Eerie echoes of the past

Following the news reports of the past week, I have been trying to figure out which historical parallel is closer:

Is 2013 more like 1914 or 1938?

Heck if I know, but the world’s punditry seems to be seeing both and running with it.

Granted, George Santayana said those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and it is pretty obvious that the world’s current crop of leaders have learned little from their study of history. Of course, teaching history these days is more an exercise in being politically correct that actually looking at what happened.

For example, what happened in Munich in 1938? Well, the major powers of the day came to resolve a territorial dispute over a part of a sovereign county (that was not represented at the conference). On one side was Germany, led by a charismatic leader named Adolph Hitler. He had been a corporal in World War I (then called the Great War because World War II hadn’t happened yet) and had risen to the position of chancellor of Germany (its highest post). Hitler must have been a pretty good poker player because he sure knew how to run a bluff.

On the other side was Great Britain (probably at its imperial height) and France. Now, one has to remember that running an empire is a pretty expensive business and this was in the time of the Great Depression that tanked economies worldwide. In addition, the French spent much of a generation of its young men in the bloody trenches of the Great War and was not eager to repeat the exercise. The Brits were not all that eager, either, have lost a bunch of young men as well as a bunch of money, that it still was trying to get the Germans to pay them in reparations for its role in the First War.

Mister Hitler, already having bluffed the French and the Brits out of keeping his troops out of the Alsace-Lorraine when he marched a small group into the disputed region (with a lot of noise and fanfare that made it look like a much larger force), decided to try again with the annexation of a chunk of neighboring Czechoslovakia. It worked.

The prime minister of England landed with a piece of paper that gave Hitler what he wanted and gave the Brits and the French what they wanted, which was a reason not to go to war. All hail the peacemakers … only Hitler went to war anyway a year later against the Poles and that dragged the Brits and the French back to war … that eventually cost about 60 million humans their lives. Now, had the French held the line at Alsace-Lorraine, or both the Brits and French held the line at Munich, then … well, we will never know.

What happened in 1914? Not much. It was the summer of 1914 that got everyone in to trouble. It started over the assassination of an Austrian nobleman, and then pretty much snowballed almost with a life of its own, until about every nation in Europe was choosing up sides and modern warfare put on its first demonstration of industrial might. The sad thing was that most of the leaders really didn’t want to fight a war, and thought it would be a relatively quick one. Well, we in the 21^st Century have heard that canard, have we not?

So, what are the parallels? Last weekend, the major powers represented on the UN Security Council (plus Germany) reached some sort of nebulous deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran that supposedly, but maybe not, reins in Iran’s ability to process uranium to the point where it can be used in nuclear bombs and the like. Now, the Americans say the deal says one thing and the Iranians say it says another, but then the Americans still are going to go ahead like what they said the deals says is what is going on because they have been fighting wars in that area since 2001 and tired of it; and the Iranians appear to be going to ignore what the Americans are saying and go their merry way. Of course the bottom line is a) do we believe that Iran (after being caught in numerous bluffs and lies) is being truthful when it says it won’t use its capabilities to build a nuclear weapon and b) that the Iranians are merely misunderstood waifs who have been unjustly punished for sponsoring various and sundry terrorist organizations around primarily the Middle East and repeatedly muttering that they want to wipe a neighboring sovereign state off the map. Only time will give us that answer.

Now, not to be ignored, on the other side of the Eurasian landmass, the most populous country in the world is telling its neighbors that that territory they thought was theirs, well … it really belongs to China and they need to get over it. The neighbors are not impressed nor are they very happy. Now, China has told the world that this area of international waters (well, most of it), but includes some islands that have been administered by Japan for almost a couple of centuries, is part of its air defense zone and anybody who wants to fly there has to have Chinese hall passes. Well, the first the Americans, then the Koreans and then the Japanese said poohy to yoohy China and flew their planes through the zone, because areas of it are in zones they already had said they could fly in.

Now, the problem with all this huffing and puffing is that somebody is liable to make a mistake … a very human thing to do … and we will have a repeat of 2001, with airplanes playing bumper cars in the air. Then it cost the Chinese a fighter and a pilot and led to a short diplomatic demarche between the US and China.

