Morality Quiz

I thought this post over at Classical Values was interesting. For starters, I too dislike the Left/Right dichotomy. There are a great many of us who have no desire to impose our wills upon other people and we do not fall anywhere on that spectrum. I am also wary of such polls, mostly because it is difficult to truly define what is being asked, but the folks at the YourMorals did a fairly good job in the Fairness Scenarios. The above graph shows my results (in green) compared to self styled liberals and conservatives. The five categories are defined as:

* Procedural Justice - Fairness is a function of how a decision is made rather than the outcome.
* Equality - Fairness is a function of how equally people are treated.
* Need - Fairness is a function of those who are in need having their needs met.
* Equity - Fairness is a function of people who contribute more getting their just reward.
* Retributional Justice - Fairness is a function of people being punished for bad behavior.

The questions asked relate pretty well to the qualities being measured, though in reality situations would be far more complex, but this does at least find which issues we consider important. My three highest outcomes highlight what I have stressed in my political philosophy: what people "deserve" is a function of their actions and results should be decided by a fair process rather than by a predetermined preferred outcome.

But look at my results compared to liberals and conservatives. Hard to place where I am on the Left/Right spectrum, huh?

As for the other tests, I've only taken a few but none were as good as the test I mentioned above. Too many ask questions that can't be answered without context. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to answer whether "whether or not some people were treated differently than others" is relevant to my moral decisions. Depends on the situation, sometimes people should be treated differently, sometimes not, see the above chart. The next few questions are also nearly impossible to answer without context (rebelling against authority is good if the authority is evil but bad if the authority is good, so how I can't tell whether rebelling in and of itself is good or bad). Ok, the Morals, Values, and Ethics quiz is not worth taking, I do not value a person's aptitude in math when considering their moral actions. This is an example of a test badly done because we have no idea what they are asking.

Anyway, that one particular test seemed to be of value in determining how we think groups ought to distribute resources. Government is the ultimate group. I would like to know how some self described liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians, whathaveyou, come up with.

Thoughts Concerning Lochner v New York: Justice Holmes' Dissent

Lochner v The State of New York
198 U.S. 45
Argued February 23, 24, 1905.
Decided April 17, 1905.

Lochner is, in many ways, the most abused case ever to have been decided by the Supreme Court. While the issue of how many hours a person may work in a confectionery bakery is not particularly salient any longer, ideas such as the right of contract, judicial activism, and states' rights are, all of which are touched upon in this short case. I intend to skip over the majority decision and focus on the famous dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. For the record, I believe the Court erred in its decision. The Court overstepped its boundaries in telling a particular state what it may or may not do, so long as due process is followed.

Justice Holmes' extremely short dissent is remarkable for the heights of wisdom and the depths of folly it achieves in so short a space:

"This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain. If it were a question whether I agreed with that theory, I should desire to study it further and long before making up my mind. But I do not conceive that to be my duty, because I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law."

Consider these three sentences. In the first sentence, Justice Holmes' errs in believing the case was decided by an economic theory rather than a constitutional theory, namely that the 14th Amendment prevents states from unduly taking away liberty or property. Regardless of the merits of that philosophy, it is inherently a judicial rather than economic theory. In the very next sentence, Mr. Holmes describes what a judicial activist, legislative from the bench, would do if that justice believed the Court should base controversies based on their opinion of the facts at hand rather than on the law. He rightly condemns this stance, but then proceeds to go too far by apparently stating the majority may impose any such law it wishes, when our Founding Fathers set up our government in a way as to specifically avoid tyrannies based upon majority factions. Indeed, Justice Holmes goes so far as to say apparently tyrannical state laws cannot be overturned by the Court, which I believe goes much too far and ignores both the 14th Amendment and Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, providing for a republican form of government to the states.

"The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well-known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Postoffice, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics."

