Do we really have a five-party “system”?

Many commentators write about the “two-party system” as if it were enshrined in the Constitution.  Actually, the writers of the Constitution feared factionalism.  They thought their document would bring about a system of considered deliberation and reasoned arguments.

Unfortunately, factionalism reared its ugly head quite quickly.  John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, a non-signer, soon fell into animosity about the direction of government.  They did reconcile their differences in their elder years, but their dispute lingered in the Whig and Democratic parties.

The Whig party went into decline when several Whigs formed the Republican Party, partly because of opposition to the extension of slavery and partly because of support of modernization.  Ironically, one of the Republican slogans was “Free Labor” as opposed to slave labor.

Over time, the parties’ basic tenets changed with changing times.  The Republicans essentially became the party of Big Business and the Democrats became the party of the People.  But these were not fixed ideologies.  The parties adjusted their ideas to the times.  Republicans put forth ideas that favored a “government for the people” and the Democrats put forward ideas that were corporate-friendly or status quo.  Many commentators referred to the two parties as “big tent” parties; that is, all were welcome if they held loosely to a few basic tenets.

Then somewhere in the eighties or maybe even earlier, the Republicans morphed into a hard-nosed, doctrinaire party.  The days of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) began.  Some very stellar Republican politicians who got things done for the greater good were no longer welcome.  The Republicans also drew in many evangelicals who knew exactly what God wanted; just the kind of religious influence that the signers of the Constitution worried about.  The signers were very aware of the differences among denominations and didn’t want to favor one over the other.

The result of all these changes have left many would-be voters, and even regular voters dismayed.  As the parties have hardened in their stances, many people see government as dysfunctional and more partisan than deliberative.  Remember that phrase describing the U.S. Senate as “the greatest deliberative body in the world”?  I’ll agree to the “deliberate” part, “deliberate” grandstanding for minor electoral advantage.

Back to the signers of the Constitution: I think they had in mind a constituency who knew the men they were electing, if not personally, at least by reputation.  Now we know our candidates by the slick literature they send out and the amount of TV exposure they get.  Unfortunately, third parties spend millions smearing the candidates based on private interest, not the public good that the candidates may promote.

My solution to all this mismatch of ideas and actions is either all candidates are independents selected on the merits they project or candidates are loosely organized into parties that reflect their own interest.

My choices for parties would be Libertarian, Business, Evangelical, Charity, and Common Good.

The Libertarian Party would be almost anti-government.  To them, the individual is primary, government just gets in the way of freedom.  Taxes are just stealing money.  Laws are for other people.

The Business Party would be all in support of large corporations with a bit of a sop to small businesses.  Taxes and regulations just get in the way of corporations “returning value” to their shareholders.

The Evangelical Party would be Bible-centric and would pass laws pushing for more religion in government and for how all should behave, both in public and private.

The Charity Party would take up the causes of those groups who they feel are disenfranchised by government or society.  This Party is difficult to criticize because there are many people with problems that they did not create.  On the other hand, many people in a given group have managed without the Charity Party’s help.

Finally, the Common Good Party is my party (if I were to cease being a Party of One).  This is the party that takes seriously “General Welfare” and “Common Defense” in the Constitution.  The Common Good Party is concerned with infrastructure, safety regulations, commercial laws, and many other laws and expenditures that help promote a prosperous society.

The Libertarian Party ignores how much it depends on government.  What if a libertarian had been defrauded.  Would that person depend on a tax-supported court to seek reparation?  Or would the Libertarian have it out with six-guns on the streets of Laredo?

The Business Party is similar to the Libertarian Party with the emphasis on large organizations rather than individuals.  But would a modern corporation survive without public schools to train a large number of people in increasingly complicated skills, without roads to move its goods around, without police and courts to seek redress for those who would harm the corporation?

The Evangelical Party seems to pick and choose what Bible verses to use.  Two that it seems to me that they ignore most are “Be not like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men…” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  One could also say the writers of the Constitution were all to familiar with the picking and choosing done by various sects; that’s why they wanted “no religious test”.

The Charity Party’s hearts are in the right place, but the number of problems is so large that many people can’t put their hearts and souls into all those the Charity Party thinks are important.  Government does need a few members of this party just to keep some of issues on the table.

We probably will never have a single Common Good Party because people never agree on the priorities.  This gets back to the Constitution which didn’t really define “General Welfare”.  We do need to have more people who run for office speak out for the common good rather than promote a private interest.

