Politics archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Dear USA: Please Don’t Screw Up Iran

Published by Colin June 19, 2009 in Politics and Current Events. 54 Comments

Readers: please understand that I am using deliberately sarcastic and overdone language in a specific attempt to add some humour. I’ve been writing such serious stuff in the past two months that I thought it might be nice to have a little fun. Please read this piece with a sense of humour and humility. It is not my intent to be too offensive.

Remember in the presidential debates when everyone was screaming about how Iran was this huge threat to the world and we need to keep “all the options on the table?” Remember the axis of evil? Remember this article from two years ago explaining how leaving Iran alone might actually lead to a popular revolution and do our dirty work for us? …erm… sorry about that last one - it only got 4 diggs.

But nevertheless, I’m feeling another bout of “I told you so” coming on. Before we began really screwing with the middle east in 2003, Iran was about to go significantly more towards the pro-western side of the Islamic Republic spectrum. By now, we probably could have been travelling there on vacation - maybe even having some foreign exchange students waking us up at 5am doing yoga or whatever it is they do on our living room carpet?

But one of the unintended consequences of having a nut like George W. Bush at the helm is that people in the middle east are going to be scared. And people who are scared vote like, well, they freaking vote like people who are scared.

Remember what happened in our country when we got scared? We federalised airport security. We passed the PATRIOT act. We supported two undeclared wars. We re-elected GW for chrikey’s sake.

Iran of course got scared and elected their own nut:

And this guy was the Iranian equivalent of GW in a lot of ways - aggressive language and posturing and so on. And while I don’t speak Persian, I’m sure he’s probably said a few dumb things and had a few awkward moments.

Nevertheless, the people in Iran are about to kick this guy out. Moreover, it could result in more than that - perhaps some radical reforms in their system of government. All of this in spite of a bunch of old white men making juvenile threats to Iran (have I ever mentioned how much of demagogue Mike Huckabee is? And yes, for anyone who wants to accuse me of “changing” definitions or using them inappropriately, I mean the freaking dictionary definition of demagogue - “a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.”).

Anyway, fortunately Huckabee isn’t in federal office and US threats against Iran have been a little bit less overt in the past few months. This has led to problems for Islamic fundamentalists in Iran who have been able to maintain power, in part, because they can play on people’s fears of an aggressive US, thus, diverting pressure away from reform.

If we want the people of Iran to have the most success in reform, and also want to foster long-term stability - perhaps even future trade and diplomacy with Iran (but I ain’t hosting any exchange students - especially this guy) than our federal government should not do any of the following:

Issue official condemnations or supportive resolutions for one group or the other
Send in CIA boys to assassinate someone
Drop leaflets or other propaganda
Perform air strikes or other overt military action
Fight a proxy war
Try to win the “hearts and minds” of Iranians
Encourage or support Israel doing any of the above

For once in the last century, maybe the US can mind its own business. Perhaps our politicians will realise that the world doesn’t need Team America to play good cop / bad cop in every internal conflict and reform effort under the sun.

Let’s leave Iran alone for a little bit and let freedom and liberty do their thing.

The Easy Way to Fix Unemployment

Published by Colin June 18, 2009 in Politics and Current Events. 24 Comments

I wasn’t surprised to see that Oregon’s unemployment numbers have steadily risen over the past five years. I’m even less surprised that it has reached a whopping 12.4% and is second in the country.

A lot of people will point to the recession as the chief culprit for high unemployment - not merely in Oregon, but around the world. And while it is true that businesses closing puts immediate pressure on unemployment figures, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

The state of Oregon, for example, decided to tie the minimum wage to rising prices in 2004. This was put to the voters as a way to “lift all boats” in a rising tide of wage-increase and general prosperity. It was argued that the poorest would benefit as employers were forced to pay them more and that the increased wages would stimulate the economy.

Oregon now has the second highest minimum wage and the second highest unemployment rate (behind Michigan). These two statistics are directly correlated. The minimum wage is not a rising tide that lifts all boats - rather it is a barrier over which one has to jump to get a job. Raising the minimum wage does not force employers to pay their employees more - rather, it forces them to fire anyone who is not productive enough to earn for them at least their worth in the new minimum wage. Any employer who continues to employ a worker who earns them less than the minimum wage will eventually go out of business (or at least he will have to subsidise this worker by taking from other employees, investments or profits).

If the federal and state governments want to see employment numbers go back up, they should abolish the minimum wage.

Of course the first fear is that existing workers would suddenly have their wages dropped drastically. But this is fundamentally false - as these employees are currently demonstrating that they can produce at greater than the minimum wage (otherwise they would not be employed). What would happen is that companies, even individuals, would suddenly be able to afford more help. This would increase their efficiency, their profits and money moving into the least productive members of society.

