Came across an article by N. Gregory Mankiw that highlights the classical fallacy in libertarian reasoning. The article was published in the New York Times in July of 2007 and titled ‘Fair Taxes? Depends What You Mean by ‘Fair’.” Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President Bush and was an advisor to Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
Mankiw says:

“None of these calculations, however, say whether the rich are paying their fair share. Fairness is not an economic concept. If you want to talk fairness, you have to leave the department of economics and head over to philosophy.
“The quintessential political philosopher of modern liberalism is John Rawls, the author of the 1971 classic “A Theory of Justice.” Professor Rawls concluded that the primary goal of public policy should be to redistribute resources to help those at the very bottom of the economic ladder. If Professor Rawls were alive today, he would most likely want to raise the top income tax rate of 35 percent in order to finance a more generous safety net. And for much the same reason, he would probably raise taxes on the middle class as well.
“Professor Rawls would get a vigorous debate from his Harvard colleague, the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick. In his 1974 book, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” Professor Nozick wrote: “We are not in the position of children who have been given portions of pie by someone who now makes last-minute adjustments to rectify careless cutting. There is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out. What each person gets, he gets from others who give to him in exchange for something, or as a gift. In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons.”
“To libertarians like Professor Nozick, requiring the rich to pay more just because they are rich is little more than officially sanctioned theft.
“There is no easy way to bridge this philosophical divide, but the political process will, inevitably, try to forge a practical compromise among those with wildly divergent views.”

Of course there is an easy way to bridge this philosophical divide. Professor Nozick has the moral perspicacity of a hyena. His theory that the rich should be permitted to trample the poor just because they can is morally and ethically reprehensible to the core and all thinking caring Americans should reject it out of hand. I say noblesse oblige.
Nozick makes the classic libertarian error of treating the “state” as if it were an entity separate from the people and then structuring his discourse around an adversarial conception of the relationship between the people and the state. This is only the case if the “state” is a king or dictator. In a democracy, the government is us. The decision to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, in fact, arises “out of the voluntary exchanges and actions” of the people, acting through the government to carry out their will. Thank God the people have a better developed moral sense than Professor Nozick and his libertarian buddies. When individuals (or any segment of society) forget their moral obligations, it is in our best interest to remind them or if necessary compel them to act. This is critical for our protection and for the benefit and stability of society.

So I keep running into these people who walk around all day with a pissed off attitude.
Most of the time there are one of two things going on with these people.
1. They think that people will see that they are all pissed off and say, “Oh my goodness, he is all pissed off, we must change the world so he will be happy.”
2. If they think they are God’s children, they may be thinking that God will see that they are all pissed off and will say, “My child is all pissed off, I must change the world so he will be happy.”
Well I’m just fucking sorry. Nobody, not even God, is going to change the world so that you will be happy. You are just going to live the rest of your life with a pissed off attitude and then you are going to die.
The solution to this is pretty obvious. You have to figure out how to be happy in the world the way it is and you have to spend all that energy you’ve been spending being pissed off on making this world a better place, not just for yourself, but for others and generations yet to come.

It is common in this country for political candidates to be asked if they believe in evolution. What is the correct answer to this question? The candidate should say something to the effect that:

"Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are either useful or they are not useful. They are not something you believe in or don't believe in. Religious propositions are matters of faith or belief. The scientific theory of evolution is not a religious proposition."

"Asking if someone believes in evolution is like asking if they believe that the number of electrons in the outer ring of an atom is a determining factor in the chemical bonds that the atom will form. This isn't a matter of belief. The issue is, can the model (the one that says there are electrons in orbits around the nucleus of an atom) be used to predict the chemical bonds that the atom will form. It can, despite the fact that particle physics tells us it is a gross oversimplification of the nature of electrons, atoms, and chemical bonds. As a result, we need to keep teaching this model to students in high school chemistry."

At this point the interviewer is likely to push the candidate to commit to a belief with some question such as, "So do you think that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor?"

The candidate should respond:

"The hypothesis that humans and other primates have a common ancestor is one of the most useful and beneficial hypotheses to emerge from the scientific theory of evolution. Much of the scientific advancement of the past century in medicine, biology, physiology, psychology, sociology, ethology, and numerous other disciplines depends on this hypothesis."

Interviewer: "So then you are saying humans and monkeys have a common ancestor."

The Candidate who wants out of this should respond: "I said the hypothesis is useful," and refuse to answer further questions.