Mel keeps wishing for a majority government, but he keeps seeing a minority voting.

Corporations and governments: can’t have one without the other

Considering some of the shouting, one might think that politics has divided into two camps: government is bad and corporations are for the common good, or corporations are greedy and government is for the common good.

As too often is the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

First, let’s look at the similarities.

Corporations and governments are organized by people for a large number of reasons.  The people who organize these entities do so to provide goods and services, to make money, to be famous, or to push certain views, both altruistic and selfish.  Neither type of organization is any better than the people who run the organization.  Success depends more on the leadership and the resources available than on the form.  Success also depends on the circumstances of the time.  If a large segment of the population is not interested in an idea, it will take a lot of effort to promote the idea, whether a new product or a new law.  On the other hand, if a very large segment of the population is interested in an idea, somebody in corporations or government will be working overtime to fulfill the population’s wishes.

The big difference is that the corporations are run by the few and governments are run by the many, if the many show up and vote.

As many misinterpret Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, many misinterpret Milton Friedman’s the only purpose of a corporation is to “increase profits”.

“[t]here is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."  - Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970

Many interpret this as the only purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder value.  Unfortunately, they ignore “rules of the game” and “without deception or fraud”.  But what is shareholder value?  Is it a continued gain in stock price?  Is it a continuous stream of increasing dividends?  Or could it be the long-term provision of a good or service?  For example, do investors want to create a product that could take years to bring to market?  Do investors want to insure that medical services can be provided to a community for decades rather than maximize profits for the short-term and destroy the community long-term?

Many point to the problems of MNSure and ObamaCare as examples of government inefficiency.  But guess who provided the computers and software for these health insurance programs?  Private companies!

And private companies have not been known for efficient, trouble-free rollouts of new products.  How many auto recalls are there every year?  Has every computer program or system you purchased or downloaded been free of bugs?  It seems every time I get a notice of an app update, the description includes “bug fixes”.

In the “bad old days” of mainframes, it was really a major milestone when a computer ran a whole day without a crash.  Now things are much better.  My laptop, which is more powerful than any mainframe I worked on, might go a whole week without some kind of frustrating error, including freezes.

MNSure and Obamacare are massive systems requiring massive co-ordination of many pieces.  As we don’t give up on our computers, we shouldn’t give up on massive projects that don’t work perfectly on the first day.

"I'm as confident of this as I would be that when the first cars didn't work well, it wasn't time to return to horses and buggies; it was time to improve the cars. This is the new technology; there are kinks to it and it's going to take some time to work them out.”
Joel Ario, quoted in “Contractor’s report slams MNsure weaknesses, readiness”, Elizabeth Stawicki, MPRNews, 2014-06-18

Are you collecting Social Security?  Is your check posted to your bank account on the promised day every month?  But it was not always so.  Like getting computers to not crash, the rollout of Social Security was not without glitches or without critics who claimed dire consequences.  Like “nationalization of wheat fields would soon follow” and Americans would be reduced to passive servility.  It would take forty years of tinkering to have ninety percent of Americans covered by Social Security.

See “What about Social Security’s rollout?” Bruce J. Schulman, 2013-10-29, Reuters

An interesting contrast to the call for less regulation and taxes is the call by some of the same people for government subsidy.  How many stadiums for billionaires have been built without government subsidies?  How many companies have chased after the best subsidies and tax breaks to determine the location of a new office or factory?  Are these the same people who say government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers?

Consider the big howl from Congress when Solyndra collapsed.  But nothing was said about the success of Tesla.  Both received start-up subsidies from the Federal government.  Tesla paid its loans back!  Also among those who received subsidies were Compaq, Intel, and Apple.  Now Apple is the largest company in the world in capitalization!  And looking for ways to avoid paying back its benefactor through taxes.

For a lot more on how government has fostered many other successful innovations, see “The Innovative State: Governments Should Make Markets, Not Just Fix Them”, Mariana Mazzucato, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2015.

- Mel wishes a few far-sighted Republicans and Democrats would start a Pragmatic Party.

This was also published in the Duluth Reader, 2015-03-26 at 2015/03/26/5005_corporations_and_governments_cant_have_one_without

People, government, and spending money

“The people know how to spend their money better than the government.”  Really?