But governments have an interest as well - they would see their revenues rise as more employment and more income means more revenue.

At the very least, it would put downward pressure on unemployment - working against the increase that are being facilitated by the recession.

Please feel free to read my full analysis of the minimum wage:
The Minimum Wage I: Economic Analysis
The Minimum Wage II: Social Analysis

Making Anti-Government Alliances

Published by Colin May 5, 2009 in Essays and Politics. 28 Comments

The fact of the matter is, there has been, is now, and will always be an alliance in the United State’s federal government. At times it is uneasy - spats emerge between Democrats and Republicans, normally over irrelevant side issues - but the truth remains that ultimately Republicans and Democrats are in this thing together.

The non-event of Arlen Specter’s recent switch of parties (with almost no switch in ideology) reminds us that we have an unholy binity in Washington: one party, manifest in two political factions. Despite the appearance of debating and battling over the years, these two parties have formed a bipartisan coalition to increase the power of the state, enrich the state and subvert the freedoms of the individual.

The primary way they have enlisted the support of individuals in the dismantling of their own freedoms has been through the appearance of fundamental, ideological divisions. Republicans have warned that if the Democrats are elected to power, there will be a kind of atheistic socialism - higher taxes, private property regulations, debauchery, immorality, appeasement and economic collapse. Democrats have said that if Republicans are elected to power, there will be Christian fascism - corporatism, erosion of civil liberties, big-brother, integration of church and state, wars and environmental destruction.

By painting the evils of the opposition with broad brush strokes, the average person has been scared into a never ending cycle of anti-government behaviour when not in power and support for pro-government behaviour when holding power. Since those in power actually have the reigns of the state - the pro-government movement always ends up accomplishing the majority of changes in the direction of expansionary government.

For example, all it took to pass the PATRIOT Act were a few days of Americans frightened over Islamic terror with Republicans wielding power. However, the PATRIOT Act has been immensely unpopular since, it has been opposed for years - yet very little has been done. Net gain: the state.

Now That We’ve Admitted We Have A Problem…
Recognising this reality is the first step towards breaking this cycle. This means being anti-government both in and out of season. It also means, and this may be difficult to accept for those who are deeply invested in partisan politics, that we must stop viewing those who are in the other party as 100% politically evil. We must abandon “our team” and forge a new alliance with those who abandon theirs.

I’m not suggesting forming a new party - God knows that will fail. Rather, we should being to recognise common ideals and goals and work together to support them.

Every political ideology, even those advocated by people who are genuinely Marxist, fascist, Anarchists, etc… would prefer to see some aspects of the current government eliminated. It may mean that a Republican is going to have to help a socialist protest the war. It may mean that a Marxist is going to have to help a conservative oppose hate crimes legislation.

Obviously, some issues are going to be deal-breakers - a Marxist probably wont join with a libertarian on certain tax reductions. But they might join together for a reduction in certain regulations. The key is acknowledging that some ideas of the “opposition” are held in common, and can be supported to a mutually beneficial end.

Words like “liberal” and “conservative” need to cease to be used as curse-words for the other side. Because a person takes an opposing view on one issue - does not automatically make them in opposition to your side in general. It definitely doesn’t make their pragmatic goals in opposition to yours.

One Example of This Happening Now
A current example of “alliances of issues” is Ron Paul’s HR1207. Ron Paul has dedicated his political life to, above other things, fighting the power of the Federal Reserve. He has hitherto had almost no support in this effort. But he has been able to get over 100 cosponsors for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act by appealing to common anti-government sentiments across ideologies. It is now actually possible (though still probably not likely) that the Federal Reserve could get audited in the future.

“But Ron Paul wants to legalise drugs! Ron Paul is ok with homosexual marriage! Bad bad bad! Liberal! Libertarian!” These are the words of a zealot - these are words that prohibit progress to be made in deconstructing the apparatus of government power. Fine, oppose Ron Paul on drugs and homosexual marriage - fight him until the bitter end. But admit that auditing the Federal Reserve is a good thing! As it stands, 100 other people, whose general disagreements with Ron Paul range from 50 to 99 percent, have formed an alliance around HR1207 to see something constructive done.

The ideas of bipartisan alliance have been used far to long to compromise the rights of the individual for government expansion. This weapon should be used for good - to slowly dismantle the state. Libertarians, Republicans, Anarchists, Democrats, Socialists and Marxists each have some anti-government issues that are important to them. Rather than seeking alliances on expansionary measures - alliances should be formed against the government.

