On Politics and Philosophy

Do States Have a Right to Secede?

2013-05-20T20:07:00.000-07:00

Upon ratification of the U.S. Constitution, did the several states merge (part of) their sovereignty into a nation? Or, did they form a federation of independently sovereign states, joined together for convenience, but free to withdraw at will? Although the American Civil War put an end to the debate for some time, the issue is not dead nor is it irrelevant. Twenty-two percent of Americans, according to one poll, believe that states have a legal right to secession. However, it seems that none of these believers in secession taught my classes in primary and secondary school. My lessons about the Civil War left me with an impression that the Confederates were a senseless, if not evil people, who rebelled against the Constitution. After studying the issue more closely, I have concluded that, indeed, states have neither a moral, nor a legal right to secession. But, the all too common straw man representations of the Confederate views on secession, I think, are erroneous. The argument for secession deserves a proper rebuttal.

My understanding of the argument in favor of a right to secession can be summed up in the following syllogism:

All sovereign states have the moral and legal right to secede from the Union at will. All of the states of the United States are sovereign states. Therefore, states have a moral and legal right to secede from the Union at will.

Secessionists claim an extra-legal, moral right to secession as well as a legal right of secession implicit in the Constitution. They argue that the federal government is an agent of the states and that the states can withdraw their delegated support at any time. My main quarrel is with the second, minor premise of secessionists, which holds that the states are independent sovereigns.

As a threshold matter, it is important to recognize a difference between a right of revolution and a right of secession. The right of revolution, as I view it, has important preconditions to its exercise and, revolution almost inevitably implies a war in which both sides are justified. The right to secession, on the other hand, is without significant preconditions and implies that the larger government has no right to use military power to force unity upon the seceded state. In my opinion, advocates of a right to secession sometimes conflate a right to revolution with the right to secession. Concerning the Civil War, the comportment of Congress and of President Lincoln did not come anywhere close to satisfying the preconditions of a right to revolution.[1] The South didn’t have a problem with the text of the Constitution nor was their quarrel about the political process (their constitution copies both substantially); the South disagreed with the policies ,which were properly enacted according to the Constitution. Using the terms of the Declaration of Independence, the “Form of government” was not oppressive or detrimental to the interests of the South, only the policies of the People playing by the rules of the Form of government. Regardless, in this essay, I focus on rebutting the argument that the states were independent sovereigns with a right to secede from the nation, not that they hadn’t the Lockean right to revolution.

The secession argument hinges on the claim that states were independent sovereigns after the ratification of the Constitution. The arguments for and against secession as taken from the text and history of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution seem to me, in their aggregate, ambiguous or slightly in favor of finding the states consolidated into one nation. Some of the documents and records speak of the states as independent while others take the view that the states “were independent not individually, but unitedly.” Some of the states ratifications seemed to side with the right to secession while others explicitly rejected it. Though none of the historical accounts are unambiguous. James Madison, known as “the Father of the Constitution” during his life, wrote to the New York Convention, “The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.” Three states reserve the right to claim independence if the federal government “perverted” the Constitution to oppress the people. But, this looks more like a Lockean right to revolution than an Antebellum right to secession as it is pre-conditioned on perversion of the form of government and oppression. Regardless, the Declaration of Independence is not binding by itself because it does not describe the feelings and beliefs of the people in forming a Constitution to correct the problems of the Articles, it justifies revolution by proving that the preconditions to the right of revolution were satisfied.

My survey of the history and text of the Constitution also gives no clear response. But, Patrick Henry and others favored the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution largely because they envisioned that the Constitution would bind the states together and subject them to too powerful a federal government. Furthermore, Amendments to the Constitution are binding on states even if the state voted against it—isn’t that somewhat contrary to an implied right to secession? How could an agent of the states force new and unconsented policy upon the supposedly independently sovereign states?

The Constitution does not mention state sovereignty outright. Advocates of both sides, in my opinion, get too caught up in words and phrases like “perpetuity,” “People,” “States,” “compact,” “union,” and “United States.” Both sides seem to attribute more clarity to the words than their usage actually merits. That something is a compact between states does not imply that there is a right to secession any more than there is a right to secession from a contract or international treaty. A union need not be at-will. Indeed, contracts and compacts, in law, are assumed perpetual unless the text makes it clear that a more limited time frame was intended. And, in contracts, you can’t pull out because things don’t go how you had hoped.

The Supremacy Clause provides, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Secessionists read the Supremacy Clause as if it has an exception for secession that is not in the text. The Constitution provides legitimate methods for altering the Constitution, the law, and judicial actions: by the vote and by advocacy in the marketplace of ideas. Implicitly then, other methods of changing federal policy—like secession—should be illegitimate.

The Ninth Amendment provides, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, the Tenth Amendment provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” The Ninth Amendment clarifies that the Bill of Rights is not an exclusive list of rights. The Tenth Amendment’s meaning is more enigmatic. Some members of Congress wanted the word “expressly” to appear in the Tenth Amendment. Ultimately, it was rejected because the Representatives thought that such a restriction would cripple the federal governments productivity. The Tenth Amendment does not reject powers implied by the Constitutional provisions and by the Necessary and Proper Clause. James Madison seemed to view the Tenth Amendment as not guaranteeing any particular rights to the States, but as a truism or simple residuary clause. He said that the Tenth Amendment was “superfluous” except for emphatic effect. Furthermore, explicit powers of the federal government preclude state independence. How can you be an independent sovereign if you cannot make treaties, coin money, control naturalization, command armies, or lay taxes? You can’t. Thus, the arguments that appeal to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in favor of a legal right to secession strike me as insufficient.

Turning to policy considerations, it seems most reasonable to assume the Framers, as a whole, did not contemplate a right to secede from the constitutional compact without the consent of the other states. The reasons the Constitution was adopted to replace the weak Articles of Confederation was to ensure peace, facilitate commerce, and protect against collective-action problems and systematic races to the bottom. An alliance of states with a right to secede fails to accomplish any of these basic objectives, to the detriment of American wellbeing. Independent sovereign states that share a border have almost never maintained peace over the centuries. A right to secede gives rise to conflicts of interest antithetical to good policy and overcoming collective-action problems. It would increases the risks of factional struggle, reduces the prospects for compromise, raises the stakes of properly-made political decisions, introduces irrelevant considerations into the decisions (e.g. we can’t do what is right because South Carolina is getting uppity again), creates dangers of blackmail and other forms of exploitation, and generally endanger the prospects for long-term rule of law and self-governance. Lastly, free trade is compromised by a right to secession. It seems to me most plausible that there is therefore no right to secede from the constitutional compact.

The Antebellum supporters of a right to secession were not unreasonable; the case is a rather close call—but, in the end I believe the North was justified in enforcing the rule of law through warfare and that the South was not justified in seceding from the nation without meeting the preconditions to the right of revolution.

[1] President Lincoln apparently had substantial respect for the Constitution. He consistently and often persuasively squared his positions with the Constitution, he cooperated with an intrusive congressional oversight committee. He sought congressional approval, at times, even when he probably did not need it. He stood for election when he was least popular and during a time of war and set up policies for an orderly transition should he be defeated. Dictators and tyrants simply don’t do these kinds of things. I am not convinced that the South was under the foot of any tyranny or oppression and therefore had no right to act extra-constitutionally to secede. John Locke and the Declaration of Independence affirm a right to revolution only where the “Form of government” leaves the people with not legitimate or plausible recourse and is tyrannical or oppressive. I sometimes see favorable arguments for secession quote supporters of a right to revolution to support a right to secession (e.g. James Madison); but the two things are quite separate.

On Big Stores and Advertising

2013-05-11T21:59:00.001-07:00

Earnest Hemmingway wrote in his memoir, “If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.” I agree completely. Not a day goes by that I do not think back fondly on my years walking the historic and fashionable streets of Paris. France left me with the indelible conviction that life is better when society is not so obnoxiously full of huge chain stores and pervasive advertising. Although the United States should avoid many Western European policies like the plague, we should follow their example by helping small shops and regulating manipulative, in-your-face advertising. Corporate stores and rampant advertising contribute to a materialistic culture and an undesirable physical environment, both of which are enemies of American spiritual, emotional, and physical wellbeing. Our American Dream should be about the contributions we will make to our families and to society, not about the stuff we buy.

Big Corporate Chain Stores

There are fewer and fewer small consumer-oriented businesses left in America. We buy our Chinese-manufactured clothing from chain stores. We buy our genetically modified groceries at chain stores. We buy our furniture from chain stores. Same goes with our electronics, hardware, beauty supplies, and sports equipment. Although there are a few Ma & Pa restaurants and shops around, we buy almost everything from big corporations. I dislike shopping at big chain shops because the quality of products and service is poor. There is a plausible argument that big chain stores are cheaper and more convenient than shopping at small shops. I generally disagree; but the argument is intelligent. However, that big corporations put out better quality products and services than small shops, nobody has even begun to prove. Owners of small shops take greater pride in their services and products. Products are higher quality when they are made by a particular craftsman for a particular customer. Unfortunately, many Americans have become habituated to poor quality products—plastics, wax, and cheap construction are everywhere. Similarly, small service providers tend to outdo their corporate counterparts.

I’d like to briefly address the arguments that big chain stores are better because they are cheaper and more convenient. Products are generally cheaper at big stores, but their duration is shorter, which costs more. For example, a tailored suit will be more comfortable, look better, and last longer than a mass-produced, cheap suit. It is very possible that the a man would have to buy two or three cheap suits to dress himself for the same amount of time that the tailor-made suit will last him. Big stores are probably cheaper than small stores to some extent, but much less than many Americans seem to think. If there were much fewer big shops around, shopping at little shops would be more convenient than shopping at the big places. It isn’t much more convenient to walk the length of a street in the same store; you might as well walk the same distance from little shop to little shop. Since all of our stores are huge nowadays, we have to travel longer distances to get what we need. If shops were smaller, we would be better able to walk to buy our food and supplies rather than have to drive—healthier, more sociable, and generally more pleasant.

I have found that many people do not know that public corporations are required by law to put the pecuniary interests of shareholders before all interests of consumers. Frequently, pleasing customers translates into increased profits, but not always. Big corporations wield their influence over government and society to make their job easier and more lucrative. They use their power to make things more convenient to make money, not more convenient for the consumer. They get customers addicted to a product or service and then decrease the quality with time. As a result, frivolous consumerism is way too much a part of American culture. The companies convince people that they need more stuff, not better stuff. The corporations convince people that they need things, they don’t really need. The corporations use advertising to teach people to envy others for their things and to feel like they are inadequate if they don’t keep up with the Joneses. It is even rather rare for critiques of corporate stores to show up in reputable publications because they are hesitant about publishing anything that will offend their sponsors.

In my opinion, this consumerism is exemplified by smartphone buying. I know a few people who spend exorbitant amounts to constantly upgrade from the iPhone 3GS, to the iPhone 4, to the iPhone 4S, and for what? Finicky voice-recognition software? A slightly improved camera? More likely, it is to keep up with the Joneses because they have fallen prey to the corporation’s message that your phone is a status symbol. Or, they have convinced them, through sly psychological trickery that stuff makes them happier than it actually does; that things are better than time. Despite all of the freedom and money we have in America, we are not the happiest people because we are too stressed about things that don’t matter. We need to stop spending our resources on stuff and status and start spending them on enjoying our family, nature, and culture—for that is where real happiness lies.

Additionally, the growth of big corporate stores concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer citizens. Some of my friends who disagree with my sentiment here argue that I am going against the free market. I am not so sure that I am—but, perhaps I am to a degree. I measure the value of the free market first by its ability to bring about a good society and secondarily by its ability to maximize wealth and American political power. Regardless, I think that these big chain stores are engaging in anticompetitive activity by elbowing out their competitors with an onslaught of manipulative advertising, political influence (e.g. procuring favorable changes in the tax structure, business regulation, etc.), and even pushing urban designs that favor big stores over little ones, even to the detriment of city beauty and the health of the environment.

Some businesses perhaps provide more public good to us as Americans if they are big. I do not doubt it. This essay is not against all big natural resources, pharmaceutical, manufacturing companies, etc. What I am convinced of is that quality of life is better when there are more SMALL SHOPS than there are corporate mega-chains. Having a few big stores is fine. But, the proliferation of corporate chain stores has weakened local economies, stripped communities of their beauty and character, and impoverished civic and cultural life in American towns and cities.

Advertising

But wait, there’s more! We are practically drowning in the manipulative marketing of big shops. I have tried American-style advertising for free and I want to return it for a full refund. The trial was definitely not risk-free. It was fraught with puffery, misleading information, psychological chicanery, and false portrayals of reality. The ubiquitous nature of the loud and bright advertising is so constant that it fatigues you and pounces when you are too tired to adequately defend against its cunning attacks. You see, advertising works. It sells. But, it is annoying and bad for America on a cultural and moral level. Even the advertisements online are worse in the United States. They are more common, more in-your-face, brighter, and cheesier.

In my opinion, the only proper purpose of advertising is to inform people of their options with regard to products and services. Advertising in America is, to some degree, protected by the First Amendment and is backed by big-time support of lobbyists; but we need more truthful advertising, fewer commercials, fewer ugly billboards, and fewer product placements in the media. We need to emphasize America’s natural beauty and family values by making the places we live and the activities we engage in supportive of those things.

Guns, Crime, and Statistics

2013-01-19T10:18:00.001-08:00

Psychologically, humans have difficulty making sense of data. Although we are talented associative, causative, and analogous thinkers, cognitive science has abundantly demonstrated that we have trouble thinking statistically. For example, most people incorrectly believe politicians have more extra-marital affairs than doctors. Why? Because, thanks to the news, they associate politicians with scandals. Indeed, even the way statistics are framed can drastically change our perception. Doctors are more likely to operate on patients if they are told there is a 90% survival rate than if they are told there is a 10% mortality rate. In my observations of the recent gun control debate, I have noticed a lot of flawed statistical reasoning. But, with so many numbers being thrown out, it is hard to make sense of the data. I decided to spend an hour looking over gun and crime statistics to see if I could start to make any sense of them. Here are my thoughts.

Moral Assumptions about Gun Ownership

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to “keep and bear arms.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase to mean, essentially, “possess and own non-military weapons.” Although many argue that the Second Amendment only applies to militia members and others go even further to assert that a right to gun ownership is antiquated, I think both arguments are wrong. Before and after the Constitution was ratified, militias were composed of private citizens who owned and carried their own guns. Indeed, a number of states were told they were voting for individual, private ownership of guns when the Second Amendment was up for ratification. So, it doesn’t seem to make much sense to say that private citizens can’t own or carry weapons unless furnished by an official military unit. Private gun ownership was firmly entrenched in the American tradition and went unchallenged for about a century.

I believe gun ownership is beneficial today for three reasons: (1) it allows private citizens to protect their lives and property; (2) it disincentivizes against oppressive government conduct and strengthens our military; (3) it represents the value we place on freedom in America. According to the FBI, one in about every 250 Americans will be murdered (assuming current murder rates) and the likelihood of being involved in violent crime or robbery is even higher. The likelihood of dying in an accidental firearm discharge is one in 4,888 (and many of these are from hunting and target shooting accidents outside of the home). It might make some sense to require a gun safe in the home, but these numbers suggest owning a gun is more likely to protect you than to hurt you. Although I think foreign invasion or a coup d’état is extremely unlikely in the United States, I think the slow erosion of our rights in exchange for false security is likely. Gun ownership is symbolic to our freedom and discourages rash government intrusion. In addition, our military is disproportionately made up of people who grew up with guns in the home. I think it fair to say that our military, especially in case of an unexpected need for a draft, is all the stronger for it.

However, I am not one to say, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Although violent crime is much more a function of mental health, racial demographics, socio-economic factors, and family stability than it is about gun ownership, the easy availability of guns has some effect. Whether easy availability of guns is 2%, 10%, or 30% of the cause of violent crime, I don’t know. Although gun sales and ownership is up by about 5% since 2001, gun murders, gun aggravated assault, and gun robbery have all gone down during the same time frame. Clearly, other contributing factors are more an issue than gun sales and ownership. Although mass murders in upper and middle class America draw the most attention, they represent only a tiny segment of murders nationwide. The majority of murders are concentrated in less advantaged urban neighborhoods and carried out with standard handguns, blunt objects, knives, or hands and feet. Poverty, education, and race are all more predictive of violent crime than is gun ownership. Perhaps gun restrictions should be focused on urban (democratic? Just kidding, but seriously) neighborhoods. Although we lament the horrifying acts of violence at Sandy Hook Elementary, should we not also grieve for the thousands of murders that don’t make national news? Despite my support for some gun regulation measures, I am not particularly emphatic of any because I feel our time and effort could be better spent addressing family stability and socio-economic disparity.

