The Discussion Continues (again)
As a preliminary to this post, I have to confess that I am going to disappear from the Blogosphere for several days while I transplant myself from 8000 feet in the Sierras to 1200 feet in Claremont (my home town) --- from winter back to spring. I'll be back some time early next week.
It seems to me that I hear a common thread of complaint among Conservatives and also in the posts authored by my friend in Pennsylvania, LongShot. Federal government has grown oppressively large and threatens (if not violates) our individual rights. Personally, I dislike many things that the government does but I do not experience them as violations of my rights. One of the geniuses of our Constitution is that it creates a government that is correctable without revolution, that is, it institutionalizes ways in which our government (including the Constitution itself) can be changed. My preference, then, is to continue to work within the system rather than destroying the system, which seems to be the advertised goal of many extreme factions today.
This brings me to the last two paragraphs in LongShot's most recent post. He reminds us that entering into the Social Contract is voluntary and asserts that individuals can opt out of the Contract if they choose to do so. This is an issue that takes up hours of discussion in the typical college classroom. The people who voluntarily created our Social Contract are long dead --- long, long dead. What's more, when I was born, no one ever asked me if I would agree to give up my sovereignty over my own body. So classical political theory must take up issues like Paternal Power to deal with the whole period of when a child is growing into maturity and then must take up various concepts of "coming of age" when a child-turned-man (or woman) accepts the burden of our Social Contract. For me, the most visible signs of this were getting a driver's license and then registering for the draft (at age 18). The latter made evident Hobbes' assertion that there is no political power without the power of death. That is, when I registered for the draft, it was true that the government could take my life if it wished. And every year, I had to inform my draft board of my current activities in school or in my profession. The truth of that political power was visited on an entire generation during the Vietnam War and we all know what came of that.
Classical Social Contract theory asserts that we all give our consent even though we may do it in subtle ways. As for withdrawing our consent, that is tough to do if you try to remain in the same place. It's easy to do if you are willing to leave and settle your lot someplace else. Of course, in the present state of the world, there are few places that do not involve government of some kind. Social Contract theory simply doesn't allow for an individual to withdraw his/her consent and remain in place among the vast majority who consent. At this point, one might recall Socrates who consents to his imprisonment and execution via hemlock because he has profited, all his life, from the benefits of the polis in which he has lived. You cannot accept the benefits unless you are willing to play the whole game.
I think it is important to recognize that we do not live in a "natural world." We live in a "social world" among the creations of our civil society as well as those of individuals in the underlying society. We owe some obligations to all of this. In order to be completely sovereign individuals, we would have to withdraw from this world and our obligations to it. Obviously, there are some small groups that try to do this, but not many can. And why would they?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Discussion Continued
We may have some disagreement over the composition of our natural, unalienable rights. LongShot tends to limit the role of government to "protect[ing] us from the criminals and foreign attack." However, in the Declaration of Independence, our unalienable rights are described as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By the time the Constitution was framed, the goals of government were described as " to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The expansion of government interests and activities beyond mere defense and protection from criminals rests on the concepts of "pursuit of happiness" and "promot[ing] the general welfare."
Since these expressions are deployed in our fundamental documents of "social contract," no one can argue that the government is not authorized to pursue these goals. It can be argued, of course, that not everyone will profit from any particular act attempting to promote the general welfare. But as early as John Locke, there is a strong argument for majority will in government acts, and our own procedures obviously lean toward the majority or some "super majority."
Before moving on, it is also important to remember that our Bill of Rights explicates specific rights of individuals so that we can make sure that acts of the majority cannot infringe upon rights of individuals. We also have a justice system that can carry us all the way to the Supreme Court where acts of the government can be declared unconstitutional. The government in the mode of acting for the general welfare must be careful not to trod on the rights of a minority or an individual.
Finally, then, I want to return to the issue of public education. Only a decade or so after the creation of our government, it was argued that public education should be provided so that every individual citizen can really pursue his/her happiness in life and contribute to the general welfare by achieving a level of intelligence worthy of a democratic society. This does not strip the underlying society of its right to create educational opportunities, including "home schooling." But it is taken seriously enough that it sees the creation of minimal standards to which students have a right as justified. In my mind, there is nothing in this that infinges on other people's rights, as LongShot asserts. In particular, no one is obligated to become a teacher. Indeed, if no one were willing to be a teacher, the system of offering public education would simply fail. [One of the interesting aspects of this issue is that government has taken the issue as one of protecting the child's right to an education so that it has held, on occasion, that parents do not have the right to prevent a child from being educated. If a parent does not want a child to attend public school, he/she must provide an acceptable alternative.]
