From the New Jersey Star-Ledger 1/13/08
2007 July 2007 Crossing party lines to back a buddy
Posted by Tom Moran January 13, 2008 11:01AM
Categories: Politics
A most unlikely thing happened after Jon Corzine beat Bob Franks in the race for U.S. Senate in 2000 -- the two men found they genuinely liked each other.
The friendship grew over the years, as they worshipped together at Christ Church in Summit, attended football games at Giants Stadium with their families, and stole moments whenever they could to talk politics.
Now, that friendship offers the best chance in a generation for New Jersey to get past the ugly partisanship that has turned politics in this state into something like a playground fight.
Franks, a Republican, committed what many of his fellow party members consider an act of infamy last week -- he embraced the governor's plan to pay down the state's debt with a massive increase in highway tolls. And he agreed to campaign for it.
"People are calling him a traitor," says Tom Wilson, the Republican chairman. "I love Bob Franks myself. But I could not disagree with him more on this."
The irony here -- and it's a big one -- is that Franks has given his hapless Republican Party more influence than it has had in years.
It turns out that Franks, probably the most respected political strategist in the state's Republican Party, has been meeting secretly with Corzine for four months, grinding out the details during a series of about 20 meetings.
His terms were simple. If you want my support for toll hikes, he told Corzine, you need to freeze spending and put strict new limits on debt. Raising more revenue will do no good, he said, until the spending is under control.
"Bob entered this in a very early stage, and it was very clear from the start that he would engage us only if we addressed the spending part, too," says Maggie Moran, a senior aide to the governor.
That is the grand bargain that neither side has acknowledged until now.
For Franks, it was no easy sell. The governor had already spoken about the need to limit borrowing, but not a spending freeze. Franks says Corzine initially resisted, pleading that costs like health and energy are rising even faster than inflation. A freeze would force deep program cuts.
"I said, 'There is no other way to stop this arrogant overspending than for you to declare that it will stop -- no wiggle room, no ambiguity, no loopholes.'"
A few weeks ago, the governor finally agreed. And when you consider how much Corzine wants to spend money on health care, preschool and other new programs, that is no small feat.
Given that, all this Republican anger at Franks is remarkable. The man they are calling a traitor has fought a hundred wars on the Republican side. He engineered the campaign against former Gov. James Florio's tax hikes, which led to a decade of Republican control in the Legislature.
As a congressman during the 1990s, he helped draft the Contract with America and was on the budget committee that not only produced the first balanced budget in modern times, but paid down the national debt by about $500 billion. If politics were warfare, this man would have Republican medals for valor up and down his lapels.
And yet, he made the deal.
The reason, he says, is that New Jersey is in real trouble. The bill for all the reckless borrowing and spending over the last decade is finally coming due. And we don't have enough money even to repair our bridges.
Franks recalled the first meeting the governor invited him to attend, with more than a dozen lawyers and financiers at the governor's office in Newark four months ago. The learning curve was steep.
"I felt as if they were talking Swahili to me," Franks said. "But the governor was in his element. He was pointing fingers and asking questions and challenging people."
But over the weeks, in meeting after meeting, Franks became more and more resolved. This was the best of all the bad options.
Will he sway other Republicans? So far, there is no sign of that.
If Republicans stand solidly against this, Wilson said the party could beat Corzine over the head with this issue when he seeks re-election as expected in 2009. Wilson hopes that Republicans could regain power, just as they did when Florio increased taxes by $2.8 billion in 1990.
"This will be Jon Corzine's $2.8 billion tax increase," Wilson said. "It will be a significant focus of the 2009 campaign."
And there's the problem. We have lost the art of compromise, and put a reflexive opportunism in its place.
Yes, it's easy to hate this plan. It offers nothing but pain. In the next several weeks, we will undoubtedly find flaws that need repair.
But if Republican legislators present no substitute of their own, then it's fair to conclude they are playing politics with our future, looking to score points rather than solve problems. And that should be an issue in the 2009 elections, too.
As for now, Corzine has scored a coup. Plans are still taking shape, but Franks may even attend some of the 21 town meetings that Corzine has planned, and even appear in radio or TV spots.
Already, the knives are out. Some Republicans are spreading rumors that Franks is helping Corzine in return for the governor's veto of a wrongful death bill opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which Franks now represents. Franks denies that, but he's been around politics long enough to know more of that may be coming.
So far, it seems, the man has gotten nothing but grief for his efforts. Except, perhaps, for the respect of a governor who is now most definitely his friend.
Original Referenced Link
My commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 01/13/08 at 4:50PM
The joint, bi-partisan effort by Governor Corzine and Bob Franks is commendable. Unfortunately, it completely misses the mark. Spending freezes and revenue-raising schemes ignore the fundamental cause of New Jersey's slide toward disaster.