Anyway, with that, I wanted to comment very briefly on a few of President Obama’s legislative proposals for gun regulation.

Ban on Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines

Assault weapons are inconvenient for criminals because they are too bulky for easy concealment. In 2009, rifles were used in 349 murders. Likely only a tiny percentage of rifle murders were carried out with "assault" rifles, which happen to be some of the best selling guns in the country. Most Americans do not know what an assault rifle is. The distinction between a "regular" rifle and an "assault" rifle isn't the lethality, but the cosmetic features. The difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault weapon is not the size of bullet, firing rate, or lethal range. Rather, the difference is whether a gun has a pistol grip, flash hider, or an adjustable shoulder stocks. Assault rifles may have menacing looks, but there is no meaningful distinction between a semi-automatic “assault weapon” and a hunting rifle. The DOJ supposes that assault rifles account for, at most, 2% of gun crimes and that the effects of a ban would be so small as to represent statistical insignificance. The burden on freedom is not de minimis. Really, the ban on assault rifles is only symbolic. It has virtually no affect on crime rates, but represents a step towards more intrusive gun control.

Bans on high-capacity magazines are similarly symbolic. Such a ban was in place until 2004, when the law expired. Crime rates lowered at predictable rates without the magazine ban lapse even registering as a statistical blip. Indeed, a number of mass murders, including the Columbine High School Massacre and the Virginia Tech Shooting were perpetrated with low-capacity magazines without sacrificing any malicious efficiency. This legislative proposal is more about eroding freedoms with a false lullaby of security than it is about actually saving lives; therefore I oppose this measure.

Requiring Background Checks on All Gun Sales

I support background checks on gun sales as long as they don’t cause unreasonable inconvenience on the buyer. To the extent that the purchaser does not have to fill out unnecessary paperwork, wait an undue amount of time, or wade through sticky bureaucracy—I think background checks on all gun sales will have a more beneficial affect than the minor any minor inconvenience. I would even consider a national gun registry—so long as it wasn’t being used as symbolic warfare on gun ownership generally.

Stricter Penalties for Assisting Criminals and Felons to Obtain Guns

Tough penalties on illegal gun trafficking and crimes are a step in the right direction. However, deterrence is better accomplished by increasing the likelihood of getting caught than by increasing the severity of the punishment. We need more undercover cops and less cozy prisons.

Strong Families

President Obama is not suggesting this as a solution to violent crime. But, more than anything, we need strong families for a secure and free society. Single-parent homes, high-divorce rates, sex out of wedlock, diminished involvement in community organizations, and drugs in the home are the driving factors of poor educational outcomes, high crime, and socio-economic disparity. Crafting policies to support strong families would do more for lowering gun crime than regulating guns would lower gun crime.

The Academic Elites: Enlightened or Deluded?

2012-12-26T00:11:00.001-08:00

Image: Dave Cutler

The “intellectual” class of academic elites has a powerful role in policymaking in this country. Although they have no direct responsibility for practical affairs—little or no first-hand experience, they wield ideas and words to advocate their values. Since their ideals are circulated through university teaching, the press, the media, scholarly journals, etc., their influence is disproportionately strong. Members of the class might even suppose that their disproportionate influence is deserved—after all, they did have the highest grades and test scores. Indeed, the elite class often writes abstrusely, which, perhaps paradoxically, enhances their influence through a halo effect (“I don’t understand it so it must be right”). So, is the influence of the academic elites for the better or worse?

Success as an academic depends almost entirely upon one’s ability to publish and to be cited by other scholars. The pressure on professors to publish de-emphasizes the importance of effective teaching and leads to prolixity. The requirement to publish frequently favors overly critical and negative viewpoints and disfavors support for the status quo and tradition. Publications in the social sciences, liberal arts, and legal studies are, in effect, nihilistic. This is the case because it is easier (and more appreciated) for scholars to criticize and point out weaknesses of current policies and theories (and those of other postulating academics) than it is to publish support of tradition or to adequately promote a positive theory (this problem is most prevalent in “critical theory,” which doesn’t even try to assert any positive theory to replace what it criticizes). The tone of academic writing is decidedly negative-- which gives an impression that things are worse than they really are.

A recent study found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among humanities professors is eight to one. Perhaps largely, this is the case because liberals self-select to become professors while elite conservatives tend to go into practice. However, the hard liberal slant certainly favors liberal academics and the propagation of liberal thought. Although the left slant of academia is doesn't seem to block conservatives from entering the career field, they have more hurdles to clear to establish themselves in the profession once they get there. Scholarly discourse unduly proceeds on a level of liberal assumptions and liberal groupthink. Academics, in general, become more leftist through their career due to a desire (or necessity) to conform with other academics and to join the "cutting-edge" conversation, which often proceeds on egalitarian assumptions. Many professors benefit financially from liberal politics (e.g. high tuition, cheap and easy student loans, high government employee benefits, etcetera). Some scholarly journals even have, at one point or another, discriminated against conservative authors in choosing who to publish (e.g. here). As a result of all these facts, radical egalitarian thinking disproportionately and for no adequate reason influences culture and politics; especially through the most impressionable among us, e.g. college students and less-educated cable news watchers.

That said, academic thought has had many beneficial results (even in the liberal arts—the hard sciences and engineering have had tangibly good effects on life, aren’t ideologically as slanted, and are not the subject of this post). Academia has had a constructive effect, for example, in bringing about civil rights for racial minorities and women. I would argue that American professors have encouraged the improving tolerance worldwide and even to a more peaceful world. Academia also serves to counterbalance some of the excesses of a market driven economy (e.g. environmental concerns). However, the beneficial results of academic discourse in these areas during the past century, in my opinion, would have worked just as well without the scholarly disregard for tradition, religion, and moral absolutes.

It is my contention, however, that academia has contributed to increased decadence characterized by an erosion of self-restraint and moral traditions of our society. Although individual scholars profess moral codes and many indeed write for good causes, in practice and in the whole, scholarly discourse and university curriculum promotes the notion that moral truths are arbitrary and subjective unless confirmed by scientific evidence. It encourages moral relativism. In place of the pillar of Judeo-Christian morality of American history, academics build a vapid chamber that echoes “tolerance” (which is frequently conflated with “acceptance”—or else you’re a bigot) and “do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.” As G.K. Chesterton points out, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.” Too many classes today are cynical towards American tradition and religion. For one example, I had a professor who smugly chided Christopher Columbus for not having discovered America and for instituting slavery then, that very class, cited Nietzsche and called him a "discerning" thinker. Why not mention that the Carib indians Columbus enslaved practiced cannibalism and that Nietzsche suffered severe depression throughout his life? Or that Columbus, a true underdog, overcame many obstacles to discover America? The bad should be put in perspective with the good. Today, we are supposed to applaud everyone's religious and moral beliefs (unless your Christian) and everyone's heritage (unless you have European blood). Such a view is skewed. Regardless of creed, culture, race, or socio-economic background, the good and the bad of history and our heritage should be taught on equal footing and in proper perspective.

Academia, as a whole, is failing to bring about enlightenment; it shames the only solution to the collective action problem: faith and morality. It has utterly failed to supplant Judeo-Christian ethics as a source of community good will, temperance, freedom, and wisdom in America. Abraham Lincoln observed, “The philosophy in the classroom in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next.” Academics are leaving students with a confused moral compass. They prepare students only to deconstruct (and disrespect) tradition and the current situation through Marxist, feminist, Freudian, and other critiques. Students are not taught prudence, gratitude, or morality. As the radical egalitarian and morally relativistic project of academia gains traction in politics and culture, Americans will need to trade in more liberties for safety and more collective virtue for equality and “tolerance.” If you ask me, the bargain is a poor one.

Individual academic elites are both enlightened and deluded. But, the incentives and structure of the tertiary education system are in trouble. They need to be reworked if we are to best progress towards a more virtuous society. Superior teaching is equally important as research and publication. Schools should accommodate faith and morality. The heritage and positive theories within subject matter areas (the good) should be emphasized with critiques of the past and present (the bad). Institutional diversity in schools should be encouraged by national policy. Critical thinking is good; but so is gratitude and prudence. We need to align the education incentive structure to continue reaping the benefits of critical thought without incurring the costs of academic nihilism.

In Defense of Traditional Marriage

2012-12-19T17:41:00.000-08:00

The world’s major cultural and religious traditions have historically understood marriage as having three components: (1) a comprehensive union of spouses—man and wife, (2) an orientation towards procreation and childrearing, and (3) moral norms of exclusivity, honor, and permanence.[i] This relationship is special and tremendously beneficial for society and individuals. This relationship has a name: marriage. Recognizing the unique and important benefits of this relationship, government used the name, marriage, in the law to furnish support and incentives in favor of that special relationship. Other relationships, like friendship, also benefit society. However, their benefits are not identical or co-extensive to those of marriage. In truth, cohabitation has some of the benefits of marriage, but not all; friendship has some of the benefits of marriage, but not all, etc. So, we give other relationships different names and fashion policies as a function of those similarities and differences. Family is the fundamental social unit and building block of a prosperous society and marriage is the foundation upon which the family rests.

It is true that marriage has changed over time. Polygamy has been outlawed. Interracial marriage is legal. We no longer pay dowries or plan marriages in advance. However, all of these changes did not affect the fundamental definition of marriage and they had a sort of economic logic about them.

Today, the special relationship of marriage is under attack. The law and the media condone the ideas that marriage can be less than a comprehensive union of spouses, that the procreative and childrearing orientation of marriage is immaterial, and that marriage need not be exclusive, respectful, or permanent. Since marriage is under attack, I find myself compelled to defend it from those who would seek to strip this special relationship of its rightful title: marriage. In this post, I will address some of the prominent forces corroding the strength of marriage in America and offer some solutions.

A. No Fault Divorce

Today, it is easier to get a divorce than it is to fire a manifestly poor teacher. Before the enactment of no fault divorce laws, getting a divorce was processed through the adversarial court system. A divorce could only be obtained through a showing of fault such as abuse, adultery, abandonment, felony, or other seriously culpable conduct. Many American legal professionals thought that too many people were perjuring themselves in open court to obtain a divorce. Today, there might be less lying in court, but just as much in divorce proceedings. Advocates for no fault divorce feared that the legitimacy of the court was in danger. Many academics depicted struggling married couples as having the binary choice of living in “marital hell” or lying under oath to obtain a divorce. Obviously, there is another option left out of their arguments: fix what’s broken. In addition, advocates of no fault divorce argue that men are more likely to behave in marriage knowing their wife can break it off for any or no reason and that arbitrary decisions of courts would be avoided. No fault divorce advocates assured policymakers that the impact on families and children would be minimal. But, they were wrong.

After a century of stable and low divorce rates, divorces increased drastically within a decade of enacting no fault divorce laws. Several studies and published papers support the consensus that no fault divorce was a major factor in the increasing divorce rates of the last decades. No fault divorce is frequently economically inefficient. Legal marriage can be terminated unilaterally at will, when he or she thinks it will benefit him or herself. Thus, unilateral divorces are frequently selfish and opportunistic. Unilateral divorces leave fathers unwillingly separated from their children and single mothers left in poverty. No fault divorce has increased female poverty rates (homemakers are most disadvantaged), the number of children being left unsupervised during the day, and the number of children being reared in single-parent homes. The effects of divorce on children are straightforward and clearly visible in statistics. Children with divorced parents are more likely to have pathologies, more likely to be involved with crime, more likely to become pregnant as teenagers, less likely to perform well in school, and have less success financially later on in their lives. No fault divorce has undoubtedly increased the numbers of disadvantaged children in the United States.

Marriage is more than a contract. However, it is also a contract. Promises are made to be kept. Legal contracts are made to be enforced. No fault divorce makes the marriage contract effectively no contract at all. The notion that a mother could properly renounce her motherhood seems ridiculous to most people. A mother and her child are family. A mother is always responsible for caring for her child. Similarly, when a man and a woman marry, they form a new family and they make solemn covenants with one another. Spouses’ responsibilities to one another are equally permanent and important as the responsibilities of parents to their children. The law should give effect to the marriage promises and protect the unwilling partner. Marriage is a choice for which we should be permanently responsible.

No fault divorce rests on the false assumption that marriage is only for lovers, a private matter, and not for parenthood or children. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead sums up the wide affects of no fault divorce:

Divorce is not simply a legal mechanism for dissolving marriage but a social and cultural force that opportunistically reproduces itself everywhere. A high divorce society is a society marked by growing division and separation in its social arrangements, a society of single mothers and vanquished fathers, of divided households and split parenting, of fractured parent-child bonds and fragmented families, of broken links between marriage and parenthood. The shift from a family world governed by the institution of marriage to one ruled by divorce has brought a steady weakening of primary human relationships and bonds. Men’s and women’s relationships are becoming more fleeting and unreliable. Children are losing their ties to their fathers. Even a mother’s love is not forever, as the growing number of throwaway kids suggests.

The divorce culture is at the root of numerous social ills—a society of individualists with less commitment and more selfishness. Too often, families are ripped apart for selfish, shortsighted, impatient, and shallow reasons. Indeed, since marriage is so easily broken off, courting couples need not take the decision as seriously as they should.

The proper solution to the no fault divorce issue is to appropriately balance the government interests of relieving some of the suffering of marital failure with the more compelling interest of promoting marital stability. Divorce should not be achievable unilaterally without a showing of fault. Bilateral divorce should not be obtainable without mediation and counseling. In the absence of abuse, adultery, or felony, courts should inquire as to whether one or both parties have engaged in such misconduct as to permanently and seriously hinder the ability of the couple to function as a family. “It is not only large affairs, which produce trouble. The continuance of overbearing and vexatious petty treatment of one partner by another frequently is more serious in its disruptive character than would be larger differences, which would be discussed and settled.”[ii] The fines and punishments for perjury, collusion, and fraud should be severe.

B. Portrayals of “Marriage” and Romance in the Media

Television shows, films, music, and pop literature are not all bad. The very presence of romantic themes in the media is not the problem. It is the message the media sends about romance and sex (and violence for that matter). Hollywood and the media industry too often condone one-night stands, shallow relationships, sex before marriage, immodesty, unrealistic romance, etc. Hollywood focuses disproportionately on youth and often promotes consumerism—fancy cars, expensive clothing, bling, etc. Vile pornography is a multibillion-dollar industry and is available to anyone at the click of a button; in fact, around a third of boys report it is their main source of sex education. Reality shows are harmfully unreal. The celebrated lives of celebrities are disproportionately plagued by selfish romance and divorce. Certainly, Hollywood and the media industry too often corrode healthy and moral understandings of sex, procreation, marriage, family, and love.

Pornography must be regulated. Otherwise, I haven’t any thought out legal solutions to dispense with sponsorship of immorality in the media. Perhaps this can only be defeated by a change in consumer demand and by raising our voice.

C. Same-sex Marriage

Marriage, as an institution, is about more than affection. Marriage is about preparing for and rearing children. Proponents of same-sex marriage are not oriented towards procreation and thus, the benefits of same-sex union are automatically not co-extensive and equal to those of traditional marriages. Those who seek to revise the definition of marriage frequently argue that same-sex marriage will have no effect on the strength of traditional marriage. Just like the past proponents of no fault divorce who made the same argument, they are wrong. No fault divorce and the media often promote the notion that marriage is all about affection. Same-sex marriage would add to that harmful advocacy. Affection is an emotion. Marriages based solely on emotion will be more instable (as emotions are) than marriages with an orientation towards childrearing. No man is an island. The law affects the public’s view of morality and is especially detrimental to the less educated, broken families, or otherwise disadvantaged demographic. As long as true marriage is supported by policy, love, knowledge, success, virtue, and strength will accumulate in families. Children deserve to be born into a stable marriage. Children born to married parents, who stay married, outperform their peers in every (or almost every) measurement of wellbeing and success. Extended families with low divorce rates are more cohesive and successful. When marriage is about parenthood as much as it is about affection, more children will be born into this advantageous situation. But, when marriage is based only on affection, there will be more divorce, less unified families, less responsible procreation, and more children disadvantaged by instability of their family—such will lead to higher crime rates, poorer educational outcomes, poorer economic productivity, etc.