Whether he meant to do so or not, Justice Holmes rightly points out that all government taxation and regulation is restrictive upon personal liberty. Here we come to the crux of the matter. We establish government solely in order to safeguard the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (paraphrased version of property, courtesy of the philosopher John Locke), as is stated in our Declaration of Independence. Governments which become destructive to those ends may be abolished, according to that same Declaration. Government requires a sacrifice of some of these rights to protect the rest, but where is the line to be drawn? At what point does the government cease to be the protector of these God given rights and transform into the greatest threat instead? Justice Holmes gives no answer, but his willingness to abide by the decision of any majority is distressing to an extreme.

"But a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."

Justice Holmes is correct in a technical sense that our Constitution does not blatantly adopt any particular economic theory, but he is wrong to assume all economic theories can be compatible with the Constitution. A paternalistic state, by definition, removes people from the pursuit of happiness and substitutes itself in their place, assuming the government knows better for the people's well being than the people do. Every tyrant believes the same. Should individuals be debased enough to despise the pursuit of happiness in their own lives and wish to outsource those decision to another is their own personal decision, but to impose that notion, with force, on others who do not agree is to deny them one of their inalienable rights. Overarching governments leave no outs for those who wish to live their own lives; they face a government perverted in its aims, destroying our rights rather than preserving them.

"General propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise. But I think that the proposition just stated, if it is accepted, will carry us far toward the end. Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word 'liberty,' in the 14th Amendment, is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health. Men whom I certainly could not pronounce unreasonable would uphold it as a first instalment of a general regulation of the hours of work. Whether in the latter aspect it would be open to the charge of inequality I think it unnecessary to discuss."

The very reason we have this Constitution, with the Bill of Rights and succeeding Amendments, is to prevent the "dominant opinion" from being imposed tyrannically! Just about any dominant opinion is likely to be met by a minority opinion, composed of rational and fair men who believe the proposed statute infringe upon fundamental principles as have been understood throughout the history of our nation. Liberty means to be free to act or not as we see fit; a dominant opinion that forces us to act or not act in a particular way is the exact opposite of liberty.

Justice Holmes illustrates two extremely important principles for our judiciary, though he only seems to agree with one of them. In the first, justices must respect the rule of law and put this higher than their own policy judgments. We elect legislators to create the law; we place justices on the bench to make rulings based on those laws, not their own desires. But secondly, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, which no majority may override save by a Constitutional Amendment. Wherever the government and the dominant opinion overstep their enumerated powers, wherever they cease to be the protectors of our unalienable rights and transform into the greatest threat instead, the judiciary must step in. While we cannot abide judicial activism, judicial abandonment is the equivalent of abandoning the concept of limited government and individual rights in favor of an unchecked tyranny of the majority.

The End of the American Experiment

I am absolutely despondent at what I have witnessed.

The American People have had their liberty annihilated today. While the vast majority fought against it, our government overrode their wishes, a clear violation of the basic principles of democratic government.

But what is worse, far worse, is the number of people who voted in 2008 for this sort of bill but never put a moment's thought into it. These people, along with the apathetic, have abandoned any sort of responsibility towards their fellow citizens; none will explain where they derive the authority to make such a law, none care how it changes the relationship between government and individuals in a negative fashion. Some support out of greed, others out of a horribly misguided and arrogant sense of "helping others" by forcing apparent "goods" upon them.

America was never meant to be like this. Those who have abandoned their willingness and ability to think to the government do not deserve liberty; indeed, it is doubtful they could even survive with it. If any deserve to be considered less than human, it is those who will not think, who will not defend their personal liberties, who abandon all rights and dignities a free human being deserves for a few trifles thrown by the hands of an all powerful state, or worse still those who abandon liberty to spite those who have done better than they.

I have noticed this the whole process through: it does not matter what argument is made, it will fall on deaf ears because people absolutely refuse to think. This disgusting abandonment of responsibility is what tyrannies are made of. I can't help but think of Rome, which for the populism of Caesar bought Caligula and Nero.

For those few remaining who still hold liberty higher than a government watching and deciding our every move, what can we do?

Ten Most Influential Books In My Rather Limited World

Since everyone else is doing it...

In all honesty, I can't limit it to ten. Our "world" is so multi-faceted that I can't really rank these books, so I won't bother numbering them.

