In his Second Treatise on Government (the first treatise having been a response to Sir Robert Filmer's argument in favor of the divine right of kings) John Locke argues for a liberal state that emphasizes freedom based on his argument that humanity in a state of nature enjoys freedom, and since people do not voluntarily give up that which they enjoy, government is moral only if its institution enhances freedom by protecting life and property. Government ought to protect property because most value comes from labor, labor can be converted into money and money does not spoil, so that property can be enlarged beyond use (paragraphs 45-8). In essence, the most talented can be motivated to expand production and so increase wealth beyond use and therefore society becomes wealthier because of the existence of money and the right to property. Despite two centuries' ideological objections by leveling, socialist, Marxist, pragmatist and deconstructionist academics, and Locke's dependence on a pre-marginalist labor theory of value, Locke's argument was pragmatically correct. Societies that retained the liberal impulse benefited, and as the United States has sacrificed the liberal impulse since the 1910s in favor of European-style social democracy, its wealth and the public's earning power has declined.
A major part of Locke's argument is that there is a right to revolution. He may focus on this because he wrote the Second Treatise at the time of the Whigs' Glorious Revolution of 1688 (it was first published in 1689). Monarchies, Locke argues (paragraph 90) are inconsistent with civil society because civil society is created to establish a mechanism by which conflict among individuals can be resolved peaceably, namely the courts, and if an absolute monarch controls the courts then there can be no civil society to resolve conflict between the monarch and members of the general public, that is, that the public is in a potentially violent state of nature with respect to any absolute monarch:
"Hence it is evident that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil-government at all: for the end of civil society, being to avoid and remedy those inconveniences of the state of nature, which necessarily follow from every man's being judge in his own case, by setting up a known authority, to which every one of that society may appeal upon any injury received, or controversy that may arise, and which every one of the society ought to obey; where-ever any persons are, who have not such an authority to appeal to, for the decision of any difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature; and so is every absolute prince, in respect of those who are under his dominion"
Hence the necessity of an "appeal to heaven" under conditions of abuse by an absolute monarch.
Locke argues that just because we are born under a government, it does not necessarily mean that we are subjects to it. Rather, we become subject to a government by choice (paragraph 116):
"for those, who would persuade us that by being born under any government, we are naturally subjects to it, and have no more any title or pretence to the freedom of the state of nature, have no other reason...to produce for it, but only because our fathers or progenitors passed away their natural liberty, and thereby bound up themselves and their posterity to a perpetual subjection to the government, which they themselves submitted to. It is true that whatever engagements or promises any one has made for himself, he is under the obligation of them, but cannot, by an compact whatsoever, bind his children or posterity: for his son, when a man, being altogether as free as the father, any act of the father can no more give away the liberty of the son, than it can of any body else...
and (paragraph 122):
"But submitting to the laws of any country, living quietly, and enjoying privileges and protection under them, makes not a man a member of that society: this is only a local protection and homage due to and from all those, who, not being in a state of war, come within the territories belonging to any government, to all parts whereof the force of its laws extends. But this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man subject to another in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws, and submit to the government he found there
Men and women enter into society because in a state of nature they are exposed to the "invasion of others" (paragraph 123):
"for all being kings much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justices, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however, free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property."
Critical to maintaining civil society is a legislature that does not and cannot exercise arbitrary or absolute (paragraph 135) authority, standing laws and authorized judges (paragraph 136, 137).
The end of government is the good of the community (paragraph 163) and when power is in the hands of a magistrate its purpose must be (paragraph 171):
"to preserve the members of that society in their lives, liberties and possessions; and so cannot be an absolute, arbitrary power over their lives and fortunes, which are as much possible to be preserved...And this power has its original only from compact and agreement, and the mutual consent of those who make up the community."