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to two cases dealing with same-sex marriage. Presumably, any justices who seek to declare same-sex marriage as a constitutional right will invoke the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clauses enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment: “[No] state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Where the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause is at issue, the courts will apply one of three levels of scrutiny: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny (the latter two being “heightened scrutiny”). Under current jurisprudence, the Equal Protections Clause triggers heightened scrutiny when the government, through “prejudice,” differentiates people who are “insular” or “discrete” minorities unable to avail themselves of the political process. The “Substantive” Due Process Clause triggers heightened scrutiny where a “fundamental right” is denied a person.

The current jurisprudence of “heightened scrutiny” is a result of judicial activism and sham judicial opinions. One of the fundamental objectives of the Constitution was to separate political powers between the three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Where the executive and legislative branches’ powers overlap, the Constitution addresses it specifically (e.g. veto and overriding the veto). However, there is no overlap between the judicial and legislative. The prerogative of judges is to interpret the law as it is made by the legislature. All legal instruments, including the Constitution, statutes, and contracts, are to be enforced as understood by the drafting parties.

In truth, substantive due process is an oxymoron. Substantive and procedural rights are separate. Procedural rights constitute the right to a fair and speedy trial. The notion that the Due Process Clause has substantive rights—e.g. the right to marry, the right to contract, etc—has no basis in the language of the Constitution or the Clause’s pre-constitutional history. Judges can, almost without limit, declare anything they want to be a right according to their own political views so long as it can be associated, however tangentially, with some explicit right granted by the Constitution. Substantive due process, in addition, has an ignoble history. Judicial activist judges used it in Dred Scott (holding that slaveholders had a legal right to own their slaves perpetually), Lochner, and Roe v. Wade. Substantive due process should be discarded as the sham that it is. The most important precedent is the first one—the original understanding. The Equal Protection Clause also allows judges nearly unlimited power to legislate according to their own politics by defining what is “prejudice” and what is a meaningful differentiation, what is morality and what is mere stereotype. It too should be discarded, according to original understanding, and only minorities specifically protected by the Constitution should incur judicial review (e.g. race, nationality, and religion).

Even with the current jurisprudence, the people’s right to define marriage as applying only to a man and a woman is the better argument. Substantive due process is not at issue because the Court has never recognized a right of same-sex marriage. Equal Protection is not triggered because anyone can marry anyone of the opposite gender in good faith. The law applies equally to everyone. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to apply to race. Same-sex attraction is not genetically immutable (see identical twin studies and genetics studies). The Court may abandon judicial restraint and announce a novel “fundamental right” to marry as one wishes or they might contort the law to assert that it somehow discriminates against persons based on gender. In either case, the advocates of traditional marriage would have to prove that opposite-gender only marriage laws support either an important or compelling government interest and that the law must be narrowly tailored to accomplish that government purpose.

I can think of no more compelling interest than supporting the strength of biological families in the United States. As the fundamental unit of society, strong families mean lower crime, better education, more productive economy, less poverty, healthier population, and even better national defense. Strong families are a much more compelling interest that diversity in higher education, which has been held to be a compelling interest. Perhaps the best argument against limiting marriage to a man and a woman is that it allows couples with no intention of having children to marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage. Thus, the law is overbroad. However, the law only needs to be narrowly tailored—it should not need to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government objective. Indeed, it would be administratively ineffectual to separate those who intend or will eventually intend to procreate and those who will not.

Marriage should be defined in the law as having three components: (1) a comprehensive union of spouses—man and wife, (2) an orientation towards procreation and childrearing, and (3) moral norms of exclusivity, honor, and permanence. Gay marriage attacks the first and second components of the definition of marriage. Marriage is a legitimate legal distinction from same-sex unions because the benefits of traditional marriage are not co-extensive or identical to those of same-sex unions. Legislatures and voters should be able to make meaningful distinctions in the law to promote welfare, morality, national security, and health.

D. Diminishing Influence of Social Institutions and Government Policy

As a society, we are becoming increasingly more individualist and less communitarian. The generally secular government is taking up roles traditionally filled by religion, charities, and family. Multigenerational families are becoming less cohesive. The family used to provide the safety net for Americans; now, the government takes that role. The government has many pro-family policies. However, there are other policies antagonistic to motherhood and family (e.g. the “Mommy Tax” explained by Ann Crittenden—google it). City planning is such that people can live in the suburbs, drive their own car, and have no interpersonal contact except with the occasional sales associate.

E. Radical Feminism

Feminism that seeks to establish equal opportunity and treatment for women in the law, politics, and the workplace has my wholehearted support. However, feminism that seeks to put career above motherhood, to depict man and woman as competing, and to characterize biological differences between men and women as inconsequential is extremely problematic for the family. Such notions are unfortunate. They are scientifically and politically incoherent. Fortunately, radical feminist thinking is losing ground and is increasingly viewed as an excess of the great benefits of the feminist movements of the last century.

In conclusion, strengthening the traditional family is the most important objective of government. Family is the foundation of the nation. Marriage is the foundation of families. Laws that incentivize and advantage the traditional, conjugal marriage achieves the objective of strengthening families more effectively than any other government policy. Marriage is the word describing a relationship with (1) a comprehensive union of spouses—man and wife, (2) an orientation towards procreation and childrearing, and (3) moral norms of exclusivity, honor, and permanence.

[i] See Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson, What is Marriage?, 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 245 (2011).

[ii] Owen v. Cohen, 19 Cal.2d 147 (1941).

Capital Gains Overview

2012-11-20T12:52:00.003-08:00

INTRODUCTION-- WHAT ARE CAPITAL GAINS?

With all the recent talk about Mitt Romney's taxes and the impending "fiscal cliff," I realized that I, as well as many people, had only a rudimentary understanding of the taxation of capital gains. Indeed, I feel many retain some misinformation on the topic.

Long-term capital assets receive preferential tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code. Long-term capital assets are any property held for more than a year EXCEPT for property that is the normal source of business income (e.g. inventory held for sale, business equipment, office space, etc.). Perhaps the most familiar form of capital gains are those associated with stock in companies. For those realizing capital gains whose marginal tax rate is 15% or lower, they pay NO tax on capital gains (0%). For those in higher tax brackets, capital gains are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. However, the rates on capital gains are slated to go up to 20% on December 31, 2012 unless Congress does something to change it (part of the "fiscal cliff").

PROS & CONS OF PREFERENTIAL TAX TREATMENT ON CAPITAL GAINS

Justifications advanced for the preferential treatment of long-term capital assets are generally threefold:

1. Part of the gain realized on the sale of capital assets represents inflation. Thus, although the market price of property increases after ten years, the true value has not after factoring in inflation. Taxes should be lower on capital gains to take inflation into account.

2. Lower taxes on capital gains incentivizes responsible savings.

3. Preferential tax treatment of capital gains makes for mobile capital and more efficient markets. Lower taxes on capital gains makes it easier for investors to take money out of stagnant or failing companies and put it into more promising businesses. Lower capital gains taxes helps socially beneficial or popular enterprises raise capital.

But, there are strong counterarguments too:

1. Differentiating gains and losses as capital or ordinary requires complex and hard to understand regulations. The administration of preferential treatment of capital gains, this argument goes, is too expensive and cumbersome to be worth it. Opponents of lower taxes on capital gains argue that there are better ways to accomplish the purposes of favorable capital gains treatment. For example, tax bases can be adjusted for inflation.

2. The strongest repost of opponents is that favoring capital gains is just not fair. Only those with lots of capital with which to invest have capital gains. In 2010, the top 1% of income earners realized over 70% of the capital gains.

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE

Regressive Capital Gains Tax: Clayton Christiansen of the Harvard Business School, and others, suggest taxing capital gains regressively over time. In other words, the longer you hold on to an investment, the lower the tax rate should be on that investment. He believes that the relatively minor loss in tax revenues for the government ($38 billion in 2012) are well worth the increase in capital available for job creation and innovation. Indeed, many or probably most economists agree that lower capital gains increase revenues in the long run through quickened economic growth. But, this notion is challenged. The true effects of high and low capital gains rates are hard to measure because there are so many other historical factors that affect the state of the economy. Evidence seems to support and deny the benefits of low taxes on capital gains.

No Capital Gains Tax: There are many voices calling for the government to stop collecting taxes on capital gains entirely. This would have effects on businesses' choice of entity (i.e. pass-through entities like LLC or LPs may lose importance) which may require some legislative tweaking; but, would increase capital mobility and, in theory, make for a more efficient market.

No Preferential Treatment for Capital Gains: Another option would be to tax all gains at the ordinary rates. Whether a gain is realized on stock or through lending services, the tax on income would be the same. This would raise government revenues and make for more equality and result in more fairness. After all, why should income from labor be taxed more than income from investments in big corporations.

Comprehensive Change: Perhaps my idea would be to alter the entire structure of the Code. I would widen the base and flatten the taxes for all but those making more than $5 million per year except for income from patent and copyright royalties. The rate could then be steeper from there. I would do away with a number of counterproductive tax subsidies. I would cut spending and regulation. Perhaps I will elaborate my nascent tax plan in a forthcoming post.

Correcting First Amendment Jurisprudence

2012-11-07T17:08:00.003-08:00

The four traditional police powers of government are to protect public health, safety, welfare, and morality. In American law, the police powers are legitimate and even compelling justifications for government legislation and regulation. Usually, government exercises of the police powers can pass any level of judicial scrutiny. Within these realms, the courts do not challenge the legislature or executive branches in their capacity to regulate behavior and enforce social order.

However, some courts have explicitly rejected the power of government to protect citizens' morality. Courts began to embrace moral relativism in the context of pornography and indecency cases under the First Amendment.

In Cohen v. California (1971), the Supreme Court heard a case about a man, Cohen, who had been convicted under a California statute prohibiting anyone from "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct." Cohen had worn a jacket that prominently displayed the phrase "F*** the Draft" in a government building with children. Although the Court could have held narrowly on the unconstitutional overbreadth of the California statute, it articulated a broader ruling. The Court held that California cannot censor profanity in public places because "one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric." Such a holding seems to endorse an almost unlimited personal autonomy. It chants the selfish mantra, "you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone." Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Black dissented in part because they (correctly) asserted that we do not "live in a world so incapable of communication that it can be said that 'one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.'"

More recently, Justices Kennedy and O'Connor seem to have accepted moral relativism by asserting that the Court cannot rule on morality in cases dealing with abortion and same-gender sex (Lawrence v. Texas; Planned Parenthood v. Casey). But, I will keep the scope of this post to the First Amendment.

Judge Robert Bork criticized the Court's capricious admission of moral relativity in, among others, the Cohen case. He points out that moral distinctions stand at the very foundation of the law. If it were not for morality, law could be established in very few areas, "[a]fter all, one man's larceny is another man's just distribution of goods." Moral relativism as a formula for justifying and fashioning the law is totally vapid. A change in deeply entrenched and widely accepted moral environment is harmful.

One of the chief objections to Bork's critique of moral relativism in the judiciary is that, with Cohen, the Court was not dealing with regulations of Conduct like larceny, but speech, which has special status under the Constitution. This seems to me to be a widely accepted tenant of First Amendment theory. That, somehow, speech, as a right, is superior to other rights because it is memorialized in the First Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence demonstrates a belief that the First Amendment enthrones speech and self-expression as higher than all other values save health, safety, and financial well-being of others. Since Judge Stone penned the famous footnote four of the United States v. Carolene Products case, rights specifically mentioned the Constitution have been blindly treated as superior to other rights.

I refute this notion. I believe most all of the founding fathers would heartily agree. The purpose of the First Amendment was not to give speech superior status relevant to other rights, but to declare the status of speech as a right where it had previously been treated only as a privilege in the law. Thus, speech is on no greater footing than other rights and must be balanced against other rights. Whether Cohen's "absurd and immature" form of protesting the Vietnam War can be regulated, I am not decided. However, the Court proceeded incorrectly, and in so doing, set dangerous precedent. Rather than proceeding on the assumption that no morality exists, the Court should have recognized the rights of parents to steer their children away from such indecency or the right of persons to function normally in society without having their moral sensibilities accosted. Then, the Court should weigh the rights of the speaker against the rights of the audience to come to a conclusion. Judicial consideration should take into account the justifications for free expression, asking: (1) Does the speech have a positive or negative affect on the marketplace of ideas, as a step to truth? (2) Does the speech have importance in checking government abuse or in sustaining a healthy democracy? And, (3) how important is the person's interest in autonomy and self-expression as compared with the opposing party's rights.

Although we may dispute the definition of moral good at the margins, there are certain ubiquitous virtues that should define the contours of the law. We may disagree about exactly what it means to be kind. But, virtually every society across time and geography values kindness and dishonors cruelty or selfishness. Rather than shun morality, Courts should sculpt the contours of the law around fundamental principles of morality.

Americans have the right to pursue a broadly virtuous life without being unduly burdened. While we can argue at the margins of what it means to be good; there is a central core in the American tradition of what it means to be virtuous: wise, courageous, kind, temperate, and transcendent. Our freedom of expression cannot be superior to the right to live normally without being exposed to a waterfall of profanity, lustful nudity, gratuitous violence, outright lies, and verbal abuse. Our policies must support virtue. Or, we will lose virtue. Benjamin Franklin understood well the results of a morally relativistic citizenry when he said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Neuroscience, the Mind, and Self-Improvement

2012-10-29T12:54:00.001-07:00

Source

It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute.

- Aung San Suu Kyi

Neuroscience fascinates me. The brain is so mysterious and marvelous. One of the age-old questions posed by students of the mind is whether our consciousness and body are distinct entities or whether they are actually the same thing. Monism is probably the most popular school of thought today and holds that our consciousness is a phenomena arising solely from physical processes of our brain.[i] Through science, we now know that our very consciousness, our personality, memories, hopes, and fears are inextricably linked to the few pounds of biological tissue in our craniums. When our brain changes, so do we. However, too many smart people misinterpret this fact to mean that we are simply a product of our environments. That free will does not exist. And that there is nothing more to the world than the sub-atomic particles that make up the universe, as science understands it. The worst part about this misinterpretation is that people use it as an easy excuse. They say, “I just am who I am”; "I am simply a product of physics”; “I can’t help doing wrong”; “I can’t change”; “I can’t improve.” But, they are wrong. In this post, I intend to argue that, although it is tremendously difficult, we can improve who we are and that we are ethically obligated to make the effort.

Concluding that humans are automatons from our limited scientific observation is to prematurely jump to conclusions. It under-appreciates the experience of consciousness and our inherent capacity for self-improvement. The first question then is how can we square the scientific understanding that our physical brains control our mind with how we experience ourselves as rational, free, social, political, conscious, and ethical beings. I will not be able to address this in full (I don't know the answer); but my purpose in writing this post is to debunk people’s efforts to excuse poor performance, lack of improvement, and misdeeds by saying that they are merely a product of the physics or biology. People too often underestimate our ability to change for the better; they give up on themselves too quickly.

FREEDOM AND NEUROSCIENCE

I propose a sort of limited dualism wherein there are two realms of existence: physical and spiritual. On one level, they are all one kind of matter and I am making a false dichotomy; but, in another sense, they are separate. On Earth, we observe primarily the physical matter. Science does not yet comprehend the spiritual and how or how much it interacts with the physical. The belief that there are other kinds of matter we do not yet comprehend is not unprecedented. For the past few hundred years, science has discovered different kinds of matter and different subdivisions of matter. We learned that everything is made of atoms, then that atoms were made of subatomic particles. Then we learned that subatomic particles are composed of quarks, leptons and force carriers (but, what are quarks made of?). We have also discovered a matter that does not share space with us: anti-matter. From observational evidence of gravity, we know that there is matter that we do not understand that accounts for much of the mass of the universe. In sum, we have not figured out the system of physics, matter, space, and time. I expect that there exists some other dimension of the system of physics that I will deem the spiritual.

In my experience, the most common objection to this view is that given the fact that physical neurobiology accounts for much of consciousness, Occam’s razor dictates monism. In essence, my opponents argue that I err in postulating another kind of matter when the physical world can be explained with reference only to the physical. But, I don’t think that the world can be explained merely through reference to the physical world. In short, I believe my opponents too easily discount epistemological experiences that have lead to my religious faith. Faith is inherently subjective. Unfortunately, I cannot share it; my consciousness is my own. I can only try to explain how I have come to faith through experience and study. I find, however, that many of my opponents actively avoid subjective evidence and value only objective evidence. They too quickly conclude that if something happens in their head, in their own subjective experience, it cannot be evidence.[ii] It cannot be descriptive of reality. Subjective evidence or religious experience, for them, must be a false neuronal firing, cognitive bias, or a evolutionary glitch giving the illusion of purpose. I think these arguments have some merit; but not as much weight as my opponents give them. Despite the tendencies of the natural man, I feel that humility, self-awareness, and self-honesty can be more effective at diagnosing and evaluating our own knowledge than some people give credit. Sometimes, religious faith cannot be boiled down to a biologically-wired bias. Faith can be objectively rational and subjectively confirmed through so-called "supernatural" influences and self-realization.

