Legitimate Government

By way of review, there are three legitimate interests of government which overlap to some degree, but which also stand in opposition to each other to some degree - liberty, equality, and fraternity (human fellowship). Liberty allows for freedom of action, but paradoxically requires restrictions imposed by law. Equality seeks to demolish social stratification and encourages hard work in the lower classes and demands it in the upper classes. Equality strives for equal results, but through hard work and other social improvements, such as universal education. Fraternity demands that the well-being of each member of society be considered and fostered to the extent possible on a systemic level, that each member of society be provided with a purpose if necessary, but also that social structures should be as lateral (non-hierarchical) as possible.

In considering any public policy concern, these are the three factors which must be weighed against each other, and a sort of cost-benefit analysis conducted. Legitimate government allows for this analysis in such a way as to maximize adherence to the conclusion, but also in such a way as to most easily discard irrational and clearly erroneous conclusions. I suspect that there is never one clear answer to any given problem, but rather that there is a set of acceptable answers from which to choose, and that each society must be free to conduct their own cost-benefit analysis and determine their own solutions.

First, these three principles (particularly those of equality and fraternity) indicate a basic governmental system based in a democratic process. However, it does not indicate a pure democracy. Pure democracy would simply mean that the will of the majority prevails in every circumstance brought before it. This can be dangerous, as some of the ancient Athenians would no doubt testify. It was because of the will of the majority that Socrates was sentenced to death, an indisputable failure of pure democracy. Pure democracy can infringe on the liberty interests of others by including clearly erroneous and illogical solutions into the set of possible solutions for society to choose from. Thus, there must be a democratic system, limited to some degree by a Constitution. A Constitution is principally a guarantor of the liberty interests of minorities from the vagaries of a democracy. This restricts the set of available solutions to those which result from a logical cost-benefit analysis. Other elements may be included in any particular Constitution, but this is the primary purpose in a legitimate government.

Second, the liberty interests may be divided into two categories. Transitory vs. inalienable. Transitory rights are those which may vary from society to society and from time to time. For example, France has recently decided to provide its citizens with the right to get faulty breast implants removed at no direct cost to the patient. This may or may not change in France, but certainly varies by society. Other rights are deemed inalienable. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. However, this is largely based on John Locke's philosophy, which seems to me to have some serious flaws. Chiefly, Locke's approach is far too atomistic, taking individuals as the basic unit of society. However, as I've indicated in previous posts, I really disagree with this view. Individuals depend on society and society depends on individuals. Neither is more basic than the other. Thus, society (and government as the rough expression of the will of society), far from being a system perversely imposed upon individuals, is part of an essential relationship. It is in the nature of this relationship that any inalienable rights arise, not in the nature of the "basic" individual. Therefore, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may indeed be inalienable rights, but this should be revisited and reanalyzed rather than taken as gospel truth. To be complete, a Constitution ought to indicate what are recognized as inalienable rights, as well as provide for a means by which any new insights may be accommodated and made part of the Constitution.

Thus, we see that a legitimate government is democratic at its base, limited by a Constitution, which provides for both transitory and inalienable rights. Any other differences in how particular societies solve similar problems and balance the interests of liberty, equality, and fraternity is irrelevant, so long as the process itself is legitimate. This should be the primary goal of each independent state, and perhaps, the goal of our foreign policy.

Fraternite

I have delayed writing this post. I fear that other conservatives might feel that I am off base, that I am actually a "bleeding-heart liberal," and no conservative at all. However, I believe that for the conservative movement in America to flourish, we must accommodate the values which lie at the heart of our classical liberal tradition. Failure to do so will only further alienate others from our cause, or if we are successful politically but have surrendered those values then we will only succeed in moving America towards a dictatorial form of government because the only interest in such political success is merely the possession and exercise of power.

Brotherhood - Fellowship - Family - these are the concepts communicated by the term "Fraternite." "Brotherhood" is a bit too exclusionary of a term for today's world and the term "Family" might introduce unsettling paternalistic tendencies in a discussion of government, law and public policy. "Fellowship," or "Human Fellowship," I think most accurately captures the intended meaning. Two thoughts regarding "Human Fellowship" occur to me; 1) each person has a role, a place in society, a purpose; and 2) the interests of others, i.e. their welfare, plays a role in public policy decisions and in structuring the law.