Healthy Practices

Published by cchrisr April 30, 2009 in Politics and Philosophy. 3 Comments

Now that I’ve outlined three ethical situations that unconsciously affect the discussion of healthcare, I’d like to investigate some of the practical issue. The point here is not to make a judgment as to which system is better, but to compare them in a neutral light. I want to look at some of the common criticisms aimed at particular systems (primarily socialized medicine and private medicine) and examine them across the board. I will follow this part with a third that looks at the implementations of each system (finally).

The Problem of Waiting
In Michael Moore’s Sicko, the picture is painted that people in Canada, France, and the UK get VIP treatment when it comes to medical attention. This is partially true when it comes to seeing a GP/PCP. For instance, I can schedule a foreseeable, regular appointment (e.g. a regular checkup) with my GP and should be able to get an appointment two days out; I can also schedule an emergency, same-day appointment if I am unwell. The wait for appointments is minimal (5-10 minutes). However, this is really no different in the US.

In addition to these two types of appointments, most GPs in the UK offer phone consultations daily where doctors advise patients if there should be some concern or not and a daily open clinic where it is a first-come, first-serve basis (mine happens to be for one hour in the afternoon). Oftentimes, GPs in the UK still offer house calls as well for those who are physically unable to get to the clinic. These three are less common in the US primarily because they have very limited use benefits where access to personal transportation is the norm (e.g. since more people use public transportation, it may be very difficult for an ill elderly person to get to the clinic, so house calls are useful for that).

The situation is largely the same when it comes to emergency care. Ambulance response can be horrific in rural areas in both countries. However, the normative time for an ambulance when one calls 9-1-1 (9-9-9 in the UK) is very similar in both countries. Additionally, the ER (A&E in the UK) is prioritized for extremely urgent care and a non-urgent case can suffer a long wait time; however, this is because there are walk-in clinics for these non-urgent cases, usually right next to an ER. In these cases, the time for waiting isn’t much different in either country.

When it comes to special situations, there is less of a country-wide norm. Seeing a specialist in the UK requires a referral (like most in the US) and can take time if that specialist is overbooked. A six-month wait is not uncommon (but also not the norm!) in the UK, but this is also true in the US. I know of at least three different “specialist” practices in the US (two OB/GYNs and one urologist) had a wait time of 5-6 months because of overbooking. Similarly, I have heard numerous accounts of people in the UK saying that they only waited a week to see a specialist.

So, let’s face it, people will be waiting, regardless of how the system operates because waiting is linked to something other than the healthcare system, be it population size, number of specialists in an area, whatever. Even when it comes to operations, there are wait times. When I had a nasal surgery in Denver, I had to wait 3 months for an opening in the surgery schedule. We must be able to separate the practicality of scheduling a surgery with the ethos of how a problem is handled. In the UK, that ethos is one of “wait and see” and arguments for it stem from verifying that the action in question is the best one for that situation. This is a different ethos than that of the US which prefers (ideally) to prescribe an action right away (e.g. surgery, medication, etc). Taking into account the approval process on both sides of the pond, there really isn’t much difference in waiting for anything.
Continue reading ‘Healthy Practices’

Health for Profit

Published by cchrisr April 27, 2009 in Politics and Philosophy. 3 Comments

Let me begin by being very honest. I’m probably the closest thing to a left-wing socialist this site has. I’ve been thinking about the philosophical underpinnings to this subject for quite a while, first as an American living in the UK and secondly (most recently) as I watched Michael Moore’s film Sicko. Before getting into the “practical” side of this (that’s part 2), I wanted to look at the ethical situations various healthcare systems create. I would like to look at three different situations:

the role of the medical doctor
the role of the patient
the role of whatever controls the healthcare

Corporate Mindsets
The nature of every for-profit corporation is to make a profit, typically by spending the least amount of money possible. This means that a for-profit medical company, whether it is a hospital, insurance provider, or medical expert, aims to make money on the majority of its transactions. An unjust strategy would be to deny as many services as possible by any means necessary (i.e. pocket as much money as possible). An idealist strategy would be to approve all services at whatever cost (i.e. run into bankruptcy). When the goal of healthcare is a profit margin, the system moves towards the “unjust strategy” because the primary objective is money instead of healthcare.

Michael Moore’s film is great at emphasizing this as the common situation in the US healthcare industry . Sicko is also great at empasizing the idealist strategy as the common situation in other countries’ healthcare (e.g. Canada, UK, France, and Cuba). I am not interested right now in debating the extent to which the film is accurate (it definitely isn’t, but when is a documentary entirely so?) but creating two extreme poles of healthcare. The first ethical situation which a good discussion about healthcare needs to resolve is this: where is the acceptable “middle ground” (if any) between the two poles of healthcare-for-profit and healthcare-as-ideal.