The problem is the collectivist idea that the peoples' earnings are the property of the state, to be taxed away by the latest "man with a plan" to "solve" the problems of "society". The practical result is to open the floodgates for special interests of every stripe to stream through, each seeking to impose its agenda on everyone else by the coercive power of the state using other people's tax money. Always hiding behind the evasive rationalization of "the public welfare", politicians angle, deal and jockey for the chance to grab a piece of the loot for their particular constituents, as represented by these special interest groups.
If anyone wants to understand where his hard earned money goes after it is taxed away, look behind the phony, mawkish concern for "society" or the "public welfare" and you will see the naked essence of our mixed economy... what Ayn Rand called a non-violent "cold" civil war of pressure groups each battling over the spoils produced by the individual members of the "public".
The insidious idea that it is proper to solve our problems by force...i.e., by means of other people's tax money, has become the unmentionable principle. The given. The not to be questioned. The politicians and their special interest masters do not operate in a vacuum. They are a reflection of the immoral and unjust idea described above which we, the voters, have accepted without question. In a sense, we are all both victims and profiteers on this "system". We cheer the politician who vows to "fight" the special interest pressure groups, as long as it is the other guy's special interest pressure group.
The downward cycle can be broken only by rejecting the collectivist idea that a handful of government bureaucrats can "solve" society's problems by usurping the rights of society's components, the individuals who make it up. Every individual is an equal member of the "public". By using his own money to act on his own judgement, in pursuit of his own rational self-interest and personal welfare (and that of his family), he is, in effect, acting in the public welfare. There is no conflict between the individual and the public. The individual, every individual, is the public. To say that the individual citizen acting in his own self-interest, with his own money, in areas such as education and health care is contrary to the public interest is a blatant contradiction-in-terms.
Rather than worry about "how much Corzine wants to spend [other people's] money on health care, preschool and other new programs", we should be looking at ways to keep the money, and decision-making power, in the hands of the people who know their lives best... the people whose money he wants. Mr. Moran himself pointed toward a start in this direction in a previous column (Vouchers are the obvious choice) in which he advocated parental vouchers for pre-school to "break the monopoly of the public school system." I would build on this approach, but with tax credits rather than state-funded vouchers, in areas like K-12 education and healthcare. (Other related steps need to be taken as well, such as sweeping away state benefit mandates that drive up the cost of health insurance, and opening up the state to free market competition from outside plans.)
A person's earnings belong to him. No one has any fundamental right to the earnings of others. The hypocritical "activists" who seek to "do good" with the earnings of others and the power of government, and the pressure-group warfare they spawn is the fundamental problem. When we recognize this fact, we will be on our way to recovery.
As far the charge of Bob Franks being a "traitor" is concerned, there is unfortunately an element of truth to this claim. But not in the way the charge is being used. The Republican Party, by and large, wants to use the Governor's tax hikes as a path to power in Trenton, but not for any kind of principled purpose. By helping to "solve" the state's fiscal mess, he is seen as taking away a GOP weapon for gaining power for power's sake.
The real issue is that in using his influence to help the governor here, he is in effect helping to preserve the status quo in Trenton. Without a principled attack on the fundamental cause of the problems confronting our state, which I outlined above, he is simply clearing the way for a resumption of the expansion of welfare statism in New Jersey. This is his real "treason".
Other commentary:
Posted by notebene on 01/13/08 at 8:09PM
ZEMACK: polemics never trumps politics. Your answers are for long run structural reform. Right now it's trench warfare with the well oiled Wall Street high cost high risk Plan dreamed up to maximize available free revenues and provide Corzine with a major fiscal accomplishment suitable for his resume as potential Treasury Secy. This is raw politics and only raw local political revolution will suffice. Fill every county meeting with questions and more facts. Enlist private financial advisors to represent tax payers not the vested interests. This plan can be fully vetted and alternate strategies can be developed. Can you believe the arrogance of the Corzine "my plan or bankruptcy." He should know better that there is always a plan B that may in fact be more cost effective. Don't allow this rush to judgement. The people must demand the right to vote this plan up or down.
My Commentary:
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 01/14/08 at 7:14PM
"ZEMACK: polemics never trumps politics. Your answers are for long run structural reform."
With due respect, NOTEBENE, you've got it exactly reversed. Politics does not operate in a vacuum. It is an effect, an end result, a reflection of the fundamental philosophical principles accepted by a culture or society. Whether one identifies those basic ideas explicitly or not does not negate this fact. Consequently, only by identifying and challenging the underlying ideas that brought our state to its current predicament can one begin to offer practical solutions.
