Philosophy 101 – Essay 12

Twelfth in a series

Essay #1   Essay #2   Essay #3   Essay #4   Essay #5

Essay #6  Essay #7   Essay #8   Essay #9   Essay #10

Essay #11

The quest continues. As I look back over what I have written so far, I am glad you have persevered (assuming you have read 1 through 11), but yet I see a need to clarify my views again; if for no other reason than to demonstrate that my philosophy is not a selfish, narcissistic creed.

Now, one could look at the values that my culture sees value in and say superficially that it leaves no room for altruism; it leaves no room for others; it simply is the law of the jungle writ large. I agree that it might seem that way, except that I would say that those who see it that way are missing some major points.

First and foremost is the basic foundation of my philosophy is based on the concept of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I call it enlightened self-interest.

What do I mean by “enlightened self-interest” you may ask? Well, it accepts that everything that we do we really do in our own self-interest. You may not accept that but it is a reality that I believe is more than justified. You see we all have choices and the vast majority of the time those choices are driven by what we need and not by what might seem to be in the best interest of the “greater good.”

Note bene: There are people out there who probably are “saints” and truly are unselfishly devoted to the greater good (although I suspect even then they are trying to assuage some feelings of guilt or just to make themselves feel good or better, but that is the cynical old journalist in me talking), but they truly are few and far between. It is their rarity that makes us notice them and call them “saints.” The lesser beings, but ones who see themselves a little more enlightened than the majority, realize that adhering to the Golden Rule accrues benefits over the long run that would unobtainable by merely looking out for one’s self-interest in the short run. Of course, in the society I live in, unfortunately, living for the long term has given way to living merely for the moment. I suspect that will be our downfall. Most people merely see the Golden Rule as “he who has the gold rules” however.

Everything being a result of our choices and those things we were blessed with at birth, basically, therefore, I think that we should be grateful for whatever we have, regardless of how much or how little it may seem to others. I believe that we should be grateful for the mere fact that we are still alive and able to think about the world about us. That truly is a gift we often take too much for granted.

Secondly, in my view, we have to realize that there often is a synergy between individuals who pool their talents and abilities to achieve something larger than could be accomplished by the individual alone. This takes away nothing from the individual but merely recognizes that we all have something to contribute, however small it may seem and that contribution really is vital to the individual’s benefit. But again, the individual benefits from that contribution to the “greater good”, so the scales balance.

And yet, how does one account for truly unselfish acts? How do we account for something like someone willing to give their life to save someone else, a stranger totally unknown to them? Can we account for such things?

I could say that there are no “truly unselfish” acts, but that would be going far deeper than I would have space to explain (but a starting point would be to read Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene).

People do such things because they have an instinctive desire to be part of the “whole” or in other words, part of the herd/pack/hive/etc. because by being so, it helps not only the species, but also the gene line, to survive. (So much for my Cliff Notes encapsulation of a concept that probably would take volumes to explain by someone much smarter than I am – and a much better communicator) In essence, however, people don’t do anything without getting something in return, even if it is just an endorphin high.

Remember, there is no free lunch.

So, what should we do about those less fortunate than we are in our society? How do we make it in our self-interest (hence more likely that we will do something) to do things that those who believe in altruism think we should be doing. Obviously, just letting people fall victim to their own fates as happens throughout the other species of the animal kingdom is not an acceptable solution to a rational, thinking species that can discern right and wrong and morality and immorality. Those are the things that set us humans apart from the other species on the planet.

So, what do I see as the obligation in society for the individual to do for the less fortunate? Back to the Golden Rule, folks (not the gold rules rule). What would I want if I was in need of assistance? Ah? Assistance? You got it.

But assistance that comes, if possible, with the understanding that I have the option to opt out. Assistance that comes with the understanding that I am committing myself to some reciprocal obligations: costs and investments from myself. I may not like these costs – these prices that I have to pay – but if I want the assistance, then I have to accept them as part of the deal.