A Minnesota politician was quoted last month stating some variation of this Libertarian statement, but I can’t find it in a search of the Duluth News Tribune or the Star Tribune.  This mantra keeps popping up when a Republican doesn’t like a particular program or a given tax.  Funny how they rarely apply it to the bailout of the big banks.  And it never applies to any government activity that they support.

Let’s start with the military budget.  Do the people really know how to spend their money on the military better than the government does?  Those who spout my introductory statement seem to want to throw even more money at the military budget.  Regardless of your attitude toward the military, it is in the Constitution that the government should spend money on the military: “provide for the common defense”.  I don’t think the signers meant for the government to take up a collection to support our numerous wars.  Wars are often strongly supported by those who make the claim about the people knowing best how to spend money.

If your house were burglarized, would you want to be responsible for paying for an investigation, a trial, and a prison term for the culprit?  Would you want to have to buy insurance to ensure the thief was brought to justice?  We buy insurance to cover the loss, but we pay taxes for a criminal justice system.  Who runs the criminal justice system?  The government.  Who runs on platforms of “tough on crime”?  Those who are first to put government down.

If your neighbor’s house catches fire, do you want to pay for your private fire department to ensure the flames don’t reach your house?  Government pays for and organizes fire departments that are a phone call away for taxpayers and tax dodgers alike.  Even when local fire departments are all volunteer, they seek support from local taxes and state and federal grants.

We complain about the condition of our streets and the congestion of our freeways.  If we know best how to spend our money, do we want to be responsible for the condition of the streets in front of our houses?  You pay for a nicely paved street in front of your house, and your neighbor leaves the street a muddy mess.  We need government to co-ordinate this so we don’t get our cars stuck in the mud.

We go to restaurants and buy groceries without giving any thought to the cleanliness or condition of the food.  Most restaurateurs and grocers are scrupulous about what they provide, but they aren’t in control of every step of processing the food or even have the time or means to give a thorough quality check.  Government provides some oversight with food inspections, for example, in meat-packing plants.  Many corporations complain about this government “intrusion”, but without it we would have many more food-borne illnesses.  Think about Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”.  Think about the City of Duluth closing a couple of local restaurants because of numerous health violations.  Would “the people” have all the resources to make these checks?

Corporations complain about the lack of “qualified” employees, but they complain about the taxes to train these “qualified” employees.  Industrialized countries invest heavily in public education supported by taxes.  And they provide a range of subjects that provide skills to learn more about technical subjects and about subjects that make for better informed citizens.  What if education were only supplied by parents, either directly or by paying tuition to schools.  First, few parents know enough about all the subjects to fully education their children.  Second, many parents don’t have the resources to pay tuition for professional teachers.  Think of the literacy rates in countries where parents must pay school fees.  Only the well-off in these countries are sufficiently literate.

Speaking of education, a parallel statement to the one about spending money is that “parents know best what is good education for their children”.  A close example is the sweeping generalization that “Parents know kids don’t need Common Core, so politicians should listen”, Ben Boychuk, republished in Duluth News Tribune, February 1, 2015.

We were involved in helping our children with schoolwork, but we didn’t even pretend to know how to teach them the various subjects they took.  Except for the six years we lived in Europe, we sent them off to the local public schools.  In Europe, we sent them to Anglo-American schools because we expected to be in a given country for only two years.  About the only curriculum shock I had was when our daughter showed us the catalog for American history.  Rather than an overview, she had to select one or two narrower subjects, such as Andrew Jackson.

My own education experiences were more self-directed or teacher-encouraged than parentally involved.  My mother encouraged my brother and me to do well, but I doubt she knew much about what we learned or how we learned it.  For the most part we went to schools in the neighborhood. However, we rarely stayed in the same neighborhood for more than three years.  When we moved after I started high school, I selected an out-of-area high school to be with friends who I had known before.  And as Robert Frost wrote, “that made all the difference”.

It was Mr. Rush, a math teacher who punctuated his remarks with “when you go to Case”.  Six of us in my class went to Case Institute of Technology.  It was Mr. Cameron, the assistant principal who recommended that I apply for a Huntington Fund scholarship, which paid full tuition my first year.

Thank you, government, for spending so much money on me to get to that point.

Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-02-05 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/02/05/4777_people_government_and_spending_money.

Let’s Stop It with Global Warming Denial

The blogosphere is filled with nitpicking about NASA’s supposedly only 38 percent certainty about 2014 being the warmest year for recorded data.  Does it really matter if 2014 was the warmest year in recent history or the third warmest year? The trend is still up even though there may be slightly cooler years or there may be cooler spots that had been warmer.