In an order of Human Fellowship, each person has a role, a recognized and valued responsibility, a purpose. The importance of having a valued role in society is demonstrated by the psychological harm to those who are long-term unemployed during major economic downturns. They are rejected in their previous role by society, then effectively told that there is no place for them elsewhere. They are unneeded, undesired. This is a horrible situation which ought to be avoided if at all possible. In a stable social order, the various possible roles in society are well defined, although such a social order often includes limitations placed on individuals' eligibility for those roles. Thus, one's purpose in life is generally defined at birth. Such a system is undoubtedly disconcerting to the modern mind, but we ought not to overlook the positives. There would, I believe, be great comfort in knowing that one's role is valued, has a proud history, and that one need not constantly consider whether their life is "fulfilling." However, we should not over-idealize something which is problematic. In such a system, the talented and skilled would often be consigned to roles into which they do not fit. They would likely experience intense internal conflict between the comfort previously indicated and the knowledge, even if vague, that one is not living up to their potential. Thus, there is great value in allowing individuals to find their own role in society. However, this approach often results in a social order of change, with ill-defined roles, making the search for one's own role incredibly more difficult. Although people have the liberty to choose their own course in life, and what role they will fill, there is near constant anxiety that one is not fulfilling THEIR role. From the above, it may seem to some that a stable social order has more to offer than a changing one. I believe, however, that this is an illusion. There is no such thing as a truly stable social order. The very nature of society is to change and evolve over time as conditions change and the members which make it up change. The values and needs of society are in a constant state of flux, sometimes changing quickly, sometimes slowly, but always moving on to something different. To rigidly hold on to any specific social order and its accompanying roles will only cause society to stagnate, whither and die. Thus, a healthy vibrant society requires a social order which can accommodate such change but still provide a valued role for every member of it.

In terms of the economy, I believe that there is value in the social safety nets which have been created, e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment benefits. However, I think these safety nets can overlook a necessary factor. These programs often focus on the need for people to know that they are valued, even when they are the lowliest of society. This is only half of the picture. They also need to know that they serve a purpose, that their role is valued. Because people identify themselves by the role they play, to indicate that their role is valued is to indicate that they are valued. Thus, in some cases, to truly extend the benefits of the social safety nets, it would also be necessary to extend a role for the beneficiary to play. This leads to my second thought on "Human Fellowship," that the welfare of others plays a role in public policy decisions and the structure of the law.

I will consider here the structure of the law. Interestingly, the basic social structure indicated by "Fraternite" is not hierarchical but lateral. If one were to think of it in terms of an actual family, it might be similar to one in which the siblings have all grown up, and the parents have now deceased. There is no set hierarchy, but there is mutual support and concern, each fulfilling a role according to their abilities and the needs of the others. Is it possible to create a legal structure which approaches such a lateral structure? While allowing anybody to serve in the government and requiring periodic reviews of public servants' performance is possibly the best governmental structure, what of the structure of the law itself? I am struck here by the fact that in such a familial approach, the concern with "justice" is less pronounced. While we all want to be treated fairly, there are times at which it is best to overlook one's own interest in "justice" and look more towards repairing and strengthening relationships. I don't believe that in one's personal life one should overlook when others have slighted you, but rather than being chiefly concerned with oneself and one's own hurt and demand for "justice," one should realize that the slight has harmed your relationship and appropriate measures should be taken to repair it. Sometimes such measures mean to reestablish appropriate boundaries of behavior, but not always, and even when it does, the means by which those boundaries are reestablished are important as it will redefine the relationship. Similarly, the law is chiefly concerned with relationships and the strain and harm done to them by the acts of at least one party. A legal structure based on "Human Fellowship" would focus chiefly on the relationship, considering how to repair it and what means to employ in reestablishing appropriate boundaries of behavior.