Prescriptive Care
Related to the first ethical situation is one revolving around the role of the doctor. In a for-profit industry, a doctor has a second ethical issue to resolve that is his/her own variation of above: profit versus care. Medical doctors take an oath to save and preserve life (or to that effect). However, when they are faced also with the role of a business owner in a for-profit, competitive market, they must find how to resolve the two poles listed above.

When the healthcare industry tends towards the idealist pole (which I will later argue is part of universal healthcare in European countries), doctors need not worry about such things. However, doctors are then given a different ethical situation revolving around fairness and equality. In universal healthcare industries, the limitation of resources is based on need and population size rather than need and finances. A person diagnosed with cancer is ranked against all cancer patients across the healthcare market. In a private, for-profit system, this means within the insurance company and tends to mean a shorter list of people competing for treatments. It is the insurance company that weighs each situation, ranks the priority of the patients, etc. In a universal system, there is only one company handling the entire population. As a result, there is a greater responsibility on the GP/PCP to investigate the need and submit the recommendation to the healthcare system. Additionally, there are fewer specialists because there is no competition for profits, which results in a greater workload for the specialist.

The second ethical situation, then, is how the practitioner resolves the results of the first situation (limitations of resources) with the principles of the oath he takes as a practitioner. These can be situated within the framework of a medical association which can provide ethical guidelines for the practitioner to dance between these two ideals.

Patiently Waiting
The final ethical situation I want to highlight follows from the previous ones as well: what is the role of the individual as patient in all of this? This one was less obvious to me until I began to experience the UK’s healthcare system. What role does the patient take in his/her own well-being? In other words, how should the professionals treat a patient’s opinion?

There are limitations to this (e.g. patient’s understanding), but to what extent should an individual not utilize the doctor’s office? This is the one aspect which Sicko does not discuss about healthcare in the UK. There is a greater emphasis in the UK to try to heal on one’s own without a prescription. This doesn’t mean one is supposed to wait until one is dying of pneumonia but that a normally healthy person should be able to recover from a cold without seeing the doctor in addition to knowing when one should see the doctor. Michael Moore never gets to this situation because his emphasis on healthcare-as-ideal and doctor’s responsibility seeks to largely remove the individual responsibility.

The Sham of Fair Trade

Published by Colin April 22, 2009 in Essays, Politics and Current Events. 22 Comments

I saw an ad for Fairtrade products in the supermarket the other week. It told a little story, something like:

Miguel works on a citrus farm in the Dominican Republic. Thanks to you buying Fairtrade, he gets a good wage and decent working conditions. Fairtrade guarantees a better deal for third world producers.

Let me first state that I have no disagreement with the motives of Fairtrade. It’s a moral and decent thing to want to see humanity lifted out of poverty, quality goods produced and sustainable practices developed. The question, however, is whether Fairtrade actually is a reasonable means to achieve these motives.

Let’s look at Miguel - and not in the limited way that the ad portrayed him. Why is Miguel working on that citrus farm? Why isn’t he working a desk job in the US in an air-conditioned office and making $40,000/yr instead of, say, $2,000/yr? Well, Miguel doesn’t have the skills, education and abilities to justify an employer investing thousands of dollars in capital to make his job easier. If Miguel’s current boss built him an air-conditioned break room, increased his pay arbitrarily by $1,000 a year and changed his methods to be more environmental, then his profits would evaporate, his business would go under and Miguel would be worse off.

But also, apart from charity, Miguel’s best option is the citrus farm. If he isn’t working his job on the citrus farm, then he is making less money doing harder work. He might be begging, working in a sweatshop or selling drugs. His current job is sustainable because his skills and education have earned it - it was not given to him unmerited by a benefactor. He is producing real wealth for himself, a profit for his employer and a product for consumers. This is how wealth is created - albeit at the slowest rate for Miguel.

Preferring Miguel - Hurting Others
Actually, Miguel is not getting a raw deal working on the citrus farm. Miguel’s alternatives are not as good as what he gets in monetary and non-monetary compensation. By making Miguel’s deal more “fair” - we are effectively tying up more scarce resources in supporting Miguel and forgetting completely about Dawa, Marcus and Hugo on the margins.

When Fairtrade producers get a higher distribution of wealth for the same essential product (less the pseudo-moral feelgoodery of the Fairtrade logo) as non-Fairtraders, then those less-connected producers on the margins get less and slide closer to poverty. In other words, for every Fairtrade product bought for a higher price than the actual product deserves - that is extra wealth diverted from those producers most on the margins.

Fairtrade doesn’t guarantee a better deal for all Third World producers - it guarantees a better deal for some, richer and specially connected Third World producers and, in fact, a very unfair deal for others - again those even poorer than the ones being helped by Fairtrade.