The pragmatic, range of the moment, "practical" political "trench warfare" approach is what got us here in the first place and won't do any longer. Ignoring the long-term consequences of short-term fixes leads to long-term disaster. What's needed is ideological trench warfare, because only by reference to political philosophy can long-term consequences be intelligently discussed and predicted. This is what I am attempting to bring to NJ Voices. "Polemics" (a vigorous debate over political philosophy...i.e., the proper role of government, in this case) is just what the doctor ordered. "[L]ong run structural reform" is desperately needed and can only begin on the battleground of ideas. Identify your political-philosophical principles and then offer practical solutions tied to those principles.
"Enlist private financial advisors to represent tax payers not the vested interests."
Which taxpayers? Who are the "vested interests" if not taxpayers? Whom do they represent, if not taxpayers? Who would be responsible for paying the financial advisers, if not the taxpayers? Wouldn't these advisors then themselves become another vested interest, feeding off of the taxpayers?
Anyway, the "vested interests" are not the cause, but the consequence of a runaway Trenton taxing machine and the redistributive policies that it spawned. They are merely opportunists flocking to Trenton to grab a piece of the tax-funded honeypot.
To really put the "taxpayers" first, the Corzine plan should be inverted. Instead of freezing spending, a meaningless exorcise in window dressing, how about freezing state revenue intake from all sources at the current level. No new "revenue enhancers". Corzine wants to get voter approval for new state borrowing. How about a 2/3 voter approval for tax increases? Then, cut state spending until the budget comes into line with revenues, and freeze it at that level. This proposal could be a good starting point. Cutting or eliminating state programs to reach that goal will raise a lot of hackles. But a basic fact must be recognized. Production comes before consumption. Keep that principle in mind when you hear that it can't be done because the state's "needs" won't be met. Production comes before need. Sacrificing the productive (the taxpayers) to the "needs" of tax-funded beneficiaries is a moral and practical inversion. How will the state's needs be met after the economy implodes under the pressure of ever-rising taxes? Putting the productive ahead of the recipients of unearned benefits is a good principle to fight for, even if in many cases they are one and the same person.
miscellaneous:
Posted by TheBullhorn on 01/16/08 at 11:53AM
Warning: a quasi-Randroid has entered the conversation . . . not that I object, you understand. I happen to be a fan of political economy and philosophy and I do accept the notion that thought must precede action and that all political activity is based upon either overt or tacit acceptance of some basic principle of political philosophy, just as the Z-person suggests.
But hereafter, do expect some prolix prose in here.
[prolix means "given to or indulging in long and wordy discourses". I looked it up.]
Posted by Zemack on 01/17/08 at 4:17PM
Randroid! I like that, TheBullhorn. I think I might call myself Zemack the Randroid!
And yes, I am an admirer of Rand and her philosophy.
P.S.- You should see my comments before I edit them
Posted by TheBullhorn on 01/18/08 at 8:25AM
Z-dude:
There are lots of people who are admirers of Rand and her ideas, however . . .
Judging strictly from the evidence provided by your writing, methinks you understate the nature of your attachment to Ms. Rand . . . I'd label you an adherent . . . a "Randroid" is the common label for your level of attachment.
Not only that, you apparently are a student of her ideas as well . . . I'll bet you've read her non-fiction stuff.
I suffered through all that stuff, too. Much to commend it. But have mercy: if all you're going to do is to repeat her thinking on the evils of statism and collectivism (at some length, I might add), why not just provide a link to her writing on the subject? Or at least, give her proper attribution . . .
Just a friendly suggestion . . .
Posted by Zemack on 01/19/08 at 1:47PM
TheBullhorn:
I was under the impression that your "Randroid" comment was an attempt at humor, since I had never heard that expression before. Although you may not have intended it that way, that word has derogatory overtones. It means either (A) that one blindly and uncritically accepts Objectivism at face value, or (B) that one accepts (or "adheres" to) Objectivism fully and consistently based on long-term study, understanding, and reflection. The first is true of many, but certainly not me. Not after the 40 years since I first read Rand that it took me to come around to my current viewpoint. The second is true of me, at least as far as my understanding of the basic abstract philosophical tenets of Objectivism are concerned. If "Randroid" means the first, it is a disparaging term. If it means the second, then it is disparaging to anyone who holds a consistent set of principles, Objectivist or not.