The Candidate who wishes to clarify should respond:

"In science, a hypothesis can be confirmed or falsified. Scientific experiments are designed to test a hypothesis by figuring out what evidence would confirm or falsify the hypothesis, and then examining the evidence. Over the past 150 years people have identified dozens of lines of evidence that could be used to falsify this hypothesis and lines of evidence that would confirm the hypothesis. Every time the evidence is examined the hypothesis has been confirmed. In fact, now we can't imagine what kind of evidence could be marshaled to falsify the hypothesis that we haven't already looked at."

"The last great hope for falsifying the hypothesis was the speculation that human DNA would contain something (some genes, some sequence, something) that could not have come from the common primate ancestor. The results are in. The human genome has been sequenced and it is completely consistent with the hypothesis that it came from the common ancestor. There is nothing in it that is non-animal like. In fact, 98.8% of our DNA is identical to that of a Chimpanzee. In addition, our DNA is much simpler than we thought it would be. A few decades ago, scientists figured that in order to produce a creature as complex as humans it would take at least 100,000 genes. We actually only have about 30,000 genes. Only one of those genes is not present in the chimpanzee DNA and it is one that influences the size of the forebrain. Nearly all our genes are identical to the Chimpanzee genes. That is because the life processes in us are virtually identical to those in other primates. Only about 1.2% of our genes(about 300 genes)are different from the corresponding Chimpanzee gene (ie: the Chimpanzee has the same gene but in a slightly different form). For example, the gene that controls the growth of body hair in the Chimpanzee does the same thing in us. The human gene, however, shows signs of having been damaged by a mutation and as a result we have less body hair. Mutations (the basis for evolutionary change) frequently make genes work less efficiently. Sometimes that results in selective advantage for the organism."

School Vouchers and Segregation: The school voucher system promoted by conservatives will result in establishing a segregated school system at tax payers expense. The voucher system is presented to Christians as an opportunity to have your children educated in a Christian environment and as an opportunity to return to a morals based education system. While these goals may be laudable, the real effect of the voucher system will be to return the country to a system of segregated schools. This is why the voucher system is so strongly advocated by reconstructionists, segregationists, and white supremacist groups.

We should only accept a school voucher program if the vouchers can only be used in racially balanced schools. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)

So I am pro-life but not pro-fetus; pro the life of the baby and the life of the mother and in fact all life. The pro-fetus group calls themselves pro-life but they are actually only pro-fetus. As soon as that baby is born, they want nothing to do with it. They want nothing to do with making sure the baby is properly fed, they want no responsibility to assure it is properly clothed, or that the baby gets a good education and that the mother has the resources to give the baby a chance to grow up to be a productive citizen.

In fact, some people in the "pro-life" movement are strongly opposed to using taxpayers money to protect mothers and children. I have met "pro-life"-ers who say things like "if we make it too easy for these people, they will just have more welfare babies." The implication is that they want to make sure that the mother gets punished for having a baby out of wedlock: "If she suffers enough and sees how bad she and the baby have it, maybe she won't be so quick to have another illegitimate child."

Ok. So making babies suffer is a family value.

Wait a minute. These people are not only not pro-life. Their position is immoral to the core.

It is immoral to bring an unwanted child into this world and then structure society to assure the child will suffer for a lifetime for the "sins" of his or her mother.

I'm sorry. Whenever a "pro-life"-er plays the morality card, those of us who actually care about morality need to scream at the top of our lungs and call attention to the moral fraud this group is perpetrating on our nation.

A constitutional amendment to protect the fetus should only be considered if the amendment also provides for protection of the baby and mother. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)

Sometimes Baptist preachers say things from the pulpit that are utter nonsense. While this is never excusable, when a small time country preacher does it, it is at least understandable. Mike Huckabee is running for leader of the greatest country in the world. When he demonstrates himself to be ignorant and uninformed, he demonstrates he is unqualified to be president. "We really don’t need a lot of law if we’re people of morality," Huckabee said at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, according to a report in the Lynchburg News Advance. "There are only 10 basic laws that we need … the reason that the law is more complicated is because we try to find clever ways around those 10."

Some preachers have a penchant for proclaiming that the ten commandments are the foundation of all morality and the basis for our legal system. This is historically and factually inaccurate.

The constitution of the United States is careful to protect us from the ten commandments. Enforcement of the first four commandments is prohibited by the separation clause. For example, the first commandment states "you shall have no other gods before me." Yet religious freedom cannot exist unless people are permitted to worship other gods. That is what religious freedom is. Just as I have the right to take the name of other peoples gods in vain and they must be guaranteed the right to take the name of my God in vain (in violation of the third commandment). Religious freedom is clearly in conflict with these commandments.