This time, however, it seems that the sides are upping the ante and backing their bluffs with a little bit more firepower. The problem with firepower is sometimes, somebody does an oopsie and pulls a trigger and a figurative Austrian noble person gets bumped off.

I guess we could be dusting off the old “domino theory” of global politics, but I hope not. As it stands, however, I don’t see nothing good coming out of events in either Geneva (and the Middle East) or in the East (and South) China Seas. It will be too easy for things to go wrong and then the bullets could start flying for real.

Add to that the economic calamity that is Obamacare, and I think the US is in for a nasty year in 2014. I could be wrong … in fact I hope I am wrong. War really is such an ugly, vile and destructive business. It really ought to be abolished as a bad idea … unfortunately, people just aren’t made that way and war will remain for the foreseeable future an unfortunate part of mankind’s fate.

Kitties eat chicken for supper

Chick-Fil-A is right ... eat mor chiken My Kitties beat the ChickenHawks ... NAH NAH NA HAN NA! KSU 31 KU 10 It is party time and time to do some happy dances ... it is a good season in the Little Apple. If I had the money,, I would be headed down to Aggieville.

Philosophy 101 – Essay #9

Ninth in a series

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

Essay #5    Essay #6    Essay #7    Essay #8

Still with me? Thanks for hanging in there. I hope this one will be edifying to you.

I have said a lot about choices in these essays, because I believe that they define who we are. However, I have to admit sometimes we don’t have choices, per se.

There are those things that happen that are outside of our control and therefore outside our choices (to some extent). By and large, however, even those things still leave us with some choice that may or may not affect the course of events but will define who we are/were. But, yes, there are things that are bigger than our choices and sometimes our choices have no impact.

Then there are choices where the choice is not between good and bad, or positive and negative, but bad and bad. If we are lucky, sometimes the choice is between bad and worse and sometimes the choice is between to do something and not do something, neither of which will alter the outcome to you.

For example, if you fall off a cliff, you have the choice of screaming on the way down or not screaming. Unfortunately, neither choice will have much impact on the final result when you go splat at the bottom of the cliff.

Life, sadly, is like that. Sometimes things happen that we can’t control. Sometimes things happen that our choices can’t influence. However, sometimes, just sometimes, even in those situations, the choices we make do have impact on others and that does make a difference.

I can cite two examples, if I may.

First, as pointed out by dear wife, an embryo – which is a human being or at least a potential human being – has no voice in the choice of the mother on whether to have an abortion or not. The fetus/embryo just is not in any position to articulate its choice, which one suspects would be to choose life over death. However, the mother gets to make a choice and that choice does have an impact on the potential human being. Here, events outside the choice control of the individual impact that potential person’s fate.

The second would be the case of the soldier who falls on a grenade to save the lives of his buddies. In that case, the soldier has made a choice and that was to cover the grenade with his body in order to keep its shrapnel from killing his buddies. Now, nothing he is going to do is going to stop the grenade from going off and doing nothing probably is not going to save his life, either. However, by choosing to cover the grenade with his body, the soldier has made the choice to impact others’ lives in what, he hopes, will be a positive way (i.e. keeping those he cares about from harm or injury). His fellow soldiers did not choose the alternative for him, but his decision definitely altered their lives. In this case, they had no choice and probably would have not chosen to ask him to sacrifice his life that way.

In addition, you see, not all of our choices are between alternative A and alternative B. Sometimes our choices are between doing something and doing nothing. Often choosing not to do anything is a much more attractive option that to do something. Sometimes, the situation is reversed. However, we must remember that in some cases, there are no options, no choices to make.

It is in those situations, I think that we really define who we are as individuals. How we react when everything is beyond our control says more about us as a person than anything else. Fortunately, I suspect, we rarely realize we are in such circumstances.

Sometimes we are faced with so many choices, probably too many choices. That poses its own set of problems. So, we have to winnow those down to a manageable number.