Fairtrade benefits go only to those producers large enough and rich enough to pay the nearly one thousand dollar a year certification fee, as well as a premium per unit of product and also must be able to afford the expenses of Western labour standards. They also just have to be plain physically large enough to justify the attention of Germany’s Fair Labelling Organization (FLO)- which certifies some Fairtrade products. The FLO and certifiers like it just aren’t interested in smaller producers.

You Bought Fairtrade? Give Yourself a Pat on the Back!
Why, then, do people buy Fairtrade? A few people might argue that it tastes better, looks better or is otherwise of a higher quality than non-Fairtrade. However, this is subjective, and there is no quantifiable way to demonstrate that this is the case.

What we need to admit is that we like attention. We like to look moral. We like to be gracious benefactors. We like to be owed something. Look at Fairtrade’s marketing efforts - they don’t say it tastes better or focus on the quality of the product itself. Rather - they are selling the feeling of being a benefactor. By paying an extra 5% for your coffee, you - YES YOU! - can be a righteous and moral person - a footsoldier in the crusade for human justice and fairness.

We see the same thing with Global Warming products. By paying KLM Airlines an extra £15 when you purchase a ticket, you can have your emissions offset. This, despite the fact that there is no proof that the cost of your flight is doing £15 of damage to the environment, or that KLM will use this £15 in such a way that gives, quantifiably, the same return to the environment. Can’t we just write the check to “the environment”(ala “Santa Clause”) and bury it in the garden?

The only benefit that is created by going Fairtrade, is the same benefit some of us get from giving change to the homeless or running laps for cancer - we feel just a little better about ourselves and the world we live in.

But we shouldn’t feel better about buying Fairtrade. All we’re helping are the better-off Third World producers - and we’re actually setting up serious financial obstacles for smaller, poorer farmers.

Why Government Programs Typically Don’t Work

Published by Atanamis April 6, 2009 in General and Politics. 2 Comments

As I have state previously, government is nothing but a corporation which utilizes physical force for causes it considers “just” [a] [b]. As such, there is no reason why a government should be any better or worse at competing in a market than any other player. Those who pay into a government (through taxes or service fees) are the customers, those who control the government (through elections) are the owners.

That said, why do I so often take the position that government run services are generally inefficient and ineffective? It is (only) partly due to the source of the funding. In most government services, the funding is not provided primarily by those benefiting from the service. This means that a government service can offer an equivalent service for an equivalent price to a “for profit” business without being as efficient. This is because the gap in costs is paid from other sources (such as taxes). This problem isn’t exclusive to government, but is shared by all charitable (often non-profit) businesses that take donations in exchange for providing a service to third parties. In the case of charitable businesses, those providing the funding are expected to keep an eye on the cost differential between what the charity they are funding requires to provide a service, and what that same service would cost from an equivalent non-charitable business.

Some level of increase is acceptable since some costs are incurred to ensure that the recipients of the service meet the criteria set by the charity, and more is spent collecting additional donations. If this overhead becomes too high though, competing charities will normally rise up which will offer the same subsidized service to the target audience for lower donation sizes. Once such options become available, donors will begin to migrate to the new charity forcing the original to tighten expenses or lose support. Unfortunately, government funded charitable operations often are not exposed to this competition of charities, and continue to see their overhead costs rise until they are extremely inefficient at providing charitable service. An improvement to this system would be to take out bids for providing the desired service, which would include penalties if the service was provided to people who do not fit the criteria or refused to those who do.

The other major issue with government funded charities is that government often abuses its ability to use force to prevent competition. An example of this would be the Post Office. The government prevents by force any organization providing first class mail service other than the US Postal Service. This means that even if there existed a company capable of providing universal mail delivery services for a price far lower than the US postal service, they would be prevented by the force of the US Government from doing so. Morally, I believe the use of force is justified to protect the life, liberty, and property of another person from misuse against their permission by another person. This criteria cannot include prohibiting the delivery of envelopes by a company in competition to the US government. There may exist a legitimate need for a government run delivery service to process government business related deliveries. If such a delivery service wishes to process the delivery of private envelopes though, it ought to compete on the free market against other providers of such services. Perhaps there exist one or more companies that can be contracted to provide the security, reliability, and universality demanded by the US government for its own business. If so, there may be no need for a government run delivery service.