Although we do not yet understand the neuronal basis for subjective consciousness, I expect it will be thoroughly tied to our physical brain. However, I don’t think we understand the implications of the matter making up our physical bodies and universe. Our consciousness and being somehow continue after death in a spiritual existence. The corruption of or physical bodies does not corrupt our spiritual bodies. Our experience in the physical world is recorded on physical and spiritual software, but it does not change the spiritual hardware. When we die, the recording stops (at least on the physical side). I think that, either occasionally or constantly in ways we do not yet understand, our being and experience in the spirit realm can affect our being and experience in the physical world. We may coin such influence supernatural because we do not yet understand it; but it is ultimately natural. I am not sure the extent to which this occurs and I don’t necessarily disagree that the system of physics is closed, but that my opponents too quickly draw the borders of the system too small. Like ancient cartographers who drew the edge of the world without including America, they draw the edge of the physics and neuroscience without including the spirit existence.

In essence, my reconciliation of the mind-body problem can be analogized to a sort of double-sided carbon paper (to a degree). Before photocopiers and computers, carbon paper was used to make copies of hand-written documents. On one side of the carbon paper was loosely bound dry ink or pigment. To make a copy, one would slip the leaf of carbon paper between two sheets of standard paper and, as he or she wrote on one, the pressure of the writing utensil on one side of the carbon paper would deposit the ink on the opposite sheet reproducing the original document. Similarly, my proposition here involves two kinds of matter. As we experience life on Earth it is simultaneously experienced in spirit although we only readily observe the former. And, I also believe that happenings in the spirit realm can affect the physical too.

Free will means different things to different people. I do not claim to know whether all of our volitions have predictable causes that are fixed in the past and outside ourselves (determinism) or whether some phenomenon within our beings gives flight to volition or can give flight to volition. Ultimately, I believe our minds are not magical, but comprehensible at least to God. Free will, for me, means choosing according to our fundamental preferences that are not compelled by ignorance, addiction, or other compulsion. True and full free will is only capable through knowledge and self-mastery.[iii] Human agency means more than a reaction to physical causes beginning at our birth. To say, as many philosophers do, that “we feel we are choosing, but we are not” without further elaboration is to misleadingly undervalue choice. At the very least, one must concede that our subjective consciousness cannot be reduced to objective neuronal firings. Whatever is happening, the experience of consciousness is special. It brings about a feeling and self-aware "I." Consciousness is inherently subjective and cannot be explained in 3rd person objective descriptions of neurological mechanics. We are not well served by smug self-satisfaction that comes from a disavowal of responsibility for our actions. Even if choices are ultimately predetermined by the mechanics of the universe, the cause of our conduct is still within our being and responsibility will thus attach to us.

NEUROSCIENCE OF SELF-IMPROVEMENT

Almost everything we do not only registers in our conscience, but physically changes our brain. This is what makes breaking bad habits so difficult. This is what makes building character and talents so demanding. Deciding to be better is not enough. It takes repetition and a network of supporting decisions to alter our neurobiology and truly change who we are. The more we make right choices, the better we become ethically and biologically. The more we cave to base temptations, the less good we become morally and physically. The brain is not static. It is more like a muscle. The more and the way we use different parts of our brain determines the physical structure of our brain. As we use our brain often and properly, it becomes more adept. If we do not use our brain or we use it the wrong way, it becomes less adept at doing good.

Some Examples:

(1) Drug addictions, pornography dependencies, overeating, and gambling dependencies have been shown to decrease the size of parts of the prefrontal cortex that correlate with self-mastery. The more we cave to yearnings for chemical pleasures from risk, lust, drugs, etc. the less our brains are equipped to deny short term pleasure for postponed, longer term, and greater pleasure.

(2) Taxi drivers have larger hippocampuses that play a role in navigation and memory.

(3) Violinists have a pronounced knob in their motor cortex for their left hand. Piano players have also been demonstrated to have an enlarged part of the brain dealing with finger coordination.

(4) The architecture of Albert Einstein’s brain had a unique parietal cortex that likely contributed to his ability to conceptualize and synthesize complex information.

The fact that our being is tied to our physical brain means that there is often an illusion of inability to change. But, change is, in fact, possible. The illusion of impossibility arises because even after we make the choice to change, temptations, tendencies, and lack of aptitude remain and only change after repetitive use of the brain in the right way. People too quickly discount preferences, tendencies, and personality traits as immutable after making a facial effort to change. Real change requires more than a single choice to change. It will frequently require a whole network of choices. The slow improvement of our physical brain, choice by choice, may involve more than any single and isolated choice. In other words, overcoming a bad habit may not be best accomplished by trying to force one’s self to affront and deny the temptation at issue. Similarly, will power alone might not be enough, in the beginning, to establish a new good habit. We have to make choices to alter our environments in such a way as to support our decision. Improvement and change has to come step by step. For example, it is probably not smart for a person addicted to tobacco to hang out with others who smoke, to see and smell tobacco. Rather, if the person is serious about quitting cigarettes, she is better served by making choices to alter her environment for a while to minimize the temptation. Eventually, her brain structure will change and the biological urge to smoke will diminish. Eventually, she may be able to see cigarettes and smell smoke and have the will power to say “no.” Another example of this principle comes from my experience in Paris. When I first began living in France, I was somewhat self-conscious about my ability to speak the language. A friend advised simply, “fake it until you make it.” I didn’t understand what he meant at first. However, by pretending I understood what I was hearing, by participating in conversations, I gave people the impression and permission to speak to me in French freely. And, people did speak to me more in French. Before I affected confidence, people would sense my nervousness or inabilities and would switch to speaking to me in English. Thus, making the decision to speak French, alone, wasn’t enough. I had to make a series of decisions, one of which was to pretend I spoke French better than I did.

Whether the moving factor of free will lies within or without us we ultimately experience agency in a very real and subjective way. On some fundamental level, we can choose to improve. We have the tools inherently in us to improve. We can make choices that will alter the physical makeup of our brains to bring about improvement in our lives on a scale too often underestimated. I am not asking for perfection. Just a resolution and commitment to build character and be better. To not live beneath the divinity within us. As we improve ourselves, society improves, and it becomes easier for others to improve their lives. Indeed, it is my conviction that we are not only able to fundamentally improve ourselves, we are ethically obligated. Improvement, I believe, is part of Deity's purpose for us and He has provided a way. I'll end it here with this thought, that we are capable of more change than we give ourselves credit for. Now, let's do some improving.

[i] The kind of monism I describe here is sometimes referred to as “materialism.” However, another sort of monism is known as idealism. Idealism holds that only the mind is real and is most closely associated with the philosophy of George Berkeley. Indeed, there is a third-view, the least popular, which holds that really all being can be reduced to one substance that is neither thought nor physical substance but something else, e.g an energy.

[ii] This reminds me of a conversation between Dumbledore and Harry Potter, which can be understood on at least a few levels, in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: “Tell me one last thing, said Harry. Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head? Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”
[iii] How would you choose if you had all the relevant information and mastery over cognitive biases? Such is a free choice according to my definition.

Overvaluing Automatons: Workaholism or Hard Work?

2012-10-09T21:49:00.002-07:00

"I did not want [my child] to end up like one of those weird Asian automatons who feel so much pressure . . . that they kill themselves after coming in second on the national civil service exam."

- Amy Chua, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother

Hard work and workaholism are not the same thing. Hard work is a character strength. Workaholism implies poor priorities and an imbalanced life. And yet, Americans increasingly have to be more like workaholics than hard workers to attain the highest levels of success in this country. Although many businesses, hospitals, and professional firms promote work-life balance to attract and keep high quality employees, many still have corporate cultures that value very long hours and promote employees based almost entirely on productivity ($$ per person) without regard for other circumstances. Firms say and do two different things. They advertise that they value employees and then treat them as liabilities rather than assets. In fact, many of the most prestigious career fields in America require at least a few years of totally unbalanced devotion to work. To become a top lawyer, you have to put in backbreaking billable hours as a junior associate. Then, of those workaholics, only one in five makes partner: the one who puts in the most hours. To become a physician, you have to do a few years as a resident putting in 75-hour workweeks with a frenetic schedule and then you're on call (in 2003, OSHA adopted an 80-hour limitation with exceptions, how generous of them). To become a business executive, the standard path involves doing your time at a major consulting, accounting, or investment banking firm. But, are these long hours really good for us? Or are these long-hour rites of passage really just chest pounding, bragging rights, proof of manhood? Workaholism is fostered early on too. Test scores at universities are based solely on productivity and are the greatest determinant of career opportunity. In the end, this is understandable right? Businesses are profit-maximizers and getting more work out of fewer people seems like it would cut costs and increase net income.

But, even if overworking employees does make for higher profits, isn't it the government's job to correct for the excesses of business' constant quest for profit? Shouldn't we have a system where those living a balanced lifestyle are rewarded? America lags far behind developed countries with regards to family-oriented workplace policies like maternity leave, support for working mothers, maximum working hours, and vacation time. On average, Americans work 30% more hours than Europeans, yet American and European workers are virtually equal in their productivity. Studies show that working more than 50 hours a week might increase productivity for some people, but only very marginally. In other words, if you are a workaholic, you might get the most done, but insignificantly in the big picture. The hours aren't worth the increase in productivity. Studies show that, on average, productivity after 50 hour of work in a week drops off precipitously. For example, Albert studies for 50 hours in a week and scores a 90% on his law school exam. Bertrand studies for 80 hours a week and scores a 95% on that same exam. Since most law schools have a mandatory curve, Albert gets a B+ and Bertrand gets an A. Now, in law school terms, the difference between a 3.3 (B+) GPA and a 3.7 (A-) GPA can be as much as $100,000 difference in salary. But, is that how it should work? Should we really value Bertrand's marginal increase in legal knowledge (that can be found with a click of a button) at $100k? While Bertrand was outlining campaign finance law in the library for 30 extra hours, Albert took his son fishing, his daughter to swimming lessons, went on a date with his wife, volunteered for the Special Olympics, went to the gym three times, read a book, took a nap, and helped a friend change his brake pads. Who is really more productive? Who is more honorable? Who would you want as your leader?

The overworking of Americans has a number of negative effects on individuals and on society as a whole.

Materialism: First, emphasis on long work hours puts a premium on money and devalues time (time with family, time with friends, time doing service, time on hobbies, etc). Hours worked per person in America has steadily increased since the late 1940s while salaries per hour worked have doubled since then when adjusted for inflation. In other words, Americans could work 4-hour days and have the same quality of life as they would have earned for themselves in an 8-hour work day in 1940. Commercialism has convinced too many Americans that stuff is more valuable than it really is.

Sleep: If you need an alarm clock, you are probably not getting enough sleep. Every year, the sleep deficit among American workers grows. Most Americans are getting over an hour less sleep than they should.

Experience: There is an argument that we are getting boring as we take less and less vacation and fewer and fewer hobbies. We aren't traveling as much for pleasure or learning. Jobs are requiring us to become increasingly specialized and job satisfaction declines with the diminished variety. We can't pursue hobbies or side-jobs anymore. There's not time to produce that great idea for an invention, write that book, or teach yourself to knit. We work, eat, sleep and repeat. We don't have time to meditate and think about life or to engage in meaningful conversation.

Health: Stress in American workers is measurably higher with each passing year. This contributes to a host of mental and physical health problems that are on the rise. The stress also has a negative effect on our relationships with others. We are less happy and more depressed than ever. In addition, long work schedules often make for more sedentary lifestyles that contribute to problems like, among others, obesity and cardiovascular complications.

Unemployment: Increasing hours for employees means less people get hired.

Family: This is the most unfortunate casualty of our overvaluation of long hours at work. I don't even know where to begin. Marriages are strained as husband and wife spend less time with one another and don't have time to complete household chores. Parents spend less time with kids. Kids are left home alone more and more. Even when a person has time for their spouse or children, fatigue usually makes that time less effective for bonding. Couples are putting off getting married or having kids until after school or after my first job or after whatever so that they can be more successful in their careers. I think this lack of love and spending time together leads to lower morals too. When we don't feel cared for, we generally hold ourselves to lower standards of conduct. Friends can be a strength, but family is where moral support most happens. Mothers should be able to put their families first and still become physicians, but the system does not allow it nor does the impossible ideal of "supermom" help the situation. It ignores the problem.

One way to deal with this problem would be to set a maximum work hour ceiling. Perhaps employers would be prohibited by statute to work their employees for more than an average of 60 hours a week over a ten week period. That isn't setting the ceiling too low. Or, perhaps tax incentives could be set up to encourage employers to work employees at reasonable hours and to make it not worth overworking employees. Perhaps a minimum vacation requirement of 14-days a year should be instituted. I would also like to see policy incentives for improved maternity leave and accommodations for mothers at work (e.g. breastfeeding breaks, mothers' rooms).

As an aside, I prefer that protecting employee work-life balance is better accomplished by statutes than by empowering labor unions. Labor unions have a natural tendency to carry their fight for workers to excess just as unchecked businesses seem to go too far the other way. Can everyone agree that working more than 60-hour weeks with only one week of vacation time, and zero sick pay is inconsistent with a balanced life? In my opinion, the law could appropriately set some minimum standards through taxation or outright prohibitions.

Finally, I'd like to see education policy shift to better esteem students with balanced lives and talents that fit particular career fields rather than abstract academics only. Work-life balance is not so much a problem in public high schools where the homework load is relatively quite low; but in graduate professional schools it is certainly a problem. Slightest differences in capacity are blown out of proportion in assessments and in school's representations to employers of a student's worth. Perhaps simply measuring competency in individual subject areas and forcing employers to sift through potential employees would be a better system for many professional graduate schools. The current system seems to enable elitism too much as well. I'd also like to see alternatives to medical residencies or grueling junior associate rites of passage. Perhaps a 5-year residency at 40 hours a week rather than a 3-year residency at 75 hours per week. Maybe a 12-year partnership track rather than a 7-year track.

We don't want to become automatons that feel they have to sacrifice faith, family, friends, or service to become a law firm partner or a physician. For stronger families, happier citizens, and (yes) a stronger economy, we need to reward those who live balanced lives.

Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome

2012-10-02T22:27:00.002-07:00

There are two notions of equality that drive different political ideologies. The first is equality of opportunity. An equality of opportunity approach seeks to level the playing field by making the law apply equally to everyone. The second kind of equality is equality of outcomes. Equality of outcomes seeks to ensure that everyone ends up in the same conditions. The two are mutually exclusive to some degree as equality of opportunity implies certain inequality of outcome. Only equality of opportunity is consistent with pure liberty. But, what kind of “equality of opportunity” should we seek in America? And, is the line between the two as clear as one might like to think?

Let’s look at a case study of affirmative action. The issue is obviously complex and some oversimplification will unfortunately be necessary to fit this into a neat little blog post. Racial inequality is measurable by educational indicators, socio-economic circumstances, crime rates, single mothers, and by a number of other sociological gauges. To correct for these inequalities, various affirmative action policies have been put into effect. Affirmative action policies can perhaps be grouped into two primary types. First, there are systematic remedies that seek to level the playing field and make the rules apply to everyone the same. Secondly, there are redistributive policies that seek to open up new opportunities.

What would justify affirmative action? Presumably, most all affirmative action policies would be unjustifiable if racial inequality arises from (1) innate biological inferiority (overwhelming evidence refutes this notion entirely); (2) cultural pathologies that deemphasize hard work, education, etc (some empirical evidence supports this); or (3) voluntary choices to pursue the paths that they do (very unlikely). However, what affirmative action policies are justified if (a) discrimination and stereotypes play a role in keeping a race down (informal barriers) or (b) structural based obstacles like segregation or a lack of family connections work against a race (formal barriers)?

Even libertarians think that structural or systematic obstacles stemming from government’s duplicitous treatment of different races should be abolished. But, to the extent that discrimination (overt and unconscious) still exists, should quotas, recruiting campaigns, or employee support programs be provided to members of a disadvantaged race? Although express quotas in hiring and school admissions are prohibited by law, unspoken redistributions of opportunity in many careers and school admissions are measurable statistically and legal. So, should discrimination be remedied by redistributions of opportunities? Such an approach would be an equality of outcomes approach.