I have in mind a situation that occurred shortly after my step-grandson had open heart surgery. He was in his bed in the hospital and the doctors wanted him to sit up, and if possible walk. Now, the problem was his choices were too many. He felt that since it would hurt if he sat up that the better choice was either not to sit up or to delay that option for as long as he could. When he refused to sit up … well we all know how stubborn young men can be. In frustration, certain people left the room, leaving Grandpa to step into the void.

I patiently explained to my grandson that in actuality he only had two choices, and both of them were going to hurt. There was nothing that he or I would do that would change that fact. I explained, since I too had a “zipper” scar on my chest, that I knew the pain he was facing and the fear that was gripping him. However, his choices were that he would try to sit up on his own, facing the fact that it was going to hurt, or that Grandpa was going to help him sit up, and it still was going to hurt. The other options, I told him, had been removed from the equation.

Now, I am not all that cold-hearted not to know the fear that was terrorizing him, but I knew the necessity of him taking the next step. Despite his protestations, I wrapped him in my arms and pulled him into a position sitting on the edge of the bed. And then I let him cry as I held him, because I too had known that terror and fear … and pain.

But I had made the choice for him. Did I leave him with any other choice? No, I eliminated those other options as much as any other outside force often eliminates the options we think we have. He survived the experience. I am not sure he knew how much it pained his grandfather to lift him up, but it had to be done. I hope he forgives me someday for making him hurt, even if the hurt was unavoidable.

For you see, I, too, had had to make choices. My choices were that I could have just sat back in the background and done nothing (which I seriously debated doing) or to step forward to offer my help, my intervention where the others had only met with rather loud and raucous protestations because of the fear of the pain and had opted to try to calm the boy by doing nothing.

I am not setting myself up as some saint here, just as a concerned grandparent who knew from experience the pain would be transitory and I had the strength to do what others had chosen not to do. I do not fault them at all. We all contribute what we can.

The whole point is that sometimes life or other outside forces make our choices for us. We have to deal with that reality. We can wail about its unfairness or its cruelty, but to what end? Life is what life is.

People often fear the pain or the inconvenience that comes with events, and often choices that they have made that have not resulted in outcomes they wanted or expected. There is nothing wrong with that. It is natural.

What defines us, however, is how we deal with those circumstances. Do we even think about the impact our choices will have on others, or do we rationalize them to the point that the impact seems inconsequential.

I ask that you take the time to think about that. Mull it over. It is not the easy choice. It is not the simple choice. But then, who ever said the life would be easy or simple. (If anyone did … they were lying their heads off).

I am not sure why, but from my vantage point, I always have viewed life as a challenge. Maybe because I have experienced so many reverses and unachieved expectations, wishes and desires, I have grown to accept them and look on them as opportunities. At least I can say I did have opportunities, even if I failed to achieve what I wanted or thought I needed.

Life is like that … and the choices we make define who we are.

Nuff said.  Again, I hope I have left you with some food for thought.

American exceptionalism vs. mythology

Mythologies we tell ourselves – Military Review article

 

The article cited above is a very good, if long and somewhat jargonized discussion for military leaders, about the problems mythologies play in creating a professional soldier.

Its main thesis is that for centuries soldiers have been given certain mythologies that are used to de-humanize their enemy. In the 21^st Century, mainly due to the information revolution, these mythologies no longer sustainable and often are counterproductive.

For the most part, I agree. I do have problems with the doctrine of cultural equivalence that seems implicit in the article and a couple of other assumptions.

One of its major tenets is that the myth of “American exceptionalism” is counter-productive and should be abandoned (at least that is my take-away from reading it). I am not sure that is a valid assessment, but it is in keeping with the current attitudes of our National Command Authority.

I do think that the myth does set Americans (and their military service members) up for a near certain failure to meet the high standards and principles that we seek to uphold and that does create problems. However, the problem is not whether Americans are exceptional, but rather that Americans, because they perceive themselves to be of an exceptional culture, are held to a different standard that anyone else. It is a case, I fear, of Americans being hoisted upon their own petard.