This second separation from the market is the more worrisome of the two. In the case of services like universal healthcare, separation of payer and beneficiary is actually the point. Those supporting such a measure WANT to finance the care of others, even if the total costs increase as a result. There is danger in costs skyrocketing out of control, but as some validly point out US costs are already far higher than they should be due to lack of preventative care. Allowing such care to be obtained for no cost to the recipient could well drive down costs. The scary part comes from the use of force to prevent seeking private care. If the government provided service does not have to compete with services provided by other services for quality, there is no competitive pressure to maintain high quality. While there is no inherent reason why a monopoly imposed by force CANNOT provide consistently high quality, there is also no alternative if it fails to do so. Since all services tend to have poor spots in areas, there is no way of knowing whether your service is lagging because a certain area cannot be done better or because there is no competition showing how it can be done better.

So long as a government obtains its resources in a moral manner (though payments by taxpayers service fee payers who intentionally request the services it is providing), there is no moral reason why it cannot provide any type of service its owners (voting citizens) choose to provide. The voters should demand that overhead costs of providing a charitable service are kept to a minimal level while still providing the quality of service for the target group desired, and get clear updates regarding the overhead amount paid. Government should NEVER use force to impose anticompetitive restrictions that are not based on its own property rights, or the rights of others to life, liberty, and property.

A Christian Case Against Capital Punishment

Published by Colin March 23, 2009 in Essays and Politics. 126 Comments

A friend of this blog posted an excellent and thorough defence of the death penalty from a Christian perspective here. While I don’t really care to go through the ins and outs of the author’s points, one of the pieces he cited, a column by Dennis Prager, gets to the essence of the divide and shows where those trying to reconcile the bible with state enforced capital punishment go wrong.

Here is a look at each of three arguments Prager makes and my response to them.

Murder Must Be Punished?

1. It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life.

This actually is true. Yes, God prescribed that if a man is guilty of murder, then he is to be put to death. He gave this command in several ways. It is also clear that justice demands this in both old and new covenant. Noah was given this command (Genesis 9:5-6), as were the Israelites. Though Jesus commands us to turn the other cheek, I am not yet convinced that this means that just retribution is also nullified. Secondly, just because scripture gives clear teaching that death is a legitimate penalty for some crimes, does not mean that the bible also condones the process that is currently in practice.

Capital Punishment Shows Society that Murder is More Evil?

2. Killing murderers is society’s only way to teach how terrible murder is. The only real way a society can express its revulsion at any criminal behavior is through the punishment it metes out. If murderers all got 10 years in prison and thieves all got 20 years in prison, that would be society’s way of saying that thievery is worse than murder. A society that kills murderers is saying that murder is more heinous a crime than a society that keeps all its murderers alive.

I agree in principle, but the application is not consistent. It is true that murder is more terrible in society than, say, stealing. But this is not because murder is inherently more sinful, but because the effects of murder are more severe - that is why society punishes it more severely. God will punish murder and stealing equally - all is sin - there are no shades of grey. In society, however, we punish murder with death because the effects against those murdered are permanent. We can always pay someone back or make restitution for other crimes. Murder removes that option.

However, punishment does not exist to show how bad something is. Punishment exists to bring justice. If we punished things in society on proportion to how “wrong” they are - then we must call for the death penalty for everything - even thoughts. We deserve hell and judgement for every word and thought (Hebrews 4:12).

As Christians, it is key that we realise that the bible cannot and should not be made the absolute authority for secular laws. In fact, the bible itself declares that it is not the bible which rules over governments, but God (Romans 13:1). It is not man’s job to implement the punishments for God’s laws on earth - we can’t - the punishment for breaking God’s law is hell. We can’t send people to hell.

What the bible declares is our job, is to tell men God’s law - to show them they have broken it and proclaim the gospel to them. So when we are dealing with crimes (as opposed to sins) - we are now outside of the realm of punishing sin and enforcing morality as the bible lays out. This does not mean we abandon the bible, in fact, we should embrace the bible and use it as a guide for informing our legal and judicial systems. For example, we can now see that murder is wrong not only because it is a sin, but because it goes against those laws which God has put in place in his creation. It disrupts this order in a criminal way - a perpetrator, a victim and an act of aggression.

Capital Punishment Deters Future Murders?

3. It can, if widely enacted, deter some murders. Though I regard this as a less important argument than the first two, there is no doubt that it is true. Everyone acknowledges that punishments can deter all other crimes — why wouldn’t capital punishment deter some murders? Is murder the only crime unaffected by punishment?

First, let me say that I find this “widely enacted” language downright scary. There is no question that men have the ability to coerce men into not doing things by threatening to kill them. This does not take massive amounts of brain power to realise.

However, just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. Again, while obviously justice will deter crime in the future (men are inherently evil and will kill, steal, lie, blaspheme, etc…) it is not the primary purpose of justice to do this. We can’t confuse the indirect benefits of justice with the primary motives - justice exists primary to redress wrongs and establish a set of agreed-upon standards for ordering society. Again, the execution of justice will deter crime on its own -but this is not a selling point for the death penalty. The only question that is of primary importance is: is it just?