This was the basic idea of the prison system when it was first established. Alexis de Tocqueville (the author of Democracy in America) was technically sent to our new nation to study our revolutionary prison system. It had piqued the interest of those in Europe because the theory of our prison system was to reform those who were incarcerated. Historically, offenders were simply punished, often publicly. The punishment itself was meant to reinforce appropriate behavior in others. Those crazy Americans thought that they could reform members of society who had strayed and accordingly abolished cruel and unusual punishments. This interest in reforming wayward members of society, or rather, in repairing social relationships, is I think a proud American tradition that we should bear in mind, and which our legal system should more adequately reflect.

The Wealth of Nations: Book I Chapter 4

Memorable Quotes:
"[W]hen the division of labor first began to take place, . . . , [o]ne man, we shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself has occasion for, while another has less. The former . . . would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them. . . . [E]very prudent man . . . must naturally have endeavored to manage his affairs in such a manner, as to have at all times by him . . . a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry."
"The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. . . . The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use."

The Basic Idea:
Division of labor being established, every man lives by exchanging. Difficulties of barter lead to the selection of one commodity as money, for example, cattle, salt, shells, cod, tobacco, sugar, leather and nails. Metals were eventually preferred because durable and divisible. Iron, copper, gold and silver, were at first used in unstamped bars, and afterwards stamped to show quantity and fineness; stamps to show fineness being introduced first, and coinage to show weight later. The names of coins originally expressed their weight. The next inquiry is what rules determine exchangeable value. Value may mean either value in use or value in exchange. Three questions, 1) wherein consists the real price of commodities, 2) what are the different parts of this price, 3) why the market price sometimes diverges from this price, will be answered in the next three chapters.

Reflections:
While I disagree with the basic process of how the use of money became necessary, the purpose served by money is undoubtedly precisely that which Smith here expounds - the facilitation of exchange. My qualm with the process of how it became necessary arises from the thought that if exchanging is made difficult by the lack of money or other symbolic expression of value, then what would have been the incentive to specialize and produce an excessive amount of some commodity, thereby neglecting the production of others, in the first place? The need for money certainly arose from excessive production of some goods, but I don't believe that that excessive production first occurred because of specialization. Rather, it seems more likely that excessive production first occurred because of communal cooperation in some industries, i.e. agriculture, which then provided free time for people to specialize. Thus, the need to facilitate trade first arose within a fairly sedentary community for the purpose of achieving a more equitable distribution of wealth. Such a distribution of wealth is made necessary precisely for the reason enunciated by Smith - one person discovers or develops a particular skill, and the use of this skill in his own service quickly diminishes in value. Therefore, he begins to exchange his skill for the skill and produce of others. However, the discovery or development of that skill still depended upon a communal effort to provide all the bare necessities for life. The use of money as we understand it was therefore instituted by various governments so that people could more effectively exchange their skills and products, thereby enriching themselves and the rest of society. Thus, we see that the modern market arises 1st, out of society providing enough basic requirements for life so as to provide leisure time, and 2nd, out of the government "intervening," in this case by creating mints, for the purpose of spreading to others the benefits of anybody's particular skill. Some might argue that this means that we may not need money, and indeed we may not. The principle, by explaining the rule, supersedes it. However, I am currently unaware of any better method to achieve these ends which simultaneously maintains the positive features of the use of money. Of course, I don't mean to say that if I can't think of it then it must not be possible. I'm more than willing to hear creative ideas. Its just that, as a conservative, I will require more than creative ideas before I throw my support behind something.

The Wealth of Nations: Book I Chapter 3

Memorable Quotes:
"As it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labor, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power [the power to exchange], or in other words, by the extent of the market."

The Basic Idea:
Division of labor is limited by the extent of the power of exchanging. Various trades cannot be carried on except in towns. Water-carriage widens the market, and so the first improvements are on the seacoast or navigable rivers, for example among the ancient nations on the Mediterranean coast. Improvements first took place in Egypt, Bengal and China; while Africa, Tartary [inland Russia], and also Bavaria, Austria and Hungary are backward.