Affirming a belief in equality of opportunity implies a belief that government should make sure everyone starts off in the same place, not that everyone ends up in the same condition. However, the issue is complicated by the fact that people aren’t born in the same place. Although we are all of equal value in the eyes of our Heavenly Father, some of us are born to poor parents, others to rich parents; some are born in the United States, others in Somalia; some to parents who love one another, others never know one of their parents; etc. The only way to get everyone started off equally would be to institute some Spartan program of community child-rearing and a total prohibition of any gifts whether given inter vivos or after death. However, that just seems inherently wrong and completely inconsistent with freedom.

Should we simply ignore birth inequalities? I am tempted to say that it is better to let mysterious fate distribute opportunity rather than the arbitrary or fleeting preferences of government. But, I don’t think such an extreme view is the only answer to this puzzle.

A certain degree of economic inequality is desirable. Inequality provides rewards for hard work, talent, and achievement. It provides lubricant for social enterprise and progress. However, when inequality becomes too great, it animates pride, exploitation, discontent, and rebellion that cause societal decline. When crafting solutions to inequality, government should not focus on where to strike a balance between inequality and equality. Rather, I think the focus should be on balancing economic mobility with the freedom to bequest good things to our loved ones. That isn’t very precise; but I don’t think precise is possible. The slightest possibility of reaching the top of the Forbes Richest People list in a single lifetime is all that is necessary for proper income mobility in my view.

I am thus only in favor of redistributive policies to the extent that all people have the minimum necessities of education, food, shelter, medical care, and life guidance to change their own fortunes and achieve unlimited success with the probabilities of economic success (for full-time, committed individuals mid-career) being chartable on a bell curve. With a more virtuous society, the bell curve will shift towards the prosperous; with a society in moral decline will shift towards the poor. But, the possibility to succeed or to lose should always be present. Real freedom can only be present if we are responsible for the consequences of our choices.

Given my acceptance of some forms of redistributive policies, it is worth mentioning that such policies have been egregiously mismanaged. First, the government not only redistributes things that are not the minimum necessities I described, but are actually detrimental to a disadvantaged person's chances of improving his or her situation. People don’t need a T.V. In fact, TVs do more damage than good. Somehow, people on government stipends for poverty, unemployment, etc afford televisions. People don’t need more bedrooms than there are people in their family; yet I see that in my service to those in government subsidized (or furnished) housing. And, even the things government provides that people do need as minimum necessities are mismanaged on a large scale. Student loans are given in excessive amounts and without any risk assessment. Medicare pays for unnecessary stuff and pays more for the same services when compared to Veteran Affairs. Redundant programs (there are 23 agencies that provide independent and overlapping assistance to former USSR countries, 12 agencies that ensure food safety requirements are met, and the list goes on for a very long time) are the norm. The mismanagement of what should be proper government redistribution and regulation purposes cannot be understated.

I should also say that income mobility is not the most important thing in the world. Even people who end up not able to break through their birth social class can live joyful and meaningful lives. Indeed, the rich are often less happy, probably because they focus too much on money and too little on the more important things of life like faith, family, friends, and developing an honorable and virtuous character. Equality and freedom are instrumental in bringing forth a virtuous society. But, neither is the end in itself. Government policies should reflect that emphasis on virtuous living through freedom and equality rather than freedom and equality at the expense of virtue.

Free Speech and the Middle East

2012-09-25T12:45:00.001-07:00

The United States Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed by an armed Islamist mob attack on September 11, 2012. Originally, the Obama administration stated that the attacks were a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video…” (Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the UN). The video she was referring to was an amateur film, made in the U.S., which mocked Islam and was called “Innocence of Muslims.” This initial reaction was probably false as the timing (11 years to the day after September 11, 2001 attacks) and subsequent investigations appear to show the attack was coordinated and planned. Whatever the case may be, there have been many violent anti-American and anti-West demonstrations and actions throughout the Muslim world ostensibly as a reaction to the wildly unprofessional “Innocence of Muslims” movie trailer or the French publication, Charlie Hebdo, who published cartoons mocking the prophet Mohamed.

These events highlight a major difference in the way some Muslims (enough to fill big town squares during the workweek) and the West view free speech and tolerance of religion. In this post, I attempt to color that difference, to comment on American free speech, and to talk about my own view of free speech.

AMERICAN FREE EXPRESSION

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This view of free expression and religion is inherited, in large part, from John Lock and John Stuart Mills. Locke believed that keeping established religion within the heart and home and out of political policymaking would lead to tolerance and end wars of religion. John Stuart Mills advocated the value of a marketplace of ideas. In essence, he thought that, although imperfect, the free trade in ideas was the best way to find truth as a society. Other philosophical justifications undergird American freedom of expression too. Self-governance requires freedom of opinion, religion, and expression. Suffrage requires it. If people are to be sovereign, they must have their own free opinions and be able to express them. There is also a deontological argument that it is an essential right for autonomous and self-determining human beings to express themselves. Otherwise, life would be meager. Free speech serves as a check to the abuse of power. Free expression serves as a release or safety valve giving a recourse to dissidents other than draconian violence.

MUSLIM FREE EXPRESSION

Many Muslims do believe in free expression. Modernity, it appears, demands it, and it really seems easily reconcilable with the teachings of the Koran as I understand. Yet, too many Muslims refuse to embrace tolerance and free expression. Too few are willing to be offended in order to have peace and free conversation. For them, there is no difference between public and private. The reputation and integrity of their religion outweighs free speech and tolerance. If America disagreed with the distasteful speech, they believe, the government would prohibit it. Since America doesn't censor the speech, they must condone it. For such extremists, an offense to the religion is a personal assault not to be met with more words only, but also violence. If the Americans wont stop the speech that attacks them, they feel entitled to do it themselves.

Some of the Muslim world is easily offended. The reason for this is deep and tender. The beginning of Muslim history is one of spectacular success. The religion started in the 7th Century in the desolate and poor Arabian Peninsula and within a few hundred years spread from Spain to Indonesia. Muslim science and trade surpassed that of the entire world. The thinking of their philosophers was cutting-edge for the day. They had amazing architecture, art, and literature. Islam was great and was supposed to spread throughout all the world.

But, it didn’t. The fall of the Muslim, and particularly Arab Muslims, was swift and brutal. Mongols, Europeans, and Turks beat them militarily and surpassed their knowledge in humanities and sciences, and prospered above them. Even the most proud of Arab Muslims, when you talk to them, seem to be tenderly aware of their culture’s weaknesses and failures. The poverty, disparate treatment between men and women, rich and poor, and from faction to faction are all too easily observable to ignore. When outsiders poke at those tender weaknesses, some Arab Muslims explode into anger and violence.

In a way, their feelings are understandable; yet, violence is only hurting their culture more and incurring more disrespect and ridicule from outsiders. Taking responsibility as a society and channeling that frustration into improving life in the Arab world is the proper direction; not violence against annoying speech. Turkey, currently ruled by an Islamist party, has embraced pluralism and is one of the most respected and prosperous Muslim countries in the world. In some ways, Turkey is an example of a better direction. I am optimistic that change will come, perhaps slowly, but it will.

RECONCILING RIGHTS OF SPEECH WITH OTHER RIGHTS AND THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE

The right to free expression is not without bounds. It is necessarily delimited by other individual rights held by American citizens. In my view, the primary interests of the State are protecting its citizen’s individual rights and promoting a virtuous society. Freedom of speech and the right to receive information freely should be unfettered to the extent that it does not impinge on the rights of others. However, when the rights of others are affected (e.g. perhaps yelling fire in a crowded theatre or verbally abusing someone day in and day out week after week) then the state has the legitimate right to restrict the expression and receiving of information.

When a question arises as to where to draw the line between the right to free speech and some corresponding and mutually exclusive right, courts and legislatures should engage in an analysis similar to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Laws restrictive of speech based on viewpoint are particularly suspect, content-based restrictions are suspect on an intermediate level, and content-neutral restrictions are presumed to be a legitimate use of State power unless proven otherwise. I assert that citizens should be afforded the RIGHT to pursue moral living without burdens that a reasonable or average American could not withstand. In other words, if they are accosted by pornography or abusive language or intellectual dishonesty that would overcome an average person’s ability to reason or live honorably within broad strokes of morality, than the law should be quick to limit speech at that point. Insults, blather, pornography, obscenity, threats, objective falsehoods, and the like are of such slight value as a step to truth, that the benefits of free speech are plainly outweighed by the broad morality, safety, and order such speech threaten. As we become a more virtuous society, the abilities of a reasonable person might improve. However, I believe that moderating free expression, not to promote morality, but to enable morality, is within the providence of government. Freedom is necessary for a virtuous society.

The Future Role of Finance in the United States

2012-09-03T15:05:00.005-07:00

Photo: Ramy Majouji

In this post, I will try to paint in broad strokes my understanding of what caused the 2007 economic downturn and what I think it should mean for the future of the finance sector in the United States.

Starting in the 1990s and continuing into 2006, housing prices increased steadily and substantially. Variable rate mortgages and other sub-prime loans were riskily extended to those with relatively low credit ratings. Buyers assumed they would be able to pay the higher interest rates that kicked in after a designated time period because they thought their careers would progress or, in the alternative, they thought they could just sell their house for a profit. Overconfidence in the stability of the rising housing market prompted speculators to purchase, flip, and develop real property with little hesitation. The housing bubble grew until it burst in late-2006 and 2007. In most of the country, home prices initially only stalled. However, in markets like Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and California where there was an especially pronounced oversupply of housing, the prices dropped abruptly. The other states followed suit.

Then, in 2008, Bear Stearns, a giant investment bank was pulled into the red by its failing hedge funds that were heavily composed of investments in mortgage backed securities. Government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, dealers in mortgage backed securities, were both collapsing. The U.S. government took over management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and bailed out AIG, a reinsurer of mortgage securities that was on the brink of failure too. By March of 2009, the Dow Jones had dropped from a high of 14,000 in 2006 to a mere 6,547.

Other financial industry giants were also failing. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch sold out to Bank of America hastily to avoid the same red-lettered fate. With other banking institutions like Citigroup teetering, the Legislature passed a $700 billion (yes, billion; as much as the entire GDP of Indonesia) bailout called TARP. They bought billions of dollars worth of stock in banks like Citigroup and guaranteed billions more dollars in loans. Taxpayers might still be Citigroup's largest shareholder. And yet, they cannot pass the government stress test even today.

The manufacturing industry suffered as a result of the crisis too. So the government poured billions of additional dollars into General Motors and Chrysler in addition to the TARP bailout. But both automobile companies and numerous other manufacturing companies went bankrupt anyway.

These problems affected the entire economy, making for fewer American jobs. In an effort to raise the unemployment rate, Congress provided a $787.2 billion (although the encumbered nature of some of the "investments" probably raise the true price to above $1 trillion) Economic Stimulus Package. Near the same time, Congress guaranteed billions more dollars of loans to failed banks.

The economic downturn has engendered a lot of anger (often directed at the finance industry and politicians) and even more finger pointing. Most likely, the combination of low mortgage interest rates and deregulation was the primary cause, although financial globalization, global imbalance of debt surplus and deficit, executive compensation, and credit cards among other factors likely contributed to the problem. The blame game is futile. What is important is learning from the past and moving forward instead of backwards (although perhaps something we did in the past is better).

We should not be mad at finance as a whole. The finance sector and many of its innovative financial instruments have enabled socially beneficial enterprises that were unimaginable before stock markets, mortgages, loans, bonds, swaps, options, micro-loans, crowd funding, etc. Therefore, the solution to the economic downturn caused by the housing crash is not to hastily restrict the size and inventiveness of the finance and business industries. Rather, regulations should be thought-out and designed to channel financial creativity in ways that most benefits the ability of small businesses and huge corporations to capitalize, grow, innovate, and succeed on the world stage.

One challenge faced by legislatures and economic policymakers is the fact that innovations in finance often help society; but, innovations in finance make finance more complex and harder to predict and understand thus making them more risky. Perhaps the price for the benefits of big and complex finance instruments is occasional bubbles and economic downturns. But, perhaps the cost is worth it. On the other hand, repentance is often harder than not messing up in the first place. Perhaps getting out of the economic ditches does take longer than not getting in them in the first place. I don't know the answer. But, I bet it is somewhere in the middle. Nations that are slow to innovate in finance and who make it hard to buy and sell risk lag behind other nations in political stability and economic growth (e.g. compare Ghana and S. Korea who had similar political and economic situations in 1960. Other factors played a role too [fertility rates, Ghana taking IMF loans, South Korea's linguistic and cultural unity, etc], but it is far-fetched to deny that S. Korea's financial acumen played no role).

The replacement of faith with moral relativity and cynicism also contributes to economic downturns. Without unifying belief in post-death consequences, there is no forceful constraint on behavior when there is pressure to act selfishly. My careful observations confirm that faithful people have more of a stomach to do what is right when nobody is looking. As the priority of religion dwindles in America, I predict that business and finance leaders will be less and less bound by morals and they will have more need of being restricted by economic regulations and criminal laws that will, in turn, burden the full potential of businesses and the finance sector to do good for society. Although a strong moral education and ethical character among leaders will not solve all the complex social risks of finance innovation, it is certainly an important part of the solution.

In short, I would say that the proper course for the United States vis-a-vis the finance industry is two-fold. First, complexity and innovation in finance should be encouraged, but not to such a degree that regulators, shareholders, and legislators can't understand reflect on the implications of the develpments. Regulation should be efficient and not overlapping or over-broad. Second (and the government's role is limited here), religion and traditional values need to have a stronger presence in the lives of Americans. This starts in the home.

Ethics and Inevitability

2012-08-26T20:57:00.002-07:00

Photo: Enoch Lai

It is inevitable that other nations will not enforce American copyrights and patents in violation of their treaties. Is it ethical then for the United States to break its promise and not enforce those countries' copyrights and patents?

A couple years ago, a controversial scientist testified before Congress that "The development of human cloning is inevitable." If his statement is true, would advocating against human cloning or for restraint be futile? Would it be anti-science?

It is inevitable that political partisans will use unethical arguments and mudslinging to persuade the weak to their cause. Does that justify using ad hominem and mischaracterization to push a political agenda?

Cheating in school is inevitable. There are a surprising number of students who cheat on college and graduate school entrance exams. Most polls seem to show that a majority of both high school and college students cheat. Since others are getting a leg up, is it ok to level the playing field by cheating?

The answer to all four of these questions is a resounding NO. It is not inherently anti-science or anti-progress to oppose the inevitable. The announcement of inevitability does not signal ethical finality. The assertion of inevitability in ethical disputes is not an appeal to morals at all; it is an effort to abandon ethical considerations altogether. Just because something will happen does not mean we shouldn't fight against it. Courage is standing for what is right even if you stand alone.

Virtue Politics

2012-08-06T23:58:00.000-07:00

Honor is a harder master than the law.

Today, political campaigns seem devoid of moral justifications for their social policies. Instead, politicians mask their foundational beliefs and defend their proposals with mere facial arguments from liberty and equality. While considerations of liberty and equality are relevant and important; alone, they are insufficient defenses for policies regarding abortion, marriage, affirmative action, drugs, immigration, capital punishment, pornography, and a whole gambit of other social issues.

Today, society is increasingly gripped by the notion that religion and moral beliefs have little or no place in the public sphere. Science is supreme. When you debate political issues, you aren’t supposed to defend your views with notions of morality. You are supposed to say how it will affect the economy or how it will affect public health or what will be “fair” in a sort of morally relativistic way. However, science can only inform our decisions; science cannot determine values. But, I say that religious views and moral considerations should be involved in our debates over social policy. When politicians capriciously remove these fundamental beliefs from their speeches and debates and pretend that they have no bearing on their platform, it leaves public deliberations on the issues debilitated. It unilaterally disarms anyone that believes in anything other than liberty of choice or equality as the sole and ultimate objectives of human societies.

Those who claim to be morally neutral do so misleadingly; they hold their moral beliefs so dogmatically that they do not even recognize that they are not really neutral. There can be no political community that is morally neutral. Their vision of a good society is not supported by science but is a moral conviction. The values these people esteem above others (without scientific support) are free self-expression, liberty of choice, or some notion of equality. All good goals, but at the same time, these people cheapen historically ubiquitous virtues like wisdom, courage, kindness, temperance, or transcendence.

What kind of society does this purported neutrality give us? It aims towards a polis that implicitly accepts that there are no right and wrong and no real human virtues. It affords no reverence to tradition. Tolerance and sharing are the only values in such a dispirited society. This intensely individualist sort of social contract would only have the benefit of avoiding religious or moral disputes. But, it aims too low. As society allows room for the basest parts of human nature, evil actions become normalized and acceptable. The saying of the day, “I can do whatever I want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” proves untenable. We cannot do evil without negatively affecting those around us directly or indirectly. People too often underestimate the harm they do to others. Similarly, society underestimates the effect of removing public disapproval of evil.