Obviously, if a society is based upon agreement, then it can be dissolved. Locke argues that Anglo Saxon culture was conservative (and the same is likely true of American culture) so that a right of revolution would be rarely exercised. But (paragraph 212 &214):
"When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws, whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislature, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without authority would impose any thing upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the delegation of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place, who have no such authority or delegation...Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized by the fundamental appointments of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made and so sets up a new legislative."
and (paragraph 227):
"when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion; for if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They, who remove, or change the legislative, take away this decisive power, which no body can have, but by the appointment and consent of the people; and so destroying the authority which the people did, and no body else can set up, and introducing a power which the people hat not authorized, they actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority; and thus by removing the legislative established by the society (in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will) they untie the knot and expose the people a-new to the state of war. And if those themselves, as has been shewn, can no less esteemed so; when they, who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties, shall by force invade and endeavor to take them away..."
Not being knowledgeable about the US Supreme Court, my understanding is that there are two basic views of Constitutional interpretation. One is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted in light of the intentions of the Founding Fathers and that in choosing to reside in America many Americans expressly commit themselves to this compact, and those who do not live here as peaceable strangers for want of a better place. Under this view the Constitution can be amended by two thirds vote of Congress and three fourths vote of the state legislatures or at a convention called by two thirds of the state legislatures and ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures. This model is consistent with Locke's ideas and is likely the way that the Founding Fathers anticipated the Constitution would be changed and the Supreme Court would interpret it. Madison, for example, anticipated problems with the republic as manufacturing grew and the country became larger. If there had been an alternative intent as to how to change the Constitution under such circumstances, it would have been written into the Constitution and the amendment process made easier.
The second model is that the Constitution is a living agreement that the Supreme Court can change. The Supreme Court itself has increasingly relied on this interpretation. For example, in elimination of the death penalty for child molestation this past June the Court relied on multiple extensions of the Constitution to the states and the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment". This kind of extension may have begun in part for two reasonable purposes: how to adjust the Constitution to the growth of big business and civil rights abuses. These two reasons may have clouded the public consciousness about the role that the Supreme Court ought to be playing.
The Constitution does not provide for, and no one as far as I know has proposed a constitutional amendment to permit, the Supreme Court to legislate changing mores. Rather, this is an unauthorized usurpation of legislative authority. The Supreme Court has arrogated power and can exercise it arbitrarily based on its claim to be a moral interpreter of organic social change. This alone is consistent with the grounds that John Locke describes for revolution. The Supreme Court, in arrogating legislative authority through its one-sided claim to be an organic interpreter exists in a "state of nature" to the general public. No amount of legalistic argument or verbal acrobatics can change that.
But it gets worse. It does not seem likely that the Supreme Court's traditional claim to being a moral interpreter on behalf of society can hold true. The American public has increasingly divided into three camps: a small conservative camp, a small left-wing social democratic and a large moderate camp. The small conservative camp is made of traditionalists and a small number of disgruntled intellectuals. The social democratic camp is made up of university-trained professionals, such as attorneys, university professors, elite investment bankers and feminists. The large center is a more general cross section of American life.
There is little doubt that a disproportionate share of the Supreme Court Justices are Ivy League trained attorneys from elitist backgrounds and so fall into the social democratic camp. Their ideology deviates from the mainstream of America, and so they can no longer claim to fill the role of being a Constitutional interpreter on behalf of changing social norms. The social norms in which the Justices believe are deviant from the mainstream of America.
There needs to be a reassessment of the role that the Supreme Court plays, and the extent to which the "living interpretation" of the Constitution has exceeded its lawful bounds. Just having read the Second Treatise, it seems to me that Locke expressly supports a revolution against the usurpations in which the Supreme Court has already engaged.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Democracy In Inaction--Where Is Donald F. McGahan Now That We Really Need Him?
I just wrote the following e-mail to Bob Robbins, who inquired about responses to my efforts to obtain some administrative inquiry into the Barack Obama birth certificate question:
I posted the NY Board of Elections response in Postcards from the Edge. The NY Secretary of State told me that the Board of Elections handles this. It's probably a good idea to write to both because it varies by state. No other responses. In other words, I've written to my Congressman, the New York State Board of Elections, the Secretary of State, the IRS, the FEC, sent a petition to the FEC and all I've heard back in nearly a month is from the Board of Elections saying that they will think about looking into it. Democracy in inaction.