The Republic of Plato. There is no one in the Western World who has not, in some form or another, been influenced by the works of Plato, and a great deal of political philosophy can find a prototype expressed in the Republic. As with many of the truly Great Books, however, this one is extremely dangerous. Plato searched from the one true Good in the universe and according to the story told in this book a perfect city could be made if only the very wise possessed unfettered power. I highly doubt "good" is unitary and I know that no human is wise enough to be telling another how to live his or her life backed up by the threat of the state. Plato himself seems to have known that; if only modern day statists could figure it out.

Federalist by Publius: This work has had a rather amazing story behind it. For those who read it while thinking about the situation in which it was written, one has to wonder if the authors would have been surprised how we almost revere this collection of essays today, long after the issue of creating a federal government has been settled. The true value of this book lies in the philosophy of man and his imperfections; they never sought out to cure those imperfections but only to limit their abuses in government itself, namely by dividing power so much that no one person or faction could accomplish their goals without compromise. A true warning for modern times.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. A response to John Rawls argument that the state is needed to fix perceived injustices in the distribution of goods and talents by nature. Nozick does an excellent job showing the advantages of a minimal state, the necessity of the rule of law being applied equally to all, and the impossiblity of "social justice" (which always means different things to different people). A must read for anyone who actually desires to study the proper role of government rather than just its forms.

April, 1865 by Jay Winik. This should be read by more high school students. The Civil War did not just "end" in April with everyone saying "yup, it's over, might as well go grab a beer and head home." Even with the Confederacy on the verge of collapse, it was by no means certain the fighting and the killing would end with the destruction of the political state. Guerilla war, similar to what we saw in Iraq, was rampant in places like Missouri, and some of Lee's officers recommended continuing the fight by such means rather than surrender. Lee, Lincoln, and Grant were all amazing commanders in their own way, but each showed their highest quality at the end.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. I love Russian literature and Dostoevsky is a favorite. The conscience of a human being can be a dreadful thing, something I know from first hand experience but preferred immensely more from reading this book.

The Proper Study of Mankind by Isaiah Berlin. My introduction into the world of political pluralism. Berlin's understanding of the imperfection of man, even (or perhaps, especially) those in power, is a lesson I wish I could magically implant in the mind of every person. He also dismantles the idea that "the good" is unitary.

Second Treatise of Government by John Locke. The intellectual founder of our Republic. A limited government based on the consent of the governed with the purpose of protecting our rights (in particular property rights)...how radical he would seem nowadays!

The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis. Though I am not a Christian any longer, C. S. Lewis will always be one of my favorite authors, and his explanation of personal choice in this book was nothing short of amazing. Mankind truly is petty.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I picked this book up in January of 2009, when America was taking a distinct turn towards statism. Rand predicted the failure of governments running economies before people like Barack Obama were even born, but apparently nobody every lent poor Obama a copy. More important than the technical aspects of the impossibilty of socialism, though, is the moral superiority of the free market; socialism treats men as cogs, capitalism treats men as men who are capable of determining their own lives for good or ill.

The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. The Prophet of Nature and Man. His beautiful essays cover a vast realm of topics but always manage to focus on the pure and beautiful. While there are aspects I disagree with, in particular concerning the unitary nature of everything, I still always pick up this book when spring time comes around to help enhance the wonder of the season.

The Bible. Nobody knows exactly how long it took to write the Bible or how many people were involved, but it does seem safe to say it spans hundreds of years with dozens of authors. No book has influenced Western literature as much as this one and I highly doubt there is another which influences personal morality as much, either. The stories and themes are wonderful and far too many to list.

1984 by George Orwell. I end this list with the two most abused books in history. Orwell was a magnificent author, but more importantly he was an honest one. He looked straight into the heart of mankind and saw its desire for power, for money, for lust, the weaknesses people carry with them, but the true horror comes in the form of domination of life, and nothing is as capable of dominating life as an all powerful state. I seriously considered adding Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest here, which focused on the horrors of the 20th Centuries totalitarian states, but Orwell's fiction will always be more memorable than reality.


