wrong place. However, was it right for the leaders of the US to invade Iraq, even if the only purpose was to give the Iraqi people freedom (which it certainly was not)?

You guessed it: given the principles of agency the answer is no. You cannot force liberty on other people, just like you can't force them to do good things and expect the outcome to be the same as if they chose good willingly. If all of the Iraqi people rose up in rebellion against Saddam Hussein to establish liberty, they would have won. However, if they weren't willing to fight for it themselves then we have no business forcing it on them. Forced liberty is no liberty at all. Again, a quote from the founding fathers is appropriate. The whole speech is longer, so please digest it in its entirety:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
--John Quincy Adams, July 4 1821

You very well could have the word 'she' above be replaced with 'liberty' and it would still fit perfectly because America and liberty should be synonymous. We should provide a good example, provide a convincing argument, and preach (yes, preach) liberty to all nations with a clear, unmistakable voice. We should be friends with all who will let us. But we should never coerce, we should not preemptively punish those who oppose even liberty, and we should not force our worldview on others, without violating even the core principle of liberty itself. Defending liberty means we fight for our own liberty and the liberty of anyone else who also fights for it. But those who do not value it enough to fight or work to secure it for themselves do not deserve it until they muster the desire to defend it to the death, as many of us have.

Now you know the way to save the world the right way. It is to be a good example, to be friends with all, to educate and persuade all that liberty and agency are worth living and dying for. It is to donate your own $20 to the child in need, and encourage your neighbor to do the same through all non-coercive means; but it never means to compel. It is to not shield others from the negative consequences of their actions, and it is to insist that people take as much responsibility for their actions as possible. It is to realize and teach others that liberty must be cared for and guarded vigilantly. It is to understand that our actions affect others and that our right to act unilaterally stops the moment we seriously affect the liberty of others. Saving the world even requires that we defend to the death the right of our neighbor to disagree with us, and the right of our neighbor to keep his money from that child who is sick and needs it.

It is heart-wrenching to know that some people do not choose the good with their liberty, but it is the very essence of humanity that allows us to choose the good, and along with it to be able to choose evil.

To force anyone to choose good is to destroy it. I, for one, will choose liberty even if it means that I die trying.

A Family Update

2009-05-04T17:49:00.000-07:00

I have failed miserably at my New Year's resolution to update this blog weekly. Ah, well, with moving and being a mom and not sleeping I guess I can't blame myself.

Our family is settling in to the house we moved into. It's a month to month lease so we really don't know how long we are going to stay so we still have a lot of boxes that will stay sealed. We hope that we will be able to buy a house relatively soon, but we have to save some more money.

Miriam has enjoyed having a yard and a playground in the back. Isaac likes having plenty of space to crawl and practicing walking. Both Miriam and Isaac get into everything, which makes it very difficult for me to keep things clean or organized.

One thing I have enjoyed lately is having a double jogging stroller and a nice long walking path close by. I take the kids for a jog several times a week and I get some fresh air and exercise. Mike has been trying to get me to go to a Krav Maga class with him for some exercise. I would love to, but that means finding a babysitter. Maybe I can get the Bishop's daughter to babysit for me this summer.

Mike is always busy at work. He really likes his job and we're really glad that he has a job. I still can't convince myself to like the Bay Area. Maybe if/when the economy recovers Mike will be able to find a job in an area I actually like.

Next week is Isaac's first birthday. It's hard to believe how fast kids grow. Isaac is walking and babbling. Miriam is learning her numbers, letters, colors, etc. Hopefully I can get some more pictures and videos up. Miriam says the funniest things and Isaac is just so active.

Ron Paul Revolution

2009-03-14T01:02:00.000-07:00

I'll write sometime soon why I like Ron Paul more and more all the time. I didn't "discover" him until after the 2008 election primaries, and I'm kicking myself for not having done so sooner.

Here are a few videos to get you started learning what kind of a guy he is. If you are curious, follow the banner on the side to the Campaign for Liberty where there is a lot more.

Rain, rain and potty training

2009-02-22T21:04:00.000-08:00

It's been raining a lot lately here in the Bay Area the past week. It's been raining all day today. I really like the rain and if I didn't have kids I would probably be out dancing in the rain. Miriam might like dancing in the rain, but Isaac would scream bloody murder.

I figured that rain would prevent me from taking Miriam outside much I would try to do something productive with her indoors. . . . . potty training. I helped to potty train an autistic preschooler when I was in college so I figured this would be a snap. Miriam has actually done pretty well, but I think all the books that claim you can potty train your child in just one day are full of it. Miriam has no problem going "pee pee" in the potty, especially since she gets M&Ms when she goes. She just doesn't always tell me when she needs to go. Good thing Huggies invented pull-ups.

Today we had regional conference. It was broadcast to our building. There were a lot of good messages. One that stuck out in my mind (probably because it was "meant" for me) was what Elder Wickman said about living in California. He talked about how bad things have happened or are happening here in California, but that doesn't mean the saints should just pick up and leave. That seemed to be the theme of the conference. Building Zion where one is. My husband had to kind of poke me about this. I reminded him that living somewhere and trying to make the most of it doesn't mean I have to like the place I'm living.

I have to be honest, California has some really cool places to visit. Key word here: VISIT. I really don't like a lot of aspects of living here. I don't want to raise my family in the Bay Area. I've heard a lot of people talk about how wonderful San Francisco is. I've visited San Fran twice. It's a pretty city and a good place to visit. What most people don't understand is that San Francisco isn't all of the Bay Area. There are a lot of nice places to live here, but they are really expensive and most of the schools here are gang infested so even if we were to find a nice place to live the chances of us being near really good schools is slim.

I've realized how lucky I was to grow up in Centerville. I know that Utah has it's issues, but when I was growing up Utah was a really nice place. People here in California have such low standards sometimes. I thought that maybe I was really picky when it came to housing, schools, quality service, etc. I think it's more that I grew up in an area where people took care of their houses, I had good teachers in public schools, and most of the people I interacted with when it came to service were pretty happy, which is defnitely not the case here.

This week I need to start de-junking my house. We will be moving in about a month and I'm determined to only box up and take what we use, will use, and have used in the past 2 years. It's too bad any time I start de-junking things Miriam finds some object to get attached to. Two-year-olds are so funny sometimes.

Bailouts: Recursive Loop Spending

2009-02-18T23:22:00.000-08:00

This post is inspired by a challenge from Stewart Feil, who gave me simply the title and wanted to see what I would write when I looked at it.

Bailouts are more like the inadvertent governmental way of cornering markets, making the government the 'only' market for something. This happens because once the government starts buying something (shares in a company above price, long end of the treasury curve, etc.), everyone will essentially hold out to sell to the government, so as to get the "screw the taxpayer" price. Bailouts also have the effect on the receivers of holding risky behavior in esteem, and the effect on the rest of the market of increasing mistrust.

One bailout begets another; or, at least it does if you don't realize your philosophy completely sucks, and that you can't out-maneuver mathematics. It softens, widens and deepens the collapse of debt default into a down-trending, see-saw shape. The default has to happen to relieve the exponential growth in debt, but bailouts distort and prolong the process. They introduce mistrust in the market environment, destroying the meaning of prices. Many groups (from the porn industry, to autos, to homebuilders, to banks) demand a bailout, and everyone else waits to buy because they don't know who is going to get favored next. Bailouts ultimately drag out the eventual re-establishment of a solid bottom, which is necessary for true, proper linear economic growth from real production.

The other problem with bailouts is that, to be blunt, it's like trying to treat a burn victim with a blowtorch. We have a huge debt problem. Debt is defaulting, causing total money/credit to contract (read: deflation) back to sustainable levels. This *must* happen, because banks and the Fed serially blew bubbles in the market to just kick the can down the road, and the can was getting bigger, and bigger. Bailouts of necessity require an increase in debt or a decrease in savings, which is precisely the problem that got us here in the first place. And, once you have a few patrons addicted to debt, they don't get broken of the habit without some really bad hangovers, and have to fall on their face a few times before they realize you are serious about cutting them loose. This is as true of corporations as it is of individual people. The longer you go giving out bailouts, the harder it will be to cut off the freeloaders later, and so it goes until your hand is forced. In the meantime, you will have done yourself likely serious harm in terms of solvency. There is no "right amount" of capital to give out that will turn a recession around; companies, and people, are black holes when it comes to money. Those who manage it well don't need bailouts, even when they are bankrupt, and those who don't will never manage it well even if they get bailed out. What's even worse, is the government is bailing firms out with *our* money, not theirs. See the following for a funny, but accurate depiction of what is going on:

http://patrick.net/housing/contrib/Fannie.jpg

Recursive bailouts are predicated on the people who have the power to give the money out either ignoring, or not understanding these simple truths. The average person, and thus the average company, is not so unlike a homeless guy that you give $4 million. Generally speaking, he'll blow it in no time and not be better off in the long run. If you think that means you just didn't give him enough, then you are throwing good money after bad and are a complete fool.

The parallels to what our government is doing are quite obvious.

Sick of sickness

2009-02-08T21:48:00.001-08:00

This week our whole family has had to deal with sickness. First Miriam came down with a cold, then I got it, then Isaac, and yesterday Mike succumb to the nasty virus. Being home sick with two sick kids has been a pain. I barely get enough sleep as it is and then to be getting up in the night made it really hard. Poor Mike has had to deal with a very grumpy wife.