As to "if all you're going to do is to repeat her thinking on the evils of statism and collectivism (at some length, I might add), why not just provide a link to her writing on the subject? Or at least, give her proper attribution . . ." My website intro explicitly explains that I am a "student of Objectivism" and that the opinions expressed by me are from an Objectivist perspective, as I understand it. Proper links and credits are given to Rand or anyone else I quote or refer to in my posts. The link to my blog is provided in my profile here for anyone interested, and I shouldn't have to document the genesis of the ideas I express every time I post a comment (you complain they are too long already!).
As far as "repeat[ing] her thinking on the evils of statism and collectivism" is concerned, give me a break, TheBullhorn. Whether one's ideas are his original thought or are inspired by someone else, is it not proper to advocate for one's beliefs? After all, what is the purpose of free expression and NJVoices?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Commentary 10- Moran on the Race Card
From the New Jersey Star-Ledger 01/11/08
2007 July 2007 Tossing the race card from the deck
Posted by Tom Moran January 10, 2008 10:46PM
Categories: Politics
Cory Booker, like Barack Obama, is a young and super-educated black politician with a golden tongue.
But the two share much more than that. They have walked the same political path, one in Chicago and the other in Newark. They both fought against older men with roots in the civil rights era, and bring an entirely new style of politics to the African-American community.
And when they sat down one day and compared their political bruises, they found a nearly exact match.
"He got lambasted as a 'white boy,' too," says Booker. "We've both grown up in a more racially complex time."
Two things have happened in America that make it possible we would actually elect an African-American president. One is that white voters are casting more ballots for black candidates, all across the country. Racism lives, but it isn't what it used to be.
The other is this new generation of politicians like Obama, the senator from Illinois, and Booker, the mayor of Newark. They steer clear of ideological fights and confrontations. They focus on solving problems. They build coalitions with white and Latino politicians. And they rarely, if ever, appeal to black voters based on narrow racial interests.
"It's a co-evolution," says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank focusing on black issues. "White voters have evolved. The other thing is, these black candidates are not your typical black candidates from the past. They have a broader message aimed at everyone. They tend to come from the best schools. And they are very nimble intellectually."
So Booker, with his law degree from Yale University, sat down last year with Obama, the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, at the Hilton in Newark. The two didn't know each other -- it was a blind date arranged by Oprah Winfrey's best friend, Gayle King.
Booker began the breakfast as a skeptic, wondering how much substance was behind the star from Chicago. But by the time the dishes were cleared, he was converted.
"He complete disarmed me and made me an enthusiast," Booker said.
The two swapped stories that rang familiar. Obama recounted his bruising loss in a primary race against Congressman Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther who ridiculed Obama by saying Obama knew little of the black experience in America.
"Barack is a person who read about the civil rights protests and thinks he knows all about it," Rush said.
The tone had to sound familiar. During Booker's losing 2002 campaign, Mayor Sharpe James often ripped into Booker as some kind of racial heretic. "You have to learn to be African-American," James once said. "And we don't have time to train you all night."
Try to imagine Booker or Obama making that kind of ugly racial pitch, and you can see how much is changing.
Booker has mixed feelings about the older generation. He's grateful that they broke down the doors that people like Obama and him are now walking through. But the political thinking, he says, has to change with the times.
"There is no Bull Connor in our way anymore," Booker says. "But there is still child poverty. And essential to solving that kind of problem is to build broad-based coalitions. Having Barack Obama bring us all together is important for that."
Along with Booker and Obama, Bositis says, this club of newer generation of African-Americans includes people like Washington Mayor Adrien Fenty, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former congressman Harold Ford, and Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.
"They are all very ambitious," Bositis says.
Obama perhaps the most. It is a bold act to run for president with as little experience as he has in national politics. And his soaring rhetoric is simply not matched by concrete achievements in his career.
But the point is that race is not the first concern. Yes, some white voters will reject any African-American. But Bositis, for one, thinks that will not decide the race.
And that says something important about American politics.
"Merit matters, regardless of race," Bositis says. "If you are somebody who excels at what you do, there is great potential for you to be successful."
The dinosaurs, meanwhile, are gradually giving way. When the Rev. Jesse Jackson was quoted saying that Obama needs to "stop acting like he's white," his congressman son wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times under the headline, "You're wrong on Obama, Dad."
Sharpe James, who stepped down as mayor rather than face a rematch with Booker, is now awaiting trial on corruption charges.
And Bobby Rush, who once ridiculed Obama as "an educated fool from Harvard," is now endorsing him.
Original Referenced Link
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 01/11/08 at 11:04PM
"But the point is that race is not the first concern. Yes, some white voters will reject any African-American."