What About The Innocent?
I also want to address what I feel is the heart of my own objection to the death penalty as it now is administered - the fact that innocent people can and will be executed. Prager:

My answer has always been that this is so rare (I do not know of a proved case of mistaken execution in America in the last 50 years) that society must be prepared to pay that terrible price. Why? Among other reasons, because more innocents will be killed by murderers who are not executed (in prison, or once released or if they escape) than will be killed by the state in erroneous executions.

So, yes, I acknowledge the possibility of an innocent being killed by the state because of a mistaken murder conviction. But we often have the tragedy of innocents dying because of a social policy. I support higher speed limits even when shown that they lead to more traffic fatalities. I support the right of people to drink alcohol even though the amount of violence directly emanating from alcohol consumption — from drunk drivers to spousal and child abuse — is so high.

And now I have an additional argument. Regarding murder, it is not only those of us who support capital punishment who support a policy that can lead to the killing of innocents. So do almost all those opposed to capital punishment. Nearly all opponents of capital punishment (and many supporters of capital punishment) believe that if the police obtained evidence illegally, the conviction of a murderer should be overturned.

There are several breaches of logic and morality in this statement.

The argument put forward here is this: in order to have justice, society must accept a unjust system. This is double-speak. A logical fallacy. It does not add up. One cannot say that injustice is justice.

What would it be called if the state executed an innocent man? The answer is: murder. Killing innocent people is murder - regardless of whether it is a gang on the street or a government with flags and uniforms. If we have to have to tolerate murder - a heinous, terrible crime and moral evil - in order to be free of other murders, then I cannot condone it. I cannot support murder. I cannot! It doesn’t matter what the motives, ends or stated goals are- murder is evil - always!

In a case of clear cut guilt, then I think that we can execute a person. However, I believe that the state is incapable of achieving this kind of omniscience. So while the death penalty is acceptable in theory, it is not really applicable in practice. The death penalty can be good, right and moral - but only if it is carried out without injustice. Having a “justice system” where, built into the system, are crimes themselves is not acceptable for a Christian to support.

Prager also adds the following:

The people who believe in this policy do so knowing that it will lead to the murder of innocent people… So those who still wish to argue for keeping all murderers alive will need to argue something other than “an innocent may be killed.” They already support a policy that ensures innocents will be killed.

This is another logic game. Prager is arguing that lesser crimes must be broken in order to punish greater ones. If a person desires to be morally consistent(not committing any crimes) that they are responsible for the choices that others make. Again, this kind of tribal mentality is a little scary. Because I support someone’s right to not be tortured, abused or spied upon- I would be partially responsible if this person then went and murdered someone? Outrageous.

The bible makes it clear that each individual is responsible to God for the choices he makes. We are called to warn and educate those who are in danger of sin of their peril. But if they continue on in sin (or crimes) then they are responsible. It is not our job to police potential crimes - preventative actions that commit crimes against others (regardless of the motives) are wrong.

This gets to the heart of the issue. Christians must avoid compromising with the world. We must not allow men, popular culture, traditions or governments to dominate over what God has revealed is true and good. We are not obligated, just because the government tells us so, or because everyone generally accepts it, to go along with a system or set of laws that we know is wrong.

The relativistic and subjective wills of society and governments are not to trump the objective truth of God and his revealed word. This means that we have to be willing to have our views on capital punishment (and indeed, many laws that violate biblical laws) challenged.

Greed: The Cause Of And Solution To All Our Problems

Published by Colin March 16, 2009 in General, Politics, Current Events and Philosophy. 14 Comments

In making the utilitarian case for most public action - that is, arguing that government should be doing something because it is a “greater good” or “in the public interest” - there is an implicit assertion that government is going to be more organised, objective and long-term oriented than businesses or individuals.

Many calling for a bailout are arguing that capitalists will tend to be “greedy” - and what they mean by this is short-sighted and wantonly destructive in their private pursuit of wealth. They argue on the one hand, that greed is the cause of economic woes, because greedy people are just looking to gratify some immediate short term want. Capitalist greed is seen as uncaring and cruel, but more importantly, as basically irrational.

Spontaneous order: the idea that many different private entities working for private interests could also provide greater public benefits seems strange and almost magical thinking to some. How can anything good come of greed? Won’t selfish people just do whatever they want, acting like a bunch of thieves and conmen to make a quick buck?

The greatest irony of this, is that central planning is conversely argued to be able to rise above petty private greed with - or all things - greed.

The government, it is believed by some, is going to act rationally and long-term. The government is going to profit the taxpayers on net by making wise investments in public goods. Increasing public education programs or welfare, for example, is not merely argued in altruistic terms - but as wise, prudent ways to enrich society and get a good return on investment.