I usually don't let Miriam watch much TV, but this past week we probably watched The Little Mermaid and Curious George like 3 times each. I'm hoping the weather is good this week so we can get out and about. I'm really sick of being inside for days at a time. I was glad to go to church today with Miriam because that meant I got to leave the house! :)

Since we've been sick this week we haven't done anything really interesting. Valentine's Day is coming up and so is my birthday. We'll see if Mike remembers to get me anything for either of those days.

Maybe I'll have something interesting to write later this week. I'm posting a little video clip of Miriam and Isaac having fun despite being sick.

States' Rights

2009-02-03T13:49:00.000-08:00

Over the last 100 years or so, we have seen a steady slide away from Constitutional principles in the United States toward a huge, bloated, powerful central government. I need to write up a post some day on the government's handling (and complicity) in the Great Depression as an example of what groundwork was laid, but suffice it to say most government programs and legislation we have these days have no basis in the US Constitution whatsoever.

But, we have some legislators that are starting to get brave. This is a wonderful sign that the pressure buildup is finally starting to make people motivated. Consider this house resolution in New Hampshire, to be voted on in a couple of days in committee:

New Hampshire to Vote on putting the federal government in its place

Please, please read this in its entirety. It is a wonder to behold. I really, really hope this is passed, and that other states follow suit as soon as possible. Here is a small snippet to get your toes wet with excitement:

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory...

And another:

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition

A return to smaller, Constitutional government and less meddling in our markets would restore confidence, freedom, reduce debt, relieve the tax burden on individuals and businesses, and probably pull us out of our current recession (or, should I say, depression?) very quickly. More on that later. But the above resolution is rather self-explanatory, and stands on its own two feet. It takes a bold stance, even talking about nullification of the federal government if they overstep their bounds again. I think the last time our country talked about nullification was before the Civil War.

Update: Arizona seems to be following suit.

Update 2: Oklahoma has also already done this, despite a media blackout.

Update 3: And, at least one more brewing. This one is from Missouri, and is more limited, stating Constitutional limits urging the federal government to reject FOCA legislation (and FOCA is a horrid bill). There are also rumblings of similar happenings in Montana, and news from the last decade of Kansas and Texas making similar declarations.

Update 4: Now they're rolling in! Washington State is joining the fray, as is Montana, and Michigan (see House concurrent resolution 4).

New Year's Resolution

2009-02-02T15:41:00.000-08:00

Since many of my family and friends have blogs I decided to try doing this whole blog thing. I actually had a New Year's resolution to blog regularly. Well, I'm a month late, but better late than never eh?

I'm usually pretty good at journal writing, but I'm pretty bad at emailing people and giving updates on my life. I'm sure some of my family and friends will like reading this blog because I will eventually post pictures. Since my husband and I share this blog there will probably be quite a mix of posts.

I guess I'll start by giving a brief update on events in our family. Mike and I currently live in Hercules, CA and are going to have to move because our landlord wants to unload the house. Luckily we're just moving across town. The house is bigger and has a yard, but it's going to cost quite a bit more. It's owned by a woman who used to be in our ward. One advantage of renting the house is that the contract is month-to-month (also a reason the rent is higher).

The lease on the house we're currently in ends in March and we were planning on going month-to-month in order to take our time and find a house to buy. House prices here are still pretty high, but still dropping so we don't really want to buy now because 1) I doubt we'd get approved for a loan 2) We don't want to be losing value in a house we buy now because prices are still dropping and 3) We haven't found a place that we really like. I personally don't want to buy a house in the Bay Area because I don't want to stay here for an extended period of time. I've met a lot of really good people here, but I really don't want to raise my children here. Lucky for me my children are still pretty young.

Miriam is almost 2 1/2. We've half-heartedly started potty training. She was doing well for a while and then all of a sudden decided she didn't want to do what we want her to. She's really funny though. She talks all of the time and is always insisting that she do everything. She's usually pretty good with Isaac, although she thinks that all of her toys are hers and all of Isaac's toys are hers.

Isaac is about 8 1/2 months old. He's crawling really well. He pulls himself up to a stand and walks next to the couch. The other day we had him hold on to a train that Miriam inherited. It's one of those Thomas the Tank engines that children can scoot around on and it has all sorts of buttons to push that make train sounds. Anyway, we had Isaac hold on to the train and he started pushing it and walking with it. He tips the train over sometimes, but it might end up being a good thing for him to use to practice walking.

Mike is really busy at work. His company hit a rough patch a few weeks ago, but there are other projects that they are getting awarded, so things are looking good. We think Mike's job is pretty safe, but we're still going to save money just in case.

I have been busy with the kids and trying to de-junk the house. I'm trying to get into an exercise routine and a routine with the kids so I can have some time to myself. I'm thinking about signing up for a class so that my brain doesn't go to mush.

Last week was Mike's birthday. His parents came down to babysit so we could go to dinner. They ended up getting here a little late so all we got to do was go to dinner. It was nice to go somewhere without kids. It had been a long time since we had been on a date. Hopefully after we move we'll be able to find a babysitter and go on more dates.

Anyway, I have realized that this is a very long winded entry. Hopefully I will get in the habit of doing this and post some pictures.

It's the Economy, it's Stupid!

2008-11-09T22:23:00.000-08:00

This post is partly a response and analysis to Matthew and Bradley Haupt's Allied Tax Planners Special Report. I see in a number of analyses of the economic situation, what caused it, and what might cure it that contain contradictory statements and misfired deductions. I definitely enjoyed this report, and I encourage you to read it; however, while in spirit it has a lot of really well-founded conclusions, it misses the mark in a number of important ways. It does contain some good overview information of what has happened in the last year or so financially, and it provides a great bird's eye view of the economic turmoil.

For the record, the best way to describe my own educational filter on what is happening in the economy is that I follow Mike Shedlock's views. He has consistently correctly predicted the stages of the economic fallout, and his analysis is quite understandable and educational.

I'll address the report in a non-linear fashion, so this will not be point-by-point. For best reading, I suggest reading their report, and then come back for my comments. I'll refer to the Haupt's article as the ATP from here on out, for brevity.

Are we going into a depression?

This question almost essentially relies on one additional question: will we hit at least 10% unemployment officially? If so, then we most certainly will look back on this time as a depression. If not, then we'll probably have just considered it a bad global recession. Where are we currently? The latest governmental figure for October 2008 pins us at about 6.5% unemployment. That doesn't seem high, except for the fact that we haven't seen those numbers in a while, and the announced-but-not-implemented-yet layoffs are quite high. It is not inconceivable that we'll hit 7% by the end of the year. At the current pace, we're looking at somewhere around 8-9% by the end of next year. If it doesn't slow down by late 2009, we might just cross that ill-fated depression finish line. One interesting note is that while official unemployment is 6.5%, if you count all disaffected workers such as part-timers who want full-time work, those who gave up looking, and those whose unemployment benefits ran out, we're actually at a whopping 11.8% unemployment! This figure came out of the same goverment report that had the 6.5% number. If we hit 10% official unemployment, we're probably looking at 20% real unemployment. That is very, very bad.

ATP writes, "This is, in Alan Greenspan's own words, '...a once-in-a-century credit tsunami,' which could have been prevented, but, like all other crises before it, will pass." This is totally true, it will pass. However, the speed at which is passes by us is what is interesting.

The Causes

The first problem: ATP states that,

"The lesson here is that when government appears to be operating in the best interest of “the people,” they often are not. Free markets work only when they are free from tampering, whether or not the tampering is well-intentioned."

This is 100% correct. Government intervention, except for policing criminal activity, tends to have negative unintended consequences (as well as a few negative intended consequences). It doesn't work, and we agree on that. However, they then go on to say,

"We feel that the Bailout Bill (or “Rescue Plan” as it is now being called) was a good move, IF IT WORKED THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO and here’s why: as these companies are going bankrupt, the companies and institutions that hold their stock or bonds or other securities are not sure what they are worth anymore, if they are worth anything at all. So these companies suddenly are not sure how much cash they can raise for expenses, to meet obligations, or especially, if they are a bank, how much cash they can lend. The Bailout Bill allows the government to step in as a buyer of last resort of those securities. So for the companies that hold these securities, they can suddenly sell them to the government (yes, for pennies on the dollar, but something is better than nothing) and have cash to invest in other securities, or lend to make interest on their money. Liquidity would have been restored."

But herein lies the problem. You can't advocate that tampering by the government is bad, even if well-intentioned, and then state that a taxpayer-funded bailout would work, even if the intended functioning took place. The bailout was a stupid idea on a great many fronts, but here are a few reasons why:

This isn't a liquidity problem. This is a solvency (capital) problem. Liquidity means there isn't enough money to go around, or that money isn't moving around. Money isn't moving around because the banks and businesses don't have enough capital anymore. The Fed has been flooding the markets with liquidity lately, and guess what? It hasn't done a dang thing. The banks are hoarding the money, because if they had to reveal their cards, they would be bankrupt immediately.
The bailout's intended functioning is to fleece taxpayers and consolidate power among the largest banks in order to keep the US financial hegemony over the rest of the world. In other words, this is US Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson doing his friends a giant favor, at taxpayer expense.
Taking money from taxpayers, either by taxes or by the potential whiplash inflation that could result, just devalues assets of the average people of the US whose savings are providing what precious capital the banks have. In other words, if you water down taxpayer's monetary power, you starve the banks of the very capital that would actually put them on firmer footing.