Reflections:
This point seems rather straight forward, though insightful. If wealth derives from the division of labor, i.e. specialization, which is made available because the specialists can rely on others to provide them with other necessaries, then the amount of specialization that any society is capable of will necessarily be limited by the size of that society, i.e. the amount of people which can provide others with necessaries. By expanding the access to the goods provided by others, i.e. by expanding markets, more people are enabled to specialize and thereby increase the wealth of society. Smith emphasizes the use of waterways to expand markets as a historical observation, but this point can be seen in our times. The advent of the internet connects the far away corners of the world to major metropolitan centers, which increases demand and supply in various industries, thereby allowing others to desist from their previous employment and specialize in something else. Of course, as was mentioned in my last post, globalization isn't so much "enabling" people to desist from their previous employment as it is forcing them to. Thus, the traditional occupations are decimated here at home and those who are directly affected require support in finding other employment. It seems important to do everything reasonably possible to allow for their mobility, whether geographical or occupational. If the unemployed  insist on finding work in their previous specialization, they need to be able to move to where the work is. If the unemployed are more willing and are adept enough to re-specialize, they should be have access to the means to do so.

On another note, artificial limitations on the market, or in other words, limitations on the power to exchange, will necessarily restrict people from seeking greater or other specializations, thereby delaying the growth of wealth in society. Is such a delay warranted? I would think so, at least in some cases. If nothing else, it seems that sometimes providing for a level of stability in society does more good towards developing wealth than does a state of constant change. That thought certainly requires fuller development, and if anyone would like to discuss it further, please feel free to comment. Otherwise, for the sake of brevity, I'll move on.

The Wealth of Nations: Book I Chapter 2

Memorable Quotes:
"In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favor, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them."
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantage. Nobody but a beggar [chooses] to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."
"[T]he very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labor. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education."

The Basic Point:
The division of labor arises from a propensity in human nature to exchange. This propensity is found in man alone. It is encouraged by self-interest and leads to division of labor, thus giving rise to differences of talent more important than the natural differences, and rendering those differences useful.

Reflections:
Well, beyond what I would consider over-generalizations about the animal kingdom, I'd say that he's about right that the propensity to trade is found chiefly, if not exclusively, in human beings. However, that trade is the natural foundation of economic activity doesn't necessarily mean that it is the only behavior of economic activity, nor of social activity. It may be shown that it is the only appropriate foundation for economic behavior, but Smith hasn't demonstrated it to be so yet. Furthermore, I'm not sure that I agree with his observations regarding the differences between people. Such an opinion of human equality was certainly prevalent in the intellectual work of his time, but I think that there are important differences in people's potentials even when they're very young. Those differences may not be readily discernible, but I really do not believe that education alone can make anyone as skilled as someone who couples that education with a natural proclivity. This is the very problem our economy is facing right now - with the level of globalization we're experiencing, the simple jobs are being outsourced. This requires that the US develop a workforce which is almost exclusively founded on intellectual services, which requires a fairly high degree of education. However, not everybody is cut out for that degree of education nor of specialization. In fact, a large amount of people aren't cut out for it. So the challenge facing us is, where do these people fit into our economic system?

The Wealth of Nations: Book I Chapter 1

Memorable Quotes:
"The division of labor ... as it can be introduced, occasions, in every art, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labour."
"It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people."
"[T]he accommodation of an European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant, as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king, the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages."

The Basic Idea:
Division of labor is the great cause of its [labor's] increased powers, as may be better understood from a particular example, such as pin-making. The effect is similar in all trades and also in the division of employments.The advantage is due to three circumstances: 1) improved dexterity [ability]; 2) saving of time; and 3) application of machinery, invented by workmen, or by machine-makers, or by philosophers. Hence, the universal opulence of a well-governed society, even the day-laborer's coat being the produce of a vast number of workmen.

Reflections:
Well, the basic idea is simple enough. Specialization allows for greater productivity as well as greater innovation, which in turn provides for greater specialization and productivity and further innovation. This process is supposed to result in greater material well-being of everyone in society. We should be very clear that this is a book about the material well-being of society. There very well may be many other values which must be balanced with material well-being, but Adam Smith does not purport to address those issues, at least not here. Therefore, we should bear in mind as we proceed that Smith is not providing a complete picture of how society should function. Furthermore, he asserts that even the poorest in society are benefited by the general economic progress of society. This claim may or may not be true, but he certainly has not provided enough evidence in Book I Chapter 1. It is commonly said that a rising tide lifts all boats. This is true enough, at least until those boats which happen to be moored become overwhelmed and sink.