Anyway, that's my (incomplete) list of books that have significantly shaped my world view, whether on God, politics, society, ethics, economics, or any other such field.

Definitions

A great deal of confusion and frustration occurs in discussing politics. While there are many causes, one important cause we can alleviate is getting our definitions straight. Far too often, we talk past each other or use the wrong abstract phrase or fail to actually understand all of the implications behind the words. Here I intend to create a list of political words I find misused or vague and give my best interpretation of the word.

State: A state consists of any being that creates its own set of rules and holding legitimate use of force delegated to it voluntarily. While there are some 200 nation states recognized today in the world, the true number of "states" are far, far greater. Mafia's that develop their own set of rules and derive their use of force from its members is, in a sense, a state, as are separatist groups, terrorists, and lone criminals. While a state must treat its own members well (that is the reason they join the state in the first place), unless they have created a contract known as a treaty they are under no obligations to treat members of other states well. In this way, a state may arrest, imprison, or execute a criminal in their own society because that person has, in effect, declared themselves their own state.

Right: Any subset of actions an individual may demand another perform or not perform. For example, in the United States it is our right that the government not infringe upon our liberty of free speech. With the exception of the parent/child relationship, all natural rights are of a negative quality, i.e. others shall not do something. All positive rights (i.e. you shall do this) derive from contracts.

Liberty: Any action permissible to the individual. Inherent in that individual's being, not derived from any other person or group but himself, and hence owed to no one.

Power: Any action permissible to the government, delegated to that government by the consent of the governed.

Freedom: Living in a state that is not tyrannical; all actions that may be lawfully taken in a legitimate state.

Politics: A subset of ethics. Whereas ethics determines what actions are good and bad, politics determines which actions are sufficiently good or bad as to be encouraged/discouraged by the use of force.

Ethics: The study in philosophy of what actions are good or bad in a moral sense.

Contract: A voluntary exchange of rights, goods, or liberties. That which is given without a voluntary expectation of a return is called a gift; that which is decided without the consent of both parties is theft.

The Ideologies

What are the ideologies? They are philosophies concerning politics that determine the proper relation between mankind and the institution of government. Nearly all existing thoughts of government can be included in these four categories. This is meant as mere description; criticism and evaluation of the various types will be dealt with later.

State as Bad: The ideologies falling in this category see the existence of government as a form of evil due to its use of coercion. Government is to be kept in check to the greatest possible degree.

Anarchist: No state can exist that does not compel people, with the use of force or economic coercion, against that person's will. Coercion is always unacceptable; ergo, the state is an unacceptable institution. People can develop rules with those they come in contact in without resorting to the power of the state to enforce them (social pressure, system of credit, personal use of force, etc.).

Libertarian: No state can exist that does not compel people to act contrary to that person's needs, but anarchy does not provide sufficient protection either from stronger individuals/cliques within society or from states outside of it. Compulsion exists to protect individual rights and enforce contracts, along with the minimum taxation required to pay for a minimal state.

State as Good: The ideologies falling in this category see the government as a force for good that improves people and should be given power enough to carry out those improvements.

Statist: State compulsion is less of a concern than perceived social problems. While the state needs to have some limit to its powers, it should be allowed to rearrange elements of society to create a more just system. Many means are justified by these ends that would not in and of themselves be considered good (imprisonment, taxation, compulsion, etc.).

Totalitarian: The individual is too weak and uncoordinated to exist justly outside of the state. Only the organization of the state can provide a truly just society; ergo, the state should have recourse to any means necessary to provide the most perfect form of justice. The ends of a perfectly just society justified any means.

Ethics in a Statist System

Ethics, which is determining right and wrong actions, requires at least two moral individuals to be in contact with one another. By moral, I mean beings capable of thinking and capable of acting. A man cannot be moral in respect to a rock; he can commit no wrong to the rock and the rock cannot act at all, denying the existence of ethics in this particular case. A person who could think but could not act, even in the presence of another human being, cannot participate in any ethical situation, as they are completely unable to affect any change to the situation.