We may have some disagreement over the composition of our natural, unalienable rights. LongShot tends to limit the role of government to "protect[ing] us from the criminals and foreign attack." However, in the Declaration of Independence, our unalienable rights are described as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By the time the Constitution was framed, the goals of government were described as " to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The expansion of government interests and activities beyond mere defense and protection from criminals rests on the concepts of "pursuit of happiness" and "promot[ing] the general welfare."
Since these expressions are deployed in our fundamental documents of "social contract," no one can argue that the government is not authorized to pursue these goals. It can be argued, of course, that not everyone will profit from any particular act attempting to promote the general welfare. But as early as John Locke, there is a strong argument for majority will in government acts, and our own procedures obviously lean toward the majority or some "super majority."
Before moving on, it is also important to remember that our Bill of Rights explicates specific rights of individuals so that we can make sure that acts of the majority cannot infringe upon rights of individuals. We also have a justice system that can carry us all the way to the Supreme Court where acts of the government can be declared unconstitutional. The government in the mode of acting for the general welfare must be careful not to trod on the rights of a minority or an individual.
Finally, then, I want to return to the issue of public education. Only a decade or so after the creation of our government, it was argued that public education should be provided so that every individual citizen can really pursue his/her happiness in life and contribute to the general welfare by achieving a level of intelligence worthy of a democratic society. This does not strip the underlying society of its right to create educational opportunities, including "home schooling." But it is taken seriously enough that it sees the creation of minimal standards to which students have a right as justified. In my mind, there is nothing in this that infinges on other people's rights, as LongShot asserts. In particular, no one is obligated to become a teacher. Indeed, if no one were willing to be a teacher, the system of offering public education would simply fail. [One of the interesting aspects of this issue is that government has taken the issue as one of protecting the child's right to an education so that it has held, on occasion, that parents do not have the right to prevent a child from being educated. If a parent does not want a child to attend public school, he/she must provide an acceptable alternative.]
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Here is another response to LongShot who commented on my previous post. Glad that we're having this discussion, but is anyone else listening? Maybe it doesn't matter.
We use the expression "civil society" differently and that may have caused some confusion in our discussion. In classical political theory (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) we enter into a "civil society" by creating a "social contract" in which we create institutionalized government. And in that creation, we agree to give up certain rights (like the right to defend ourselves by bringing individuals to justice ourselves) in exchange for certain protections and real freedoms. In this theory, citizens act through their government in order to solve their common problems and achieve their common good. That leaves a large area of problems and actions that lack commonality and that individuals are free to pursue as they wish. They may do this by acting as individuals or by creating small institutions through which they hope to achieve their goals. This is the realm that LongShot calls "civil society." I am going to call it the "underlying society" which is how we get together to act without working through our government.
If we begin by dropping out of consideration the complex of civil societies in which we actually participate and only consider one national society/government, then we have to ask what problems belong rightfully to civil society and what problems are left to what I call the underlying society. We tend to think of ourselves entering into civil society in order to protect our "natural rights" --- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If other governments or other people act in ways that threaten my rights, I can expect my government to protect me. Here, then, is the first big question. How does government prepare itself to protect my rights?
In order to act at all, government has to become institutionalized --- manned and funded. Modern states have separated the powers of legislation, administration, and justice. This requires people who represent our interests in all three spheres as well as staff who help to carry out government activity --- lots of money to pay these people to do what we need them to do. National government is way too expensive to manage via bake sales or car washes; taxation is inevitable (I believe).
LongShot identifies with Locke's political theory and yet he asserts that "the bigger the government, the smaller the individual." Locke himself argued in The Second Treatise that freedom to do whatever one lists is not true freedom and that, indeed, real freedom is only achieved within civil society. We give up some of our illusory freedom in order to obtain freedom of more tangible kinds. Certainly, government can try to go too far in determining our lives but wherever the line is drawn requires a thorough discussion of our natural rights and how they are best protected. It is not, I would argue, a simple matter of reducing government to a minimum.
Is government a desirable way to create what we now love to call "infrastructure"? LongShot seems to agree that it is. But how is that justified in terms of natural rights? I would argue it comes from the "pursuit of happiness" principle? We have a common interest in infrastructure because it helps us to pursue happy lives. One of the bigger issues here is public education, which arose already in Jefferson's administration --- the idea that every citizen must have the right to be educated and therein to become an intelligent citizen of our society. The underlying society can still arrange to create educational institutions (Catholic schools, for instance) to advance their own ends, but the government still protects the fundamental right of each child to receive an education. Hence, public schools are provided for.