Here are links to the letters I wrote, they are on my blog:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/postcards-from-edge-of-americas.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-new-york-state-board-of.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-irs-and-mr-douglas-shulman.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-donald-mcgahan-and-federal.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/additional-message-to-new-york-state.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-congressman-maurice-hinchey.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/additional-message-to-new-york-state.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/freedom-of-information-act-request-for.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/request-for-investigation-of-obama.html
I posted the NY Board of Elections response in Postcards from the Edge. The NY Secretary of State told me that the Board of Elections handles this. It's probably a good idea to write to both because it varies by state. No other responses. In other words, I've written to my Congressman, the New York State Board of Elections, the Secretary of State, the IRS, the FEC, sent a petition to the FEC and all I've heard back in nearly a month is from the Board of Elections saying that they will think about looking into it. Democracy in inaction.
Here are links to the letters I wrote, they are on my blog:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/postcards-from-edge-of-americas.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-new-york-state-board-of.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-irs-and-mr-douglas-shulman.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-donald-mcgahan-and-federal.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/additional-message-to-new-york-state.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-to-congressman-maurice-hinchey.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/additional-message-to-new-york-state.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/freedom-of-information-act-request-for.html
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/request-for-investigation-of-obama.html
Who Knows Where the Voter Fraud Goes?
On August 6 I noted that the McCain campaign needs to think carefully about fraud prevention. Yesterday, Pamela Geller(h/t Bob Robbins) covered an interesting story along the same lines:
PUMA* members were out and about in Denver trying to savor some of the ambiance when they were approached by a group of young people registering voters in Denver. They tried to register this group to vote — all of them are registered voters in other states. The young people never asked where they lived, only if they wanted to register to vote.
Bob also sent me a link to a Charles Krauthammer article in which Mr. Krauthammer wonders why there are no testimonials to Barack Obama's character. Whereas John Kerry could find a bunch of veterans and McCain has dozens of associates who will stand behind him, Obama has no one--he stands alone. Indeed, we cannot even figure out where he was born.
The mainstream media has been clownish with respect to its coverage of Mr. Obama because it has not functioned as one would expect of competent news sources. There have been few or no questions about Mr. Obama's past, his ethics, his associations in Chicago and the small matter of potential deception concerning his early life, to include allegations of forgery of his birth certificate.
The absence of "character witnesses" is consistent with my suspicion that Mr. Obama is a man who lacks character. What better way for a publicist to manage such a man's candidacy than to omit all history. This is very similar to how con men operate, and this is also why I have been suspicious for several months now about whether Mr. Obama may be exhibiting traits associated with sociopathy (also see here and here).
*PUMA stands for "Party Unity Up MY A** and is associated with disenchanted Clinton supporters.
PUMA* members were out and about in Denver trying to savor some of the ambiance when they were approached by a group of young people registering voters in Denver. They tried to register this group to vote — all of them are registered voters in other states. The young people never asked where they lived, only if they wanted to register to vote.
Bob also sent me a link to a Charles Krauthammer article in which Mr. Krauthammer wonders why there are no testimonials to Barack Obama's character. Whereas John Kerry could find a bunch of veterans and McCain has dozens of associates who will stand behind him, Obama has no one--he stands alone. Indeed, we cannot even figure out where he was born.
The mainstream media has been clownish with respect to its coverage of Mr. Obama because it has not functioned as one would expect of competent news sources. There have been few or no questions about Mr. Obama's past, his ethics, his associations in Chicago and the small matter of potential deception concerning his early life, to include allegations of forgery of his birth certificate.
The absence of "character witnesses" is consistent with my suspicion that Mr. Obama is a man who lacks character. What better way for a publicist to manage such a man's candidacy than to omit all history. This is very similar to how con men operate, and this is also why I have been suspicious for several months now about whether Mr. Obama may be exhibiting traits associated with sociopathy (also see here and here).