Think of your house in winter.  Assume it is a five-room house with a basement. Assume you have no central heating and your only heat is from electric space heaters.

If you turn on one space heater in one room, you will feel warmer by the heater and colder as you move away from it.  Suppose you turn on a space heater in every room.  Each room will warm up near the space heater and be cooler away from the space heater.  If you are on the opposite side of the room, there is no room-heating!  And if you go to the basement, you have proven that there is no household warming!

What happens if you put a space heater in every corner of each room and in every corner of the basement?  You will have a very warm house, maybe an unbearably hot house.

So what happens if you have a few steam-powered factories?  Not much.  What happens if you add hundreds and thousands of steam-powered factories.  Well, the areas around these factories may be a bit warmer, but few will notice until they go into the factories.

What happens if you have a few steam-powered trains?  Not much, just like with the factories.

What happens if you have a few thousand gasoline-powered cars?  Not much.  But if you take lots of measurements, you will find that the temperatures are rising slightly around the areas where these factories, trains, and cars operate.

What happens when there are hundreds of thousands of factories and trains and millions of cars?  Where is all the heat from these going to go?  Magically back into the ground where the fuel came from?

Add to this that these factories, trains, and cars generate carbon dioxide.  Since the Earth takes in energy as ultra-violet radiation and sends out energy as infra-red radiation, you would think there would be some stability in energy.  But carbon dioxide (and other gasses) block infra-red radiation.  The more carbon dioxide we dump into the atmosphere, the more heat will be retained on earth.  The more generators of carbon dioxide we have, the more carbon dioxide we will have dumped into the atmosphere.

Let’s go back to our household heaters.  Nowadays, we use electric heaters.  Any carbon dioxide that results from our use is generated outside the house.  But what if our heaters are fireplaces and wood stoves?  The carbon dioxide is being generated inside our house.  If we are not careful, we could suffocate ourselves.  To make sure we have enough oxygen, we have to have leaky windows and doors or some controlled source of oxygen.

A simple thought experiment shows that we are definitely putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  For millennia, people cooked their food and warmed themselves with wood fires.  The wood provided the carbon for fuel and the trees absorbed the carbon dioxide to grow more wood.  This is a virtual cycle: what gets used for one purpose is recycled to produce more of the original substance.

Then people discovered coal in the ground.  This burned better than wood and was never rotten or damp.  For millennia, the techniques for extracting coal were too inefficient to provide world-wide use.

As the world population grew and agriculture spread, more trees were cleared for buildings and farms.  This meant less wood was available for fuel and alternatives were needed.  Extracting coal became more efficient.

However, its use wasn’t always efficient.  Many fireplaces and factories didn’t burn coal efficiently and much soot was dumped into the air.  This resulted in dirty laundry and more cases of pulmonary diseases.  As late as the 1940s, steam locomotives would spew cinders and other pollutants as they rumbled by.  At the time, we lived right next to the tracks in an otherwise nice neighborhood.  We would have to brush our hair after a train passed.

Coal and other fossil fuels are inefficient for another reason.  They ain’t making them anymore!  We have drained the swamps where critters large and small drowned and slowly broke down into coal and oil.  We have also “drained” the easy access to oil and coal.  Now we blow up mountains to get coal and pound the heck out of the underlying rock formations to get oil and gas.  The first has ruined towns and rivers.  The second is causing minor earthquakes.

Both of these operations remove thousands of trees and other vegetation that would absorb carbon dioxide.  Add to that we want larger and larger parking lots, wider and wider highways, and larger and larger buildings.  We will need more oil for these and will take away more of the carbon sink vegetation.  This is a vicious cycle; things only get worse.

Meanwhile we have more and more carbon being burned and many people making lots and lots of money producing carbon fuels.  To understand the denial of global warming, follow the money.  As Adam Smith wrote in his “Wealth of Nations”, those who live by profit are not to be trusted.

You can find more thoughts like this at my blog: http://magree.blogspot.com.

Libertarianism with benefits

The title of this entry is from “The Tea Party: A Brief History” by Ronald P Formisano.  He uses it as a subtitle for the chapter “Frustration with Politics as Usual”.  He defines “Libertarianism with benefits” as taking government payments while decrying too much government.

Formisano’s little book packs a big wallop to the inconsistencies of Tea Party politicians.