Politics encompasses a large subset of ethics. In politics, right and wrong are defined, stated, and enforced by a body that possess a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The other subset includes all actions that one should take but which may not be compelled with the use of force. Because politics is a subset of ethics, people become passionate about the subject. A declaration that the other person's politics are wrong is an indication that their ethics are wrong, as politics are a part of ethics.

Ethics (and hence politics) is a realm that is distinctly human and in many ways sets us apart from other species, being intrinsic to the quality of being human.

Socialism, or any other statist philosophy, degrades this human quality by denying humans the chance to act as they see fit. People are forced to pay for the so called "safety net." No choice is allowed; without choice, the people of such a society cannot be considered ethical as ethics requires choosing the correct option. Without choice, their is no choosing, and hence no ethics. It is partly because of this that the massive amount of wealth taken from successful businesses and rich individuals is not accredited to them as ethical by their detractors. Ironically, the more that is taken from these people by force, the less ethical they can be (as they have less to act with), and hence the more they will be demonized.

A free market system prevents people from acting rather than forcing them to act in a particular way. Imagine there being five possible actions for a situation, A B C D and E. The free market system, combined with respect for natural liberties but with no provision for positive liberties, removes option E from the allowed options but lets the individual decide between A B C and D. Statist systems act differently. Rather than removing an option but leaving a choice, the Statist will decide the one particular action for that individual to make. They may say, "you shall do B", in which case the person must do B. That person, however, is no longer an ethical being, as ethics requires choice. The more options left to the individual, the more choice they have, and hence the more they can participate in that human quality known as ethics.

This is not to say they will always choose the correct, "ethical" answer. They may very well choose to do wrong, but if they do so it is their responsibility and that individual can be held accountable for doing wrong or right. Not so in a statist system. When a man does B because he was given the choice between B and death (being completely removed from ethical decisions forever), he cannot truly be said to be responsible. He will say that he was just following orders, which is exactly true. There is no reason to believe a state's orders will be more moral than that of an individual, as the state is composed of individuals. If anything, the opposite is true, as the state will have the power to do wrong with impunity more than the individual.

That a free market system will outperform a socialist system (namely because the socialist system lacks the minute detail of information available to a free market) has been dealt with elsewhere. I believe I have shown that a free market system is also ethically preferable in that is allows ethical beings to exist, whereas a statist system chooses for its people in many circumstances and becomes the only ethical being by denying to its people the chance to act in accordance with a distinctly human quality.

Thoughts Concerning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission 558 U.S. ___ (2010)
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009
Decided January 21, 2010

This recent decision touching on election finance laws concerning corporate contributions has created quite a stir over the last few weeks, even leading to a Presidential dressing down face to face with members of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union. That this case or its decision should be so controversial surprised me until I noticed a common thread among those who disagree with the outcome. Dissenters almost always argue that this decision is wrong because it will allow corporations to spend a great deal of money in future political campaigns, causing all sorts of woe. Whether that will actually be the case or not is actually irrelevant, however. The question at hand is whether the Federal Government had the authority to pass such a law at all, not whether the law was good or bad policy. Such policy outcomes should not even be raised in discussions concerning Citizens United as they are moot if there is no Constitutional authority allowing such laws to stand.

First off, let me remind the readers that Article VI of the Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That same Constitution is amended in the first Amendment to state:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simply put, 1) judges are bound to rule only on laws that are in accordance with the Constitution. 2) The Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging the freedom of speech. 3) Laws prohibiting speech are not in pursuance of this aspect of the Constitution; ergo, 4) such laws are not laws at all and judges have no responsibility to follow them.

I do not think anyone will question the deductive logic of this syllogism. The question now is, does the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 abridge free speech? I believe it did, as did the Court. If a corporation published any advocacy within 60 days of an election, it would have committed a felony. Clearly, there is a law banning an action, and in this case that action is political speech. The 1st Amendment exists mainly for the protection of political speech, which is considered to be the heart and soul of democracy itself. I ask my reader to please read the 1st Amendment again, in particular the part stating Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech; note there are no exceptions made. Any case of Congress banning political speech by an American citizen or groups thereof (the right of the people peaceably to assemble) is unconstitutional.