*PUMA stands for "Party Unity Up MY A** and is associated with disenchanted Clinton supporters.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin and the Media Clowns
Media bias in favor of America's first Indonesian presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has me laughing to tears. The bozos at MS-NBC (perhaps to commemorate Larry Harmon, the most famous Bozo, who sadly died last month) claim that the Republicans are "frantic". The Bozos at AP assert (ha, ha) that McCain is undermining his strategy of emphasizing experience. Juggler Chris Matthews (the very name makes me chuckle) asserts that Joe Biden is a brilliant choice while acrobats at AP (giggle) claim that a minor investigation of Palin that Mr. McCain knew about before the nod is going to become a serious issue (sic). Never mind Mr. Obama's repeated lying in his book and his association with a Weather Underground terrorist and felon Tony Rezko. I'm not up that early, but I heard CNN begins its broadcast day with "Ladies and gentlemen, and children of all ages..."
I have no doubt that Mr. McCain's strategic choice of Sarah Palin is excellent. She's more experienced than Barack Obama (she has actually served in an executive role) and he's strategically undercutting the Democrats on several levels.
The chief obstacle the Republicans have to overcome is the stupidity of the Bush administration--the big spending, lack of leadership, lack of vision and commitment to failed, social democratic ideas. With a great VP choice like Palin, the Democrats are likely to become increasingly confused.
Here is a fundraising letter I received from John McCain:
I am honored to announce that I have chosen Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as my choice for the Republican nominee for Vice President. As a father with three daughters, I can't express how proud I am to choose the first female Republican Vice-Presidential nominee.
Sarah Palin is a trailblazer and a reformer. As the first female governor of Alaska, she challenged a corrupt system and has been a tireless advocate for reform - passing a landmark bill on ethics reform. She has taken on the old politics in Alaska and reformed the state's energy industry. She rejects wasteful pork barrel spending. She's fearless - exactly the type of leader I want at my side and the type of leadership we will bring to Washington.
My friends, together Sarah Palin and I make the strongest presidential ticket and I know that she joins me in asking for your support as we head into our Convention week in Minnesota. We're shaking things up in this campaign - and Governor Palin and I are ready to bring real reform to Washington.
The polls indicate this will be a tight race as we head into the fall campaign against Senators Obama and Biden. I expect the polls to remain close all the way up to Election Day and that is why any help you can give today will go a long way to make history on November 4th.
You may already know that I have decided to accept federal matching funds for the final months of this campaign- keeping a campaign promise I made. But that means that August 31st marks the last day I can accept your primary contribution. Will you make an immediate donation of whatever you can give- whether it's $50 or $500 to ensure Governor Palin and I win in November?
You can be assured that as President and Vice President, Governor Palin and I will always put country before all else. We are ready to lead and I ask that you join our campaign today. Your support is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Image Blocked
John McCain
P.S. I have chosen Governor Sarah Palin as my running mate and today we held a joint campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio. I hope you'll visit my website to financially support our ticket as we head into next week's Republican Convention. Thank you.
The Beginning of Cafeteria Societies
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government* makes the case that governments are instituted by the consent of the governed and that governments are instituted in order to maximize human freedom. Much of Locke's thinking was influenced by the American frontier, and it is evident that the Founding Fathers adapted Locke's work in their thinking about government in part because they saw the Declaration of Independence as a compact to which Americans freely consented. Locke saw the colonies as emerging in this way too. In chapter VIII, "Of the Beginning of Political Societies" Locke discusses how someone can consent to being a member of a political society. He argues that owning land in a nation or living there does not make a man a member of the society:
"this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws and submit to the government he found there."
Locke sees the freedom to leave one's country of birth and to pursue citizenship in a different state as possible because of the existence of the American frontier. If one can pick up and move to a Pennsylvanian wilderness, then one has a choice. But such wildernesses no longer exist.
The impetus to adopt the Progressive ideology occurred right at the time that the historian Frederick Jackson Turner claimed that the American frontier had closed. The nineteenth century American belief in laissez-faire psychologically depended on the existence of a frontier. Part of the response to the sense of loss from the closing of the frontier and the end of expansive growth and (mistakenly thought) the beginning of decline, were imperialism and intensification of racism. Thus, the Spanish-American War, Progressivism and intensification of Jim Crow laws all occurred at the same time. These were all the product of a win-lose mentality, a belief that freedom is possible only when physical expansion is possible. Wilson and other Progressives believed that foreign markets would be necessary to sell "overproduced" American goods. A little earlier, economists like DA Wells had argued that "overproduction" was an ongoing problem and that business needed to consolidate. Progressives focused on the need for government to control big business. This way of thinking is the flip side of expansionism. Both are win/lose psychologies.