His final paragraph describing the original Tea Party resistance includes:

"In doing so, [Bostonians and their fellow colonists] looked not backward but forward, to an uncertain future.  Theirs was a populism of ordered community, in which liberty meant individual freedom to pursue one's destiny as well as responsibility and a regard for the common good."

The Moderate Manifesto

Originally published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2004-11-18.  You can find many articles on “Moderate Manifesto” published since then by many authors since.

A spectre is haunting America – the spectre of divisiveness.  All the powers of old grudges have entered into an unholy alignment to excite this spectre: freethinker and evangelical, Moore and Limbaugh, urban radicals and exurban commuters.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as divisive by its opponents in power? 

Where is the Opposition that has not hurled the branding reproach of divisiveness against more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:

1. Moderation is sadly needed by all American powers to become itself a power.

2. It is high time that Moderates should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of divisiveness with a manifesto of moderation itself.

To this end, a Party of One assembled in Duluth and sketched the following manifesto, to be published, sadly, in only one newspaper and in only the English language.

A moderate party would be based on four principles:

1. Strive for a balance between individual liberty and public good.

2. Discuss issues openly and respectfully.

3. Provide and pay for government services at the appropriate level.

4. Use party policies as guidelines.  Individual officeholders are free to make independent decisions based on the first three principles.

We need a balance between individual liberty and public good because too much liberty for some leads to harm to others and too much public good leads to loss of liberty for all.  On the other hand, too little liberty leads to a lack of creativity and too little public good leads to a lack of infrastructure to support creativity and the movement of people, goods, and ideas.

We need open and respectful discussion of issues to allow voice for a wide range of ideas.  Hardened opinions lead only to more hardened opinions.  “Our side is right and your side is wrong.”  Ideas lead to more ideas.  Rather than debates to win voters to one candidate or another, we need conversations to define what the real problems are and what possible solutions are available.

We need to provide for government services at the appropriate levels as well as levy the taxes at those levels that provide the services.  We avoid taxes at lower levels of government and demand more services from higher levels of government.  This has several pernicious effects.  As we avoid taxes at lower levels, local governments have few resources to provide the services local communities want. 

The demand for the local services does not go away but is pushed up to higher government levels. 

Higher government levels need to raise taxes to pay for those services.  Provision of services from outside the local community leads to services out of proportion to local needs resulting in poor delivery, excessive requirements, or unused services and equipment.  As taxes at higher levels go up, the ability to tax at lower levels goes down.  Inevitably, taxes at higher levels reach a point where voters rebel, the services provided at the higher level are cut, and the lower levels are unable to make up for those cuts.

We need politicians who follow a broad set of guidelines rather than a detailed list of party policies. 

When parties have detailed policies we move toward groupthink rather than individual liberty, and groupthink is not good for the common good.  The United States Senate is often called “the greatest deliberative body in the world.”  This may be true in some committee hearings, but hardened opinions has led to more posturing and less deliberating in the general sessions.  Hardened opinions are being demonstrated in state legislatures and city councils as well.

What are some policy examples that might follow from these principles?

One of the most divisive issues is abortion.  One side wants no abortions anytime anywhere; the opposite side wants no government interference in abortions anytime anywhere.  The only way to have no abortions is to keep all fertile females away from all fertile males.  That would move far away from the first principle of individual liberty.  Even if mixing of the sexes were permitted for married couples what happens when a pregnancy goes seriously awry?  Do we sacrifice both the mother and the fetus to a principle of no abortions?  The basic problem is unwanted pregnancies.  To reduce abortions we need to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  The proven ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies are to reduce abusive family situations, poverty, and ignorance.  The real discussion should be how to implement policies to reduce these problems.

The right charges that the left is weak on defense and the left charges that the right is militaristic.  But what is defense?  Is it military might that is suitable against mass armies?  Or is it international co-operation to resolve disputes?  Is it high-tech weaponry that can take out selected targets?  Or is it international police co-operation to root out terrorist cells before they can strike?

Freedom and democracy are words brandished like swords by those who claim them as their own goals.  Is freedom only granted to those who agree with a government?  Or is it the freedom to express unpopular opinions?  Is democracy only granted to those who vote for a dominant party and begrudgingly given to a large-scale opposition?  Or is democracy an open society in which people feel free to exercise their right “to petition the Government for redress of grievances”?

In summary, the Moderate Party should be the party that asks the hard questions.  And by asking the right questions, might lead a consensus that will lead to a better country and to a better world.