ATP then also states the following about what was done during the Great Depression and then more on the bailout:

"But a lot has changed since the Great Depression, and policies have been put in place so that a lot of things that happened then can never happen again. For example, the stock market crashed massively in 1929, the Dow Jones losing about 42% of its value, in large part due to margin trading (trading stocks with borrowed money). Margin trading has been amended and changed so that it doesn’t push the market down like this anymore. Short selling rules have been changed. At the time of the Great Depression, the government did not do enough to restore confidence, but this time, in order to conserve confidence in the economy, the Legislative Branch passed the Rescue Plan to buy up the assets of bankrupt institutions (such as auction-rate securities, subprime lending issues, collateralized mortgage obligations, structured investment vehicles, etc.). Later, when the market has stabilized, the government will sell these assets on the open, potentially making billions of dollars of profit; so this bailout will not end up costing the taxpayers $700 billion in the end."

Unfortunately, the basic functioning of free markets has not changed since the Great Depression. The assertion that "the government did not do enough to restore confidence" in the Great Depression is erroneous. They're blinded by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's academics (but I don't blame them, that's an easy trap to fall into), because he says the same thing. He claims he was a student of the Depression, yet he is making precisely the same mistakes the government did back then.

Here is the mistake: the Great Depression was caused by excessive debt, not a lack of liquidity. The loss of confidence, and the ensuing difficulty in restoring it was because, in a very real sense, the whole stinking world was in a giant debt hole. As long as prices kept climbing (inflationary pressures), the big ponzi-scheme party kept up and the music kept playing. It was fueled by easy money (low interest rates and large amounts of liquidity from the Fed), and as soon as one even marginally important bubble popped, the whole scheme came crashing down.

When you have a nation built on extreme debt, the only way out eventually is for the debt bubble to pop and for there to be large defaults. People think that the stock market crash of 1929 was the beginning of the Great Depression (Black Tuesday). But it wasn't. It was housing, and it started in 1928 or so when house prices started to plummet. The stock market was a symptom. During the depths of the Depression the stock market had rebounded and appeared healthy, yet the economy hobbled along for years after that. Ask Japan how that feels in a modern world. But if you hold on for very long, you'll get to see it for yourself.

But why did it hobble along? Was it that the government didn't do enough to restore confidence? Did they not provide enough liquidity? The answer is simple: they did too much. President Hoover made a number of strategic mistakes, but he was smart enough to know that he needed to not meddle too much and let it take its course. People blame him for causing it, but I think that if his policies had continued the Depression would have ended sooner (and wouldn't have taken a war to re-energize the economy). The fatal mistake that made it drag out forever was made by our beloved FDR. The government under his watch began doing exactly what our government is now doing: meddling, and trying to inflate its way out of a deflationary collapse. Another way to look at this is that debt created the Depression, and they threw more debt at it to make it go away. I believe it was Einstein that told us that insanity is applying the same wrong solution to a problem expecting a different outcome each time. Our government is obviously insane.

All these interventions did during the Depression was lengthen it out, as the much-needed correction was hobbled in its ability to take its course quickly enough. Then, the interventions didn't produce the hoped-for 'recovery,' and confidence dipped ever lower, hobbling recovery even more. Does this sound familiar? The government has had unprecedented interventions in the last 18 months in the economy, as have foreign governments. What has it bought us? Nothing, except a giant bill that our future selves and children will have to pay for. We now have a crashed stock market (43% down from peak), a crashing housing market (around 25% down from peak, and falling), crashing manufacturing, rising exports (which is deflationary), crashing commodity prices, crashing retail sector, crashing auto sector, etc. Government intervention does not work.

ATP also points out that we have successfully bailed out institutions before. I don't buy it; this does nothing but create the oft-mentioned moral hazard that will plague free markets. If the government bails anybody out, then they have less incentive to do the right thing, because they get rewarded for bad and stupid behavior. One group he mentions are the S&L institutions (the Savings and Loan crisis of the early '80s). Let it be known that the S&L bailout was hardly 'successful' as far as the taxpayer is concerned. They properly shut down the failing S&Ls, and liquidated their assets. That was good. The problem is that the very same investors who drove the S&Ls into the ground turned around and bought the fire-sale priced assets, and then made a killing off of them starting up a new set of S&Ls. The real problem? The markdown hit was taken by taxpayers. In other words, they ran things into the ground making incredible profits with risky investments, cried to the government, who had the taxpayer take his lumps, and then bought the really cheap assets back and began fleecing savers all over again. They fleeced savers on the way up, and taxpayers on the way down. Good work, if you can get it.

What do we do now?

ATP gives some advice, much of it very sage. Don't panic -- yes, panic only tightens the downward spiral. But be careful...if everyone else panics, and you don't, well, they end up with their money out and you don't. Which means you lose. So, keep your ear to the ground, and be deliberate, and watchful, but yes, don't actually panic.

The next bit of advice -- "Now is the time to buy." Hogwash. This is a form of bottom-calling. The bottom in the housing market over the last two years has been called about once per month, each time the housing data comes out. Guess what? There's no bottom in sight. Same goes for the stock market: it's very volatile, but according to many theories, there is a real chance it'll break it's supports around 8000 points in the DOW. If it does, who knows where it'll bottom out at. Buying now is like catching a falling knife. If you're not a professional and aren't properly equipped, then trying it is really not smart. Of course, the same goes for not selling: hang on to your assets long enough, and you might just finally panic and lock in your losses. You can get some gains back later, but it's hard, so be careful.

ATP notes that Warren Buffet has been buying lately, and to follow his pattern to diversify. This is good advice. However, Warren Buffet was recently heard on the media telling people to "buy now, even I'm buying!" If he says that, then don't walk, run to the exits. He is a master at this, and if he tells you to buy, he'll buy a little, and everyone will jump in the spree, and once everyone is buying, he is selling and screwing all the buyers. He isn't worth the billions he is for nothing.

ATP's subsequent 5 important lessons are spot on. Take them to heart.

Discrimination revisited

2008-11-06T22:29:00.000-08:00

In my previous post I noted that I had observed a vocal few (that I called outliers) making some very harsh accusations against supporters of Proposition 8. My sentiment is shifting however to be that I don't think these are outliers. I am observing a surging trend among those who oppose Proposition 8 to resort to discriminatory language themselves and fear mongering against their perceived enemies.

Singling out the LDS Church

Let's start with the protests in LA at the LDS temple:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story

First, let's correct a number of errors in what many of the protesters were saying:

The LDS Church did not donate $20 million to the Yes on 8 campaign. The Church donated about $2300 or so to the Protect Marriage Coalition, to reimburse them for travel expenses when a few leaders of the Church met with leaders of the coalition. In other words, Protect Marriage paid for the travel, and the Church didn't make them foot the bill in the end. That is all the Church directly contributed, and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Some have implied the Church donated millions of dollars, but it did not.
Some have estimated that members of the Church have donated, collectively, as much as $20 million in support of Proposition 8. This could be right, but examining all the donors trying to guess at their religious affiliation sounds a little questionable. There just isn't enough information. What if the real amount is really more like $5 million, out of more than $35 million total? Does that change their attitudes towards the Church?
The protesters claim that the LDS Church is really the driving force behind the direction that the Yes on 8 folks took in their ads and their strategies. Many members certainly offered their time, but there was already strong leadership in place from the Protect Marriage Coalition. From what I understand, it was well after it was gaining momentum that a Catholic bishop invited the LDS Church leadership to take an active role.
The protesters claim that the LDS Church strongly encouraged or even forced members to donate their money and time. This is pure hogwash. There was an official encouragement for about 2 minutes on one Sunday, for sure, but nobody who chose not to contribute is being threatened with excommunication or any other punishment. In fact, I personally thought the encouragement was almost too soft; I expected more than what they said. They were very understanding about those who could not or did not want to donate. Anybody who asserts that members of the Church are just robots or are fearful and do whatever they're told, is wrong. I have never, ever heard leaders of the Church tell people that they should just obey, and not go find out for themselves the truth. In fact, it is quite the opposite; the Church is entirely based on people having a personal conviction, attained on their own and confirmed in their hearts and minds by God directly that what they are doing is right. This is a deeply held tenet of the Church.

With that out of the way, I'll divulge my own story regarding the issue. It is public record that I and my wife both contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. I was not actually at church the day that the letter regarding the Church's support of traditional marriage was read (even though my wife was), but I have since read the letter. In any case, we were not asked directly by anybody to contribute at that time. My wife and I were unable to do so until around September, and then we both decided together without anybody pushing us that we should. We researched the issues, we prayed about it, and felt very strongly that supporting Proposition 8 was the right thing to do.

We decided on how much we thought we could contribute, and also decided we would go ahead and do it. That same day, our bishop independently asked us if we wanted to contribute. He didn't say we had to, nor did he ask for an amount, and he made it clear that this was not mandatory at all. But when he was asking us if we wanted to, I got that same "yes, this is right" feeling all over again, and it felt like a confirmation that it indeed was time to do it. So we did. And we did again later in October, with no urging from the Church. It was all us.

I don't regret contributing one bit, nor do I regret the content of the ads that my contributions helped produce. The opponents of Proposition 8 have called the Yes on 8 ads 'lies,' 'hate-filled,' 'bigoted,' 'wrong,' 'unfair,' and 'intolerant.' Funny thing, those terms; if you read my last post, you'll see why using those terms is, ahem, a real stretch, if not intolerant in and of itself. The Yes on 8 ads' claims were based in case law in Massachusetts, Department of Education regulations in California, laws already passed in California, and actual events that have occurred in both states. There are both things that have been noted in the media that everyone knows about, and there are parents who have told us about their own experiences with their children's schooling in the last year that give very clear creedence to what the Yes on 8 ads were saying. After reading the documentation behind the ads, I realized that not only could a reasonable person conclude that the possibilities raised in the Yes on 8 ads are real, but that in some cases the scenarios cited have already occurred. They call this 'fear mongering,' but I think it's just plain arguments based on researched data. It jives with what people are reportedly already experiencing with the schools (yes, multiple public schools) in the SF Bay Area where we live.