Consider the current economic climate. When businesses fail miserably, and shares are selling for next to nothing, the government is perfectly just to come in and buy those shares. Capitalists, we’re told, are too short-sighted to buy up these bad companies - whereas government has the wisdom and patience to make a profit out of these assets (often, by managing them with government “czars” and expert boards). However, capitalists merge, buy and sell companies all the time. Bad companies fail and good companies assimilate their capital and make it profitable again. If capitalists aren’t buying up certain companies, it is more likely because these shares are viewed as practically worthless for making a profit.

It is unclear how greedy capitalists manage to profit at all. If they are always conning one another, conspiring to thwart working people and only making short-term investments - then why does capitalism thrive? Why does capitalism produce so much wealth and abundance for societies which embrace even marginally free markets? But more importantly, why would a monopolistic government with the same greedy motives, run and ordered by people with these motives, somehow be able to use greed for good?

If greed produces such horrible, destructive results in capitalism, how is it that “socialist” greed can get different results? Why is a CEO, for example, a short-sighted self-indulgent weakling with a lust for power and short-term gratification, while the president of a country is a wise, benevolent pillar of honour and strength, desiring to serve the people and promote the collective good?

If the government is viewed as somehow being able to be profitable when using greed, then why can’t this apply to private entities? If greed is a major cause of economic problems, then how can greed also be the solution?

Where Anarchists Respond Wrongly to Government

Published by Atanamis March 9, 2009 in Essays, Politics and Philosophy. 5 Comments

In my last article, I argued that in anarchist terminology,government is a corporation. I received a lot of comments that argued that the actions taken by government are immoral. These include theft of land (government claims ownership to all land in their borders using the anarchist definition of “own”), opt out contracts (taxes for rent/services) rather than opt in, and abuse of force against the human rights of individuals. What anarchists refuse to understand is that adopting anarchism won’t change this, because we already live in an anarchy.

Defining the Relationship Between Anarchy and Government
Anarchy as a modern philosophy doesn’t mean a complete lack of rules or structure. Instead, it is based on the assumption that a person cannot have their physical liberty, life or property restricted without that person’s agreement unless another person’s rights are being infringed upon against their will. In such cases, force can legitimately be used by any party, preferably using an arbitrator which both sides agree is neutral to resolve the dispute.

There is no “higher authority” of the majority to tell any individual what to do with their life, property, or personal efforts. The common argument AGAINST anarchism is that without government, corporations will abuse their capability of using force to abuse the individual. The common response to this is that just as corporations can be abusive, so can government. Where both sides drop the ball is in realizing that there is nothing “magical” about a government. A government IS a large corporation, and like any other corporation it can sometimes abuse its power.

Protection Rackets in Our Current Anarchy
Anarchists like to suggest that without government, people would contract with private companies to get their personal security. The “free market” would meet their needs. The problem with this is that the market (whether free or not) is ALREADY meeting the needs of individuals for freedom, in the form of huge corporations called governments. Individuals often choose to remain customers of these corporations despite regular abuses due to their desire for the services they offer.

I have suggested in the past (on our forums) that anarchist protection services would act like mafia “protection rackets”. I was told that this would be prevented in an anarchist society by “security insurance companies”. All of this is based though on the assumption that we don’t already live in an anarchist world. In fact, we do! Government ARE the protection rackets I suggested would result. Their use of force IS the consolidation of violence into the biggest and most powerful wielders. And nowhere to be seen are the “insurance companies” I was told the free market would demand.

Truly “Free” Markets Are A Myth
The fact is that there is no such thing as a “free” market. Force is ALWAYS a possibility, and unless both parties have agreed to a common wielder of force stronger than either of them they are subject to the other party deciding to implement their own force. This force then sets the rules for the market, but is the only alternative to both sides setting the rules based on what they have the physical power to implement. This might not be a moral result, but it is a human result.

The problem with anarchism as a modern theory is that like “true” communism it relies on fundamental changes in human nature. Man will no more voluntarily respect the rights of others than they will voluntarily seek to maximize their contribution to society. Individuals MUST band together for personal and corporate protection, and in doing so they ALWAYS end up in a group that commits immoral acts as well. The answer is not to dissolve such groups or demonize their existence, but to try to work with them to cease committing immoral acts and to compensate their past victims.

Anarchists cannot consistently call for the dissolution of governments while upholding the right of individuals to form corporations and use force for self protection. What they CAN do consistently is call for governments as corporate entities to abide by the same moral rules they would hold any other corporation to. They should not be “anti-government”, but rather “anti-immoral corporation”.

Zeal For Truth