(For those who don’t know what a petard” was, it was a medieval predecessor of modern artillery. Basically, it was like a big pot filled with gunpowder that was then hoisted up against a gate with the opening facing the gate. It was ignited by somebody riding up with the petard when it was hoisted, lighting the fuse and then scrambling away. The unlucky ones didn’t get away in time and would be blown up; hence they were “hoist on their own petard”)

The very professionalism that is the hallmark of the American man-at-arms (ok, and woman-at-arms to be politically correct) is also the source of his greatest drawback. Because they are supposed to be these professional super-warriors, when in reality they are merely ordinary human beings superbly trained and equipped, they are endowed with god-like qualities … or at least expectations that they have them.

So, we have well-meaning people missing the boat.

Yes, American military personnel do things that we, in our saner moments, wish they wouldn’t do, but that fails to take into account that combat – at whatever level you want to address it – literally is insane. It is the simple slaughter and destruction of humans and property to achieve a political end by means other than diplomacy. It merely is an extension of diplomacy through violence.

Now, I am not endorsing torture, although I understand its uses. I am not endorsing the traditional pillaging, rapine and other abuses of “civilians” in an area of conflict. No, and I don’t think 99.9 percent of American service members do either. However, the military is made up of human beings and we best not forget that salient fact.

People are fallible. People are capable of great cruelty. Americans, despite their “exceptionalism”, are not immune to that. The difference is, for the most part, we actually punish our own for exceeding the levels of violence deemed acceptable according to the “laws” of “just wars.” It may not be enough to meet the authors’ standards, but we do do it and that is relatively rare.

If you look at all the conflicts around the world today and, except for post-conflict tribunals to deal with the defeated and occasional exceptions limited primarily to countries based on Occidental cultural norms, rarely will you find militaries punishing their own for their excesses. It traditionally hasn’t happened, and guess what? That hasn’t changed over all the millennia of warfare.

Not that the problem hasn’t been noted by leaderships going back to the Romans, but unfortunately the utopian world where soldiers only fight soldiers according to some rules drafted by non-combatants never really has existed.

And what bothers me, as an American who feels we have been hoist on our own petard, is that our critics fail to hold the “other” side to the same scathing standard.

Using the same argument that the authors of the article use, I think Americans should be rallying to the colors to combat those who offend our sensibilities and ethical standards. (Not really, but it makes the same sense that their arguments do but then again, it might not be such a bad idea.)

I do think we have to remember, and remind ourselves daily, that our code of ethics, our standards, and our view of the world is not universal. As I often say, the U.S. Constitution applies only on U.S. territory and nowhere else, despite what the American Civil Liberties Union might tell you … or our politicians or activists of whatever stripe is the flavor de jure today.

And as Pappy taught me: A gentleman does not start the fight; he merely finishes it as quickly as he can – using whatever means necessary. I wish some of our leadership would understand that precept and apply it to our foreign policy.

Lions captured in up-close photos by remote control camera buggy =

Lions captured in up-close photos by remote control camera buggy =

A little creativity, and some kitties, and you get some awesome photographs. 

Do moich gości z Polski:

Wydaje się późno, że byłem coraz całą masę wizyt z Polski. Teraz nie wiem, czy te kontrole na miejscu są jedynie roboty internetowe lub nie. Ale na przypadek, że są prawdziwi ludzie, zachęcam ich do opuszczenia jakiegoś komentarza, jeśli nic nie może z innych niż oni są z miasta. Cieszę się, że mogę być osiągnięcie ludzi spoza Stanów Zjednoczonych i zapozna się z opiniami ludzi z innych miejsc, kultur, narodów, itd.

Philosophy 101 - Essay #8

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

Essay #5    Essay #6    Essay #7

Eighth in a series

By now, assuming that you have read 1 through 7, you – my reader – may have reached some understanding of where I am coming from about the role of the state. I will expound more on what I think is appropriate for the state and society to do to and for the individual in other essays, but to round a square peg for the hole, I need to discuss what I feel the individual owes society.

Remember, life is a contract. We have to abide by its terms or there will be problems.

In nature, it is fairly simple: Follow the rules or die. We humans have added a level of humanity to that harsh dictate and say that we are to follow the rules or adverse effects may visit you.