This is true. I would add that some people would vote for a black candidate because he is black. I believe these two groups of voters are relatively small and would more or less cancel each other out. Most people, I believe, care more about ideas than they are given credit for. But it is ideas that are sorely lacking in American politics. By ideas, I mean discussion of broad philosophical principles that enable voters to look beyond the narrow concrete issues that a particular candidate may be advocating. Instead, mostly what we get is evasiveness, sound bites, and platitudes that mean different things (or nothing at all) to different people. The reason is hidden in the following quote from Mr. Moran's article:
"They steer clear of ideological fights and confrontations. They focus on solving problems."
"Ideological fights" are exactly what this country needs, and the voters deserve. Instead, we get pragmatic politicians who "focus on solving problems", one at a time, without considering how that problem came to be in the first place, what the long term consequences of the "solution" will be, how a particular issue relates to other issues, etc. It is only by reference to political philosophy (i.e., ideology) that one can begin to answer such broad questions.
Yet principles are what the pragmatist disdains. In order to get support for his pet program, the pragmatic politician (which most of them are) must keep the people focused narrowly on the "problem" at hand, isolated from all other considerations or related consequences. A good example of this is the current move in congress to give the Federal Communications Commission the power to regulate "obscene and violent" content in the media (Protecting Children From Indecent Programming Act). Opponents of the bill properly point out that this new FCC power is a step down the road toward the ultimate enemy of a free society, censorship. The proponents counter with charges that they are "ideologues" who support smut and violence rather than children ("children" are a favorite prop these days for power-seeking politicians). What the advocates fear, of course, is precisely what the "ideologue" stands for...a principled position that dares to focus on the "forest" (the broad picture, the consequences), not just the "tree" (the concrete issue).
Pragmatism, of course, is itself an ideology. Specifically, it is an anti-ideology ideology. Pragmatism holds that only the current facts matter, that there are no absolute principles from which one can predict the consequences of ones actions, that abstract thought is meaningless, that issues cannot be related to one another, that each concrete issue is an isolated occurrence requiring "practical" actions that "work" without regard for the broad picture. The pragmatist hates the "ideologue"...the person who holds a firm, consistent set of principles that he applies to all issues.
To see pragmatism's practical results, one need only look at the state of American health care. Today's crises (and yes, it is a crises) was a long time coming. For the past 75 years, "pragmatic" politicians piled one coercive government intrusion after another onto American medicine at the behest of pressure groups forever angling to impose one more mandate onto everyone else. It is a system where 16% of GDP ($7000 per capita!) is spent on health care, of which nearly 90% of that represents people spending other people's money. It is a system where middle class earners are forced to pay, through both direct and indirect taxation (ex., corporate taxes), for the ½ that represents government spending (that's $3500 per capita, or $14,000 for a family of 4), yet can't afford to buy his own health insurance. It is a system where many two-income families have double coverage, one from each employer, yet have virtually no say on the terms or coverage included in their policies, because those judgements have been usurped by the employer and government mandates and regulations. The name of this absurd monstrosity is our government-imposed "third party payer" system.
It is only with reference to ideology (political philosophy) that the consequences of the steady abandonment of a free market in health care over the decades could have been foreseen, and possibly avoided. Today, America is nearing the dead end...a final collapse into a government-run health care dictatorship. And most Americans have no clue how we got here, or that a free market in health care ceased to exist decades ago.
What is desperately needed today is precisely what we are unlikely to get this election year...a vigorous ideological debate on issues like the proper role of government, the nature of individual rights, and the ultimate direction each candidate wants to lead us. The choice is statism or individual freedom. It is a choice that should be presented openly to the American voter. Sadly, Americans won't get that clear choice debated by its political parties, courtesy of the "non-ideologues" on both sides of the isle. And the default drift toward statism will continue.
Other commentary:
Posted by hglindquist on 01/12/08 at 8:23AM
Well said (written?), Zemack!
While I don't think the choice is statism vs. individual freedom in starkly delineated poles ... I think it is more of a spectrum between limits ... I do believe we need the "ideological fights" based on how we define our principles.
And I hope NJ Voices continues to "grow" as a place where we can engage each other over the issues from positions of principle.
For example, I agree with blarneyboy that the family is our "societal node" (David Brooks' seedbed) for growing the new generations to maturity. But not only have we been instituting policies that are proving to be destructive of the family -- and we should be coming to grips with what constitutes a "family" if for no other reason than we should if we base society on "families" -- we are also removing MAJOR economic decision-making away from families and putting it in bureaucracies.
For example -- and as you point out on healthcare -- If we have a family of four living in, say, an Abbott school district with 2 adults and 2 public school-age children then we have $14,000 in healthcare + 2 X $17,000 or $34,000 in public education for a total of $48,000 spent on that family as dependents of government bureaucracy.