Reading Reviews

So, I've decided to share overviews of and reflections on some choice books on my list. First up, The Wealth of Nations.

Egalite

Equality is a troubled concept in American politics.  In a literal sense, Equality is the absence of differences.  However, such a concept is highly unappealing to me, and I suspect to the vast majority of Americans.  What then is meant when we idealize Equality? One clear interpretation is equality in opportunity. While this is never really achievable because only one person can be in any given place at a time, thereby limiting others from the opportunities open to them, the idea is to abolish social stratification and allow those with talent and with good work ethics to excel. The French rose up against the social stratification imposed upon them by King and Church. Similarly, while I believe that Capitalism is the most feasible economic system, social stratification based on capital should be abhorred. This is the threat that Karl Marx highlights and with which Capitalism will always struggle. Those who are successful accumulate capital, eventually to such an extent that those who might have a better product, greater talent, and exceptional work ethics are kept from competing because of the power of accumulated capital in the hands of the previously successful. Capital begins to operate purely as power, and those who accumulate it no longer need to earn their market share, but simply to keep others out. While I am not proposing any solution to this problem at this point, I merely mean to demonstrate the intended meaning of Equality - the destruction of any and all social stratification.

There are those who contend that Equality is meant to be understood in economic results. I sympathize with this impulse (especially since how can the down-trodden be said to have the same opportunities of the wealthy?), the problem is that such equality needs to be achieved through hard work and social improvement, not through shortcuts. Simply taking from the rich and giving to the poor so as to equalize economic results will not do. This approach tends to empower the undisciplined and irresponsible. Once they waste the power given them, economic equality demands a new redistribution of wealth so as to empower them once again. This is the approach of shortcuts, and what can be its end but economic devastation? To achieve true economic equality, it seems to me that the economic system must be so structured as to encourage hard work and innovative contribution, while at the same time destroying any tendencies toward social stratification. Finally, we would need public policies which encourage the development of healthy, responsible members of society, such as an adequate system of education which truly informs people about how to operate successfully in society and a social safety net which requires that those who are aided provide something of value back to society.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/30/niall-ferguson-how-american-civilization-can-avoid-collapse.html

Republican Candidates, part II

Jon Huntsman - Ummm, well, he just seems awkward. He keeps name dropping Utah, which means nothing to anybody outside of Mormondom. He also comes off as ill prepared on the topics and seems to have some desire to ostracize the far right. While I'm not generally a fan of the far right, this strategy is perplexing. One doesn't need to agree with all the crazy ideas thrown around out there, but there's no need to actively campaign against the very people whose votes you're trying to get. His attempts at humor are also awkward - sort of like Romney in '08. Finally, when he does seem to connect with the crowd, he doesn't build on it. Instead, he sticks to the same point for far too long, making everybody feel strangely self-conscious. Overall, he needs to stop being invited to the debates as he detracts from the time given to more compelling candidates. Sorry Mr. Huntsman.

Gary Johnson - Here's another awkward candidate, although his attempts at humor aren't as flat-footed as Huntsman's. Mr. Johnson is a former governor of New Mexico with libertarian leaning opinions. While his presence in the campaign is a testament to the growing influence of libertarian thought within the Republican Party, it's also a little redundant. Ron Paul has been the standard bearer of libertarian ideology within the Republican Party for decades and is now making as serious a run for President as he's ever made. Johnson is less effective in touting the libertarian message than Mr. Paul and to the extent that his campaign gains any traction, he will simply be siphoning votes from Paul, thereby lessening the influence of their ideology. Perhaps Johnson thinks that he should be the next libertarian heartthrob after Ron Paul retires? Other than that, I simply don't understand his presence in the field.