In nature, the universe abounds with creative destruction, with almost everything reinventing itself to adjust to changes in its environment. It is a thing of beauty and is one reason that I find a belief in God not mutually exclusive from a belief in things like evolution or scientific study. God, the creator, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Ra or whatever you choose to call this entity created the Universe. God set down the rules.

I am not about to go all religious on you right now, I just wanted you to understand that there are rules out there that transcend those made by humans.

However, when humans get involved, then they have to evolve their own set of rules. It is part of being a thinking, rational (at least I hope we are), cognitive, aware species that has the ability to create language and visualize intangible thoughts, concepts and ideas. Actually, it happens with all living creatures that form societies; be they flocks, herds, packs, hives, colonies, pods, etc.

So, society makes these rules. Well, actually, individuals within society agree that certain standards and behaviors are acceptable and certain standards and behaviors are not acceptable. These rules are passed down from generation to generation until they seem immutable. They aren’t, of course, as we have seen happening in societies and cultures around the world lately.

So, what is the individual’s role in all this?

Well, first and foremost, the individual is obligated to choose to abide by the rules of his or her society. I chose my words carefully here because I wanted to emphasize two points.

First, the individual has the right to choose. It is his or her option to accept the rules. That is the freedom that we all have as individuals.

Second, as a member of any society, we have to choose to follow the rules, because that is the price of admission. Everything comes with a price attached. There is, as the cliché goes, no free lunch. You can argue that, but it is one of those immutable laws that that deity that a lot of people today want to deny set down. In physics, it is called the conservation of energy. In some religions, it is called the wages of sin. But anyway you want to phrase it: Nothing, but nothing, is free.

So, since belonging to society, or culture or civilization (or even just a club or group) must come with the individual’s acceptance of the rules of that entity that is the price you pay as part of your contract. You don’t like that, join another universe.

In addition to being willing to abide by the rules of your society, there are a couple of other requirements that usually come along with it. Such as being willing to defend the rules and the society against all enemies foreign and domestic, or being willing to pass on to the next generation the core precepts that encapsulate the rules.

If you choose to do that, then you basically have met the core requirements of the social contract. Unfortunately, in the modern world as in eras past, doing those things sometimes takes more than the minimum effort to get along. People being such as they are, well … you know that asking them to do more than the minimum often is a dicey proposition.

There are those who believe, or at least say, that I did my time in the barrel, that is all I have to do. Well, I disagree with those people. I am not saying I am right, but I am saying that from my perspective that the contract with society is an ongoing thing and we are obligated to keep paying. This is not like a simple purchase where you pay a price and get to keep whatever it is you bought. No, being a member of society is more like a rental contract where you need to keep up your payments.

That is why John Kennedy’s words in his inaugural speech were so apt: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

I guess, in a way, I have bought into the cultural concept of “nobliesse oblige.” (Not that I am any higher – or lower – than anyone else).

Its definition says those of “noble birth” have “the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition < http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noblesse%20oblige>)

Only in my view, we all are of “noble birth.” Now, you can disagree with that, but I would say you are wrong. We are all noble human beings.

That being the case, then each individual has the obligation of honorable, generous and responsible behavior as the price of membership in the society in which he or she is in. To me, it matters not what culture you are raised in, that obligation remains a constant. Those raised in the Christian tradition are specifically obligated by the words of Jesus to reach out to the poor and less fortunate, but the value in that is replicated in most other religions as well.

Where I differ from some people is that I don’t believe it is society’s right to force me to do those things. Yes, society can express its disapprobation with my choice, my behavior, but it cannot force me to act against my conscience.

Again, there is that concept: Freedom of conscience.

You see, unlike Franklin D. Roosevelt, I define the four freedoms a bit differently. It is not the freedoms of speech, worship, want and fear, for to be free of all of them is impossible. It is impossible to free from want, for want is undefinable and unlimited. It is impossible to be free from fear, because it is a natural human response to stimuli.

I agree that individuals should have the freedom of speech (within the limits of the common law torts of defamation, libel and slander) and of worship. However, I would define worship as the freedom of conscience, the freedom to view the world through our own world view, our own prism, so to speak, without undue interference from society or government.