Shouldn't we at least be talking about how that affects the political process around here? I'm not even making a judgment other than to say ... shouldn't we be asking? ... like who was it that told us that democracies self-destruct when folks start voting themselves goodies from the public purse?
My commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 01/13/08 at 1:37PM
"Well said (written?), Zemack!"
Thank you, Hglindquist, for the kind words.
"And I hope NJ Voices continues to 'grow' as a place where we can engage each other over the issues from positions of principle."
This is my hope, too. And we can start with:
"...and we should be coming to grips with what constitutes a "family" if for no other reason than we should if we base society on 'families'..."
With "family" and "family values" all the rage in the political arena these days, you bring up a very important consideration. Is the family the proper base or foundation of a society? There is no doubt that it is an important institution that provides the structure for proper child rearing. But it most definitely must not be a culture's fundamental unit of value.
The proper foundation, the "base", of any society must be the individual. America was founded on this principle, the primary Enlightenment idea, which is laid out in the Declaration of Independence. There is a crucial distinction here that should be understood.
The "family", like any group (the public, race, class, etc.), is not a separate entity but merely a collection of autonomous individuals each with his own capacity for self-generated action based on his own thinking and judgement. The particular structure of a family is not inherently good or bad, but is determined by the ideas and consequent actions and interactions of its individual members, especially of the parent(s).
Is a child raised in an environment where he is taught "its so, because I said so", or "God said so", with no further explanation? Is he told to act and behave according to what is "expected" of him by the "family", or "society", or "others"? Is the child forbidden to "go away to college" because he shouldn't leave the family? Is the child pressured to pursue a career, not of his choosing, but of his father's so as to "follow in his footsteps"? Is the child expected to conform to his family's traditions and customs rather than develop his own independent thought and course? Is a child to be shunned or disowned for independent actions that "dishonor" the family? In short, is the "family" a ball-and-chain around the developing character of the child, strangling his sense of self-esteem and self-worth in its crib and thus handicapping his ability to become a productive and happy adult?
If the family were considered the basic societal unit of value (which means that its individual members are subordinate to it), then the proper answer to the above questions (and others like it) would have to be yes. If one accepts the belief in the individual as the supreme unit of value, then the answers would be a resounding no. Instead, a different family environment emerges.
The child is taught to think for himself. He is encouraged to develop and use his innate mental tools of logic. For him, the words "why", "how", and "what for" are ingrained into his mental character. Mutual respect between parent and child is encouraged, rather than blind obedience. The parent seeks to advise and steer his growing child in the right direction, to the best of his knowledge and experience, but never loses sight of the fundamental fact that he is an autonomous individual. Rules, discipline, and other parental prerogatives are ever cognizant of this. The child begins adulthood with confidence and restless anticipation for the independent course that he will pursue.
The first example is likely to produce an adult full of self-doubt, fearful of acting on his own judgement, more apt to subordinate his thinking and goals to others while simultaneously resenting and envying independent, self-confident people he may encounter. The second example is likely to result in an independent adult who regularly acts on his own judgement, who neither sees others as a threat nor uses others for his own ends...i.e. one who respects and treats others as individuals.
The value-of-the-individual principle is the guiding philosophy of my wife and I. The result is a close family (despite a distance of up to hundreds of miles between us). We have two grown independent daughters and son's-in-law, six grandchildren, and a family relationship based on mutual love and respect for each other as individuals.
There is no doubt that a complete family unit with both parents at home is an ideal situation. But that is no guarantee of good child rearing. The idea that the family is the standard of value and the base of society is a form of collectivism, which is a throwback to a primitive tribal view of man and a denial of each person's independent mind, and will produce an authoritarian family environment unconducive to proper child rearing.
It is a matter of cause and effect. A culture whose dominant ideas recognize the individual and his rights as the standard of value will produce the proper type of family environment, and consequently a just and civil society.
2007 July 2007 Tossing the race card from the deck
Posted by Tom Moran January 10, 2008 10:46PM
Categories: Politics
Cory Booker, like Barack Obama, is a young and super-educated black politician with a golden tongue.
But the two share much more than that. They have walked the same political path, one in Chicago and the other in Newark. They both fought against older men with roots in the civil rights era, and bring an entirely new style of politics to the African-American community.
And when they sat down one day and compared their political bruises, they found a nearly exact match.
"He got lambasted as a 'white boy,' too," says Booker. "We've both grown up in a more racially complex time."
Two things have happened in America that make it possible we would actually elect an African-American president. One is that white voters are casting more ballots for black candidates, all across the country. Racism lives, but it isn't what it used to be.