How the No on 8 campaign can call these 'lies' is beyond me, unless they are trying to redefine 'lie,' just like they apparently want to redefine 'tolerance,' 'discrimination,' 'bigotry,' and 'sex' (gender) as noted in the California Constitution. Again, see my previous posts for more background on these definitions, as they merit a discussion by themselves. This sort of molding words to fit a political agenda is very dangerous; double-speak only results in suppression of information and the truth.

The Protests

And now we find ourselves turning full circle. The opponents of Proposition 8 are still out in front of the Los Angeles LDS Temple as I write this, screaming epithets such as as 'bigots!' and claiming the LDS Church somehow took away their rights in a display of religious power-grab. This is demonstrably not the case (the LDS Church didn't force those 5+ million voters to pass Proposition 8!), and to lump all LDS people together as hate-filled, discriminatory bigots is a bigoted act itself. The protesters are by their very actions demonstrating their bigotry towards members of the LDS Church.

Way to go, guys. Your cause is suffering from a teensy bit of something called hypocrisy.

The Church has been on the receiving end of this kind of thing before, though; so don't worry, the members won't get scared like the protesters would like them to. In fact, I'm quite sure most members will view this singling-out of the Church as confirmation that what they are doing is right, and it will only strengthen their resolve to stick to their standards. What's even more interesting, is the protesters basically allege that the Church is what caused Proposition 8 to pass. I suppose it is probably true that if the members didn't donate as much as they did, there is some chance that the word wouldn't have gotten out as effectively, and perhaps it wouldn't have passed. But to state that as if it were conclusive, and then place all of the blame at the feet of President Thomas S. Monson and 'Mormons' everywhere and host a protest about it, well, that's just disingenuous.

Even beyond that, I don't see them protesting against the 7 out of 10 African Americans that voted for Proposition 8! Or how about the more than half of all Latinos who voted for it! Never mind that members of the Church comprise perhaps 300,000 of the voters or so, and the margin of win for the vote was more than 500,000. If all of the members of the church moved out of the state 2 months ago and didn't vote, it still probably would have passed. I'm sure that members of the LDS Church don't mind taking some credit, but please, let's spread the congratulations around a little to the other 5 million people who favored it, shall we?

Racial Discrimination

Now, the African Americans and Latinos who voted for it aren't getting protested at, but in the media they are still getting smeared some. I have seen more than one article now (one of these was from an article at cbs5.com, I can't recall which article though) as well as comments from the protesters that essentially stated that those minorities who voted for the proposition were "church-going uneducated people." Excuse me? Did they really mean that? If so, I smell true bigotry right there (unless the definition changed in the last week, in which case I apologize for sounding so...old fashioned). Hm, a teensy bit more of hypocrisy creeps in. Way to go, guys.

Me, personally, I just think that African Americans and Latinos actually have values, and are less afraid to vote their conscience. Their motivation to vote the way they did was their principles.

What's even more alarming is that the No on 8 group has tried diligently to compare their plight to that of the Civil Rights Movement, and to the interracial marriage issues of the past (which were really awful, by the way). The two are not comparable, and the comparison just muddies the waters. Homosexuality is driven by a difficult choice (an inconvenient truth for homosexuals, but truth nonetheless), the other issue was based on discrimination ultimately due to part of a group of people's actual DNA. Take the following example:

Put on one side of a line an African American man, and a white man. Put on the other side of the line an African American woman, and a white woman. Under interracial marriage rules in the past, they would only let the white man and white woman match up for marriage, and ditto for the african americans. This is clearly discriminatory, because the only substantive difference between each man is a few genes (not a whole chromosome), and the only difference between the two women is a few genes as well. There is no good reason to prohibit the matching to occur diagonally across the line, and so interracial marriage prohibitions were rightly struck down. Remember, marriage in this case is a union of the opposing sexes for the purposes of procreation and family.

Now, if a man on one side of the line is homosexual, he still has his choice to marry either one of those women (if they like him, of course). The man next to him who is not homosexual has the same choice. Neither has an advantage above the other. Same is true for the women; if one is lesbian, she can still choose a man on the other side of the divide of either race. She misses no opportunity. Marriage is about the appropriate union of the opposing sexes (genders) into a construct that makes them into something greater than the sum of their parts (this is called a family). If a homosexual doesn't want to marry someone across the line, then fine; they have their choice, and nobody is taking that away. Trying to make a match without crossing the gender line is, plain and simple, not marriage. No rights have been removed, because everyone on all sides have always had the chance to marry someone of the opposite sex. Whether they choose to do so or not is their own business.

Claiming they have the 'right' to marry someone of the same sex is an expansion of rights, and one that is clearly not welcomed by the majority of the population. Many rights are inherent to human beings and should be treated as such (right to life, right to a fair and speedy trial after being accused, right to the pursuit of property, right to free speech, right to make choices that do not impede others' liberty, etc.), but many other opportunities that some people like to call 'rights' are really 'privileges,' which are only to be granted by circumstance and approval of society. In other words, one can get married if they fulfill the conditions pertaining to it, and society blesses the action because the conditions are fulfilled. If the conditions are not fulfilled, then no amount of yelling and waving signs will make something that is not marriage suddenly become so.

A final note on discrimination: the California Constitution has several protected classes that are illegal to discriminate on the basis of each. They include race, ethnicity, sex, and religion. The CA Supreme Court extended 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation,' and that is pretty much the whole basis for overturning Proposition 22 on May 15 of this year. Hm, 'sex' in this case very clearly is just a synonym for 'gender', e.g. whether you have a Y chromosome or not. Sexual orientation or sexual preferences have absolutely nothing to do with 'sex' in this context. This wasn't even stretching a definition, this was just plain making stuff up. Supreme Court judges are not stupid, and they knew full well that they were making one monster of a leap with their decision. There is no 'sexual orientation' class protected by the constitution, and thus there is no protection under that document for striking down laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 simply was meant to peg that definition back to its true, historical meaning.

Proposition 8, Tolerance, and Discrimination

2008-10-24T21:52:00.000-07:00

I have read about and discussed California's Proposition 8 quite a bit in the past few months, it being of much interest to me (since I live in Hercules, a little town in the northeastern part of the SF bay area). Along the way, I have noticed a disturbing trend: anybody who states their support of Proposition 8, even if that is all that they say, is almost immediately labeled by somebody as a bigot and as intolerant. The California Supreme Court even used discrimination as the underlying justification for striking down Proposition 22. There have been extreme instances of this type of labeling, but for this discussion we'll consider them outliers, and instead focus on the common response in a general fashion.

Tolerance

First things come first; we need a definition, instead of a label or epithet. Here are Webster's definitions for tolerance:

The power or capacity of enduring; the act of enduring; endurance.
The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.

The first thing to notice is that tolerance has two fundamental parts: allowing freedom of choice, and being patient with others. Other dictionary definitions also have a strong component of respect, but I would posit this is a manifestation of the "allowing freedom of choice" aspect, in that you respect others' right to a different opinion or way of being. Just as you demand that right for yourself, and you would not want to be ridiculed for your opinion, you must provide like respect for others' views.

However, there has been an abuse of the concept of tolerance in that it has been extended to imply more than what it means. Usually, the extension takes the form of something along these lines:

If you don't agree with my opinion, then you are close-minded and too conservative. You are intolerant, because you think that what I am doing or what I say is immoral or wrong.

Now, what I wrote above was a blunt depiction of what some people imply when they call others intolerant. That was deliberate, to demonstrate a point; usually they express their view of what tolerance means in more subtle ways, but nonetheless the implications are there.

The problem, however, is fairly obvious: tolerance does not mean that one has to accept another party's opinion, or even admit or imply that their own opinion could be wrong. That is not part of tolerance at all; you can be very tolerant of others' views and very respectful, and in fact even be a very staunch supporter of others' right to have their own opinion or way of life without ever conceding that your own opinions might be wrong.

To be open-minded, however, is different from tolerance. Open-mindedness implies that you admit that you are searching for corrections and additions to your knowledge and opinions. But again, it requires only a very soft admission that you could be wrong. You can be open-minded and a critical thinker, and have an opinion presented to you, inspect it, and finally reject it without compromising your 'open-minded' status.

To be intolerant, then, is to disrespect others' right to their own opinion and way of thinking or acting. But remember: intolerance of certain items is a moral requirement: we should be intolerant of murder, rape, incest, abuse, racism, etc. That is the right thing to do. But we should be tolerant of opinions, freedom of speech, religious views, sexual orientation, and so forth.

Application to Proposition 8 Detractors

And now we come back to the disturbing trend I noted earlier. Those who decry Proposition 8 supporters as being intolerant usually do so simply for it being stated that the supporters will vote to defend traditional marriage (and an anciently-established societal norm). This brings the detractors' cry of intolerance into focus for what it is: they themselves show intolerance by belittling an opinion different than their own. They essentially use the moral pressure of being viewed as intolerant to motivate Proposition 8 supporters to back off from supporting the amendment. Boiled down, this is basic disrespect and manipulation, and thus squarely lands the detractors in the realm of hypocrisy. They quickly call Proposition 8 supporters intolerant, when they themselves demonstrate by that very statement that they are at least partially intolerant. The claim that they are seeking so-called "equality" does not help their case; that justification is only a misdirected attempt at hiding the fact that they will not tolerate the presence of another opinion.