Our legal system is based on British common law, which is based on Roman law, which was based on Greek, Persian, and Babylonian law. Many of the laws of the Old Testament are virtually quotes from Babylonian law which was based on the Code of Hammurabi. Only three of the ten commandments have any status in our legal system at all; it is illegal to steal, illegal to bear false witness, and murder is against the law. These three things did not come into our legal system through the ten commandments. These things are against the law in much older codes than the ten commandments and the Old Testament. Most of the commandments are not part of our legal system at all. For example, there is no law that requires you to honor mother and father, coveting is not against the law, and adultery is not against the law. In other words the ten commandments have virtually no relationship to our legal system.

The ten commandments make a very poor foundation for morality. Slaves are mentioned twice in Exodus chapter 20 and coveting your neighbors wife is a property issue. The wife is listed after the house and before the ox and ass. Who can argue that a code that condones slavery and treating women as property is an appropriate foundation for morality.

Sometimes you hear it said that outside of Christianity, there is no morality. ("If you invite an atheist to dinner, you'd better lock up the silver.") The implication is that if we don't incorporate Christian percepts in government and schools then there is no basis for morality in society and chaos will result. This is also historically and factually untrue. Throughout history there have been great, non-Christian, non-Jewish civilizations that have had high standards of morality that pre-dated or were developed totally independently of the Old Testament. Today, there are totally secular societies, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and pagan societies that have and operate on very high moral standards that they did not get from the Old Testament. Humans are moral creatures. Morality is essential for stable human societies to emerge. The Hebrews developed moral standards for their society, but they did not invent morality. Some of my atheist friends have higher moral standards than many of the Christians I know. Morality does not come from God and does not presume a God for its existence.

I am so tired of having my religious beliefs and convictions, my values, trampled, ignored, mocked, and denigrated by the evangelicals. I am tired of having morally reprehensible positions shoved down my throat in the name of Jesus. I am tired of the evangelicals arrogance. I am offended that they think they speak for God.

Mike Huckabee has said that AIDS is a plague and that this is the first time in history that carriers of a plague have not been isolated from the general population. Huckabee has proposed isolating AIDS victims. He has been asked about this recently and refuses to back away from the position.

Aside from the profound ignorance reflected in this position (AIDS cannot be passed through casual contact), I'm trying to picture how this would work. I guess we could round up people with AIDS and move them to some kind of concentration camp. I'm picturing chain link fences and concertina wire with heavily armed guards. If they try to leave we could shoot them and bulldoze their bodies into trenches.

It seems to me that Huckabee's understanding of Jesus view of the future of America is looking a lot like Hitlers view of the future of Germany. How can this man call himself a Christian. Why don't Christians everywhere rise up with one voice and condemn this man.

Let's think about this further. This gay guy is the CEO of some company. He is doing really well. He drives a BMW, he and his partner live in a really nice condo on the 15 floor of a high rise downtown. He's been opening stores in several states and is considering taking his company public when he and his partner contract HIV and ultimately are diagnosed with AIDS. In Huckabee's America, the government would arrest these two, confiscate their property, place their corporation under some sort of government takeover, and haul these guys off to some camp in Idaho or Arizona or someplace.

No they wouldn't. If Huckabee started concentration camps for AIDs victims, the only people who would be there are blacks and hispanics. The rich guy with the condo and the BMW would hire fancy lawyers who would keep him out.

Huckabee wants us to believe that he knows what God wants for America. No, this man has never met Jesus, the Christ, the Son of Love!!!

Apparently, Political Science education in this country is nearly as bad as Science education. Hardly anybody seems to understand even the basics of our form of government. This is not a democracy. Our form of government is a constitutionally limited republic.

For thousands of years, humans were governed by kings, lords, chiefs, popes, ayatollas, etc. With a few historically brief exceptions, freedom was unknown. Government of the people, for the people, and by the people was unheard of.

During the period known as "The Enlightenment," humanity was blessed with some of the greatest minds in human history. A number of these great thinkers set about rethinking the way humans govern and have been governed. Their understanding was illuminated by a careful and thorough understanding of history.

They were fully aware of the abuses and failures that characterized all the forms of government that had been tried up until that time. They were fully aware of torture, cruelty, genocide, ethnic cleansing, repression, and the many other abuses that had plagued mankind for thousands of years. The great enlightenment thinkers were convinced that there must be a better way for humans to govern and they were further convinced that if too much power was given to too small a group (like to the king and his advisors or to the pope and the bishops) that abuses were sure to result.