And rather than freedom from want, I would say freedom of choice. We have the freedom to make our own choices, take our own directions, do our own thing (so to speak), as long as we understand and are willing to accept that there are consequences for those choices and actions. It is sort of like saying we have a freedom to want.

We have to realize that Newton’s Third Law of Motion holds true in life as well as in physical sciences: For each action there can be an equal and opposite reaction.

Issac Newton was a very bright person, as he also postulated that in his First Law of Motion: “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.”

Those two concepts really offer a great summation of human interactions.

Finally, I would offer the freedom to fear. Fear is a great force for change. It is a great force to help remind us that our freedoms are not free.

Nuff said, for now but use these words as food for thought.

The devil always is in the details.

The fine print will tell the tale

Good news: P5+1 have reached a deal of some sorts with Iran over its nuclear program.

This is good news, I hope, but the skeptic in me says the devil will be in the details and also to question why now?

If indeed the first reports are correct and if indeed Iran agrees to curtail its uranium enrichment efforts and to forego its heavy water nuclear power reactor capable of generating plutonium, then the question becomes why agree now?

The agreement as announced 11/24 is only for six months. Why not longer?

It is said to be a first step; a first step to what?

Assuming that the UN atomic inspectors can get their act together and logistically put themselves on the ground in place and doing whatever it is that they plan to do without restriction from Iran, is it realistic to expect they will be able to do that tomorrow, or next week or even next month? And then, if nothing is signed in six months, they have to pull out? Are the Iranians not going to debate the ground rules for the inspectors?

Maybe I am being cynical but given that the Iranian top leadership was saying just last week that stopping their enrichment programs was show-stopper, why would they agree now to limit their program, and just let the machines already in place not go on line.

OK, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. I do hope we in the West are not being snookered again, although I suspect we are, and I hope that in six months that Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama will be able to report that even more progress has been made and verifiable measures are in place that will prevent the Iranian Republican Guard Corps from brandishing nuclear weapons next year.

Philosophy 101–Essay #7

Essay #1   Essay #2   Essay #3

Essay #4   Essay #5   Essay #6

Seventh in a series

Welcome back, as I continue my wanderings through the canyons of my philosophy.

As I left off in Chapter 6, my question remains: What should society do for us?

That is a tough question and I know I don’t have the complete answer.

Now, I would like it if we could differentiate between “Society” and “Government” but that seems so awfully hard to do these days. I don’t know when it happened, but there used to be two separate entities: Society and Government … but today, things that used to be the responsibility of society has, for the most part, seemed to have to morphed into things that we demand that government, as a representative or agent of society, provide for us.

You are free to disagree here, but one of the things that Alexander de Tocqueville found so appealing about the American experiment back in the 1830s was the degree to which Americans voluntarily formed civic associations to solve social problems. We did not look to government for the solutions; we turned to like-minded individuals and used that synergy to achieve incredible feats that made the United States so wealthy – in spirit as well as materiel – and powerful. It seems that visualization of how to solve our problems have given way to letting someone else deal with it … in this case the “government” as agent for us.

This sense of civic involvement has given way to an apathy, or at least a detachment, that since the “government” or “society” has assumed responsibility for solving all our problems and since we pay taxes to that government, then we have fulfilled our part of the social contract and no further effort is needed from us. It is the easy way out, but is the right way out?

Remember, I said that individuals are inherently basically lazy. Now, I don’t mean that in the pejorative sense of the word (well, sort of). What I do mean is that like anything else in nature, we people seek the course that requires the least effort from us. The easier it is, then the more likely that it is a choice we will make. This is not bad, necessarily, but it is the way we are. Deny that truth at your own peril.

Sometimes we do chose to take the more difficult path, but usually that is because we perceive a greater reward at the end of it than if we took the easy road. Again, that is simply the way humans are. We are self-interested and rightly so, because otherwise some predator in nature would have eaten us.