Ron Paul - The libertarian heartthrob himself! Well, I don't always agree with him, but there is something refreshing about a candidate who is so consistent and so unabashedly himself. Who else would wear such ill fitting suits while campaigning for President of the US? He has supported the same positions for decades and is currently enjoying something near to a groundswell of support. He has always had his ardent followers, but more and more people seem to be taking him seriously, myself included. Like I said, I don't always agree with him, but his candidacy would shake up the political calculus to such an extent that it could reshape the entirety of American politics - especially if he were to win. I find that prospect appealing, since it increasingly seems like the current two party system doesn't actually represent anybody. Would he be a good president? I don't know, but like I said, a Ron Paul presidency could shake up American politics for generations, which just might be a positive development. The verdict is still out on Ron Paul.

Something's Wrong with Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand seems to exercise a large amount of influence over "conservative" thinkers. Unfortunately, her premises are wrong, which lead to wrong conclusions. She takes as a starting point a definition propounded by Aristotle, i.e. humans are rational animals. Whether this definition is correct determines whether Rand's conclusions have a chance.

First, are humans "animals?" While this has negative connotations, Aristotle simply meant that we are living, biological entities who must sustain ourselves and reproduce. This seems fair enough. Ok, so humans are animals.

Second, are humans "rational?" This should strike most people as incorrect, but lets not misunderstand what's being claimed. Aristotle simply meant that humans have a capacity for rational thought through which we can learn how to manipulate the world around us. This also seems fair enough.

So far so good for Ayn Rand. However, why should the premise of rationality initially strike us as incorrect? This is because not every human is rational - or, not every human fully employs their rational capacity. So, if we're necessarily rational animals, what is it that keeps us from being fully rational? It seems to me that there is at least one other characteristic of humans. We are emotional. Anyone who tries to deny this simply doesn't interact with many people. So far then, we have as a definition that humans are emotionally motivated, rationally capable animals. However, the term "animals" requires modification as well. Not only are we living, biological entities, but we are such that rely on a community of living, biological entities, i.e. we're social beings. Unlike felines, for example, which are largely individualistic, we are social.

Therefore, humans are emotionally motivated, rationally capable, social animals. Without getting further into some abstract analysis, I think its simple to recognize that attempting to understand humanity through an inadequate definition would lead to some preposterous results. Therefore, Ayn Rand needs to be read and studied with care. Some of her views are positively insightful, some are just wrongheaded. That is simply because she is working from woefully incomplete premises.

The Ten Commandments and Courthouses

I was invited today to go to a presentation by a judge addressing the importance of maintaining the presence of monuments of the Ten Commandments at courthouses across the country. Unfortunately, I think this is an issue which is largely much ado about nothing. Those monuments were originally placed as part of a marketing campaign for the movie, The Ten Commandments (you know, with Charlton Heston). The idea of having these monuments took on a life of its own, and many others were installed at courthouses. Personally, I don't believe that nearly 200 years worth of jurisprudence was less just or somehow less "correct" because these monuments weren't present. I similarly don't see any reason why our jurisprudence would be less just or "correct" if they're removed.

Furthermore, those who argue that their presence is important as a recognition of the influence of Judeo-Christian values on our jurisprudence are woefully misinformed. First, our common law heritage stems either from pre-Christian Saxon law, or on the interests of an invading and occupational force, i.e. the French conquest of the Saxons. Perhaps even a mix of these two.  One would be hard pressed to argue that either is very Christian. Second, the very notion of a Constitution, written and enforced by a community which governs itself, stems from Enlightenment philosophy. The Enlightenment philosophers were, by and large, rejecting the Judeo-Christian tradition and exploring ancient "pagan" ideas. Thus, our Constitution was only influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition to the extent that Enlightenment philosophers were reacting against it.

The only justification I can conceive of to care about their presence is that they are monuments to a historical and influential concept of justice. Of course, there are many such concepts of justice (the Hammurabi Code anyone?) which could equally be made into monuments alongside these monuments to the Ten Commandments. This would have the added effect of making our courthouses veritable monuments to justice, implying their natural extension from these historical manifestations of justice. However, I suspect those who want the Ten Commandments displayed at courthouses would be appalled at this notion. They simply want the rest of society to swallow their own religious notions because they're backed by the full force of the State. Whether I agree with their religious views or not, this impulse is just wrong.