In a win-lose psychology, one believes that in order to gain, something must be lost. That was a primary assumption of mercantilism, and so the laissez-faire of the American nineteenth century was a mercantilist laissez-faire. It replaced mercantilism's emphasis on community with Lockean individualism but it retained the win-lose psychology of mercantilism. Thus, Jacksonian democracy was racist and focused on land expansion and suppression of the Indians.
The question that intrigues me about Locke's contractualism is whether it would be possible in a non-mercantilist, non-expansionist laissez-faire framework. The expansion necessary for increasing human welfare is mental, not physical. It is not a win-lose process, but a win-win one, whereby technological genius and creativity increment human welfare. This process is possible in all phases of the economy.
But not all Americans agree with this potential. America has become divided into factions. We are no longer a single people. In the nineteenth century there were ideological factions as there are now. Likewise, there were geographic and economic ones. The Civil War was fought for this reason.
But for the most part, the factions of the nineteenth century were not mutually incompatible. This was in part because of the frontier, and in part because alternative modes of government were still possible in the various states. Federalism still permitted considerable discretion among the states. As well, the states diverged on a few key issues, such as slavery, but all Americans shared a belief in individual liberty.
Today, the basic foundation of American culture and government is splitting into the America of liberal collectivism and the America of individualism.
Unlike the nineteenth century differences between the commercial interests of Boston and the agrarian interests of Virginia, collectivism is incompatible with individualism. The most important reason is that the collectivists or Progressives insist on centralization. They have accomplished this through educational systems; creation of an elitist psychology that has enabled the Supreme Court to deviate with respect to values from a large portion of Americans; and emphasis on collectivist federal programs such as Social Security and the income tax that require participation. Most of all, the Progressives have emphasized centralization, and do not tolerate state-level deviation from the broad Progressive program and will violently quell any individual resistance.
Locke argued that citizenship depends on agreement. Those who do not agree with the collectivist program ought to have some rights. So far, they have allowed the collectivists to intimidate them, and have acquiesced in seeing their rights whittled.
What might be a better approach? One might be the creation of cafeteria societies. Might Americans be allowed to choose among several alternative social structures? Why must all Americans make do with the failed ideas that Washington has imposed. In industry, benefit plans have been adopted that give employees a choice. Why can we not have two or three competing social security, welfare, taxation and health insurance schemes? Those who prefer low taxes and less benefits might choose one state, while those who prefer high taxes might choose the other. Democrats and Republicans could each have the system that they prefer. The two systems would be conjoined through a common defense and tariff policy, but Americans could begin to have governments that they believe in.
John Locke's idea of contractual government might point the way to a future that is characterized by flexibility and choice rather than the heavy, violent hand of collectivist Progressivism. America needs to think about how to reassert the basic Lockean compact.
*John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Edited with an Introduction by CB Macpherson. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing, 1980
"this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws and submit to the government he found there."
Locke sees the freedom to leave one's country of birth and to pursue citizenship in a different state as possible because of the existence of the American frontier. If one can pick up and move to a Pennsylvanian wilderness, then one has a choice. But such wildernesses no longer exist.
The impetus to adopt the Progressive ideology occurred right at the time that the historian Frederick Jackson Turner claimed that the American frontier had closed. The nineteenth century American belief in laissez-faire psychologically depended on the existence of a frontier. Part of the response to the sense of loss from the closing of the frontier and the end of expansive growth and (mistakenly thought) the beginning of decline, were imperialism and intensification of racism. Thus, the Spanish-American War, Progressivism and intensification of Jim Crow laws all occurred at the same time. These were all the product of a win-lose mentality, a belief that freedom is possible only when physical expansion is possible. Wilson and other Progressives believed that foreign markets would be necessary to sell "overproduced" American goods. A little earlier, economists like DA Wells had argued that "overproduction" was an ongoing problem and that business needed to consolidate. Progressives focused on the need for government to control big business. This way of thinking is the flip side of expansionism. Both are win/lose psychologies.