It really is that simple. Congress cannot ban peaceful political speech (no exceptions); this bill banned speech for peaceful corporations; ergo, it is unconstitutional. Critics of this ruling need to show how Congress has the authority to ban political speech by corporations within the framework of the Constitution. The 1st Amendment is perfectly clear on this, so I am not sure where a critic could even begin to defend the constitutionality of such a ban, which probably explains why most critics have taken to populist attacks not based on the Constitution. There are significant flaws with that argument, too, but as I mentioned, that point is moot until some critic presents a convincing case that the Federal Government has the authority to ban such speech.

Teacher vs Sports Star: Can Huge Wage Disparities Be Just?

A common complaint against the free market economic system is that it supposedly distributes money unfairly, so that people who perform apparently meaningless tasks are richly rewarded while more (again, apparently) useful members to society are not nearly so well off. I intend this to be a short essay showing not only that the critics making such a case are making assumptions that are not questionable and that the "less useful" rich individuals may be more useful than they appear at first blush.

First off, let us give an example of this criticism. A common target for criticism are athletes. A common example of the underpaid but valuable member of society is the teacher. The criticism goes something like this: "Why should a baseball player get paid millions to play a silly game while a teacher, playing a huge role in providing our children a future, get paid so little in comparison? We should tax those players a lot more, they do not deserve the money they have."

There are a number of assumptions in this criticism that should not be granted and the critic should have to support. First, we have the assumption that pay should be linked to some usefulness to society as defined by the critic. Society itself has made this determination and, via millions of economic transactions, reached this result that the critic dislikes. The critic needs to explain, explicitly, what criterion we should use to determine who gets what, as clearly they do not believe voluntary transactions and economic liberty lead to the proper conclusion. Their solution is made explicit: take away money from the ballplayers by force.

In the free market, every cent given to the ballplayer is given voluntarily; both the player and the team create a contract that they both agree to follow. The team received its money from fans who buy tickets, hats, gloves, and other memorabilia, again voluntarily. Nobody forced young Jimmy to cough up the money for a ticket; he paid because he saw the value of the ticket to be equal to or more than the money paid to purchase it. Everything is done voluntarily here. If the critic wishes to impose involuntary transactions of money (making somebody worse without any compensation), the moral burden lies on them to defend that over a system of voluntary exchange.

But is the teacher really worth more than the ballplayer? I would argue no; the market gives more to the ballplayer because he is worth more than the teacher.

I'll wait for the screams of protest to die down...ok.

I'm planning to become a teacher myself, so I have some idea as to their worth. Qualitatively, the education a student receives is probably worth a great deal more to that individual than following any particular sports team. Unfortunately, most people end their analysis of the situation there. There is another factor to take into account, however, and that is the number of people who gain happiness. The total value of a person to society is the quality of their value multiplied by the quantity they produce.

Let us assume a baseball player is worth 1/1000 of a teacher to any particular person. That teacher (let us make him a high school teacher) may have around 100 students per year; in a 30 year career, that gives us 3,000 students. The value of that teacher to society is as follows:

1T (T=value of a teacher) X 3,000 = 3,000 T

Now, our baseball player may entertain ten million fans over their career. That number is probably low, but it is nice and round and in the ball park (forgive the pun!). The value of that player, to society, is as follows:

.001T X 10,000,000 = 10,000 T

So, using these numbers, we came out with a result showing the baseball player is worth over three times as much to society as the teacher. This is not meant to actually determine the value of a particular profession over another, but merely to illustrate that it is possible for a perceived "inferior" person to society, who it is popular to hate for their wealth, may be of more value than another, supposedly "better" individual. These numbers are also rather stringent against my case; most people gain very little value from their various high school classes while they gain a great deal of happiness following their teams. Also, the number of fans may very well be higher, while the number of students can be lower, especially if we include students who repeat classes (lowering the number under 3,000 of different pupils the teacher has). But the point is made: the populist tug towards envy of those who make a great deal of money is not necessarily based in reason or ethics.