Remember, I am one of those people who thinks that life is a contract and it’s our individual part to honor the terms of that contract.

Yet again, I believe we should have the option to opt out … and if we do, then we also have the concurrent obligation to accept the consequences of that choice, of that decision.

In my humble opinion, the major problem with American society today is that we are way too busy trying to alleviate the consequences for individuals who make less than optimum choices in their lives and to insulate them from the vagaries of life. You see, we have those in our society who think that our society is wealthy enough that everyone can live like kings. They are wrong, but then they can have their view and I will just have to disagree (civilly, mind you).

Still, for those who have, they should have the choice of what assistance they are willing to provide, and I contend to provide that assistance is in their enlightened self-interest to do so. It is in their self-interest.

This article provides excellent examples:

Why courtesy?

As with courtesy, we have choices as to how and when we provide assistance … and while a case can be made that society through its agent, the government, can and should force us to be courteous and helping, I would argue that perverts the role of government as an arbiter of the social and personal contracts and corrupts society.

Pause to think about that awhile … and maybe you will see my point.

Nuff said for now.

Another NBC faulty premise

The barrier to reducing income inequality: the nouveau riche

Interesting story on the NBC web site. The premise is totally bogus, but it makes for a new narrative.

First, The Premise: The premise of the story is that because we are granted by the Creator the right of equality before the law, then that somehow translates into we have equal right to wealth and income. I am not sure how that computes, but it sure is a faulty logic.

First of all, people are not equal (except before the law, or should be, but aren’t these days as the federal government is busy carving out protected and favored groups at every opportunity). People are unique and different. It you deny that, then you deny freedom and the right to your own individuality.

People are not some cookie cutter pattern mass produced. Sorry, but human life just doesn’t come that way. Anybody who tells you that we are all the same and therefore deserve equality of outcome is handing you a pile of bovine scatology.

No, folks, we are all different. Our genealogy, our genetics, our talents, our abilities, our upbringing, our value systems, our life experiences, all work together to make each and every one of us unique. We are different, we are not the same.

Second, even if we were all the same, there are not enough resources to give us all the same standard of living. Sorry, folks, but that ain’t gonna happen no matter how you try. And trying is beyond being foolish because we are not the same and therefore we all want different things.

There is no way, in the United States, much less try doing it for the world, for everyone to get what they want. Our wants are as diverse as we are. We all have different talents, we all have different abilities and capabilities. Add to that our needs are different. Some of us are naturally healthy, others face health challenges all their lives.

So, to expect “income equality” is to build a strawman, a false issue with which to whip up resentment, jealousy and to foster hatred.

Secondly, while again the story points out that the 2 percent of the population (at anyone time) who make the most money in the country actually is made up of 1 in 5 or 20 percent of Americans, who find themselves in that top bracket for only short periods of their lives, before they probably drop back from the stratosphere.

Oh, but the article points out 1 out 2 Americans live in poverty part of their lives. It does a very poor job that some of the 20 percent also make up part of that 5o percent.

The article also takes pot shots at these achievers for looking at others and saying “Well, I could do it; so can you.” That is just not fair … oops, bad word there. I need to excise that word from my vocabulary, especially when I am talking about life.

Folks, LIFE IS NOT FAIR! Get that concept into your head and understand that. No, life is not fair and nothing we can do ever will make if fair. Remember, we are different people, each and every one of us. How can outcomes be equal when the inputs are not equal?

Fair? Fair is being equal before the law. Fair is government treating you no differently than any other member of society being governed. Fair is not the government giving this or that individual or group of individuals preferences or privileges based on some shared bond.

As a society, every society makes choices that rank abilities, etc., differently and the society rewards those it values. That is what societies do. If you don’t believe that, then find another world to live on because it isn’t the one you are living on here.

Is it fair? I would say so, but then my definition and yours probably are not the same.

I say embrace the fact that we are different. Revel in that fact. It is what makes the world such an incredible place. Like snowflakes, no two of us are exactly alike.