In a win-lose psychology, one believes that in order to gain, something must be lost. That was a primary assumption of mercantilism, and so the laissez-faire of the American nineteenth century was a mercantilist laissez-faire. It replaced mercantilism's emphasis on community with Lockean individualism but it retained the win-lose psychology of mercantilism. Thus, Jacksonian democracy was racist and focused on land expansion and suppression of the Indians.
The question that intrigues me about Locke's contractualism is whether it would be possible in a non-mercantilist, non-expansionist laissez-faire framework. The expansion necessary for increasing human welfare is mental, not physical. It is not a win-lose process, but a win-win one, whereby technological genius and creativity increment human welfare. This process is possible in all phases of the economy.
But not all Americans agree with this potential. America has become divided into factions. We are no longer a single people. In the nineteenth century there were ideological factions as there are now. Likewise, there were geographic and economic ones. The Civil War was fought for this reason.
But for the most part, the factions of the nineteenth century were not mutually incompatible. This was in part because of the frontier, and in part because alternative modes of government were still possible in the various states. Federalism still permitted considerable discretion among the states. As well, the states diverged on a few key issues, such as slavery, but all Americans shared a belief in individual liberty.
Today, the basic foundation of American culture and government is splitting into the America of liberal collectivism and the America of individualism.
Unlike the nineteenth century differences between the commercial interests of Boston and the agrarian interests of Virginia, collectivism is incompatible with individualism. The most important reason is that the collectivists or Progressives insist on centralization. They have accomplished this through educational systems; creation of an elitist psychology that has enabled the Supreme Court to deviate with respect to values from a large portion of Americans; and emphasis on collectivist federal programs such as Social Security and the income tax that require participation. Most of all, the Progressives have emphasized centralization, and do not tolerate state-level deviation from the broad Progressive program and will violently quell any individual resistance.
Locke argued that citizenship depends on agreement. Those who do not agree with the collectivist program ought to have some rights. So far, they have allowed the collectivists to intimidate them, and have acquiesced in seeing their rights whittled.
What might be a better approach? One might be the creation of cafeteria societies. Might Americans be allowed to choose among several alternative social structures? Why must all Americans make do with the failed ideas that Washington has imposed. In industry, benefit plans have been adopted that give employees a choice. Why can we not have two or three competing social security, welfare, taxation and health insurance schemes? Those who prefer low taxes and less benefits might choose one state, while those who prefer high taxes might choose the other. Democrats and Republicans could each have the system that they prefer. The two systems would be conjoined through a common defense and tariff policy, but Americans could begin to have governments that they believe in.
John Locke's idea of contractual government might point the way to a future that is characterized by flexibility and choice rather than the heavy, violent hand of collectivist Progressivism. America needs to think about how to reassert the basic Lockean compact.
*John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Edited with an Introduction by CB Macpherson. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing, 1980
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Barack Obama's Need for Power
It is normal for politicians to display a trait that the psychologists David McClelland and Henry A. Murray called the need for power. The power need is not problematic unless, of course, it is combined with anti-social or sociopathic patterns. Of course, many politicians display these traits as well. Mr. Obama has repeatedly struck me as a conscienceless liar. His association with Bill Ayers, an alleged felon, Rezko, and two outlandish preachers, Wright and Pfleger, raise red flags stamped with the letter "s" for anti-social.
I received two releases this morning that Obama has already been displaying embarrassingly excessive power needs. First, Bob Robbins forwarded a youtube link to an American Issues Project ad that questions Obama's link to terrorist and progressive educator Bill Ayers. Instead of answering the ad, reports Worldnet Daily, Mr. Obama:
"is warning TV stations and asking the Justice Department to intervene in an attempt to block the airing of an ad by a non-profit group that links him to an unrepentant domestic terrorist."
I wonder how Mr. Obama will react to criticism should he be elected president. Will we see a renewal of the Alien and Sedition Act?
As well, Andy Martin just sent this press release:
>"In my opinion, Obama has a character flaw that compels him to equate differences of opinion with threats to his personal security. He has manipulated the Secret Service into a form of Soviet secret police. To protect him from his imaginary demons.