This disenchanted “neutral” society wherein all we can do is “get along” is not the best we can do. We can strive for a wise, courageous, kind, temperate, and transcendent culture and society. But, we have to be willing to say that these virtues really are better than characteristics like stupidity, guile, selfishness, overindulgence, and corruption and that we will not condone them. And, can we not say that? I am not advocating here a tyranny of the majority where the values of the powerful are always imposed on those less fortunate. Plurality is a wonderful part of American government. However, I am advocating a liberal society moderated and elevated by the traditional and fundamental values we inherited from our founding fathers. We should bring our beliefs to the ballot box with us, but not establish a religion or state indoctrinated moral code. Politicians should be more open and candid about the moral values that undergird their social policy proposals.

Freedom and equality are instrumental in obtaining a virtuous society; they are not the ends in themselves. Let us stop pretending that those values are somehow more scientific or morally neutral than wisdom, courage, kindness, temperance, and transcendence. Virtuous living supersedes the value of cultural diversity (though cultural diversity is certainly to be celebrated). A virtuous society precedes a prosperous one just as a corrupt and decadent society precedes a nation in decline. Facilitating a virtuous society must be the first goal of American politics, then freedom and equality.

Heterophobes and Fried Chicken

2012-08-03T00:23:00.001-07:00

Photo: Port Charlotte NJROTC

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A's Baptist President and Chief Operating Officer, is not sheepish about expressing his support for traditional marriage. His father founded the successful fast-food chain and fostered a corporate culture based on Christian beliefs. The chain is closed on Sundays and, not surprisingly, the President and faithful Baptist supports traditional marriage and opposes same-sex marriage.

Demonstrating blatant disrespect for freedom of speech, the Mayors of Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., and San Francisco have announced that Chick-Fil-A is not welcome in their cities. They claim that Chick-Fil-A values are not their cities' values and that they might well attempt to block Chick-Fil-A from opening up new locations in their cities.

The Mayors' threats are obviously a political ploy. No one could take an attempt to block a new Chick-Fil-A location too seriously. The ACLU says the Mayor's threats constitute a "constitutional problem with discriminating against someone based on the content of their speech.” It is unconstitutional to block strip clubs; obviously it is unconstitutional to block a restaurant chain. Although I don't imagine very many people consider the Mayors' threats seriously, the vignette of politics brings to light a serious problem with policy debate in America. The problem is that many secularists and same-sex marriage advocates push their agenda primarily with ad hominem and hostility rather than addressing the scientific, philosophical, ethical, political, psychological, and religious arguments of their opponents. These advocates are quick to cry "bigot" and "oppression" at anyone's suggestion that same-sex marriage may have negative policy effects or if anyone shows discomfort with the notion of same-sex marriage. These are the same advocates that use vague expressions of diversity and tolerance as their primary argument. Yet, too many attack their opponents rather than their opponents' arguments. Their strategy is no longer to convince the other side but to embarrass, shut out, and shut up their opponents through mudslinging and name-calling.

The Roman Catholic Church also opposes same-sex marriage. They also operate many of the largest and most efficient charities in the world. Are their values not Chicago's values? Will radical same-sex marriage advocates boycott the charities? Individuals are free to do so. But, for politicians to use their position to attack organizations and individuals because of their political beliefs (especially those shared by half the population) seems to go too far in itself. But, threatening to do clearly unconstitutional actions is, wow.

The public discourse is eroded when fallacies like ad hominem are employed in the place of arguments of real substance. Unfortunately, playing on peoples fears and needs of acceptance works. Many people are not trained to think critically about what they hear. However, to coerce by threats of hate and rejection rather than to try and honestly and intelligently convince the opposing side is immoral and hostile to the democratic process. Our discourse about policy should not be modeled after cable news political commentary, which is a parade of confirmation bias and vitriol. Yes, it sells. But, no it is not good for public discourse. Rather, we should try to model our debate and discourse after academic discourse which is more self-examined, honest, comprehensive, and helpful. Perhaps, our discourse should allow emotion and religion more of a place than it has in academic literature. But the mature respect for the opposing side where reasonable minds differ should be present in public discourse as it is in scholastic debate.

Critique of the Supreme Court's Healthcare Decision

2012-07-02T20:23:00.001-07:00

Last week, the United States Supreme Court held that the Affordable Healthcare Act's ("Act") individual mandate, although unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause was constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause. I disagree for two reasons. First, the "[s]hared responsibility payment" exacted from those who do not buy health insurance does not fall under the Taxing and Spending Clause because its primary purpose is to alter behavior and not to raise revenue. If there is to be any distinction between taxes and penalties, surely it is that taxes raise revenue first and alter behavior second while penalties alter behavior primarily and raise revenue as a plus. Second, to the extent that Justice Roberts ruled the way he did to protect the legitimacy of the court, he did exactly the opposite. The Supreme Court is to interpret the law; not to engage in politics and protect the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public. By deciding issues not on their merits, but on public opinion, in fact, diminishes the legitimacy of the court. Besides, the Act, and especially the individual mandate, is very unpopular.

The Affordable Healthcare Act intends to increase healthcare coverage and lower insurance premiums. Currently, federal laws require hospitals to care for people regardless of whether they have insurance or not. See, e.g. 42 U.S.C. 1395(d)(d). This creates a free-rider problem that the Act seeks to avoid by making sure everyone gets insurance or pays their own way. The Act makes a number of other changes in the current healthcare system too. It requires insurers to provide policies to those with most preexisting conditions (excluding tobacco use) and prohibits insurers from discriminating against those with preexisting conditions. Medicaid is extended to cover all people under 133% of the federal poverty level ($14, 856 for an individual) and subsidizes insurance for families making up to 400% the poverty level. The overall objective is praiseworthy; but the execution is lamentable.

Although I like the provision requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions, I do not think preexisting conditions that are caused by an individual's poor choices should be treated equally as preexisting conditions that are someone else's fault, an act of fate, or genetic. Although I want to get rid of free riders too, there are other ways to do that. Perhaps mandate employers to cover their employees and create an unemployment program. Perhaps let the states figure it out on their own. Perhaps create a public/private balance by providing a limited-public healthcare (preventative care and emergency services only) that is restricted so as to allow private hospitals to thrive.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, was correct in determining that the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause regulates commerce and gives Congress only the right to regulate commercial activities. If an activity does not endanger another's fundamental rights and is not commercial in nature, it is generally outside the regulation power of Congress. The individual mandate does not purport to regulate existing commercial activity but attempts to coerce people into the market.

My contention with the Chief Justice has to do with his notion that the "shared responsibility payment" is a tax rather than a penalty. Unlike Congress' other powers, the taxing and spending power is unlimited. As long as the government is primarily spending its revenues or raising revenues it can do whatever it likes. If it wanted, Congress could institute a national bake sale in an effort to raise a lot of dough. Essentially, Justice Roberts says that unless legislation is unavoidably unconstitutional, then judges should decide to uphold the legislation and respect the democratic process. Justice Roberts believes that to call the shared responsibility payment a tax is plausible and thus, to protect the democratic process, you have to agree that it is a tax. I disagree. Unless the construction truly is 50/50 ambiguous, a judges job is to interpret the law and call it how the preponderance of the evidence points. Justice Roberts is changing the evidentiary standard for civil cases without giving any meaningful explanation as to why.

Additionally, I do not think calling it a tax is reasonable. Many people call it a tax for political reasons; but they don't call it that because there is anything more than the slightest whim to suggest that the fee is a tax. Taxing is to raise revenue (see, e.g. Rev. Rul. 79-180); penalties incentivize affirmative behavior. Penalties have a wag your finger feeling to them. Taxes do not. Even the name of the penalty, "shared responsibility payment" implies that it is a penalty to incentivize responsible behavior. If it were a tax, it would be called the "economic offset payment" or something. The act itself even refers to the payment as a "penalty." Is there any question that Congress intended this to be a penalty? To call this a tax is to both distort the plain definition of tax and rewrite the statute to be something it was not. Chief Justice Roberts says government has called fees that are supposed to change behavior taxes before (like cigarette taxes). However, such taxes are commercial in nature or are constitutional under other provisions of the Constitution. The taxes Justice Roberts refers to seek to regulate activities that are commercial or activities that negatively effect others' liberties. It seems that the Chief Justice arbitrarily defines a penalty as fines that are unbearable or enforced by criminal institutions. Hardly an intuitive definition.

It is also curious that Chief Justice Roberts considers the penalty a penalty for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act but a tax for other legal purposes without any real explanation. No one saw that contortion of logic coming; not even the lawyers arguing for the mandate.

The reading of the Court allows Congress to force people to buy anything on threat of getting a penalty (oops, I mean "tax"). Congress can now use the Taxing and Spending Clause all alone to force citizens to buy healthy food, bus tickets, funeral insurance, gymnastics lessons, etc. We are now less free than we were last week and the limited powers of the Federal government as intended by the Framers are less limited. We are being lulled into soft tyranny, trading our American autonomy for paternalistic and ostensible comforts and entitlements.

And what of the 10th Amendment that reserves all unlisted powers to the states? To deny states all medicaid funding if they do not implement the plan is surely so substantial as to amount to coercion against the 10th Amendment. Let the states come up with their own solutions.

The most important judicial precedent is original understanding. While we may depart from original understanding through Constitutional Amendments or enormously deliberate popular action, to depart from the original understanding of the Constitution to such an extent and on such a flimsy whim is a tragic disrespect to the miracle of the Constitution.

Reaction to President Obama's Support of Same-Sex Marriage

2012-05-09T17:59:00.003-07:00

President Obama announced yesterday on ABC News that he now affirmatively supports legalizing gay marriage. He mentioned that his Christian faith and the golden rule lie at the foundation of his decision. In my opinion, the interviewer, Robin Roberts, failed to ask him the obvious tough follow up questions. I watched an hour of coverage of the issue on CNN and they had not one commentator on the other side of the issue except for one blurb from an AME reverend who, in essence, said that although he disagrees with the President's decision everyone should still vote for him. Anyway, that is an aside. This assertion implies that the President buys in to one of four beliefs that would justify his new found support for gay marriage: (1) gay marriage is a moral issue and same-sex marriage is moral, (2) gay marriage is a moral issue and regardless of his own personal view, government endorsement of same-sex marriage is fine, (3) gay marriage is not a moral issue, or (4), the most cynical, that he believes it is a good political bet and that making insincere statements to get reelected is ok.

If the President accepts (1) or (3) his ideology becomes even more masked than before. He used his religious beliefs, Christianity, to justify his decision. That invites skepticism. Doesn't the Bible condemn sex outside of opposite-gender marriage across the board? Isn't sex outside of traditional marriage a moral issue in all of the major monotheistic religions? How could defining marriage not be moral? If it is moral were Moses, Paul, and other prophets wrong when they implicitly and explicitly denounced gay marriage and sex outside of opposite-sex marriage? Shopping cart Christians and fearful believers efforts to reconcile the growing popular support for gay marriage with doctrine have, in my view, failed. I have heard reporters say that Christian churches are behind the times; but, what they don't understand is that the doctrine and principles of Christianity are neither behind nor ahead of the times-- they transcend time. However, they find little historical support and are controversial at least. While supporting (1) might not be totally out of left field, I hope some commentator will push him to really say why he believes that.

The second assertion (2) bugs me because it takes moral debate out of the public policy. It endorses moral relativism and libertinism. It invites market theory to control things within the moral realm. Although money may not be involved, believing (2) says "I think we should keep our conversation shallow and never address the moral and religious foundations of our beliefs. Popularity and not wisdom should drive our policy."

Finally, (4) is, in my view, corrupt. 'Nuff said.

Defining marriage is clearly a moral issue. Although individuals might be unable to entirely control their feelings, they can control their actions. We are all born with trials. Policy should reflect the ideal of children being raised by their biological parents who are committed to a forever relationship and teamwork. Marriage as a legal sanctioning of personal commitment or of love is only part of the equation.

Federalism: Commerce + Elastic Clauses vs. 10th Amendment

2012-03-01T17:36:00.005-08:00

One of the crowning features of the American Constitution is federalism. Splitting the atom of national sovereignty vertically between the states and federal government affords Americans many benefits. Firstly, it guards against tyranny. Montesquieu and James Madison both defined tyranny as the accumulation of powers all in the same unified entity (Federalist #47). Keeping authority and powers separated between local and national government discourages the abuse of power and protects the rights of regional minorities. Secondly, federalism facilitates the general principle of subsidiarity which holds that matters should be handled on the lowest organizational level possible. Regional governments are closer and more invested in their jurisdiction and can better respond to local needs and preferences. Federalism tends to result in improved economic effectiveness. Thirdly, federalism allows for experimentation as the states innovate and test new policies.

Originally, even the founding fathers who advocated for a strong federal government believed that the states would retain substantial sovereignty. Madison said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Until very recently, however, the federal government has consistently expanded its powers to the diminution of the powers of the states. It is the natural tendency for any governmental entity to try and amplify its influence; however, their actions at the fringes of their power must make it through the gates of judicial review.

One of the enumerated powers of Congress is to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Although, in its infancy, the Commerce Clause was given a narrow interpretation of "trade," the Supreme Court now interprets "Commerce" more broadly to include production, manufacturing, trade, and even wholly intrastate economic activities which "substantially effect" interstate commerce. The latter meaning is set in precedent, but certainly stretches the original understanding of the term considerably.

The Constitution also empowers Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause has caused political friction since its inception. Thomas Jefferson thought that "Necessary" referred only to those things that were indispensible. Thus, in his mind, the federal government could exercise only its enumerated powers and the means to accomplishing those powers as absolutely necessary. John Adams, on the other hand, believed that this was an untenable position that would result in an impuissant federal government unable to provide for the well-being of its citizens. Adam's view won the day and since McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court has read "Necessary" to mean "convenient" or "useful" for some political end. The Court, however, does not question the validity of acts of Congress as long as such acts have some plausible explanation or purpose behind the legislation.

The Commerce Clause combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause makes for wide discretion and power on behalf of the federal government and gives reason for continually diminishing the powers reserved for the states. The current Court has said that this combination is not without limit as other Supreme Courts seemed to have implied. In United States v. Lopez, the Court held that the Commerce Clause extended only to economic activities. In the past decade, the Court has also limited the federal expansion by asserting that the 10th Amendment also buts up against the Commerce Clause. There are various opinions about this. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." On one end of the spectrum, there are people that hold this Amendment to be only a truism. They believe that the states only have the leftover powers that the federal government leaves behind, which could be nothing. Others say no, no, the states obviously have some essential function in the Constitution and the federal government cannot grow to the point that it infringes on that essential constitutional role. On the other extreme end of the spectrum are those that believe the federal government should be severely restricted to its enumerated powers alone.

I believe American federalism is an exalted principle of our miraculous Constitution. While I am a firm believer in the free market, I am not totally opposed to federal involvement and regulation. But, Congress too often overreacts to public tragedies and enact regulations to please the public and add ephemeral popular causes to their curriculum vitae. The result is overregulation and legislation that is hastily pushed through. The United States currently has over 240 regulatory agencies. The Federal Register (containing executive agencies regulations) is nearly 83,000 pages long (Obama's administration has added around 15,000 pages so far). Whereas before there was only a handful of federal crimes and the states were left to deal with crime, now there are over 4,000 federal crimes, but no one knows exactly how many there are because of the way they are cross-referenced with regulations. Too many federal laws and regulations are either unnecessary or detrimental; too many are overlapping with the each other or with state regulations that are doing a fine enough job.

Legislation should be approached carefully and deliberately. Here are a few things legislatures should consider before enacting any new law or regulation scheme:

(1) How much would the subject of legislation or regulation benefit from economies of scale. Sometimes, it is more effective to do something once on a grand scale than to do it 50 times. For example, the NASA space program would likely be impossible if every state pursued it on their own. But, together, much more is possible.

(2) Is the issue of great, lasting, and communal importance or is it a matter of local needs, preferences, and conditions? Building codes and speed limits, for example, have little or no effect on the nation as a whole and are better established by local governments.

(3) Is there a collective-action problem resulting in a race to the bottom when all the states are left on their own to devise policy and solutions? Or, is there incentive to race to the top? Does competitiveness and free market lead to positive outcomes or does it lead to free riders and states trying to undercut each other?

(4) Does allowing states to legislate and regulate in a particular area cause negative externalities? If Illinois decides to engage in manufacturing that severely pollutes the Mississippi River, at least five other states are going to suffer.