Don’t disparage people because we are different, welcome them. Treat them as you would have yourself be treated.

That is not the easy way, I know, but I suspect in the end, you will find it is the way that will reward you beyond your dreams.

Or maybe not, nothing in life is guaranteed (except death and taxes).

Bad Republicans

The Republican conspiracy

I read this article on the Huffington Post and I about fell out of my chair laughing. Why? Because the author’s premise is so silly.

First … the Republicans. TEA Party-nics and conservatives are not Democrats or progressives. They are the opposition. You know, people who oppose you. They should be expected to do what they can to make your policies and plans fail.

Now, it doesn’t take a savant to figure out that they don’t agree with policies like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). So, if you are the elected representative of your particular area (and a majority of the people in the last election for your office voted for you) then it is pretty much a given that you represent at least some of their views and that should govern the way you vote. If your district doesn’t really like some law or policy, then it is your job to do what you can to overturn or change that policy.

The author of the article seems to think that Republicans are some terrible beasts because they don’t view the world through the same prism that he does. That is what is wrong with the world.

Reverse the shoe, say a war in Iraq. Is it not the right of the opponents of such a venture to do whatever they can to end it? It seems that was the progressives’ line just a few years ago.

Of course, they were chastised in much the same manner as the right is being assailed today. That is politics, folks.

I find it humorous to the absurd to watch various people and groups of people hammer their political opponents for their views in language that probably would have been reprehensible in my youth. However, the historian in me knows that the language of politics in the United States always has bordered on the rough and tumble.

I guess what I find most humorous is the view that everyone has to view the world through the same lens, the same philosophy, the same cultural view plate. I find it humorous, because it is so tragic and misguided that it really makes me want to despair, but I chose to laugh at my troubles rather than cry.

I wish, as Pappy used to say, I could knock some heads together in order to knock some sense into them.

People, we are all different. We all look at the world and see different visions. Depending on our experiences and cultural environment, we value different things. Some of these things we agree on the value of and others we profoundly disagree; however, the mere fact that we disagree doesn’t make us bad people.

Just because a person disagrees with you does not necessarily make that person evil … just different. Sometimes that person is evil, but it is not because they disagree with you.

The difference, as I see it, is a different view on how much responsibility the individual for his or her life. Are we, as individuals, supposed to be willing to accept the consequences of our choices? Are we supposed to be willing to accept that life is not fair and often sends adversity our way when we can ill afford it?

A lot of people say we are not. They say we are obligated to help all those less fortunate than we are. I would agree with part of that. I would say I have an personal obligation to make that choice, but that society, or the state, doesn’t not have the right to compel me to do it by force.

So to insist that anyone has a right to demand or compel another give them a good or service at a price less than they are willing to do it is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Even lifesaving medical care.

Another unfortunate aside: It seems to me that in our narcissism that seems to afflicted so many people, we seem to believe that we are supposed to live forever. Wrong answer, folks. We are mortal and every day here is a gift (that is why they call it “present”).

Sometimes, I think, in our quest for immortality, we forget that others have rights too. We forget it is not ours to demand that they forgo their rights just to our benefit. This is not to say that they can’t forgo those rights, but the choice is theirs and not ours.

Anyway, I love when progressives try to defend their demands, but it makes me want to laugh in their face when I hear them denigrate those who disagree with them. What was it Pappy used to tell me about the pot calling the kettle “black.”

Presidential discretion

Prosecutorial discretion: A definition and discussion

Perils of selective prosecution

The president of the United States, in the context of enforcing various laws passed by Congress and rules and regulations (with the force of law) written by various regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, has cited “prosecutorial discretion” as the source of his power to basically say: Yes, that is the law, but I don’t like it so I am going to ignore the law and I am going to tell my agents in the executive branch not to enforce it.”

Question: Does prosecutorial discretion really give the president the right to ignore the law?

Where is the justice if the law is selectively enforced? Is it not more fair if the law is applied equally to all citizens, especially the same law?