>"Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote recently that Obama now has a "security bubble" larger than President Bush's. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/ Obama only became the official candidate this week. Milbank aptly called Obama the "presumptuous candidate." The bubble will no doubt grow. If Obama is elected--heaven forefend--the bubble will in time come to encompass all of downtown Washington. Who knows what threats could lurk beyond the horizon against a "President Obama?" Better to lock down America than risk Obama.
>"Fear is now the driving force in presidential politics and the presidency. No security measure is too extreme to merit rejection by the Secret Service. Our leaders become more and remote from the led. Is this healthy?
>"When you combine Mr. Obama's paranoia about threats to himself, with his equally self-destructive passion for control and secrecy, we have the making of America's first dictator. An African-American version of Richard Nixon. Democrats were the party that battled President Bush over FISA, but Obama defected from his party and voted for FISA amendments that gave greater power to U. S. intelligence and security agencies, and the president himself.
When you combine Mr. Obama's odd secrecy and lying about his upbringing and adoption; his inclination to associate with fringe, lawless characters, his aggresive efforts to suppress anti-Obama advertisements, and the taste for lying expressed in his book, I am deeply concerned about the mainstream media's incompetent inability to ask questions about Mr. Obama's character. If Obama does shatter democracy, it will be because Americans have allowed their institutions, to include the media but also party politics, dominance by factions and special interest groups and excessive federal power, to rot and wither.
I received two releases this morning that Obama has already been displaying embarrassingly excessive power needs. First, Bob Robbins forwarded a youtube link to an American Issues Project ad that questions Obama's link to terrorist and progressive educator Bill Ayers. Instead of answering the ad, reports Worldnet Daily, Mr. Obama:
"is warning TV stations and asking the Justice Department to intervene in an attempt to block the airing of an ad by a non-profit group that links him to an unrepentant domestic terrorist."
I wonder how Mr. Obama will react to criticism should he be elected president. Will we see a renewal of the Alien and Sedition Act?
As well, Andy Martin just sent this press release:
>"In my opinion, Obama has a character flaw that compels him to equate differences of opinion with threats to his personal security. He has manipulated the Secret Service into a form of Soviet secret police. To protect him from his imaginary demons.
>"Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote recently that Obama now has a "security bubble" larger than President Bush's. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/ Obama only became the official candidate this week. Milbank aptly called Obama the "presumptuous candidate." The bubble will no doubt grow. If Obama is elected--heaven forefend--the bubble will in time come to encompass all of downtown Washington. Who knows what threats could lurk beyond the horizon against a "President Obama?" Better to lock down America than risk Obama.
>"Fear is now the driving force in presidential politics and the presidency. No security measure is too extreme to merit rejection by the Secret Service. Our leaders become more and remote from the led. Is this healthy?
>"When you combine Mr. Obama's paranoia about threats to himself, with his equally self-destructive passion for control and secrecy, we have the making of America's first dictator. An African-American version of Richard Nixon. Democrats were the party that battled President Bush over FISA, but Obama defected from his party and voted for FISA amendments that gave greater power to U. S. intelligence and security agencies, and the president himself.
When you combine Mr. Obama's odd secrecy and lying about his upbringing and adoption; his inclination to associate with fringe, lawless characters, his aggresive efforts to suppress anti-Obama advertisements, and the taste for lying expressed in his book, I am deeply concerned about the mainstream media's incompetent inability to ask questions about Mr. Obama's character. If Obama does shatter democracy, it will be because Americans have allowed their institutions, to include the media but also party politics, dominance by factions and special interest groups and excessive federal power, to rot and wither.
Mairi Isn't Going to Take It Any More
I just received this e-mail from Mairi. How far along the road to serfdom does the United States need to travel before more of us wake up to the farce formerly known as the "liberal consensus"? Going beyond Mairi's suggestion of background tests, I think that all candidates should be required to undergo POLYGRAPH tests on issues voted on by their constituents, with the results publicly posted.
>"My name is Mairi, and you may have seen my e-mail on some recent e-mails you have received.