The other is this new generation of politicians like Obama, the senator from Illinois, and Booker, the mayor of Newark. They steer clear of ideological fights and confrontations. They focus on solving problems. They build coalitions with white and Latino politicians. And they rarely, if ever, appeal to black voters based on narrow racial interests.
"It's a co-evolution," says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank focusing on black issues. "White voters have evolved. The other thing is, these black candidates are not your typical black candidates from the past. They have a broader message aimed at everyone. They tend to come from the best schools. And they are very nimble intellectually."
So Booker, with his law degree from Yale University, sat down last year with Obama, the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, at the Hilton in Newark. The two didn't know each other -- it was a blind date arranged by Oprah Winfrey's best friend, Gayle King.
Booker began the breakfast as a skeptic, wondering how much substance was behind the star from Chicago. But by the time the dishes were cleared, he was converted.
"He complete disarmed me and made me an enthusiast," Booker said.
The two swapped stories that rang familiar. Obama recounted his bruising loss in a primary race against Congressman Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther who ridiculed Obama by saying Obama knew little of the black experience in America.
"Barack is a person who read about the civil rights protests and thinks he knows all about it," Rush said.
The tone had to sound familiar. During Booker's losing 2002 campaign, Mayor Sharpe James often ripped into Booker as some kind of racial heretic. "You have to learn to be African-American," James once said. "And we don't have time to train you all night."
Try to imagine Booker or Obama making that kind of ugly racial pitch, and you can see how much is changing.
Booker has mixed feelings about the older generation. He's grateful that they broke down the doors that people like Obama and him are now walking through. But the political thinking, he says, has to change with the times.
"There is no Bull Connor in our way anymore," Booker says. "But there is still child poverty. And essential to solving that kind of problem is to build broad-based coalitions. Having Barack Obama bring us all together is important for that."
Along with Booker and Obama, Bositis says, this club of newer generation of African-Americans includes people like Washington Mayor Adrien Fenty, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former congressman Harold Ford, and Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.
"They are all very ambitious," Bositis says.
Obama perhaps the most. It is a bold act to run for president with as little experience as he has in national politics. And his soaring rhetoric is simply not matched by concrete achievements in his career.
But the point is that race is not the first concern. Yes, some white voters will reject any African-American. But Bositis, for one, thinks that will not decide the race.
And that says something important about American politics.
"Merit matters, regardless of race," Bositis says. "If you are somebody who excels at what you do, there is great potential for you to be successful."
The dinosaurs, meanwhile, are gradually giving way. When the Rev. Jesse Jackson was quoted saying that Obama needs to "stop acting like he's white," his congressman son wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times under the headline, "You're wrong on Obama, Dad."
Sharpe James, who stepped down as mayor rather than face a rematch with Booker, is now awaiting trial on corruption charges.
And Bobby Rush, who once ridiculed Obama as "an educated fool from Harvard," is now endorsing him.
Original Referenced Link
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 01/11/08 at 11:04PM
"But the point is that race is not the first concern. Yes, some white voters will reject any African-American."
This is true. I would add that some people would vote for a black candidate because he is black. I believe these two groups of voters are relatively small and would more or less cancel each other out. Most people, I believe, care more about ideas than they are given credit for. But it is ideas that are sorely lacking in American politics. By ideas, I mean discussion of broad philosophical principles that enable voters to look beyond the narrow concrete issues that a particular candidate may be advocating. Instead, mostly what we get is evasiveness, sound bites, and platitudes that mean different things (or nothing at all) to different people. The reason is hidden in the following quote from Mr. Moran's article:
"They steer clear of ideological fights and confrontations. They focus on solving problems."
"Ideological fights" are exactly what this country needs, and the voters deserve. Instead, we get pragmatic politicians who "focus on solving problems", one at a time, without considering how that problem came to be in the first place, what the long term consequences of the "solution" will be, how a particular issue relates to other issues, etc. It is only by reference to political philosophy (i.e., ideology) that one can begin to answer such broad questions.
Yet principles are what the pragmatist disdains. In order to get support for his pet program, the pragmatic politician (which most of them are) must keep the people focused narrowly on the "problem" at hand, isolated from all other considerations or related consequences. A good example of this is the current move in congress to give the Federal Communications Commission the power to regulate "obscene and violent" content in the media (Protecting Children From Indecent Programming Act). Opponents of the bill properly point out that this new FCC power is a step down the road toward the ultimate enemy of a free society, censorship. The proponents counter with charges that they are "ideologues" who support smut and violence rather than children ("children" are a favorite prop these days for power-seeking politicians). What the advocates fear, of course, is precisely what the "ideologue" stands for...a principled position that dares to focus on the "forest" (the broad picture, the consequences), not just the "tree" (the concrete issue).