On the flip side, there is no room for supporters of Proposition 8 to demonstrate intolerance. Respect for others' right to an opinion is not only important, but it is a direct manifestation of one's love of liberty and freedom. The right to choose an opinion and to vote accordingly is a right that should be defended even to the loss of one's life. There is no room for intolerance, and I sincerely ask that those on both sides of the debate try to internalize this principle. All involved should discuss, vote, and decide; but they should not intimidate or attempt to manipulate others' right to their own decision. Your future freedom depends on respectfully allowing others to have an opinion that differs from your own.

Discrimination

Once again we'll start with a definition, this time from the American Heritage Dictionary:

The act of discriminating.
The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

The concept of discrimination is fairly straightforward, as long as you recognize that it has two (wildly different) flavors. The first is good in that it is the ability to see details and differences. As a synonym for discernment, it is a positive trait in that a discriminating person cannot be duped. They understand that small details can have a great effect on the net value or meaning of something.

The second flavor is nearly the opposite of the first. It is to make generalizations (often that are erroneous) of a class, and assume that individual members of the class are all subject to the conclusions of that generalization. Think of it as ignoring details and differences, and assuming uniformity. This version of discrimination has rightly earned a negative connotation. I would add that an acceptable additional restriction for our discussion is that the class is a class out of necessity; e.g. members of the class are lumped together because of an inherent trait, one that they can't choose to have or to not have. Discrimination against an individual due to something they verifiably can't change (such as race) is worse than discrimination against an individual for something they can change.

Application

Proposition 22 was struck down by the CA Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision that hinged upon discrimination. For more information on the process of judicial review, please see my earlier post On Judicial Review, and Rule by the People. Also, see More on Judicial Review for some additional insights into the In RE Marriage Cases decision and judicial activism in general. Essentially, the consenting judges claimed that the CA Constitution does not contain any provision allowing laws that discriminate against any group of people. That's a fair enough statement, but the problem is that this was applied based on an assumption that restricting marriage to be only between a man and a woman is discriminatory.

So let's take a step back, and look at marriage. At first blush, it would seem that this restriction perhaps could be discriminatory. But, if you examine the issue further you will find that this is not the case. If we use homosexuals as the class, then here are the questions we have to ask to determine if marriage as a heterosexual-only institution is discriminatory:

Do homosexuals constitute a class that can have (possibly erroneous) generalizations made about them?
Can they individually choose to be a member of this class, and choose to remove themselves from the class (e.g. is it an inherent trait, like race)?
Is the marriage issue ignoring individual merit or detail (e.g. does marriage fit easily for at least some homosexuals)? Or, instead, is the generalization of man-woman marriage actually correct?

Class Status

The first question is easy to answer: yes, homosexuals undoubtedly constitute an undeniable class. They represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% of the US population, and they have common traits.

Can they Choose?

The second question is more complicated. There appear to be two camps within the homosexual community. Some contend they are born the way they are, that their homosexuality is intrinsic. They feel they cannot change it. The other camp believes that they have chosen their sexual orientation and they are not interested in finding a genetic link or anything of the sort (or else someone might come up with some gene-therapy-type 'cure' for homosexuality).

Personally, I think the answer lies in between the two camps. Every human being has weaknesses and temptations, and many of those are evident in such a way as to indicate that the seeds of the weakness were with them at birth. However, just because we are born with weaknesses, that does not mean we have to succumb to them. I am a very strong believer in the power of human choice: that we can choose what we do, what we say, and thus for all intents and purposes what kind of person we are. We are certainly not robots who are programmed such that we just can't help but, ahem, perform sexual acts of any variation. I cannot stress this enough: we can choose our actions.

Thus, my own answer to the second question: homosexuals have a choice, even if it is a very difficult one. They are not forced to be what they claim they are, nor are they forced to do what homosexuals do. The temptation may be intrinsic, but acting upon it is most certainly not.

Generalization, and Marriage

The final question requires establishing yet again a definition. What is marriage, anyway? What is its purpose? Here are the first few (relevant) definitions listed for marriage, this time coming from the Random House dictionary:

The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
The state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

To understand it better, I will propose a few points as integral to marriage, and then some comments about each. Here is the first:

Throughout the entire history of mankind, it has been between a man and a woman, logically due to a biological basis required to conceive and perpetuate human life.

Artificial insemination is, in programmer parlance, a hack in that it is what you try when the accepted conventional method fails. This cannot be the sole method for cases with a 100% certainty that the conventional methods of procreation won't work (e.g. lesbian couples).

Throughout history, marriage has been administered and regulated by spiritual/religious leaders.

It is only in the last 150 years or so that licenses of any kind have been required; and, even in the US before about 1920 or so they were only required for interracial marriages. Yes, I'm totally serious. Marriage is not only a societal construct, but it is closely related to religion. Sometimes those spiritual leaders were also the civic leaders, but the norm was that they had spiritual or religious charge over the people they officiated in marrying together.

Marriage is not just about love and devotion. There are many other important traits to marriage.

The traits that are necessary are love, devotion (faithfulness), sexuality, patience, sacrifice, using complementary differences to accomplish what one could not accomplish alone, commitment, and humility. There are arguably more. Marriages lacking any one of these things tend to be unhappy and rocky. Marriages lacking some of these things at first, such as arranged marriages, can over time gain these traits and become very successful; so the lack of a trait or two does not mean the marriage is not allowable. Nor does the presence of one or two of these traits mean marriage is allowable.

Marriage is ultimately about family, which means it's really about having and raising kids.

Yes, there are married couples that choose not to have kids, but they are sincerely missing the point. There are those who cannot have kids due to infertility, but there is still some possibility they can get pregnant. Case in point: we have some family friends who tried for years to have a baby, and were not successful. They subsequently adopted two kids, at different times. Around the time the second child had his first birthday the wife turned up pregnant, which was obviously a total surprise (and a very happy one, I might add). Using infertile couples as justification for homosexual marriage is extremely tenuous.

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. This is closely related to the spiritual aspect of marriage, and the fact that it is not really (or originally) a civic right.

The state has only begun to regulate marriage en masse in the last century or so, usually for monetization like paying for a license, and for tax tracking and regulation. Neither of these are necessary for marriage or integral to it. To claim that marriage is a right is like saying it is a right that a couple be able to have six boys in a row. If the conditions are met, and the opportunity presents itself, they might just have six boys in a row. But, it would be absurd to demand that marriage be provided as a right, just as it is absurd for a couple to demand to have six boys in a row. If the conditions are met then the privilege may be taken; but if not, then that unfortunately means the person is not (or perhaps should not) be getting married.

There are potentially more integral aspects of marriage, but these will suffice. Yes, it is somewhat of a complicated contraption, but it is fairly straightforward and intuitive.

So, would it be an unfair generalization to say that a same-sex relationship could not fulfill the definition of marriage? The answer hinges on whether even some of the relationships could fulfill the conditions to call it marriage. If even some of them could, then that opens up the possibility that all of them could, and it certainly would be unfair and discriminatory to exclude them from the legally-allowed benefits of marriage.

It is obvious that it depends on how one defines marriage. To me (and most of mankind, even spanning mankind's history), all the above points I listed are obvious, logical parts of what marriage is. Same-sex marriage advocates often try to boil marriage down to one thing: "we love each other, so we should be allowed to get married." As stated above: love, devotion, sexuality, etc. are only part of the equation, and they by themselves are not justification to have parties included in the realm of marriage.

So, what is missing? First, the biological component. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with their partner. Period. It is impossible. Lesbians can claim the option of artificial insemination, but that rings hollow: it's not their partner's sperm, and it is a hack, where the real process is not even possible. Adoption is also covering up the original problem, and rings hollow (not to mention that study after study, not just case studies, show children do much better in a nuclear family with a father and a mother). Any slowdown in social research reports affirming the benefits of father-mother-children relationships is due largely to political pressure, and the fact that the research is already out there showing the obvious conclusion.

Second, most spiritual and religious leaders are often at the far opposite end of the spectrum from homosexuality. Thus, homosexuals have chosen the civic route to try to enter the marriage fray. With a legal definition and civic allowance only, that cheapens the very nature of marriage, ignoring its roots and purpose.

Third: having and raising children. Due to the biological incompatibility, their children cannot come from their partner (or else the child cannot be their own biological child; one partner definitely gets cut out). This takes away a fundamental right for a child to have a mother and a father. And yes, this is a right, because all children must have paternal and maternal DNA to be conceived, and those who conceived the child have a responsibility to the child. Parents who give their baby up for adoption can usually choose the adoptive parents, and they are doing what is best for the child, thus fulfilling their responsibility in a tangible way. Also, it is quite evident that children have more trouble on average when they are not given the opportunity to grow up in a nuclear family. Circumstances vary, and children's reactions vary, but by and large this result is quite evident. Homosexual couples cannot provide both a mother and a father, by definition. Strike three.

In consideration of these definitions, it cannot be deemed discriminatory to say that same-sex relationships should be excluded from marriage. By their very nature, homosexual relationships do not fit into what marriage is. Therefore a generalization that every one of them cannot be made into marriage is a true statement, nor is it ignoring details or the merit of the individual relationships. In other words, the generalization is completely true. Thus there is no discrimination, and the CA Supreme Court's decision was invalid, as it was based upon invalid definitions of either discrimination or marriage, or both.

Final Thoughts

Due to the foregoing discussion, marriage simply does not make sense for same-sex relationships. It would need an expanded and changed definition before that could be the case. However, a society does not suddenly start changing the definition of an institution that is thousands of years old without that change justly being described as Orwellian. If a society changes the language to suit political or minority pursuits like this, it helps wedge a door open that will lead to degradation of the language (and thus the clarity of our thoughts in general), and of common sense. Evidently, control over language yields considerable control over moral issues.