However, over the millennia, we humans have figured out that we can’t do everything by ourselves and that sometimes there is safety, if not more efficiency, in numbers. Hence, man has slowly but surely become more “civilized.” Individuals learned to specialize and trade things for those things that others had. As this civilization grew, so did the need for people to arbitrate and administer the transactions and the bureaucracy was born.

I remember once hearing a history professor tell me that you could tell the level of civilization within a society by the size of its bureaucracy. To wit, my jocular response was, “I think we are civilized enough now, already even, thank you.”

But, yes, what was the thing de Tocqueville was getting at? When we voluntarily come together, the results are nothing short of incredible. When we are compelled to work together, as was the case with the feudal societies of the Europe before the 19^th century, progress can be made, but it is restricted. Unleash the power of the individual and look out.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, that has been perverted somewhat by others – particularly the 19^th century social philosopher Karl Marx – into a view that seeks to release the individual from responsibility for existence and transfer that responsibility to the state. There are those who see Marx’s vision and philosophy as being the best option, but I would contend that they are wrong because it fails to take into account human nature. You are welcome to make your own choice.

The essence of the socialist philosophy (and no I have not read all three volumes of Marx’s epic epistle) seems to have been explained to me as “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need.” I find that concept quite seductive until I start thinking about it.

Let’s take the first part: From each according to their ability. Define ability? Are we saying all that a person is capable of? At what level of effort? Would that be minimum or maximum effort? How about “sustainable” effort? Who decides what that level is? How can we define it in a way that is fair to person putting forth the effort? Are all individuals willing to put out more than minimum effort if the reward for it is the same as for greater effort?

Secondly, who assigns the value to that ability? If we remember that society/state is made up of individuals, then who or what is giving that other individual as an agent of the state the right to assign that value? We can do that through our social contracts. We do that all the time in our lives when we exchange one thing of value with another person for something that person has of value. Of course, under a capitalist system, the individual gets to decide the relative values, where as in a socialist system that decision is left to the state and who is the state but individuals who have taken on the responsibility for others and substituting their choices for the original individual.

Taking the second part: To each according to their need. Define need? How much food, water, shelter, clothing, protection, etc., is required in order to fulfill anyone’s needs. Three hots and cot can be a pretty low standard.

If we cannot define “need” satisfactorily, then how will it be possible to fulfill all the needs of all the people, especially when each person is different and their needs essentially unique? Add to that, how do we allocate the limited resources we have, which – in case you haven’t noticed – won’t begin to fulfill all the needs of all the people to bring all the people up to the same standard (unless you set that standard pretty low – which brings us back to three hots and cot).

So, what role should the state/society/government have in our lives? It has to have some, otherwise it would be anarchy and I am not advocating that.

I alluded to what role I think government/state/the society should have in an individual’s life when I was talking about civilizations. The role should be limited to enforcing contracts between individuals, groups, and the various associations that humans form. Contracts are the basis for our existence. Oral, written, tacit, implicit, explicit, whatever form they take, in the end as members of society we have to agree to some level of enforcement of those contracts.

That is what we do with our unwritten social contract. It regulates our behaviors through social sanctions. Society breaks down when the system of social sanctions breaks down. If you don’t believe that, then just look around you, as examples abound. I could take a dozen news stories a day that would illustrate this point, where society has turned its head on individual responsibility only to have its face slapped.

Unfortunately, we have surrendered individual responsibility in favor of societal responsibility and we are paying the price.

Don’t agree? That is your prerogative, but in the long run, I fear that you will find that you are wrong.

Nuff said for this go-round.

Poor people, poor decisions

"Poor" person's rationale why bad decisions make sense

I read the afore mentioned article on the Huffington Post and was torn between commenting there or here. Discretion being the better part of valor … and wanting to think a bit before making my comment, I chose here.

There is so much wrong with the young lady’s rationalizations. Where others see a just cause, I see merely excuses.

Ok, life has dealt her a tough hand. Get over it.

Second, own up to the fact that a lot of your choices got you where you are today … things that had you done something differently … like deferred gratification instead of going for moment and instant gratification … then maybe you wouldn’t be in the shoes you are in now.