Enlightenment political philosophers knew that the best form of government that had been devised up until that time was the "benevolent dictator." Countries that had a ruler (king, lord or whatever) who had the best interests of his people in mind and made his decisions based on what would make his country most prosperous and what would do the most to improve the quality of life for the largest number of his subjects had the best living conditions. The problem was that this form of government is highly unstable. When the benevolent dictator dies, there is no guarantee that his successor will be benevolant. In addition, benevolant dictators are pretty rare in human history.

Enlightenment writers believed (partly because of the strong influence of humanistic philosophy at the time) that the people should be able to govern themselves. They believed in the wisdom of the majority. The problem was that they also knew that a democracy could never work. If you let the majority rule, the majority will pass laws to give themselves power, and to make themselves permanent rulers ("one man, one vote, one time"). When the majority becomes convinced that the fact that they were elected is proof that it is God's will that they return the country to the one true belief (theirs), it can lead to passing laws requiring that everyone who disagrees with them renounce their "false" beliefs and afirm their loyalty. When people resist they are imprisoned or excecuted; their property is confiscated, their homes and businesses burned and looted. Massacre and civil war follow. This type of "totalitarian democracy" or "Jacobin democracy" led to the Reign of Terror during the French revolution.

No! A pure democracy is definately not a good idea. We cannot let the majority rule. If we do, they will be burning people at the stake before you know it. That is why the framers of our constitution, the great enlightenment thinkers who worked together to bring forth a more perfect form of government on this continent, rejected democracy in favor of a constitutionally limited republic with built in checks and balances.

The majority can only be given control of the government if somebody is watching them and when they start passing laws that infringe on the rights of the minorities, they can be stopped. In our form of government, one of the ways the checks and balances are implemented is through the supreme court. The supreme court is appointed for life. Once they are appointed they are not subject to politics. When the congress or the executive branch starts doing things that limit or infringe on the rights of the minorities, it is the responsibility of the Supreme court to step in and stop them.

This has happened many times in American history. For example, following the Civil War, the majority in this country beleived that even though the slaves were free, the races should be kept separate. They believed that former slaves should eat in their own resaraunts, drink at their own drinking fountains, ride in separate areas in public transportation, live in their own parts of town, go to their own schools, etc. The majority passed laws to this effect. It finally (after about 100 years of abuse and consequent civil disobedience) became clear to the Supreme Court that the majority was abusing their power here. Through a number of critical court decisions (such as Brown v. Board of Education) the Supreme Court forced the government and the nation to face these inequities. In other words, it is the job of the Supreme Court to tell congress they must legislate to protect minorities.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to overturn legislation and to block executive action when it infringes on the rights of minorities. Without this essential check and balance system, the leaders of the majority become abusive dictators and freedom is lost.

In our system, it is critical that the majority be prevented from "packing" the Supreme Court with individuals who will permit the majority to abuse the rights of minorities. For example, there are those in United States today who wish to return to a system of segregated schools. If they can get enough of their supporters appointed to the Supreme Court, they will quickly pass the School Voucher program and within two years, the schools in the South will be completely segregated at taxpayers expense. It is therefore critical that Supreme court appointments cannot be made with 51% of the vote. Fortunately, the procedures of the Senate are set up so that it requires 2/3 of the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. Ideally, this requirement should be set in stone in the constitution. Unfortunately, it is not. The founding fathers did the best they could, but in this case the system is not quite tight enough.

Day 24: Still no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The stability of a free country depends on the self discipline and self control of its citizens. The stability and social controls in a free country are internal. In a dictatorship, the controls are external. For a free society to work, the people must have internalized a particular set of values and beliefs. The peoples committment to freedom and equality must be stronger than their committment to any political, economic, or religious ideology.

In a free country everyone looks out for his or her neighbor. In an anarchy, it is every man for himself.

The United States is far from perfect. But the last election shows how close to a truely free country we are. The election was so close that even now we don't know who actually won, and we do know that the party that is not in power did win the popular vote. However, the party that "lost" (the democrats), did not start a civil war, muster an army, and try to take what was rightfully theirs. How many times and places have existed in history where that could have happened? Americans have a powerful committment to the process of orderly transition of power that takes priority over their other strongly held beliefs and committments.

Freedom in a our system of government is limited. People sometimes get the idea that in a the United States you are free to do whatever you want to. But in a free country you are only free to do things which do not infringe on the rights of others. It is a mistake to say that in a democracy the majority rules. In a democracy, the majority is in charge of protecting the rights of the minorities. If a majority that does not understand this gets elected, the democracy is ended. If the majority does what it believes to be right even though it violates the rights of those who disagree with it, there is no democracy, there is no freedom.