(5) How sure are we of a regulation or legislative scheme's effectiveness? Has it been proven in the laboratories of the states? States experiment with new policies that sometimes work and are adopted by other states. For example, medical marijuana in California, a Unicameral legislature in Nebraska, or a 4-day state government business week in Utah are all being watched by other states to see how things work out.

(6) Are maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement costs cheaper at the state or national level?

(7) Is legislation and regulation the most effective way to deal with a problem or would tort law be more cost-effective? So many expensive regulations are unnecessary because Tort Law (or Contract or Property) has proven itself more cost-effective and equally as efficient.

(8) Is there a restraint on Americans' individual agency and liberty? Will Americans have less choices because of a new regulation or law? If so, is a (often marginal) increase in security worth the loss of freedom? Remember, "Give me liberty or give me death?" It seems Americans are too easily lulled into saying, "Here's some more of my liberty, can you make me more secure (even if the policy is more like a sugar pill)?

Thoughts on Feminism, Marriage, and Family

2012-01-07T15:42:00.000-08:00

Conservative feminism may seem like an oxymoron to some. It isn't. Feminism is about addressing inequities between the opportunities, respect, and treatment afforded to men compared to those afforded to women. Some strains of feminism are so radical as to seek the destruction of anything implying differing natures and roles between men and women. This minority approach is unhelpful as it undermines families and ignores biology. In this post, I intend to articulate a better approach to feminism, one espoused by many already, and comment on some causes and results of chauvinism.

Women are paid less then men for exactly the same work in almost every nation in the world (even the United States). Worldwide women are subjected to enormously high rates of domestic abuse while society continues to condone a false perception of men as naturally unable to control themselves. Women worldwide have lower access to education, healthcare, and political activity. Baby girls are abandoned or seen as a misfortune in many places around the world.

After the second wave of feminism in the 196os and 70s, women made tremendous strides in reclaiming their God-given rights; however, the excesses of the radical strains of thought did much to bring about negative side effects. The movement opened the doors to greater objectification of women in the media, no-fault divorce laws undermined the family and left women more vulnerable to financial problems, and an overemphasis on womens' careers over family left the roles of fathers and mothers devalued.

While feminism has been successful in improving women's opportunities and treatment, there is still deeply rooted perceptions and beliefs that devalue the proper nature and role spectrum of women. In many religions, it is taught that men are created in the image of God, while women aspire to a step-up in heaven of sexlessness. Some faiths teach that Mary was an eternal virgin, that she gave birth only once (I don't know how they read Mark 6:3 though) and that her asexuality represented some apex of femininity. Many Christian faiths teach that Eve sinned disobediently causing the fall, which is, in their view, a great tragedy that could have been otherwise avoided.

While I hope to cooperate with many of these faiths in advocating the many principles on which we agree, these views on femininity promulgate the problem of society's abuse of women's self-evident rights and divine nature. Ultimately, they hurt the family. Without getting into theology too much, it is my belief that Eve acted bravely when she ushered in mortality and paved the way for Christ's atonement and our eternal progression. The hebrew, "bet" is used and translated as "rule over" in Genesis, but is probably more correctly interpreted as "rule with." Man is to "rule with" his wife. I believe Mary had other children after Jesus with her husband Joseph and that her life, intimacy in marriage included, is an example of an honorable woman. Additionally, I believe Femininity is an eternal trait of women to be celebrated forever. This is an issue of faith largely outside the realm of the influence of public policy. However, I hope that those who unwittingly have supported such discordant beliefs reconsider. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given them." (James 1:5) I know that to be true.

The loss of a marriage culture in America is a huge cause for concern and comes largely as a result of erroneous perceptions of proper masculinity and femininity. Children deserve to be born into a home where the parents are hardworking co-presidents of the family who love one another and are serious about there commitment. We take the covenant of marriage too lightly. In France, if one of the spouses objects to divorce, the other must put forth evidence of either adultery or abuse or separate for two years and attend mandatory family counseling with one another. France needs improvement in their respect of the marriage contract too, but in this respect, they take the commitment more seriously than we do. Also, the media fictitiously romanticizes bachelorhood, over-independence, and uncommitted sexual intimacy. The media condones male aggression. As humans, it is natural for us to express our affection by making promises of loyalty to one another. Marriage is the precipice of loyalty and teamwork. The eternal meaningfulness of committed and selfless marriage allows for deep joy and success that should be better protected by public policy.

Now, in this imperfect world, some women don't marry. Some are unable to have children. Some are abused. These women should be supported by public policy and they should be viewed as equal. However, the ideal situation to be incentivized by public policy is an equal marriage between a man and a wife.

I echo Hilary Clinton's declaration to the U.N. that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all." Give women a voice equal to that of men. Give women equal wages and opportunities in the workplace. Give wives and equal place at the head of the family. Women have a special nature; they are daughters of God! Women have a valuable role in the home as mothers. The selfish, individualistic cultural trends of recent history have degraded the role of a mother in favor of success in the workplace. American mothers and fathers must put the nurturing of children and family as priority number one. Even if this means sacrificing some career goal, putting family first will save the country. Family before self, always.

Putting the Cart Before the Horse

2012-01-04T20:04:00.000-08:00

Too many people derive their life principles from the way they live rather than living according to their values and beliefs. If such a person becomes dependent on or acclimated to some substance, activity, or behavior he is likely to chase after religious, political, and ethical axioms to justify his comportment. Even if he was raised with contrary values and even if feeling and evidence point clearly in another direction, I have been surprised at the lengths people will go to find some relativistic philosophy to justify their conduct.

To be sure, this is the easy way out. Searching out truth and rectitude can be laborious, tedious, and uncomfortable. It isn't easy to break bad habits and to establish good ones. It isn't easy to sacrifice. It isn't easy to change. It isn't easy to be patient. It isn't easy to admit fault. But, these represent some of the obstacles in the way of gaining truth and virtue. It is much easier to say, for example, "I have my own values. I like to _______. You can't prove that ______ is wrong. Lots of people _______. So _____ isn't wrong."

A trademark problem solving strategy employed by McKinsey & Co. business consultants is to break the issue at hand (like insufficient revenue or excessive expenses) into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive categories. In "The Firm" consultants refer to this as MECE (pronounced "Mee-see") and no problem analysis or solution is adequate unless it is completely MECE. You have to break up the big problem into separate categories that do not overlap and you can't have any gaps. Then, you break those categories down in the same manner until you can't do it any more. This system of organizing information allows consultants to break up the major issue into bite sized pieces. It allows analysts to come up with the individual factors that make up the larger problem. The consulting team can then better innovate practical solutions, implement them, and measure success within that MECE framework. [See The McKinsey Way by Ethan M. Rasiel]

Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman came up with a MECE analysis of society's problems in their book, Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook. They intended the book primarily to serve as the positive converse to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a handbook outlining all the things that could go wrong with a person's mind. They wanted to outline and describe all the things that could go right in a person's mind. In my opinion, their work is a masterpiece. They categorize all the character values and virtues that have been ubiquitous throughout time and geography and describe them to the extent that is virtually unanimous among classifications of people as a whole. Their list is as MECE as possible. It includes:

1.) Wisdom and Knowledge: Creativity, Curiosity, Open Mindedness, Love of Learning, Perspective

2.) Courage: Bravery, Persistance, Integrity, Vitality

3.) Humanity: Love, Kindness, Social Intelligence

4.) Justice: Citizenship, Fairness, Leadership

5.) Temperance: Forgiveness and Mercy, Humility and Modesty, Prudence, Self-Regulation

6.) Transcendence: Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence, Gratitude, Hope, Humor, Spirituality

I submit that these values are all as American as is Liberty and should be recognized as such. Almost any problem confronting our nation can be traced back to some lack of one of these virtues by either some component of our citizenry or by outsiders. I support a Constitutional Amendment officially recognizing these values as American. The government should seek to protect and incentivize these virtues. A pure libertarian might object to this saying it is not the place of government to enforce moral values. In a sense, I certainly agree. Forcing values on citizens is the approach of paternalistic authoritarian governments. I believe recognizing and protecting these values is different from forcing or enforcing them. I am worried Americans may be trending towards modeling government and interpreting law according to the condition of society rather than on the principles that define our ideals as a nation. This is putting the cart before the horse and is a recipe for societal decline. The political ideas, governmental institutions, and law should not be established to justify how we are. They should be constant anchors pointing towards who we want to be as a nation. The U.S. Constitution itself was founded on this idea of intergenerational stability as a protection of the carnal sentiments of a moment or of a mob majority: "We the People of the United States, in order to ... secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

When we say, "United we stand. Divided we fall." I think we are mostly referring to these American and human virtues. If Americans embody these values, we will succeed and we will lead the world. If we fail to live according to these enumerated virtues, we will equally fail. American institutions and policies must be designed in a way to first protect American's right and duty to live according to these values of their own volition. Individuals' freedom to act cannot be allowed to infringe on others' freedom to be citizens of strong character. That is where the line of freedom to act as one desires must be drawn. That is the harmony of the American system. We can't be a nation if we have no common values. No man is an island. With the liberty of being an American comes the responsibility to protect the right to live virtuously.

Towards a Better Sex Education

2011-12-10T22:28:00.000-08:00

Abstinence-only sex education programs do not work. The empirical studies on the subject consistently show that abstinence-plus programs are more successful in lowering teen sexual activity, pregnancies, and sexually transmitted disease. Western European teenagers, for example, become sexually active at about the same rates as Americans. But, the European parents are more open in their discussions concerning sexuality and their sex education starts earlier and is more comprehensive than what we have here in the U.S. This combination makes for much much (did I say much?) fewer adolescent pregnancies, abortions, and transmissions of venereal diseases. Unfortunately, the European model often sidesteps talking about the morality of sex. The best possible sex education outside the home would include information concerning the science of human reproduction, puberty, pregnancy, abortion, sexual violence, sex in the media, same-sex attraction, sexually-transmitted diseases, contraception, AND reinforcement of the importance of self-restraint, responsibility, and chastity.

What is included in sex education is always controversial. Perhaps the three most controversial subjects are (1) same-sex attraction, (2) inclusion of more than abstinence, and (3) advocating chastity. Here are my suggestions for sex ed curriculum on these touchy topics:

(1) When it comes to same-sex attraction, the curriculum should not take a side as to its morality. However, I think addressing abuse and discrimination may be appropriate. Regardless of whether you think expressions of same-sex attraction are immoral or not, no one deserves to be mocked, excluded, or discriminated against. Schools shouldn't specially praise same-sex attraction or those attracted to members of the same sex any more than they would note the achievements of short people, religious people, left-handed people, or other preferences and traits that people use to define themselves.

(2) The word “abstinence” is most closely associated with drugs in the minds of teenagers. As educators, we need to be careful not to throw sex in the same bucket as cocaine and heroin. Perhaps waiting to have sex until marriage or, at least, a committed relationship should be taught not as a matter of abstinence, but as a matter of self-mastery and responsibility. There are those on the extreme-right who believe that teaching anything but abstinence somehow blemishes the purity of American young people. This view is very much in the minority. Knowledge, in itself, is not sin. The goal here is to present the information correctly and maturely before students learn it the hard way. Having condoms available for adolescents, might condone their use. But, the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages of not having them available. But, the fact that having them does not condone their use can be made clear in the sex ed program.

(3) Finally, it seems to be somewhat controversial to advocate chastity until marriage. The libertine-left advocates the hedonistic idea that one-night stands are fine and that young people need to experiment with sex. Sex is a gift and a healthy part of who we are as humans. However, sex is the means of creating human life and starting a family unit. Marriage is a lifelong commitment to family. As such, marriage is the only appropriate place to chance pregnancy. Only the greatest love of a person’s life can rightly accept and reciprocate the most poignant expression of love and togetherness we have. To give that highest expression of affection and commitment to anyone but the dearest person necessarily diminishes its meaning. Those who wait to have sex until they are in a committed relationship are more successful in their careers and physically and psychologically happy. Furthermore, the majority of social ills hurting the country can be traced to rates of sex out of wedlock. Drug abuse, physical abuse, unemployment, low education, violence, and criminal activity are all very correlated with pregnancies out of wedlock. As chastity increases, marriage increases, and no-fault divorce decreases, I can guarantee these social problems will decrease. On both an individual level and a social level, chastity contributes to greater happiness and health.

In Europe and in the United States, sex before marriage is treated as a given. Parents are allowing boyfriends and girlfriends to sleep-over in their son’s or daughter’s room. “Well,” some parents figure, “better openly in our house with condoms than secretly on lover’s lane.” This is a cop out. What about the hundreds of thousands of American young people who do wait until marriage to have sex? Our low expectations and moral mediocrity aren’t pragmatic; they are self-fulfilling prophecies. Parents should assure their children that they will love them unconditionally and are always there to help. They should maintain open lines of communication. Teaching obedience, discipline, and chastity are not inconsistent with maintaining open and sincere lines of communication between parent and adolescent child.

Sex education programs should also include separate classes and resources for parents. Children are being exposed to sex through media and peers at earlier and earlier ages. Some children become addicted to pornography before they even go into middle school. Advertisements, movies, television shows are all employing sex more and more as a means of marketing. Parents need to be given all the tools to more courageously help their children to avoid the immoral temptations of the world at a young age and to overcome enslaving snares disguised as experimentation. If parents would rather teach sex education in the confines of their own homes, perhaps they should be allowed so long as their child can pass a comprehensive but reasonably noncontroversial exam.

Occupy Wall Street Opinion

2011-10-28T17:04:00.000-07:00

I recently read short biographic profiles of various people participating in the occupy wall street demonstration. Some have respectable "messages." But, I couldn't see how any of the good messages were being conveyed or furthered by the folks' camping out on Wall Street. The only message I get from the Occupy Wall Street ("OWS") is one of frustration and socialism. To me, OWS says, "When you're frustrated, play dead until someone feels sorry for you." And, "Successful businesses, and the people they are composed of, got their money unjustly and use it immorally."

Some Wall Street employees are overpaid and some do engage in misconduct. And, when they are caught they are subject to criminal law. However, Wall Street executives, in most cases, worked hard to get where they are. They also pay between 35% of their salaries (And 15% on capital gains and then taxes on other sources of income, sales, property, etc.) to taxes. Whose to say that they don't deserve their money? Steve Jobs was extremely rich (around $2 billion). Apple's shares trade at above $400 per. Whose to say that he didn't deserve all that? Whose to say that the government should regulate his company excessively and tax him more to give it to the poor, the dissatisfied, and the protestors of OWS?

Tax Bracket	Married Filing Jointly	Single
10% Bracket	$0 – $17,400	$0 – $8,700
15% Bracket	$17,400 – $70,700	$8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket	$70,700 – $142,700	$35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket	$142,700 – $217,450	$85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket	$217,450 – $388,350	$178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Source: Forbes	Over $388,350	Over $388,350

Besides, most millionnaires give more generously to socially constructive causes and charities (that, unlike most government entitlement programs, efficiently aid the needy) when taxes are lower.

Some media outlets have portrayed the protestors quite positively. I do not see the majority as very sympathetic characters. The truth is that misconduct and idleness are the main causes of poverty in America. Almost any healthy American who lives chastely, avoids addictions, and works hard will succeed. After reading the bios of the OWS protestors I decided to look up the bios of some Wall Street executives. It turns out that most executives were hard working all through their high school, college, and graduate school experiences. They had leadership positions in extracurricular activities and sports. They volunteered a lot. They didn't party much. They spent long hours at the library. They lived chastely. They avoided addictive substances and behaviors. They were respectful of authority while still being innovative and critical thinking. They marry and have committed relationships. In their careers, they work at least 11 hour days Monday through Friday and then a few hours on Saturdays too. They are committed to family life and contribute to charity and their communities. Yes, frequently (although perhaps less than you think) they have the benefit of being born to a successful and loving family, certainly an advantage, but that is no reason to think of them as undeserving. Oftentimes, success takes generations to establish and a CEO, rocket scientist, cardiovascular surgeon, or senator may be the pinnacle of generations of a family's efforts.

The protestors frequently do not live chaste lives. They frequently are involved in addictive substances and behaviors. They are too often rebellious for rebellious' sake. They did not work particularly hard in high school, college, or in their careers. They don't contribute to their communities or volunteer much.

The protestors may be from rough neighborhoods and dysfunctional families. But, that doesn't entitle them to demand the earnings of hard working business people. That doesn't entitle them to the right to sit around with an angry sign being frustrated. Get up! Do something about it! Sitting around won't change a thing. Be successful and then give back and advocate. All that the OWS demonstration does is blame others and demand gifts. Stop blaming and do something that actually makes a difference.