There are a lot of issues left for debate --- civil rights, unions and collective bargaining, etc. --- but I need to end here. I would say that I have never regretted paying taxes, though I have often regretted the ways in which my government has spent our collective money. There are two major reasons why the US is close to bankruptcy today --- pursuit of an unjustifiable war in Iraq and failure to secure oversight and regulation in the nation's financial institutions. When we object to how our government behaves, we need to correct its behavior as effectively as we can, not destroy it. I voted for Obama because I subscribe to most of his ideas and because I believe that Republicans are terrible governors. [Why are Republicans such poor governors? Precisely, I believe, because they don't really believe in government.]
We use the expression "civil society" differently and that may have caused some confusion in our discussion. In classical political theory (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) we enter into a "civil society" by creating a "social contract" in which we create institutionalized government. And in that creation, we agree to give up certain rights (like the right to defend ourselves by bringing individuals to justice ourselves) in exchange for certain protections and real freedoms. In this theory, citizens act through their government in order to solve their common problems and achieve their common good. That leaves a large area of problems and actions that lack commonality and that individuals are free to pursue as they wish. They may do this by acting as individuals or by creating small institutions through which they hope to achieve their goals. This is the realm that LongShot calls "civil society." I am going to call it the "underlying society" which is how we get together to act without working through our government.
If we begin by dropping out of consideration the complex of civil societies in which we actually participate and only consider one national society/government, then we have to ask what problems belong rightfully to civil society and what problems are left to what I call the underlying society. We tend to think of ourselves entering into civil society in order to protect our "natural rights" --- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If other governments or other people act in ways that threaten my rights, I can expect my government to protect me. Here, then, is the first big question. How does government prepare itself to protect my rights?
In order to act at all, government has to become institutionalized --- manned and funded. Modern states have separated the powers of legislation, administration, and justice. This requires people who represent our interests in all three spheres as well as staff who help to carry out government activity --- lots of money to pay these people to do what we need them to do. National government is way too expensive to manage via bake sales or car washes; taxation is inevitable (I believe).
LongShot identifies with Locke's political theory and yet he asserts that "the bigger the government, the smaller the individual." Locke himself argued in The Second Treatise that freedom to do whatever one lists is not true freedom and that, indeed, real freedom is only achieved within civil society. We give up some of our illusory freedom in order to obtain freedom of more tangible kinds. Certainly, government can try to go too far in determining our lives but wherever the line is drawn requires a thorough discussion of our natural rights and how they are best protected. It is not, I would argue, a simple matter of reducing government to a minimum.
Is government a desirable way to create what we now love to call "infrastructure"? LongShot seems to agree that it is. But how is that justified in terms of natural rights? I would argue it comes from the "pursuit of happiness" principle? We have a common interest in infrastructure because it helps us to pursue happy lives. One of the bigger issues here is public education, which arose already in Jefferson's administration --- the idea that every citizen must have the right to be educated and therein to become an intelligent citizen of our society. The underlying society can still arrange to create educational institutions (Catholic schools, for instance) to advance their own ends, but the government still protects the fundamental right of each child to receive an education. Hence, public schools are provided for.
There are a lot of issues left for debate --- civil rights, unions and collective bargaining, etc. --- but I need to end here. I would say that I have never regretted paying taxes, though I have often regretted the ways in which my government has spent our collective money. There are two major reasons why the US is close to bankruptcy today --- pursuit of an unjustifiable war in Iraq and failure to secure oversight and regulation in the nation's financial institutions. When we object to how our government behaves, we need to correct its behavior as effectively as we can, not destroy it. I voted for Obama because I subscribe to most of his ideas and because I believe that Republicans are terrible governors. [Why are Republicans such poor governors? Precisely, I believe, because they don't really believe in government.]
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
This post is a response to "LongShot" who has the honor of being the first person to ever comment on one of my blogs. (See comments section on my previous posting.) I also want to thank LongShot for taking the time to articulate his political position.
I would, of course, agree that people who enter into a "civil society" do so in order "to manage their own [collective] affairs." Political theory normally sees this happening with the creation of a constitution or government of some kind. That is the principal "institution" formed "to solve the problems we face." The value of a well-constituted government is that it becomes an institution through which the people continually "meet" to discuss and solve their problems. You don't have to continually create new institutions.
As we all know, our society has created a manifold of supposedly cooperative governments --- city, county, state, and federal. The purpose (theoretically) is to distribute problems and actions according to their scope --- local to national. If a pot-hole needs the be fixed, I call on my city government. If interstate commerce needs regulation, I call on the federal government.