Third, life is not a picnic. It takes hard word and many long hours of effort … and even then  you are not guaranteed material success. I know, because – I would tell the young lady – I have been there. I know about living on a jar of peanut butter and bread for weeks, because that was all I could afford. I know about celebrating the Kraft dinner* I had one day (made maybe two meals unless I was really, really hungry) because I could afford the box, a quart of milk and a pound of butter because I had a good night driving a cab at night** while going to college in the day and working on the student newspaper in the afternoon and early evening.

* For the uninitiated, Kraft dinner is a box of macaroni with powdered cheese mix … it cost me I think 19 cents back in 1971 and that was a dent in my budget. You need a pot, six cups of water, a dash of salt, 1/3 cup of milk and half a stick of butter to make it … takes maybe 10 minutes.

** I drove a cab in Manhattan, Kansas, for a couple of months in 1971. Not Manhattan, NY. Got 40 percent of the fare … and maybe got two or three fares a night – the Little Apple not being big on running around town in taxis. Average fare probably was less than $2. On a really, really good night (where I was lucky), I might make $15 or $20 but that happened about once every two weeks. My other source of income was my drill pay from my participation in the Navy Reserve … a whopping $16 per month back then for an E-3.

Then I spent my first 30 working years as newspaper journalist. Not that I would complain, but I would point out that unless you work for a Guild paper or one in a major metropolitan market, you basically get paid … crap. You have to love what you did, and tighten your belts, and accept that small newspapers can’t afford to pay people what they do in the big cities. I happened to absolutely love what I did. Probably did my children a great-disservice working 60-70 hours per week (with no overtime) and contributed to the collapse of my first marriage.

So you make choices. Like deferring having kids for years and then spacing them out. Like either not smoking or buying the cheapest cigarettes you can find … and then rationing them. Like not taking that vacation or trip … or buying those beers you wanted.

You think you have it bad, you really ought to study what it was like in the Depression in the 1930s, or what it was like trying to find a job in the 1970s when unemployment was in double digits.

College is not something that also is handed out. Granted a lot of parents put their kids through school or you take out loans to go to school. The latter is your choice, however. No one forces you to do it. I know because way back when I was lucky to go to college. The family bank was broke and I was last in line. Big Brother #1 opted to join the Army. Big Brother #2 was lucky to qualify for a full ride scholarship as was Big Sister. Unfortunately, I was not as talented as smart as they were so I lost that lottery.  That meant working, loans and sometimes pleading.

I spent six weeks in college begging not to be thrown out of the dorm while I waited for my loan to come through. I had $12 that lasted me that whole period and became a terrible bummer of cigarettes.

But as the line from Clint Eastwood said in Heartbreak Ridge: I adapted. I innovated. I overcame.

A lot of times your choices are dictated by your environment. That too is life. Get over it. Where you live can be your choice, once you reach a certain age. Again, it is not easy, but then who said it had to be easy or even was going to be easy.

Note: We all basically are immigrants here. Look back at what the life was for those people and stop taking for granted that you can just stand on their shoulders to get where you want to be.  Sometimes you have to start at the bottom.

Finally, nicotine is not just a stimulant. It also works as a depressant, as people under high stress will tell you. Smoking can help calm the nerves so you can cope with high levels of pressure or stress … or calm down after a high-adrenaline experience. I can personally document such usage.

Still, smoking is a choice.

So, if you don’t like the choices you have? Then, make new choices. Change your environment, but accept the fact that the mistakes you have made will encumber you like a load of baggage. You can either own up to them and carry them or dump them.

All too many people these days seem to be turning to the government/society and saying: “Here, carry my baggage.”

Believe me, it is going take us all down if we don’t stop doing that. It is not society’s job to take care of us. Nor the government’s. That is our job. And if others can, and are willing, then helping hands will be there because it is in our own self-interest to help others.

However, don’t complain if they aren’t. Sometimes life is like that. Sometimes you have to carry the baggage of your own choices, rich or poor, bad or good.

Don’t waste time blaming others, or situation or society, for your situation. They don’t really care (ah but we do … bovine scatology). You can get yourself out of it, or at least define yourself by trying.