A final definition note: the word bigot and related terms are often used in connection with discrimination (and anecdotally Proposition 8), but remember that it is tightly related to the word discrimination. As such, if no discrimination is taking place, the proponent cannot be rightfully considered a bigot on the subject.

Unfortunately for many devoted same-sex couples, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. I do not wish to belittle their relationships, as I am sure they are as sincere in their relationships as they can be, as am I. They have protections under domestic partner laws in California that give them all of the state-derived legal benefits of marriage without needing to change the definition of marriage. I see no harm in keeping it this way, and I question the motives of those who seem to think that preserving the definition of traditional marriage is discriminatory. I would ask, what are they really after? Marriage is not necessary to prove love and devotion or make a commitment. If that is all they are after, then they already have what they want.

More on Judicial Review

2008-10-20T20:32:00.000-07:00

My brother-in-law, who is studying law at Gonzaga University (and is specializing in constitutional law) had some interesting things to say about judicial review after he read the last post. He posted his response article at

http://www.americanfreemen.org/judicialactivism

He edited his article once, and I have included his changes. The following is the text of his article, (C) Stewart Feil, and reproduced here by permission.

-----

I'm not sure exactly where to start. It would be helpful to have a question to address. Or a key subject to direct comments toward. I guess I'll start with Judicial Review:

You are quite correct that Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court (1) had the power to interpret the constitution; and (2) declared the courts to have the power to review legislative acts signed into law. Remember that Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying that the courts are the weakest branch of government, but that it is through them that this experiment will be destroyed. Since then the Court has gone through different phases of how it goes about judicial review. One of the greatest problems with the court is that the Justices are completely politically unaccountable. This means that President X could appoint a bunch of Justices who will shape how policy is applied for thirty years or more. (Justices have a tendency towards longevity once they are appointed--See Justice Stevens for an example). Unfortunately many of the most important Supreme Court decisions passed down in the last 100 years were made by the appointees of Franklin Delanoe Roosevelt. The court he created is the epitome of judicial activism.

Now it is also of critical importance to understand that judicial activists don't believe that they are judicial activists. They think that they are judges who are not blinded by prejudice, or bound to "tradition," or the old ways. They see themselves as Progressive thinkers. And because of the renown given their office, they are truly pompous enough to believe that only they are rational enough to tell the rest of the Universe what is appropriate or what is inappropriate (having long since abandoned any pretext of a belief in Right and Wrong). Whenever anyone cries, "Judicial Activist!" those towards whom the accusation is aimed simply retort with something best summed up as, "Redneck".

Many law professors (who would themselves be judicial activists if given the chance) try to discredit the title as a mere pejorative. It is not. The difference lies in the locus of political will: if it is in the court, it is activism; if it is in the legislative branch or the people, it is constitutional. And yes, I just juxtaposed as opposites "Activism" and "Constitutional". It is an apt comparison simply for the fact that Constitutional court behavior cannot be activist in nature. The implications to that are broad, and may be somewhat startling. First, Roe v. Wade must be over turned to maintain constitutional integrity. Next Brown v. Board of Education (it has nothing to do with the constitution anyway, it just parades about as being about constitutional rights. The fact of the matter is, it is about a bad interpretation of a legislative act, and the interpretation should have been overturned as idiotic, and irrational, and the statute given its proper, original meaning rather than by fundamentally changing the definition of "Liberty" so that the court could force its will upon the people. Most judicial activism centers around maldefining words, much like FDR and his inaugural address announcing the "New Bill of Rights").

Thanks to the last 70+ years of judicial activism, coupled with the abduction of the word "liberal" by collectivists of every ilk our society has forgotten that there is a difference between a right and an entitlement. There is a difference between charity and welfare. And there is a difference between welfare and socialism. Until the court can figure out the differences between those, it will always present a threat to those who believe in true liberty. It sickens me that in the name of liberty, those of religious faith are silenced. It sickens me that in the name of liberty states are constrained from determining their own moral values with regard to human life. It sickens me that an institution as old as the written record of humanity if not older is being challenged by those who behave in a manifestly unnatural way.

The California Supreme Court would have been within its power, and in fact truly fulfilling its responsibility if it had legitimate cause to strike down proposition 22 as unconstitutional discrimination.

"The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." CA Const. Art. 1 Sec 39(a).

Those are the constitutional words upon which the court struck down proposition 22 as unconstitutional. The court would concede that proposition 22 does not discriminate against people for race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. However, there is also no discrimination based upon sex. Sex is an objective category determined by looking at biological features. Proposition 22 applies equally to men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women. There is not discrimination based upon sex as a result of Proposition 22, and therefore it should not have been struck down. If the people of California want to protect sexual orientation as a constitutional class, the process should be amending the state constitution to include that language with the other protected class language already in Article 1 Section 39 (and repeated several other times in article 1), not by judicial fiat that there is another protected class.

How can all this be going on? Obviously national legislation has never been able to solve the question of abortion. I don't recall any clause in the constitution granting the federal government power to define morality for the states. In fact, the constitution quite clearly purports to LIMIT the powers of the federal government to those enumerated. It is not supposed to work like a well oiled machine. It is supposed to be a slow, tedious, and almost painful process. That way, the laws passed will at least have been given due consideration. But since FDR, that hasn't been good enough. The government must move faster. As such, the court greases the cogs. Congress delegates away much of its responsibility to agencies. Why? For efficiency. The system was never meant to be efficient. It was designed ensure that only the RIGHT laws passed. The problem arose when what was "right" in the eyes of 9 people wasn't being enacted quickly enough by the process, so they took it into their own hands. Of course, in doing so they paved the way to tip the scales well past the justice they sought to serve towards the tyranny that looms over use today as caused by such judicial fiat as the decision in In Re Marriage Cases. It's not about liberty. It's about the destruction of right and wrong. It's about the removal of consequences for wrongdoings. It's about dragging society down to the lowest common denominator--a process done slowly, and piece by piece until pretty soon everyone, ideally, will think that gay is normal, religion is the cause of hate, animals have more rights than humans, and some guy behind a curtain will be left holding a very large bag of wealth, redistributing it per whim. (Aside: no form of collectivism--communism, socialism, fascism--can function without extensive "community organizing" (yes, I'm jabbing at Barack with that one), and the person with the power over the plan has power over the life and death of every denizen unwilling to live [inside] the box. There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. There is no Utopia. There is only tyranny and absolute power.)

It is one thing for the courts to overturn legislation when congress, or a state legislature lacked the political will to actually provide a functional law. The court is not supposed to make decisions of will for exactly the reason that elected representatives are: political accountability. Any time our government is to exert will over the citizenry, those officials who enacted the law must be fully accountable to the constituencies from whom they derived the power to enact the laws in the first place. The court has a proper role in overturning such laws as would shield officials from the political repercussions of their actions. The judiciary must unmask the charlatans of government. However, that is only half of the role of the judiciary. The greater duty of the judiciary is to the people themselves. The court must only exercise judgment. It must not exercise its will over the people, especially where the people have resoundingly spoken as to their will. When the Bill of Rights amended the constitution, it did not state mere truisms. It spoke of actual meaningful rights. Amendment Ten reads,

"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."

That doesn't mean that the people and the states are the same thing. It means that the people have meaningful power in this nation. If courts can blithely overturn law duly passed by referendum to the people, then the people have no power. This I cannot accept. Government only has power so long as the governed consent to that power. When the faith of citizens in their government dwindles, or rather is extinguished in the face of manifest tyranny such as that of the California Supreme Court, then it is likely the time for the tree of liberty to be watered again with the blood of patriots and tyrants is nigh at hand.

So, we are left once again with the question of the scope of judicial review. How far is too far? Too far is when a court creates a new constitutionally protected class where there was none before. Too far is when a state supreme court acts in such a way as to effectively create law for 49 other states. Too far is where the voice of the people is squelched by the voice and will of four virtually untouchable judges. Too far is where the California Supreme Court went with the In re Marriage cases decision. If that decision is upheld either by the failure of proposition 8 or in a later challenge before the US Supreme Court, then we will know that the new tyranny has emerged and established itself. When they come to take our religion, and our liberty, pray they have not first succeeded in taking our guns, for if they have, they will freely, and happily, take your life.

Stewart Feil

On Judicial Review, and Rule by the People

2008-10-19T15:38:00.000-07:00

May 15, 2008 was a momentous day. Four of seven California Supreme Court justices voted to overturn the results of Proposition 22, a law passed by a 61% vote in California in November 2000. The contents of the law were strikingly simple:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.

The result of this judicial decision was to open the floodgates of same-sex marriages. Some were cheering that day, but many were silently lamenting what had transpired. I was one of those who lamented the decision, but what is important is the framework for why I have come to that conclusion. The background and facts surrounding the issue are paramount for any individual being able to come to an informed (instead of emotionally-charged, and thus potentially erroneous) conclusion.

This post will be somewhat long, but I believe it will be helpful in understanding the discussion on the current thrust behind Proposition 8 that is currently before California for a vote in November.

Judicial Review

The concept and application of judicial review are nearly as old as the United States itself. It was shortly after the formation of the US under the Constitution that the US Supreme Court established the precedent of being able to review laws for their constitutionality, as arguably envisioned in Article III and Article VI of the US Constitution (it was Marbury v. Madison, I believe, that was the case to have that power established). It was never explicitly stated in the Constitution that the judicial had the power to review laws for their constitutionality, but it is commonly held that the 'judicial power' mentioned in the Constitution certainly included this concept.