The free market is composed of billions of individual transactions, all of them voluntary. Each person looks at a potential offer and evaluates the situation for themselves. If the proposed trade is equal to or greater than the cost paid, the transaction takes place, and no coercion occurs, respecting the humanity of the other person. If the proposed trade is less than the value of the cost, no trade occurs, again without coercion.

Those who wish to introduce coercion into the system (statists, American liberals, socialists, communists, etc.) propose harming certain people in favor of others. The burden lies on them to explain why such harm should be introduced into a system lacking such coercion. Some criteria needs to be stated to show how we will know how much any particular person "deserves" to make, as to avoid those given power to remake society abusing that coercive power for their own gain. It also needs to be shown that the results of such a system will be better than that of the free market, whether for all or for some, and in the latter case it must be explained why certain people should be made better off via force. I believe any statist who takes up this challenge will find the second portion (the criteria by which we determine economics, other than individual liberty) to be the most difficult, if not impossible, aspect.

The Populist Rage

The political culture in the United States is reaching the point where an unstoppable force collides into an unmovable object. We see three large groups of voters in this nation: Democrats, "independents", and Republicans. Democrats and Republicans will always support their ideological choice, though with varying degrees of intensity depending on whether they are in or out of power (less power will equate to more anger, and hence more intensity). Independents have been the hinge on which the last two national elections and the special elections of 2009/10 have swung upon. We know what determines the votes of Democrats and Republicans, but what do independents vote upon?

Independents, as many studies have shown, are actually among the least knowledgeable of voters. Democrats and Republicans make a point of cleaning up political cognitive dissonance; independents give much less thought to the matter and are more prone to vote based on feelings or impressions of the current state of affairs. If times are good, they will vote to keep whoever is in power, as they equate stable good times with that government. If times are bad, however, whoever is in power will suffer regardless of their policies (though particularly repugnant policies can exacerbate the problem).

The general political culture in this nation has taken a very hard turn towards statism since the 1930's. We expect the government to provide a great number of services the Founding Fathers never foresaw the Federal or State governments performing. People generally think of benefits from the government to be "free" or at least free for them personally. In a sense, this is true, as we do not pay directly for our "free" education, our "free" roads, our "free" cops, etc. We do, however, pay in terms of national debt and taxes in the future. Sometimes this is reversed, as we see in Social Security and Medicare; we pay, then many years later we receive. The point is, we do not pay directly for the good being received; we do not have any idea whether what we receive is worth what we paid because there is no direct transaction.

Here we have an unstoppable force, the desire of people to get more (apparently free) stuff. If an individual does not directly pay for a product, they have no incentive not to get as much as humanly possible. They will put pressure on their elected representatives to make more and more available, and anyone who stands up against this hates poor people, minorities, your favorite "oppressed" group here, etc.

Here we have an unmovable object, the desire of people not to pay more taxes for which they receive no direct good in return. Shockingly, people hate giving up money they work for in order to apparently receive nothing. They will put pressure on politicians not to put such damaging charges upon their accounts.

And did I mention if the politician puts us into debt, they hate our children?

As long as we continue to demand the government provide all sorts of goods it is not designed to provide (I have written elsewhere as to why governments should not be involved), this dilemma will exist. We are currently seeing states, such as New York and California, run into financial trouble, where they can not borrow more money (nobody trusts their credit enough to loan to them), where they cannot raise taxes (politically inexpedient and economically damaging), and where they cannot reduce spending (people see those benefits as some sort of right). There is no solution; independents who demand to have their cake and eat it too become very angry when the paradox isn't solved.

The bottom line is this: once (or, more harrowing, if) our economy improves, we will see some sort of political stability. Until then, the populist outrage is going to be vented against anyone in a position of power. Those who have argued the nanny state, through the miracle of social science, will provide far better than a free market have raised expectations extremely high; whether anyone can meet those expectations is questionable. But there they are and they are not going anywhere anytime soon.