>I think all of us have learned a VERY valuable lesson from this election. Our government is NOT working! There is no process that verifies the qualifications of candidates. If or when a candidate IS found ineligible, there is no recourse to remedy the situation without filing in court, ( an expensive and frustrating remedy in any event). Having seen the process really "close-up and personal" in this election, one has to wonder if there are others holding office who are legally unqualified to serve. How would we ever know? I think many of us are scratching our heads saying, "How can this be? There are laws, is anyone protecting them?" I believe now that the answer is, "NO!"
>"I believe in my heart that America MUST come up with a viable third party, but that should wait. I think before we go there, we MUST make certain that the process itself changes. We cannot expect our elected officials to step up to the challenge, so the weight of reform will have to rest on the shoulders of brave men and women in this Country, willing to do the hard work, and face the ugly threats and challenges that may accompany it!
>"I am willing to do the work, but it must fall to MANY, and from EVERY State. We need to have term limits initiated in EVERY State for Senators and Congress persons. We have to safeguard the passing of legislation. "By and for" special interest groups and "Big Money" is no longer acceptable. I hope you have read about MBNA and Joe Biden. Just the tip of the iceberg as well we know. The situation in our Capital is "progressively" getting worse. (Hmmmm....is that where they have come up with their "We are Progressives"? terminology do you suppose?) We also MUST demand that all candidates have background checks run. This is an outrage that no one has assumed the responsibility to insure that each and every candidate is legally eligible to hold the office for which he/she is running! Every State must have a board of elections, that not only checks in petitions, but actively and thoroughly verifies the status of every candidate. That same board should have the additional capability to remove from office, any person found to have obtained an office illegally. I know it sounds like LOTS of work, but think what the alternative is.......
>"The use of the internet should help in any endeavor, but it should not be relied upon solely. I think each State needs to have committees set up to force term limits to referendum! I believe the American people are savvy enough to see what is happening in Washington, and I believe they should be allowed to voice their opinion on this horrible situation.
>"Change must start somewhere, and I am praying you are willing to claim, "Let change begin with me!" The cost of sitting back and allowing further injustice, is just too great."
Sincerely,
Mairi"
>"My name is Mairi, and you may have seen my e-mail on some recent e-mails you have received.
>I think all of us have learned a VERY valuable lesson from this election. Our government is NOT working! There is no process that verifies the qualifications of candidates. If or when a candidate IS found ineligible, there is no recourse to remedy the situation without filing in court, ( an expensive and frustrating remedy in any event). Having seen the process really "close-up and personal" in this election, one has to wonder if there are others holding office who are legally unqualified to serve. How would we ever know? I think many of us are scratching our heads saying, "How can this be? There are laws, is anyone protecting them?" I believe now that the answer is, "NO!"
>"I believe in my heart that America MUST come up with a viable third party, but that should wait. I think before we go there, we MUST make certain that the process itself changes. We cannot expect our elected officials to step up to the challenge, so the weight of reform will have to rest on the shoulders of brave men and women in this Country, willing to do the hard work, and face the ugly threats and challenges that may accompany it!
>"I am willing to do the work, but it must fall to MANY, and from EVERY State. We need to have term limits initiated in EVERY State for Senators and Congress persons. We have to safeguard the passing of legislation. "By and for" special interest groups and "Big Money" is no longer acceptable. I hope you have read about MBNA and Joe Biden. Just the tip of the iceberg as well we know. The situation in our Capital is "progressively" getting worse. (Hmmmm....is that where they have come up with their "We are Progressives"? terminology do you suppose?) We also MUST demand that all candidates have background checks run. This is an outrage that no one has assumed the responsibility to insure that each and every candidate is legally eligible to hold the office for which he/she is running! Every State must have a board of elections, that not only checks in petitions, but actively and thoroughly verifies the status of every candidate. That same board should have the additional capability to remove from office, any person found to have obtained an office illegally. I know it sounds like LOTS of work, but think what the alternative is.......
>"The use of the internet should help in any endeavor, but it should not be relied upon solely. I think each State needs to have committees set up to force term limits to referendum! I believe the American people are savvy enough to see what is happening in Washington, and I believe they should be allowed to voice their opinion on this horrible situation.
>"Change must start somewhere, and I am praying you are willing to claim, "Let change begin with me!" The cost of sitting back and allowing further injustice, is just too great."
Sincerely,
Mairi"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