This rather necessary function of the judicial branch has helped to curb the creation and implementation of onerous laws for two centuries. When the power is applied with care, it is a powerful and useful check against congress and immoral applications of power via the laws of the land. However, judicial review can also be used to destroy laws that are necessary and good, and the onus is on the justices first to do what is right, and barring that, the people to pass (or pressure their legislators to pass) amendments to their constitutions to reign in inappropriate decisions by judges.

Throughout this discussion, note that the California Constitution and its judicial are set up to be nearly identical to the federal level, so what applies to the federal level applies to the state level (and this is true of just about all of the states).

There are essentially two methods in which laws are interpreted for their constitutionality. (For more information on the following discussion, please see

From Constitutional Interpretation to Judicial Activism: The Transformation of Judicial Review in America

by Christopher Wolfe, Ph.D.)

Traditional Interpretation

The first is a traditional view, where they take the literal words of the constitution and decide whether a law or parts of a law jive with that or not. This method does not presume much about what the founding fathers meant, and takes what they wrote at face value.

Within this are two variations on deciding whether a law fits within the constitutional framework. The first is a narrow view, in that if the constitution doesn't specifically mention that a type of law or concept is allowed, then the law is not constitutional. The other, a more broad view, is that if the constitution doesn't forbid it, then the clause about delegating to the people any power not mentioned in it means that the representatives of the people (e.g. the legislative branch) can pass laws to govern those issues.

The narrow-traditional view is somewhat untenable; it's very difficult to get any laws passed, even useful and necessary laws, under that interpretation. Suffice it to say that, pre-20th century, the traditional-broad view generally prevailed among judges.

Modern Interpretation

The modern view essentially only uses the wording of the Constitution to boil it down into vague concepts and principles. A judge espousing this view quite literally attempts to infer what the principles are, and then filters a law relative to what he or she thinks would jive with those principles.

While it appears at the outset that this might be a useful way to apply the principles of the Constitution to modern, changing times, it is readily apparent that it could create too much latitude for judges to 'decide' what they think constitutional principles are, and then affirm or strike down a law based upon their own agenda. Activist judges can (and do) find refuge in the modern view, under a potentially fake cloak of constitutionality.

What is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the modern view is a bit of a paradox: if the language and scope of the Constitution is not up to snuff to deal with modern problems, then the logical answer is not to detach from its language, but to instead create a newer, modern constitution. But, you would be hard pressed indeed to find a judge that would prescribe to the modern interpretation and would advocate a new constitution at the same time. This is perhaps the fatal flaw of the modern interpretation: either the Constitution is good enough for today, or it is not. You can't have it both ways, or else you are destined to end up with abusive interpretations of law as we detach from the Constitution and, in effect, have no constitution at all.

Incidentally, traction has gained in the last few years among some justices of the US Supreme Court for turning back to the traditional view, and for some circuits it is becoming more inappropriate to push any limits with a modern view. It is my opinion that this is a healthy and positive trend, one that I hope continues to gain favor in the judicial.

Application to the May 15 Decision

The In re MARRIAGE CASES decision takes a devious track with a twist through the various views to arrive at their conclusion. Indeed the dissenting opinions of the three other justices are quite blistering on this subject.

Essentially, the main thrust of the four justices that struck down the law was that there is no provision of the California Constitution to allow laws to codify intolerance or prejudice against any group as pertains to marriage. This takes a seeming combination of both the narrow-traditional view, and the modern view of interpretation of constitutionality. It takes the narrow-traditional view because the California Constitution does not state that one group can be favored over another (although it doesn't state the opposite, either); and, it takes the modern view because they infer that the California Constitution must have intended an elimination of discrimination or favoritism.

Note that, while the narrow-traditional aspect of their decision doesn't make very much sense, the modern interpretational aspect appears to be a moral and common-sense analysis of the Constitution. There are two problems with it, however:

It is dangerous to use the modern interpretation, due to the likelihood of exploitation. In fact, there is plenty of suspicion going around that this was politically motivated, e.g. there are ulterior motives. If that is the case, this handily demonstrates why the modern interpretation is dangerous.
It hinges on what they believe 'discrimination,' 'favoritism,' and/or 'tolerance' mean, and it is not necessarily true that they used appropriate definitions.

Rule by the People

In the wake of the May 15 decision, an already-forming movement for an amendment to the California Constitution to restrict marriage to its traditional definition gained headway. Once it had the necessary signatures verified by the counties, it became known as Proposition 8, to be voted upon in November 2008.

How to Override the Supreme Court

Interestingly, Proposition 8 contained the exact same language as Proposition 22, except was submitted as a constitutional amendment. Once again, here is the exact language:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.

Retaining the same language was done for a very good reason: to send a clear message to the California Supreme Court that the people of the State of California do not take lightly the implications of what the Court did.

Let me explain. In a mostly representative republic such as the US, laws passed by legislatures deserve to have scrutiny by the courts to protect the people from tyrannical and inappropriate laws, through judicial review. However, I do not believe that any law passed by referendum by the people (such as was the case in Proposition 22) should be subject to the same review. This is not to say that judicial review should be forbidden for a law passed by referendum, but it should be held to a bar that is much more strict before the judicial can strike down such a law.

The terms under which the May 15 decision was made did not constitute a clear-cut consensus, nor does it seem to have adequate explanation with clear language in the California Constitution; as such, it is entirely reasonable to say that the justices who voted to overturn the law stepped out of bounds on a moral issue that was already decided by the people. It is not far-fetched or unprecedented to claim the judicial should have left this issue alone, and let the law stand.

However, reality is reality, and the 4-3 decision left the law stricken from the books. In that situation, there is only one legal recourse for the people: adopt an amendment to the constitution to restore the language, so that there is no way for a judge to skirt around it. They would need to stick it to the judges the only way the people can, and send a clear message that activist judges cannot override the people they are supposed to ultimately serve. Hence, Proposition 8 was born.

I will spend some time explaining the basis for Proposition 8 itself (the marriage issue), as well as the topics tolerance and discrimination as used by both sides of the debate. They deserve a full discussion, and can be treated independently of the In re MARRIAGE CASES decision.

Finding out for yourself

2008-08-20T00:00:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting that a great many people I've met have never had it occur to them that they can find out the truth of life's most difficult questions all by themselves. Well, it is also true that one does need to be introduced to the concept by somebody else, but once a person has found the source, he/she can practice and get quite good at it on their own.

What I'm referring to is quite simple: asking God directly about the truth of important questions (both personal and general to humankind). It seems so simple, to ask God directly, but so many people find it very difficult or impossible, or that they can't have an answer, or that there is no God who answers.

Let's start with a little framework to understand this better. We have a few assumptions that need to be established: there is a God, He can answer and cares about us, and that He answers when we pray and ask serious questions (believing deep down that He will answer). All three of those assumptions can be validated by giving it a real, honest try.

But herein lies the challenge. Without knowing that God exists, and that He answers prayers even so, how do you muster up the faith to believe that He is there and will answer? How do you even pray? How long do you wait for an answer before throwing in the towel? What if you ask a question and get an answer you don't like or didn't expect? There are a lot of questions that arise in our minds before taking the step into the unknown.

The answer, of course, like the premise (just ask), is simple. You find someone who has a deep conviction and experience regarding answers that they can testify of, and listen to what they say. It starts with hearing someone tell you about it before you know to even try, and that your efforts could result in an answer. (A deeper question is, who told them first, and who told them, and so on until who told the first people on the earth? That's a topic for later, but is a very relevant question.) Next, with all sincerity, you swallow your pride and try to believe that they are telling the truth, even if it's a jump. Let that belief work in your heart for a while until you muster up the courage to find out for yourself. Even if you only have a desire to believe, that is enough; you have to start somewhere.

When you ask, you need to be prepared to do so alone. It's not necessary, but having the guts to talk to God without anyone else to get in the way can be a powerful thing. You'll know when you get there if you are sincere, because if so, you won't feel like you're talking to the wall, but will feel like there is someone nearby, listening intently. Speak to Him like He is your father, and talk honestly about how you feel. Ask for help, and ask for a confirmation, even if just a good feeling, that He is there and He is watching over you. Then you wait, patiently, and listen. You might need to try this a number of times, perhaps over a long period of time; some seem to get answers quickly, and some seem to have a longer test ahead of them to prove if they really are sincere. In any case, if you truly believe that you'll get an answer, you will.

To know that there is a God, and that He answers prayers, is knowledge that can't be equaled. Nobody can take that away from you. What is more, is that once you know that, you can have the confidence to ask Him if other things are right or not that are important in your life. The same process applies, and as you do this more and more you'll get better and better at it. Like all things, communication takes practice, to learn how God specifically speaks to you. You may start to recognize those same communications later when you're not praying, and you'll start to have your mind expanded and realize just how much He is involved in your life. (Hint: it's a whole lot.)

Of course, I am speaking from experience. I'm not perfect at this whole prayer thing, but I work at it. It has come to the point for me that, when I am not doing the right things in my life, I feel a very deep void when I cut myself off from that communication. I hate it so much that I feel very motivated to correct any issues and get back to where I can have that guidance again. I have learned a number of truths, and they are so burned into my heart that I could never forget nor deny them; I know them and trust these truths possibly more than I trust what I see ("seeing is believing" is somewhat of a wimpy philosophy to me these days).