Leaky pipes and voting

Voting is as important as tending to leaky pipes.  If you don’t tend to a leaky pipe, you may a flooded basement.  If you don’t tend to your government by voting, you may have flooded streets.

This was inspired in party by John W. Gardner’s statement:

“The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.”

and by Jackie Calmes “As Numbers Grow, Single Women Emerge as Political Powerhouse”, New York Times, 2014-07-02

Calmes points out that single women are more likely not to vote, especially in mid-term elections.

For more wonderful quotes by John W. Gardner, see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_W._Gardner.  I especially like his comment on taxes:

“Handing money back to the private sector in tax cuts and starving the public sector is a formula for producing richer and richer consumers in filthier and filthier communities. If we stick to that formula we shall end up in affluent misery.”

Where, oh where did the moderates go?

For a good analysis of why we have so few moderate Republicans, see "George and Mitt Romney & the Death of Moderate GOP", David Frum, The Daily Beast, 2012-03-19.

As an interesting sidelight, how many current Republicans (or Democrats) would take a subway from the airport and a bus from the subway as George Romney did to visit his son's campaign headquarters?

Why I'm not a "full-blown liberal" and never will be

Given our polarized politics, many assume because somebody supports or refutes a given claim of one political party then that person must unconditionally refute or support the other party.  Many assume because I criticize Republicans or "conservatives" so often then I must be a Democrat or a "liberal".

I find it very easy to find fault with current Republican, so-called "conservative" positions.  There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions that it surprises me that any educated person would support the party.  Unless he or she had some personal gain from the corporate line parroted by the current Republican Party.  It is so ironic that Republicans and the Tea Party especially, claim to  follow the intent of the "Founding Fathers".  Well, the "Founding Fathers" were very much concerned about factions working against the common good.  If you have a week or two or three, read the Federalist Papers.  You can find it at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18 and choose your format.

On the other hand, I do not actively or even willingly embrace all "liberal" positions.  I find many people who call themselves liberal rather "conservative", that is holding to a position without consideration of nuance or contradictions.  For example, I have taken issue with the "Unfair" campaign.  Although the proponents deny it, their campaign implies a sweeping generalization, just the kind of generalization that they are fighting against when directed against people who are not "white".  Also, I think the "Occupy" movement confuses "freedom of assembly" with "freedom to camp out".

The latest ruckus that I have been skeptical of is the supposedly ill-treatment of workers at Foxconn plants in China.  It was reminiscent of the know-nothings who claimed that Soviet and Chinese workers were "chained to their benches".   Well, those who reported the claims against Foxconn are now having second thoughts about these claims.  See "'Significant Fabrications': Apple Critic Mike Daisey Under Fire".

The Coffee Party, demand, and civility

I've been a member of the Coffee Party for some time, and I follow them on Facebook.  Now and then I add a comment to one article or another.

I have a Coffee Party bumper sticker that I haven't used yet that states "Incite Civility and Reason".  The Coffee Party often suggests that members write this politician or that government office to demand something or other.  But is demanding some outcome "civility and reason"?

"Demand" is something done by ideologues, not by somebody trying to be civil and reasonable.

Founding optimists

"[The electors] will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."

Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07, on the age restrictions in the Constitution for the House of Representatives and for the Senate

Oh, how I wish that Jay had not deceived himself.

High and low tax states: All things considered, which is better?

Yahoo Finance often has articles about the taxation as a gauge of where to live, whether a place to work or a place to retire to. The latest was "The Most and Least Taxing States to Live and Retire In", Joel Stonington, Bloomberg, 2011-10-09.
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113611/most-least-taxing-states-bloomberg

Many early commenters said they'd much rather live in the high tax states than the low tax states because the quality of life was better.

Articles like these never tout up the benefits received, better educated work force, better roads, better fire service, better police, better courts,… In other words, you get what you pay for.

Would you choose a hotel strictly on price? Gosh, for $10/night, you can get a tiny room with bedbugs, dirty sheets, broken springs, noisy neighbors, and no heat or air-conditioning. Or for $100/night you could get a spacious room with clean sheets, quiet neighbors, heat or air conditioning, and a "free" all-you-can eat breakfast.

Quote of the day – Moderation in politics

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 1

When did we go wrong?