Re. the Republican Candidates

Michele Bachmann - In short, she's CRAZY. She has a nice face and knows popular social conservative talking points. However, when pressed to any extent, she collapses. She has a tendency to make things up and get her facts extremely wrong. For example, in the latest debate she cited Thomas Jefferson as an authority for her view that the Constitution does not separate church and state. While she is correct that the Constitution does not explicitly use that phrase, Thomas Jefferson famously did in a letter which the Supreme Court has often cited in cases involving religious issues. She is far too extreme to be good for the country, and coupled with her lack of intellectual capacity, she should be disqualified as both ineligible for the office of President as well as unelectable.

Herman Cain - Now, here's a fun candidate. He is aware of many domestic issues and is in tune with the conservative base without being as extreme as Bachmann. His policy proposals are intriguing if not completely persuasive. At the very least, he could shake things up a bit as President. Also, his quips about Washington not working because of career politicians is a nice piece of populist appeal. Furthermore, he has a fun, Southern Baptist Preacher presentation and a refreshing sense of humor. However, he is completely out of his depth regarding anything in foreign policy. He does not know the issues at all and as an actual president would be far too subject to manipulation on this front for my tastes. He might be a good vice-presidential candidate, but perhaps not. Mr. Cain would not be a good President, but the verdict is still out for any lower office.


Newt Gingrich - What the other candidates might lack in intellect, Gingrich more than makes up for by simply being present. He has extensive experience and knows how Washington works. While this seems to be the antithesis of Mr. Cain's populist appeal, Mr. Gingrich's inside knowledge is actually an asset. He is aware of what can be realistically accomplished and exactly how to achieve it. He knows the weaknesses and strengths of various policy proposals and has some intriguing ideas of his own. His current status as moderator of the debate moderator's is fun, because it reminds voters and the other candidates that they can think outside of the box. Mr. Gingrich is a little too washed up and has a little too much baggage to be a legitimate candidate for President, but he would be a great asset as a vice-president - not just a vice-presidential candidate. As a candidate he would be able to attack the opponents effectively and knowledgeably. As an actual vice-president he would be able to support the Republican Senate leaders and round up the necessary support for policy initiatives.

More to come next week.

Liberte

Liberty - freedom of action.  There are many different interpretations of liberty, with some going so far as to advocate Anarchism, the absence of any systematic restrictions on the actions of individuals.  Oddly enough, such an extreme seems to actually result in less freedom of action.  Without any laws, there is no assurance that any two individuals are interacting with at least a basic common set of norms.  Thus, a state of complete anarchy will be roughly synonymous with Thomas Hobbes' state of nature in which "every man is enemy to every man" and "wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them.  In such condition there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the Earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  It is a seemingly strange paradox that liberty depends, to some extent at least, upon the restrictions which society places upon the individual.

The challenge, then, is to determine to what extent liberty relies on restrictions.  A failure to determine the boundaries may inadvertently result in an unwarranted amount of restrictions and the strangling and death of liberty.  I submit, however, that there is no hard and fast rule which delineates the appropriate boundaries.  In fact, my talk of boundaries is misleading.  Rather, one must recognize the essential dependency of the one on the other.  Just as liberty depends upon law and order, law and order depend upon liberty.  Should the pendulum swing too far in the direction of restrictions, the populace will revolt.  I do not think that concerns over too much liberty (in such an instance, it might be better to call it simply license rather than liberty) or concerns over too much law (repression) will ever be settled.  Rather, one must constantly evaluate any given law (or even the general legal framework) to determine whether it increases or decreases the general liberty of society.

Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternite

Liberty, Equality, and Fellowship - ideals which are inextricably bound with the tradition of Liberalism, and therefore, to both the right and left of American politics.  As one can imagine, these principles are not always compatible and many attempts have been made to create a completely coherent system based upon them, with varying results.  By no stretch of the imagination do I take any particular interpretation as authoritative.  They are simply informative in the development of my own views regarding the matter.  Similarly, I do not expect others to take what I write regarding liberty, equality, and fellowship as in any way authoritative.  I do hope, however, that others find what I have to say to be informative, insightful, and helpful in the development of their own views.