"It Isn't Hurting Anyone"

2011-09-18T16:09:00.000-07:00

The philosophy of moral relevancy is perhaps the crisis of our time. The whole theory is often summed up in the saying, "I can do whatever I want, as long as it isn't hurting anyone."

However, this maxim is wholly inadequate as a guide for making decisions. There are many different ideas about what hurts and what doesn't. Sure, most everyone would agree that physical and pecuniary harm are to be avoided. But, only restricting ourselves from physically abusing other people or their property would be to indulge in gross moral mediocrity. Most American's are people of faith who seek after the character strengths of wisdom, courage, kindness, fairness, temperance, and transcendence among others. When the acts of others improperly hinder us from seeking after such values, we are harmed and offended in ways that are ultimately more profound than any physical harm to our bodies, autonomy, or prosperity. For those of us who faithfully seek after God, we know that sin is the greatest and only lasting tragedy of life.

The main problem I have with those who espouse the view that they can do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else is that they shortsightedly estimate the harm and offense that their actions have on others.

Secondarily, I think it is just callous to allow others to hurt themselves without at least teaching and inviting them to follow another path. To hold that it is none of our business whether others are hurting themselves seems to reflect the undergirding egoism expressed by those living by this philosophy. I am not advocating infringing on others' autonomy needlessly. But, I do think that we are our brother's keeper.

Unfortunately, this amoral axiom is evermore present and influential in American society. It is a fad. But, unlike clothing, if you don't live by this moral relativism, you are labeled as intolerant, bigoted, and close-minded. However, they don't realize that tolerance is not the absence of disapproval, it has to do with the respect and esteem we afford others regardless of our differences. This social pressure to approve of everyone's values diminishes individually held values, even those which have been ubiquitous throughout time and geography. And, this pressure starts influencing our people at continually younger ages.

For example, check this song out by Ben Harper:

My choice is what I choose to do

and if I'm causing no harm
it shouldn't bother you
your choice is who you choose to be
and if your causin' no harm
then you're alright with me.

By the way, he was talking about smoking marijuana. This song's lyrics highlight another problem with this selfish lifestyle: it strips us of our duty to self, others, and God to rightly justify our choices or repent of them. In the song, he doesn't even try to assert reasons smoking pot should be valued, allowed, or acceptable. He doesn't feel he has to. The implication of the "it isn't hurting anyone" theory is that one can do whatever he or she wants and it doesn't matter if it is good or moral at all. By his wholly inadequate estimation, he isn't hurting anyone so it is ok. But, he is hurting people through his influence. I'd like Mr. Harper to explain to the mother of a son whose addiction to pot came as a partial result of looking up to singers like himself.

The late former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pointed out clearly the effect others' influence can have on us and on society in our quest to become virtuous people:

It is not easy, for instance, to be virtuous when all about you there are those who scoff at virtue.

It is not easy to be honest when all about you there are those who are interested only in making “a fast buck.”
It is not always easy to be temperate when all about you there are those who scoff at sobriety.
It is not easy to be industrious when all about you there are those who do not believe in the value of work.
It is not easy to be a man of integrity when all about you there are those who will forsake principle for expediency.

Nonetheless, we strive to become better and to become better together. We should be weary of approving of other's poor behavior in the name of tolerance. There are most certainly some values that are, I believe, deontologically true and, whether you believe the former assertion or not, are certainly ubiquitous throughout time, geography, and culture. Such character virtues are the bedrock of a strong, purposeful, and economically successful society. To accept poor character in others is to be satisfied with social decline and, eventually, a soft tyranny.

John Donne had a vision of reality when he wrote the following in his 17th Meditation, "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main... because [everyone is] involved in mankind." Our actions build our characters and the strength or weakness of our characters can effect those around us for better or for worse, often dramatically slow. Small and simple things can bring about great changes. When we act, we vote by our feet about what the standards of our nation should be.

Our society is focusing more and more on "me" rather than "we." Living by the saying, "I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is very selfish. Utilitarian philosophies at least determined conduct according to what would give the most happiness to the most people. This is just what gives me the most happiness regardless of other people. Those who espouse this view tend to all too easily reject the values of their community and their parents to do something easier, pleasurable, or more fun. They do it under the false pretense that it makes them happy and "isn't hurting anyone." They go against generations of wisdom who vote for the traditional values of society with their numerous headstones, and they do it on little more reason than curiosity, inertia, and lust. It is true that whole communities can be wrong about certain beliefs or values; but, only deliberate and altruistic motives should have any clout in dissident movements, not the listless whim of an individual "looking for himself" or looking for his next very temporary bout of pleasure.

Ayn Rand rightly noted that happiness may be a goal of ethics and our justifications for our behavior. But, happiness cannot be the standard. The whole point of morality is to determine a code of values that will best give a person the means to achieve joy. But, to say that it is best to value whatever will give you happiness is to say the best values are whatever you value. In so saying, one gives up entirely on the ethical responsibility to look outside himself and further into the future in evaluating the rightness of an act. One abdicates the duty to do not what is the easiest, but what is right.

Let us no more abdicate our duty to others with the empty refrain, "It isn't hurting anyone."

Our Common Morality

2011-09-06T19:58:00.000-07:00

Freedom is surely one of the fundamental values of America. Even so, our freedom cannot be untrammelled; it must be delimited by corresponding rights held by other persons. A nation of true liberty does not give its citizens maximum freedom; it upholds a harmonious balance of people's most valued freedoms. Real liberty means expanding individual freedoms as much as possible without infringing on others' freedoms.

For example, we discourage people from driving drunk with criminal and tort law because it infringes on others' freedom from anxiety or injuries resulting from the high risks created by those choosing to drive while under the influence. We draw the line there. We cut the privilege to drive drunk because it infringes on others' more valuable freedoms. Likewise, we have, in the past, protected our freedom not only from dangers to our prosperity and health, but our moral sense of well being and serenity. We censure advertisements so we don't have to look at morally repugnant or persistently tempting images. Unfortunately, as moral relativism and nihilism take a more and more prominent position in the ideologies of Americans, freedom to do whatever they want, good or bad, becomes more important than freedom from moral corruption. Moral relativism throws this fragile balance of rights and privileges out of kilter.

Currently, American society suffers from a particular pattern of poor judgement that psychologists call the restraint bias. This cognitive bias describes people who tend to think that they can show restraint in the face of temptation better than they actually can. Socially damaging and morally negative behavior becomes habitual on a wider and wider scale as we fail to protect our freedoms from exposure to immoral and provocative behavior and portrayals. A lower moral caliber becomes the status quo. Media normalizes and condones corruption. Excess and indulgence are seen as a valid choice. Sophisticated rationalizations are conjured. And the self-perpetuating spiral persists. But, there is an end to the spiral. It either ends when moral courage wins out over moral mediocrity that disproportionately favors "freedom to" to "freedom from." Or, it ends when the moral bands that hold society together are loosened to such a degree that order and efficiency disappear.

Temperance and courage are falling by the wayside. Perhaps the time to focus primarily on defending human rights has past and our focus should turn to defending human obligations.

Alexis de Tocqueville is often cited as America's most acute observer and friendly critic. He attributed the success of American democracy to the common moral and religious values of the nation's citizenry. He is in good company.

John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”

James Madison put it eloquently, “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty and happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.”

Abraham Lincoln understood this principle as well: “The only assurance of our national safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.”

Benjamin Franklin echoed the sentiment when he said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

President Harry Truman said, "We talk a lot these days about freedom — freedom for the individual and freedom among nations. Freedom for the human soul is, indeed, the most important principle of our civilization. We must always remember, however, that the freedom we are talking about is freedom based upon moral principles."

How can we, of many, become one (e pluribus unum)? Where should we turn for morality? Private social institutions are the very best at providing the kinds of close-knit civil interactions that unify people in mind and purpose and teach character strengths and virtues. Family, church, book club, boy scouts, youth basketball, violin lessons, 4-H, Rotary International, country clubs, knitting groups, Homes for Humanity, etc. This is where the founders intended us to get our values and safety net... not from the government.

As government grows in role, spending, and size, the importance of private social institutions dwindles. These social institutions foster morality, citizenship, and service. Extended family and religious unities especially, but also youth programs, volunteer organizations, and community groups unite people literally and intellectually. Such local forms of association cultivate people's desires and capacity to take care of self and others. Good citizens seek to do good for its own sake, not because they are constrained by law.

As government expands in an attempt to paternalistically take care of our "needs" more and more, it undermines the democratic principle of authority being diversified to local organizations. Oversized government undermines true compassion and lessens people's incentives to unite in virtue building social institutions. Expansive government diminishes social capital and encourages moral mediocrity.

Taxation puts money to value judgments that should not be made by the government, but by social institutions. Income redistribution corrupts the generous giver and grateful receiver model of most major religious and other value systems and turns it into a giver that feels coerced and a receiver who feels entitled. There is not connection between the giver and receiver in income redistribution. There is no moral obligation by the receiver to be a thankful stewart; not gratification from seeing a gift blossom on the side of the giver. It is true, there are those who need and should be permitted to ask. But, no one is entitled to another's time, talents, good fortune, or money by virtue of poor life decisions or a disadvantageous birth.

Religion plays a tremendously important role in American democracy. Without a popular hope for a just God and a consequential afterlife, we necessarily have a cooperation problem. At my university, there is a sign that says, "Please stay off the grass, I am trying to grow." Yet, for the last week I have watched as time and time again students have walked right by the sign across the tender grass. Why don't they stop. Because they estimate that the value they receive in acting for themselves is greater than the social good which would come from abiding by the sign's entreatment. This same problem arises in societies which embrace secularism not only in governance, but in personal philosophy. When we feel we are being surveyed by a loving and just Deity, when we hope our character will be consequential in eternity, we believe that kindness, love, charity, and other character strengths will be of greater value than the temporary forgoing of certain immediate ease or pleasure. However, when there is no such religious belief, there is no great incentive to act for the social good when it conflicts with selfish desires.

The government should practice great self-restraint in providing entitlement programs for political capital. Instead, allow and empower social institutions to build character and welfare through trust and teamwork. The government should manipulate incentives to strengthen churches and strong families and to give compassionately; but, it should not force giving nor make receiving a "right." Let us unite often, literally and in purpose, for the benefit of all.

Consumption and Urban Sprawl

2011-08-13T07:51:00.000-07:00

In 1951, the home building firm, Levitt and Sons, designed a method to mass produce homes at a rate of around 30 homes daily. Other residential construction firms of the day were making around 4 or 5 unique homes a year! Each of the manufactured homes were around 750 square feet and sat on a 1/7 acre patch of grass. They had an unfinished second floor, no basement, and no garage (Read More Here). On average, each house sheltered 5 people.

As World War II and overseas reconstruction efforts came to a close, American servicemen (16 million) began to pour back into the country and start families. But, they came home to a major housing shortage and were often unable to afford homes to their liking (around 5 million homes short). Levittown and other similarly mass manufactured developments were affordable options for many of those servicemen (but minorities were often unjustly turned down).

These early suburbs were almost always close to the compact business districts of a large city (Within 20-30 minutes by train). They were smaller homes (less than 1,000 square feet) on smaller plots. Families usually owned one car. Wives would drop their husbands off at the train station if they lived too far away (10 minutes) to walk.

Since blacks were barred from these new, cheap developments they lived in the older central city. During this era, blacks were also migrating from the rural South to the North and West to find jobs. As blacks and other minorities became the majorities in the urban centers, many whites became anxious and moved out to the suburbs. The suburbs became the ideal "white" utopic vision of the American dream that was buttressed by popular culture and media depictions.

During this time, single-use zoning also became a fad. Areas were zoned for commercial, industrial, or residential only. This also forced people often from their urban homes due to zoning changes. As a result of all these factors, by the late '50s early '60s suburbia was perceived as the appropriate and normal place for middle-class whites.

Suburbs have now overgrown their dense urban centers. The average American home is now over 2,500 square feet, has a two car garage, and sits on 1/5 of an acre. On top of this only 2.5 people inhabit the average home and the population has risen dramatically. Every decade the average one way commute to work goes up about 5 minutes and is currently around 27 minutes. That means that every year, the average American loses around 225 hours just driving to work not even counting the continuously stretched distances to the gas station, grocery store, school, etc.

This exponentially expanding urban sprawl poses serious threats to the environment and economic sustainability. The extent of low-density sprawl from urban centers now means that suburbs are totally car dependent. We own 2.3 cars per household. Traffic is continually a worse and worse problem. Infrastructure costs such as road building and maintenance, water pipes, electric grid, etc. are increasing exponentially as the sprawl expands from the commercial and industrial center.

Source: US Census Bureau

Peak oil theory predicts that the rate of oil extraction will eventually plateau and decline. The most reliable studies believe the extraction capacity will peak sometime between 2020 and 2100. If this is the case, the decline in oil energy would likely outpace our ability to develop new energy solutions and cause a spike in demand and price greater than anything we've seen. While I don't think this is cause for panic, I think we ought to be developing more sustainable, efficient, and eco-friendly energy and a land-use plan that is conducive to less oil dependence. At least some countries are taking this risk very seriously (Germany, France, and Denmark). The United States Department of Energy in a 2005 study found that peak oil was a real threat, particularly for the low-density and oil-dependent United States. It further found that "[v]iable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking." (Peaking of World Oil Production: Impact, Mitigation, and Risk Management)

Urban sprawl also contributes to pollution and climate change. Studies show that Americans in particular think they require more space and more stuff to be comfortable and happy raising a family than they actually do. In 1947, the average American space per person was around 210 sq. ft, now it is over 950 sq. ft. per person: same happiness levels. We fill our trash cans with 2 times the weight of trash bins in Western Europe. Although I don't think we should be frantic about the situation, we should react intelligently to the fact that at least three quarters of scientists support the idea that human activity contributes significantly to the global climate change. (For more information, click here)

Other than avoiding exponentially increasing costs of urban sprawl and the limited future affordability of oil, there are other benefits to living in higher-density closer-to-downtown areas. People that live in higher-density, mixed zoning locations walk more and are more healthy. Suburb dwellers have higher obesity levels and anti-social behavior. Higher-density dwellers have much more social interaction than the average suburbanite. City dwellers enjoy the social capital benefits of closer and more numerous personal relationships and increased informedness of current events. Urbanites eat healthier and fresher food. Living in diverse and beautiful places that tell stories make places worth living in. Suburban homogeneity has a lower aesthetic quality in the eyes of the majority. People living in attractive places may have more pride in their homes and schools. Small-businesses tend to be more competitive with corporations in urban zones too. Even if the oil crisis was to be decades away, it is most likely that the quality of life would increase with a large percentage of people either moving to rural areas or closer to the dense-urban centers.

Although I don't think these issues are causes for immediate panic; I do think it means that we need to start making serious changes now. We need to provide incentives for people to live closer to the urban center and in smaller spaces. Perhaps concentric property tax zones that increase away from the urban center. Perhaps invest less in adding lanes and more into public transportation options and toll roads. We need to divorce a car or two, not our spouses! We need to deregulate zoning by a lot. More mixed-use zoning is a must. We need to make small-business and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods.

These policies should only affect suburbia around major urban centers. Rural, farming, and small town America, for me, is another issue. Rural areas have often developed in sustainable ways and their industry requires a different infrastructure. It would be apples and oranges to compare rural areas and very small towns with the big city sprawl problem that I am addressing here.

Some fire back at these suggestions saying that it is people's preference to live in suburbs. While suburbs may well have a permanent place in America, they need a certain population density to function sustainably like they were originally designed. Before lower-density developments are allowed, a dense-enough center should be developed first. Consumers have also preferred cigarettes. Similarly, young people today are slowly abandoning the cultural status quo for greater sensibility.

Now, on an individual level, I do not think it is morally reprehensible or stupid to live in the suburbs or to move out to cheaper housing. It may be the best thing for a particular family. But, on a social level it is both irresponsible and shortsighted to incentivize it. We need to make the incentives for living closer to the urban center line up with the needs of the society to overcome the cooperative action problem. Eventually, the more compact lifestyle would likely overtake suburbia as the majority's preference as it has elsewhere in the world for working-age citizens. Developing alternative energy and fuel sources should also be part of the solution. We need efficient public transportation. We need to be able to walk to the store, to work, to school, etc. Mixed-use planning can do a lot on that front.

The real American Dream is the intense hope and promise of freedom and prosperity. Providing incentives to move away from exponential urban sprawl will allow for a more sustainable economy. In the long run, this would be an investment allowing future generations to pursue the American Dream. Let's act now and invest rather than react later to an abrupt change in conditions later.