The problems I have with President Barack Obama’s declaration that segments of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare or the ACA) will not be enforced because his allies and administration failed to anticipate a host of unintended consequences (well, we are being generous here and assuming they are unintended) that have accompanied the rollout of the President’s signature legislature are legion.

I won’t go into the convoluted definitions and such that make it constitutional, or the cynical calculations that have gone into exempting this class or that group from the dictates of the Congressional legislation that was passed on a strictly party-line vote (i.e. no attempt at consensus). I am just dealing with the perception that this administration likes to favor one political faction over another. In other words, it is all about votes and maintaining political power for a favored few. That is wrong. The government should be bound to apply the law. The president is not king, nor an elected dictator like Caesar.

I know that is an idealistic view for me to take, but unfortunately, even the evil Wikipedia points out that selective prosecutions based on selective prosecutorial discretion is subject to unbelievable abuse.

Wikidpedia on Selective Discretion

“Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to select those against whom they want to enforce the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Selective enforcement in practice

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.”

Yes, folks, this violates the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 76h, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Now, all you legal beagles out there can argue the picayune minutia of the ins and outs of  its application, but the concept of equal protection and equality before the law is the bedrock of the American concept of the “rule of law.” Without the protection of the rule of law, then what are we left with?

The President, it seems – whether it is enforcement of immigration law, voter intimidation, or his prized Obamacare law – seems to be saying: It doesn’t matter what the law says. It is what I say that matters.

Unfortunately, in many respects, he is correct. He is the one who is charged with enforcing the law, and his minions have a broad discretion as to how to go about it.

Now, I may not like it. You may not like it. A lot of people may not like it. However, it still may be within his power as the chief enforcer of the provisions of the Constitution, the statutory laws passed by Congress and all the administrative rules and regulations (i.e. laws) put in place by all the various governmental agencies to enforce vague laws passed by Congress, to decide how aggressive he will tell the agents of the government to enforce said legal issues.

In the case of Obamacare, he sounds like the fan of a losing sports team: Wait until next year to see anything done.

Deferring enforcement of unpopular laws, and vowing to veto attempts to repeal said laws, rules and regulations, is a way to try to game the system. I think that is wrong. Congress wrote the mess, it needs to correct it. And it can start by repealing the rules and regulations enacted by the regulatory agencies to enforce it.

Unfortunately, the incompetence of this administration all too often is overwhelmed by the incompetence and ineptitude of the loyal opposition. Maybe that is an expression of how truly our house is divided.

For America is a house divided, these days. There are those who see government as the solution and those who see the government as the problem … and never the twain shall meet.

IF one is to take election results at their face value then the divide is almost straight down the middle, give or take 2 or 3 percent on either side. That is why the White House was gained by a slim majority, the Senate is controlled by one party by a majority that can’t steamroll the opposition and the House is controlled by the loyal (or disloyal, depending on how partisan you want to be) opposition.

What the American people seem to be hungering for are consensus solutions to the problems that we are facing. Unfortunately, that consensus is eluding us because those who are in the position to do so have decided that it is not in their interest to compromise. Pox on all their houses.

Consensus maybe needed but the basis of our republic, our union, is that the rule of law shall prevail and that the citizen can expect that it will be enforced without preference or prejudice. It rarely is, but that is the standard we should demand.

This administration, however, apparently seems to be intent on casting away even the fig leaves used by its immediate predecessor, in its bid to establish an imperial presidency that ignores the rule of law in favor of its own interpretations.

Please, will someone stand up and start yelling that the emperor has no clothes on? Will someone inside the beltway at least try to invoke the checks and balances so carefully weighed by those disparate dead white men of property who designed the American constitutional system? It really is an incredible piece of work that we seem to to want to flush away in fit of 21st Century hubris.

Nuff said … I through ranting now (for the moment)

Status quo ante?