I don't think we are in disagreement here, though the big question remaining is whether this organization works well. I'm glad that LongShot is satisfied with his local government. I can't say the same for mine. Of course, my federal congressman is David Dreier and I can't say that I have ever been satisfied with him either, nor does he represent my interests.
As we get into LongShot's proposals, something becomes more clear and I'm wondering if this isn't the crux of much of the current argument. LongShot suggests an extreme vision of currency and financial "reform" as well as termination of a wide variety of federal programs --- education, agriculture regulation, social security, medicare, you name it. BUT he immediately implies that these same functions can be dealt with in other ways. HENCE, it is not that the causes are unworthy, apparently; it is just that he does not want the federal government involved.
So here is what I conclude. LongShot does not object to civil society, i.e. government of some kind and at some level, dealing with our problems. He simply does not want a federal government. Perhaps that's too extreme. I guess that he wants a federal government that concerns itself ONLY with whatever passes across our national borders --- tariffs, defense, etc.
If all of our other personal problems and needs are handled by state and local governments, there is very little left, I would say, to calling myself an "American." In fact, LongShot would be a Pennsylvanian and I would be a Californian, meaning that most things that shape my life are involved in how the civil society of California decides to come up with solutions. I suppose that one of the advantages in this political solution would be that we would have massive migrations of people into Massachusetts where there is state-run health care or into Wisconsin where the dairy industry has long been protected to the degree of prohibiting importation of colored margarine. Pick your state!
Let me know if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that what we are debating is exactly what the Federalist Papers were written for. The issue, ultimately, is whether we shape a national character or whether we simply plow ahead as individual states. In certain ways, that is what the Civil War was fought over.
I would, of course, agree that people who enter into a "civil society" do so in order "to manage their own [collective] affairs." Political theory normally sees this happening with the creation of a constitution or government of some kind. That is the principal "institution" formed "to solve the problems we face." The value of a well-constituted government is that it becomes an institution through which the people continually "meet" to discuss and solve their problems. You don't have to continually create new institutions.
As we all know, our society has created a manifold of supposedly cooperative governments --- city, county, state, and federal. The purpose (theoretically) is to distribute problems and actions according to their scope --- local to national. If a pot-hole needs the be fixed, I call on my city government. If interstate commerce needs regulation, I call on the federal government.
I don't think we are in disagreement here, though the big question remaining is whether this organization works well. I'm glad that LongShot is satisfied with his local government. I can't say the same for mine. Of course, my federal congressman is David Dreier and I can't say that I have ever been satisfied with him either, nor does he represent my interests.
As we get into LongShot's proposals, something becomes more clear and I'm wondering if this isn't the crux of much of the current argument. LongShot suggests an extreme vision of currency and financial "reform" as well as termination of a wide variety of federal programs --- education, agriculture regulation, social security, medicare, you name it. BUT he immediately implies that these same functions can be dealt with in other ways. HENCE, it is not that the causes are unworthy, apparently; it is just that he does not want the federal government involved.
So here is what I conclude. LongShot does not object to civil society, i.e. government of some kind and at some level, dealing with our problems. He simply does not want a federal government. Perhaps that's too extreme. I guess that he wants a federal government that concerns itself ONLY with whatever passes across our national borders --- tariffs, defense, etc.
If all of our other personal problems and needs are handled by state and local governments, there is very little left, I would say, to calling myself an "American." In fact, LongShot would be a Pennsylvanian and I would be a Californian, meaning that most things that shape my life are involved in how the civil society of California decides to come up with solutions. I suppose that one of the advantages in this political solution would be that we would have massive migrations of people into Massachusetts where there is state-run health care or into Wisconsin where the dairy industry has long been protected to the degree of prohibiting importation of colored margarine. Pick your state!
Let me know if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that what we are debating is exactly what the Federalist Papers were written for. The issue, ultimately, is whether we shape a national character or whether we simply plow ahead as individual states. In certain ways, that is what the Civil War was fought over.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
I am really tired of hearing people rant and rave that Obama is a "socialist." Socialism is a form of economy in which the means of production are owned by the public or the government. Capitalism is a form of economy in which the means of production are owned by private individuals. It is obvious that the United States subscribes to the latter form of economy far more closely than the former. Recent bailouts because of dire economic conditions do not come close to government ownership of the means of production.