"THE THIRD charge against the House of Representatives is, that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few. Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary.  Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government. The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

- Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 57, "The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation", New York Packet, 1788-02-19

"Public good" or "common good" appear 26 times in the Federalist Papers.  "Business" appears 26 times but almost always in the context of the business of government.  "Corporation" appears seven times, but only twice in the sense of business.  One is that the King of England has authority to establish corporations but the President of the United States does not.  The other is how laws have not become perfect, including the law of corporations.

Now we have for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and the most virtue to pursue, the private good of corporations.

So much for following the intent of the "Founding Fathers".

Benefits day is coming!

Yep, Tax Day is coming. That is the day in April when our income tax filing is due, as well as any money due. Then there is also "Tax Freedom Day", the day supposedly when the average person has earned enough money to pay all the taxes he or she owes for the year. See also
"The 'Tax Freedom Day' Trick", Dave Johnson, Huffington Post, 2009-01-13. After "Tax Freedom Day", the average person supposedly can enjoy the benefits of his or her work.

What the "Tax Freedom Day" people don't want you to think about is all the benefits you get from government. They want you to think only about the "frivolous" things that government does with your taxes. Of course, they don't mention the "frivolous" things large corporations do with the money you paid for their goods and services, or the money they could have given you in your pay.

We should also celebrate "Benefits Day", the last day of the year, a time when we can look back at all the benefits we have received from government, from corporations, and from individuals. When they all work together for the common good, we all have a better life.

Believing and belonging

This morning the minister of the Unitarian-Universalist Congregation of Duluth, the Rev. Gail Lyndsay Marriner, gave a sermon on belonging, about the four levels of belonging we have - intimate, personal, social, and community. Sorry, I don't think I have the last right but it is beyond the level of neighbors, friends, and groups we join.

As an example of belonging she cited an atheist who joined a Presbyterian church because of the moral beliefs of the members. Although he didn't believe in God, he felt he belonged with people who lived as he thought Jesus taught.

This led me to think about how many people reject those who don't believe exactly as they do and therefore do not belong in their company. We have that in people who claim to be Christian rejecting those who are Muslim. We have those who claim to be Muslim who reject Christians. We have people who claim to be Sunni killing those who claim to be Shi'a and vice versa.

They don't look to the common ground that they have in being neighbors or citizens of a city or country that needs to make the electricity function reliably, to provide clean water, to properly dispose of sewage, and to have a fair and responsive police force.

Jonathan Swift captured the folly of belief being more important than co-operation in "Gulliver's Travels" where those who broke their eggs on the little end (little-enders) were superior to those who broke their eggs on the big end (big-enders) and vice versa. For this, they had war without end.

----

In trying to find the source of the Rev. Marriner's story, I came across a wonderful quote:

Infidel: In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does.

- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary", quoted in "Atheistic quotes"

Taxes and the common good; lack of linking the two is too common

"...just when you thought it was safe to spend your own money again..."
- Andy Aplikowski, residualforces.com, quoted by Tim O'Brien, The Blog House, Star Tribune, 2008-02-28

How do you spend your own money for roads, police and fire, defense, and education?

Today's ideological conservatives just don't understand the need for a balance between individual choices and the public good.

My wife added, "They inherited the public good without any notion of how it got there."

And I added, "How can we earn our money without the investment in the public good by people in the past?" Or, as the bumper sticker says, "If you can read this, thank a teacher."

See also

Time for Republicans of integrity to bolt the party

I've long been disenchanted with both "major parties" and been unhappy that the election process locks in the choice between "excessive government" and "excessive individualism (except for what they don't like)".

Six Republican Minnesota legislatures supported an override of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a transportation bill. For this "breaking of party discipline" the minority leader has stripped them of their committee positions. Very strange considering that Republicans pride themselves on being for individual choice and responsibility.

I think this may be an excellent opportunity for these legislatures to bolt their party, especially considering that they represent districts that are voting more Democratic. However, the Democrats are not really the answer for these legislatures. Rather, I think they should either start a new moderate party or join an existing moderate party.

A new moderate party would have a relatively simple principle: the need for a balance between individual choice and the common good. Anything more could lock the party into positions that would be irrelevant or counterproductive in the future.

An existing moderate party is the Independence Party of Minnesota. You can find its principles at http://www.mnip.org/principles.shtml. This page has links to the party's platform and other information. Personally, I find the platform has too many details.

If you think that a vote for the Independence Party will be a "wasted vote", remember that third-party gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura, last in the polls, was elected governor in 1998. And if you keep voting for either the left or the right, you might be left right out of a bright future.

See also "Voting is not a horse race".