Obama asks passage of tax on rich
President Obama is urging the House of Representatives to pass a Senate-passed bill that would extend the Bush Tax Cuts for those making less than $250,000, while letting the same cuts expire for those making more, thus increasing their tax rates.
I have a radical idea: Just repeal all the Bush tax cuts.
In addition, repeal the bill that chopped what people pay for Social Security and Medicare, don’t extend it.
Do those two things and tax receipts are bound to soar.
Sorry, but I am one of those who thinks that if we are going to have taxes, then the only really fair thing is for everybody to pay them. I know, that is stupid and callous and cruel and heartless to those whose needs exceed their income and therefore deserve not to pay as much as those evil, demonic people who have more than they need.
Granted, I don’t think I really have made more than the median income in my life, so I guess I should side with those who think the wealthy should be stripped of their riches and have it redistributed among those who make less. However, I don’t see it that way.
Sorry, I am an unreconstructed individualist, for the most part. You know one of those people who really, sincerely believes that we are all unique and as individuals deserve to be treated the same by our government(s) under the law, rather than have the government discriminate against us according to some rather arbitrary and capricious standard that is based solely on – as far as I can see – nothing more than jealousy and envy.
I mean we bar discrimination against people for their race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation and so forth these days. It seems to me that if government is supposed to ignore all these factors of the human condition, well … maybe it should just ignore others as well … and treat people as individuals, not as alleged victims or members of this class or another.
I know … I am looking for Utopia again, but I still think the concept is valid and workable if our political leadership would just start thinking about the common weal and not how many votes they just bought. Yet, I am not so sanguine as to expect that will ever happen. Humans being human and all, and envy being about a primordial an instinct as self-preservation, people will continue to sell their votes to those who promise to take from those who have more and give to those who have less, using the power of the government to achieve their ends (rather than do it themselves … but that would be robbery and we can’t have that).
Still, I think, when it comes to taxes, we should just let all the previous tax rate reductions fall by the wayside and go back to whenever and make everybody pay those rates, especially if the rates are not progressive and apply to everybody without any loopholes that exempt certain incomes or certain individual disbursements (like mortgage interest, child care payments, health expenses and any and all other deductions, credits, etc., that currently clutter up our tax codes)
But, I know I am in the minority here, so in obeisance to our recently reelected president, I say … don’t just raise the rates a little bit on the wealthy, really stick it to them. Take all of what they get in income, interest and capital gains (as well as any other source of income) and leave them with no more than $250,001 income per year. Then they will be just like the rest of us poor smucks See how they like to live like us proletarians and plebeians. (Wait a minute, I have never made more than 20 percent of that, so that isn’t fair).

Another civics lesson

Sometimes I think I missed my calling and should have been a high school civics teacher or a professor of history at some Podunk college. Still, I find within me this insatiable need to speak to my readers – whether here on my blog with its terribly few followers or at the small newspapers that I used to work for – about the American system was to be, historically, and how it really is.

For example: Taxes.

Why do we have taxes? To pay for those activities that we as the people who make up the governed – no matter what level, township, village, city, county, state or federal – have indicated to those elected to represent us that we would like to see government to provide for us.

Now, one of the two predicates for the American Revolution was that the American people wanted to have a voice (which parliament in London denied them) in the taxes that were levied on them. The second predicate was that that as citizens of Britain they thought it wrong that they would have to pay taxes that were not levied on other British citizens. They saw this as being patently unfair … I agree, and it still is.

Now, if you accept that definition and the precepts that the people have a right to voice in their taxes AND that those taxes apply to all citizens equally, then we in the United States have a major problem. Why? Because our taxes are not being applied equally to all taxpayers but rather there are giant differences, depending on a whole host of variables and factors that discriminate against individual taxpayers.

In other words, the government does not, will not and cannot treat all taxpayers equally. Now, you can say this is hunky-dory. You know, those who can pay more (a higher rate) should pay a higher rate. And those who do things that we as a society approve of or want to encourage get to pay less taxes than those who don’t do things we (generally as a group, with the majority ruling and sometimes only a plurality) like paying more.