It would seem, then, that the ranting and raving is all precipitated by the very marginal tendency in our country toward public control of Capitalism. Here, it seems to me, there is nothing new going on in the Obama administration --- not even in the last half century. It has long been clear that public intervention is necessary in order to maintain a reasonable balance between Capitalism and the public welfare. Too bad! Wouldn't it be nice if private owners of the means of production would protect their workers with safe operations, adequate reimbursement for their labor, and old-age security for those who have served well. But they don't. The instinct of Capitalism is to make money and, unfortunately, has little to do with serving the wider community.
Consider coal mining in West Virginia. Pure Capitalism? No. Fortunately, The public has asserted that certain safety standards must be upheld and government agencies inspect mines to assure that safety standards are in place. Even then, we have a situation where some private owners refuse to comply and disasters occur. How much worse would it be if private owners were simply allowed to be "self-governing?" In its pure form, Capitalism does not provide any incentive for protection of the worker or for the public welfare. Since the 19th Century, the United States has worked toward a modified version of Capitalism designed to promote social justice. Is this Socialism? No. It is a necessary attempt to make our Constitution work by promoting the General Welfare and still allowing private entrepreneurship.
Do Conservatives today really want to live in a world of pure Capitalism? Do they really want to eliminate governments and promote anarchy? What really do they want? I would very much like to hear some of our Conservative authors tell us exactly what it is that they really want --- not the vague familiar "less government" or "lower taxes" but actual programs or laissez faire "freedoms."
Personally, I like eating food that I know with some confidence is healthy. I like driving on efficient Interstate highways. I like feeling that children can go to public schools and be educated rather than being forced into factories to support starving families. Do Conservatives really believe that these things are possible without government?
It would seem, then, that the ranting and raving is all precipitated by the very marginal tendency in our country toward public control of Capitalism. Here, it seems to me, there is nothing new going on in the Obama administration --- not even in the last half century. It has long been clear that public intervention is necessary in order to maintain a reasonable balance between Capitalism and the public welfare. Too bad! Wouldn't it be nice if private owners of the means of production would protect their workers with safe operations, adequate reimbursement for their labor, and old-age security for those who have served well. But they don't. The instinct of Capitalism is to make money and, unfortunately, has little to do with serving the wider community.
Consider coal mining in West Virginia. Pure Capitalism? No. Fortunately, The public has asserted that certain safety standards must be upheld and government agencies inspect mines to assure that safety standards are in place. Even then, we have a situation where some private owners refuse to comply and disasters occur. How much worse would it be if private owners were simply allowed to be "self-governing?" In its pure form, Capitalism does not provide any incentive for protection of the worker or for the public welfare. Since the 19th Century, the United States has worked toward a modified version of Capitalism designed to promote social justice. Is this Socialism? No. It is a necessary attempt to make our Constitution work by promoting the General Welfare and still allowing private entrepreneurship.
Do Conservatives today really want to live in a world of pure Capitalism? Do they really want to eliminate governments and promote anarchy? What really do they want? I would very much like to hear some of our Conservative authors tell us exactly what it is that they really want --- not the vague familiar "less government" or "lower taxes" but actual programs or laissez faire "freedoms."
Personally, I like eating food that I know with some confidence is healthy. I like driving on efficient Interstate highways. I like feeling that children can go to public schools and be educated rather than being forced into factories to support starving families. Do Conservatives really believe that these things are possible without government?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Bankrupting Government
It seems that one of the chief aims of hard-line conservatives, these days, is to completely bankrupt government. What used to be "no more taxes" seems to have become "no taxes at all." Yet what would actually happen if government stopped collecting taxes? Where do these people think that money goes?!
It seems to me that the time has come for Tea Baggers and other conservatives to tell us what they are willing to let governments spend their money on and what they object to. Shall we have interstate highways that are safe to drive on? Shall we have inspection of food processing plants in order to maintain the health of our foods? Shall we have Federal agents to patrol our borders? These are all supported by our tax dollars so what are we going to give up and how do we draw the lines? It's easy to scream about taxes but it's a whole lot more difficult to take the time to think it over and decide what you want.
Come on gang!
It seems that one of the chief aims of hard-line conservatives, these days, is to completely bankrupt government. What used to be "no more taxes" seems to have become "no taxes at all." Yet what would actually happen if government stopped collecting taxes? Where do these people think that money goes?!
It seems to me that the time has come for Tea Baggers and other conservatives to tell us what they are willing to let governments spend their money on and what they object to. Shall we have interstate highways that are safe to drive on? Shall we have inspection of food processing plants in order to maintain the health of our foods? Shall we have Federal agents to patrol our borders? These are all supported by our tax dollars so what are we going to give up and how do we draw the lines? It's easy to scream about taxes but it's a whole lot more difficult to take the time to think it over and decide what you want.
Come on gang!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)