The Political Spectrum in Modern America

I stated in my previous post that "the far right is... Statist," while "the far left is... Anarchist."  However, the right and left wings of modern American politics mix and match various elements from these two extremes. The distinction which I am drawing is that between the right and left of the general political spectrum and the right and left of modern American politics.  Modern American politics has a complex history, but I believe it is safe to say that, generally, the modern American political spectrum has its origins in what is a rather Leftist tradition - Liberalism.  Liberalism can be understood as a belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.  Accordingly, Liberals tend to support such things as constitutional government, democratic representation, natural (or human) rights, and various other liberties including free trade, free speech and freedom of religion.

The American left wing tends to stress civil liberties, but they balk at what was a hallmark of early, or Classical, Liberalism - freedom in economic relations.  The American left argues for economic regulation (and sometimes outright governmental orchestration) in an effort to achieve economic equality and general freedom (liberty) from wants, i.e., food, shelter, clothing.  The American right wing, on the other hand, tends to emphasize freedom in economic relations, sometimes in neglect and to the detriment of the indigent, while arguing for greater social controls in the interest of order and stability.  Indeed, without law, order, or stability, people cannot enjoy liberties but, rather, are restricted in the actions which are practically open to them.  Is either side "correct?"  Probably not.  However, I take great comfort in the knowledge that, despite the sometimes vitriolic rhetoric, both sides in American politics are grounded in the same respect for liberty and are therefore both striving to create a freer society.

Reflections on the Political Spectrum

The political spectrum of Right versus Left that we know today seems to have begun with the various revolutions against absolute monarchies in Europe. Those on the "Right" supported the Monarch while those on the "Left" fought to replace the institution of Royal Families with something new, though what exactly that might be was often left vague and ill-defined. One thing was certain for the Left: political power had to be wrested from the hands of a ruling elite and distributed more equitably. Over the years, political reforms have continued to arise, pushing the boundaries of the "Left" further along, while what was once "Leftist" and "revolutionary" became enveloped by the "Right." Under this depiction of the political spectrum, the far right is often understood as being "Statist" - in favor of political involvement in everything which might concern the community. The monarch is no longer absolute, but the State is, and if the State were governed by a monarch, why then, the monarch ought to be absolute. On the other hand, the far left is often understood as "Anarchist" - in favor of the abolition of all forms of government because they are inherently unequal and those in power necessarily exercise tyranny over their fellow citizens. If this results in chaos, so be it. However, in somewhat of a defense of Anarchism, one might argue that chaos will not necessarily ensue, but rather a "natural," "harmonious," and truly "equitable" political organization will arise - a sort of Laissez-Politique.  Unfortunately for Anarchists, such a Laissez-Politique contains too many inherent problems to allow it to be a palatable political theory.

The Conservative Illuminare

Conservatism, like Liberalism (and probably like many -isms), can be understood in a variety of ways. One form of Conservatism is to simply maintain the status quo... regardless of what that might be. These kinds of Conservatives are often those who benefit directly in some way from the current system or those who, through some sort of misguided sense of loyalty, act against their own interests. For such, I have little regard. If it were up to people of this ilk, humanity would never have left the hunter-gatherer stage, and despite the idealization of that form of social organization by some anthropologists, such a life holds no appeal to me.

Another form of Conservatism is to maintain the status quo, or at least some elements of the status quo, not necessarily because one benefits directly from it nor because of a sense of loyalty to it, but because of the conviction that such elements as one wishes to preserve are the best available options in the interest of the community, and through the community to the self. Such Conservatives wish to recognize and preserve the good done by their forefathers and to improve upon their efforts - to do away with "evil" traditions. These Conservatives are, therefore, quite willing to engage in efforts at reform, but not simply for the sake of tearing down existing hierarchies. They must be convinced of the merits of any proposed reform and shown that such a reform improves, or is highly likely to improve, upon the existing system. I am such a Conservative, and it is to such an effort of engaging public policy that this site is primarily dedicated.