Here are a few things that I know for certain. There is a God, and He is the father of our spirits. Our spirits existed before this earth life, and this is the next step in our progression. As we are the spiritual offspring of God, we are meant to become like Him if we do the right things to get there; we are not some experiment or playtoys of deity, but rather we are God's children. I know that we are not perfect, and that God is, and so to make up for the gap and allow us even a shot at becoming more like God, we need a savior who can do for us what we can't do for ourselves. That savior is Jesus Christ, the literal son of God (spiritually like us, but physically also, unlike us) who paid for our mistakes and offers the chance to bridge the gap. His conditions are repentance, belief in Him, and we must do all that we can to follow the commandments and endure to the end. It's a pretty amazing bargain, if you ask me. There is a lot more I have learned, but that's a good start.

Of course, you really ought to find out for yourself. Just ask God Himself.

On President Gordon B. Hinckley's passing

2008-01-31T22:20:00.000-08:00

There are a lot of people I admire. I'm a software developer, and while I have my philosophical differences with a number of prominent people in the software world, I know a good programmer when I see one and I admire them for their dedication to their work and to whatever cause they choose. I admire a lot of people, in fact, and strive to take their good examples and integrate them into my life.

But there are few people that I would call a hero, or a person that I would want to be more like in every detail. That regard tends to be reserved for exceptional people who show exemplary lives; the most obvious example being Jesus Christ. The men who comprise the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the LDS Church, or the Mormons) fit the bill quite well. They are called to the same post as the apostles of the early Christian church, and as such are considered prophets, just as prophets of old in the Bible. Preposterous, you say? It most certainly isn't, and I'll tell you about President Hinckley to show why he is a hero to me, and why I have no doubt about him as a Prophet. He passed away on January 27th (of 2008), and I'm sad to see him go.

President Hinckley was a funny man. He would stand up to speak in General Conference (where the whole church gets together to listen on TV or over satellite tranmission, etc.), and crack a joke or two that would have everyone laughing heartily. On the other hand, he always had something serious to address, and he always did so without mincing words. Captivating to listen to, he spoke with such clarity that you always went away from his talks thinking, "I want to to better. I can do better."

He inspired goodness in people, but he always directed them toward God in the process. He pleaded with people for tolerance of other religions and views, pleaded with people to serve others, and pleaded with people to avoid pornography, smut, sleaze, abuse, carnality, and all things related to them. He always showed optimism; and his optimism was contagious. There was no hint that even someone who was struggling with bad habits or problems had no hope. His teachings were nothing less than the modern-day wording of Christ's teachings in their purity, and it's obvious where he got them and who he credited with what he taught.

But a good person saying and doing good things does not mean they are a prophet. I know a lot of people who go about doing much good, and they definitely aren't prophets or anything like one. As background, some day I'll post about the first president of the LDS Church and his story, but suffice it to say that President Hinckley received his authority via the Priesthood traceable back to Christ himself, and I truly believe that. With that said, I'd like to share a personal experience regarding President Hinckley that shows my personal conviction on the matter.

For the first part of my university studies, I was at BYU (Brigham Young University); I later transferred to Utah State University to finish my CS degree. While at BYU, we had the good fortune of being able to listen to various religious leaders and faculty speak about religious matters. President Hinckley came to speak, and everybody was excited about it. We all went early to the basketball stadium to snag a seat, and it filled up pretty quick (I think it seats about 22,000 people or so). Everyone was chatting, and the general buzz in the Marriott center was quite audible. About 5 seconds before President Hinckley came in, I had this little thought in the back of my mind say "stand up." I did so, and realized as I did that everyone else was standing up at the same time, and all of the talking stopped. 20,000 people, and not a peep out of any of them. He came in right after, and everyone started singing the LDS hymn "We thank thee, O God, for a Prophet". As this was occurring, and I was looking down towards the podium at him, I had a very strong, warm feeling come over me and the clear thought in my mind saying, "This, Mike, is truly a Prophet of God."

There was no mistaking that feeling. There is no simulating it, nor is it the effect of brainwash or any other erroneous cause. It was a simple, pure manifestation of the Spirit of God teaching me a simple principle, one that I could then never deny. Having that knowledge has given me a greater desire to follow what President Hinckley has taught, and helped me to realize just how important it is to know that God has not left us without a voice in modern times, and that He didn't just stop talking to us.

President Hinckley was an amazing person, and accomplished much good in his life. I'm sure he is quite happy to be with his wife again (who passed away a couple of years ago), but we'll miss him. To sum up my regard for this man, may I quote from the Book of Mormon, speaking of captain Moroni, but cast it in terms of President Hinckley:

Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto [Gordon B. Hinckley], behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

May you crack many jokes among those that have passed on before, and rest in peace, our dear old friend. We'll miss you.

On Motivation for Temptation

2007-06-27T23:41:00.000-07:00

Temptation always starts with something benign, simple. A little thought to go look for something with a little flare, or casually spend your time in a way that gets you closer to the line of trouble without crossing it. It's easy to go that far because, well, it's not far. There's virtually no guilt that comes at that point. You tell yourself that you'll back away if you get close to falling for the temptation, and that you can handle it.

Except for that little nag in the back of your mind that is only heard in echo, as it bounces off the far mountain ranges of your mind. It is trying to tell you that your motivations are evil, and you are only looking for trouble. To get closer to any of it is to endanger yourself beyond your capacity to backtrack, it says.

But a little of something that isn't offensive or actually dangerous won't hurt, right? You lull yourself one or two steps in that direction, and act on the temptation. But you quickly discover that there are forces that are working very hard to accelerate you faster than you anticipated. Someone always spikes the punch, and someone always takes your seemingly benign first step and corrupts it with something from the wrong side of the line. You recoil, but it's too late, you've already tasted it. You back away a bit, patting yourself on the back. But now that somebody crossed the line for you, even if only for a brief moment, it's easy to hang around the line. You'll keep a wary eye out for those jerks who pull shenanigans.

Boom. They're too sneaky, and they did it again to you. And now it's even easier to straddle that line, as that nag is getting quieter because you've let it run off. You tell yourself that you need to get out while you still can, but your momentum is hard to stop. Just a little longer, and then you'll stop giving in on your still relatively benign actions. Or are they benign? It's hard to tell, your judgment feels a little bit clouded, but you remember that you didn't go very far in the first place, right?

Wrong. Now it's time for bed, and like a good little saint you have to say your prayers. Except you are scared to say them now, because you don't want to face your Maker over your blunder and slippage. That little voice wanders back in, wagging its finger, saying, “I told you not to, but you didn't listen. Fat lot of good that did you.” You decide to be tough, to ask for forgiveness. You really want it, and you have a part of you that really doesn't want to do that ever again. You really mean it.

The next day, you fall flat on your face, again. The same routine, the same shame, except it was a little easier and the guilt is a little further away. Lather, rinse, repeat. Depression starts to set in, and your ability to stay on the correct side of the line erodes, sometimes so much that it surprises you. You realize that your motivations really were never good in the first place, and that even stepping that direction was a huge waste of time, but it's so hard to stop now. It's nigh unto a habit, if it's not already.

Except you have a choice. You always have a choice. You can always choose to turn back, to stop what you are doing. It's hard, yes, but it is always possible. You have the power to choose to run away from what is causing you to inch, and sometimes tumble outright toward the place you don't want to go. You don't have to become the person that is on the other side of that line.

So you resolve to overcome it, to take the bull by the horns and knock it clean out. But how? It's easy, at least in terms of words:

Rely on God. Don't you dare stop saying your prayers, even if you feel guilty, because it will do you more harm to stop and will just mean you are in trouble and you are wimpy.
That little nag is your conscience, and you've got one for a reason. If you keep ignoring it, eventually it'll stop talking to you. So don't ignore it. When you get that sinking feeling in your gut that you're about to step toward something you should not, cut and run. You'll regret it every time you don't listen to that internal voice that says "No, don't do it!" On the other hand, if you listen, you'll find your conscience tells you a lot more than what you shouldn't do, and it can be an incredible asset.
Replace the temptation with something good. If you can pray at night, you can pray anytime, and that might be an excellent time to do so. If you read the scriptures, and have access to them at that time, try that too. Even just redirecting yourself and doing something to keep you busy is better than to just idle around. As they say, idle hands are the devil's workshop. When I was on my mission in Spain we helped someone quit smoking, cold turkey. Conventional wisdom says that's nearly impossible to do, but I beg to differ; the key was that she had to eat fruit or something similar every time she had a craving. Later on it's pretty easy to beat a fruit addiction to get your weight down, so it's an excellent alternative to blackening your lungs. It worked like a charm, even though it was still difficult.
Avoid the locations and triggers that cause the temptation. For example, if it is questionable images and such on the Internet, don't even go near the sites that would remind you of it. Learn the type of sites that don't seem connected, but where you know there's always going to be some bozo who pushes the envelop and puts something in there designed to accelerate you over that line again. Case in point: if you look for old ROMs of Nintendo games that run on various emulators, that seems pretty benign. In fact, you'd think that kids would be likely to search for that. DO NOT DO IT though, because those sites are usually laced with porn (and boy do those porn makers love to snag kids as young as they can). Just evil. Another case in point is looking up 3D renderings or desktop wallpapers. There are a ton of really neat ones out there, but somebody always has something pornographic or close enough to qualify on just about any site or gallery for those. It's a pretty small sacrifice to just avoid those unless you are at a known-good site that doesn't allow them.

People always feel so much better if they can overcome temptations that beset them, as it puts them in control of their life. Giving in to temptations is something most of the world will say "it is not a big deal," but having control of your thoughts and actions is a huge deal in my opinion. The most heroic people I have ever met are the ones who put aside the typical human tendencies and disciplined themselves into doing something far better. Avoiding and overcoming temptations are nothing short of mastering discipline of oneself.