Now, we have a whole variety of taxes and fees (which legally are different critters, as was pointed out by the Supreme Court this last summer in the ruling on the Affordable Care Act – known colloquially as Obamacare) that we Americans pay at each level of government. Local governments get to levy taxes on property, states and some cities get to levy taxes on sales, the federal government and states get to levy taxes on some products and activities (known as excise taxes) and the feds, states and some cities get to levy taxes on income and what is known as capital gains and interest income.

Pretty confusing isn’t it? I sometimes think it is all malice aforethought so those running the show can get away with what they want to do and line the pockets of their buddies, but I know that is being awfully cynical of me (who said being cynical is bad).

What complicates things even further is that these levels of governments can grant abatements, credits and deductions to encourage various things, like having a company or corporation open a new plant in your neighborhood to boost the tax base and bring in new jobs. Unfortunately, this is where things begin to go south, as the saying goes.

What happens is that those people who we elect to represent us … well, they are human, and most of the time they mean well … but business is business and anything to lower costs and maximize returns. Now, you can’t fault businesses, which are run by individuals who are trying to get the most from their investments of time, labor and capital – from the shop floor to the executive suite.

So, what do they do? They talk to the level of government that they want to curry favor with to grant them these indulgences. Something like what was going on in the Catholic Church back in the Middle Ages. Know you are going to sin? Well, go to the church and make a contribution and they will grant you an indulgence to absolve you of that sin and you won’t have to spend as much, or any, time in purgatory and go straight to heaven. This got to be a really big thing in the Middle Ages, especially with the wealthy who found they could just about do anything their little hearts desired and buy off the bishop to save their souls from damnation.

Well, that lasted until a priest by the name of Martin Luther came along and posted 95 reasons why the church was screwing up, screwing people and generally theologically wrong with this business of selling indulgences (and a host of other practices).

We need a Martin Luther for the tax codes in this nation. You see, as it stands now, everybody is out to game the system and get their own tax credits or deductions.

Look, nobody but nobody likes to pay taxes. That is a given. We pay taxes as part of our contract with our neighbors and fellow citizens. You know, we all chip in and then our government does something for the greater good, or something for each of us that individually we couldn’t afford.

For example, how many of us could afford to buy a fire truck, man it and operate it for that outside chance that we might have a fire on our property? So, we agree to pool our resources to fund the fire department. Now, here comes the hard part: Which is fairer? Everybody paying the same amount (flat fee) or how about we pro-rate it on the value of the property a person owns (a property tax), or on how much cash they have available on hand to pay (income tax) or maybe on how much value there is on the things they purchase (sales tax)?

I don’t have a magic wand and I don’t know what is best, but that same concept applies all the way through government and everything it does. With the federal government, which gets its income through customs duties, excise taxes and income taxes, this revenue applies to everything from Social Security to Medicaid to the Defense Department to the simple job of paying the people who clean the buildings on federal property and process all that paperwork we seem to want to generate.

Now, I do have some views:

Sometimes, a flat fee is appropriate.

Sometimes, an excise tax is appropriate … which is like a flat fee, only it varies by the product, such as the tax per gallon on gasoline or liquor.

Sometimes, it seems that an income tax seems appropriate. Only what seems inappropriate to me is the plethora of adjustments that can be made to the rate being paid. I am sorry, while I understand the rationale for all these deductions and credits and such, but they are the reason our representatives seem to be up for the highest bidder and that is wrong.

And then there is the argument about tax cuts and tax increases. Well, it all depends on whose baseline you want to take. To me, whatever the current rate is the baseline, but I know I am in a minority there.

I also am doubtful about raising the rate just because someone has the cash available to pay more. How would you like that at the store? You know, you get the same product at the check-out stand, but the cashier charges you more because you are dressed more nicely than the slug in front of you. No, I don’t think that is right.

So, as you muddle through your thoughts this election season, stop and think about those promises those candidates are making. You know what they really are doing is to buy your vote. Are you willing to sell it, just so you benefit or do you really want us all to chip in as we can to buy that fire truck, tank or whatever.