Pragmatism, of course, is itself an ideology. Specifically, it is an anti-ideology ideology. Pragmatism holds that only the current facts matter, that there are no absolute principles from which one can predict the consequences of ones actions, that abstract thought is meaningless, that issues cannot be related to one another, that each concrete issue is an isolated occurrence requiring "practical" actions that "work" without regard for the broad picture. The pragmatist hates the "ideologue"...the person who holds a firm, consistent set of principles that he applies to all issues.
To see pragmatism's practical results, one need only look at the state of American health care. Today's crises (and yes, it is a crises) was a long time coming. For the past 75 years, "pragmatic" politicians piled one coercive government intrusion after another onto American medicine at the behest of pressure groups forever angling to impose one more mandate onto everyone else. It is a system where 16% of GDP ($7000 per capita!) is spent on health care, of which nearly 90% of that represents people spending other people's money. It is a system where middle class earners are forced to pay, through both direct and indirect taxation (ex., corporate taxes), for the ½ that represents government spending (that's $3500 per capita, or $14,000 for a family of 4), yet can't afford to buy his own health insurance. It is a system where many two-income families have double coverage, one from each employer, yet have virtually no say on the terms or coverage included in their policies, because those judgements have been usurped by the employer and government mandates and regulations. The name of this absurd monstrosity is our government-imposed "third party payer" system.
It is only with reference to ideology (political philosophy) that the consequences of the steady abandonment of a free market in health care over the decades could have been foreseen, and possibly avoided. Today, America is nearing the dead end...a final collapse into a government-run health care dictatorship. And most Americans have no clue how we got here, or that a free market in health care ceased to exist decades ago.
What is desperately needed today is precisely what we are unlikely to get this election year...a vigorous ideological debate on issues like the proper role of government, the nature of individual rights, and the ultimate direction each candidate wants to lead us. The choice is statism or individual freedom. It is a choice that should be presented openly to the American voter. Sadly, Americans won't get that clear choice debated by its political parties, courtesy of the "non-ideologues" on both sides of the isle. And the default drift toward statism will continue.
Other commentary:
Posted by hglindquist on 01/12/08 at 8:23AM
Well said (written?), Zemack!
While I don't think the choice is statism vs. individual freedom in starkly delineated poles ... I think it is more of a spectrum between limits ... I do believe we need the "ideological fights" based on how we define our principles.
And I hope NJ Voices continues to "grow" as a place where we can engage each other over the issues from positions of principle.
For example, I agree with blarneyboy that the family is our "societal node" (David Brooks' seedbed) for growing the new generations to maturity. But not only have we been instituting policies that are proving to be destructive of the family -- and we should be coming to grips with what constitutes a "family" if for no other reason than we should if we base society on "families" -- we are also removing MAJOR economic decision-making away from families and putting it in bureaucracies.
For example -- and as you point out on healthcare -- If we have a family of four living in, say, an Abbott school district with 2 adults and 2 public school-age children then we have $14,000 in healthcare + 2 X $17,000 or $34,000 in public education for a total of $48,000 spent on that family as dependents of government bureaucracy.
Shouldn't we at least be talking about how that affects the political process around here? I'm not even making a judgment other than to say ... shouldn't we be asking? ... like who was it that told us that democracies self-destruct when folks start voting themselves goodies from the public purse?
My commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 01/13/08 at 1:37PM
"Well said (written?), Zemack!"
Thank you, Hglindquist, for the kind words.
"And I hope NJ Voices continues to 'grow' as a place where we can engage each other over the issues from positions of principle."
This is my hope, too. And we can start with:
"...and we should be coming to grips with what constitutes a "family" if for no other reason than we should if we base society on 'families'..."
With "family" and "family values" all the rage in the political arena these days, you bring up a very important consideration. Is the family the proper base or foundation of a society? There is no doubt that it is an important institution that provides the structure for proper child rearing. But it most definitely must not be a culture's fundamental unit of value.
The proper foundation, the "base", of any society must be the individual. America was founded on this principle, the primary Enlightenment idea, which is laid out in the Declaration of Independence. There is a crucial distinction here that should be understood.
The "family", like any group (the public, race, class, etc.), is not a separate entity but merely a collection of autonomous individuals each with his own capacity for self-generated action based on his own thinking and judgement. The particular structure of a family is not inherently good or bad, but is determined by the ideas and consequent actions and interactions of its individual members, especially of the parent(s).
Is a child raised in an environment where he is taught "its so, because I said so", or "God said so", with no further explanation? Is he told to act and behave according to what is "expected" of him by the "family", or "society", or "others"? Is the child forbidden to "go away to college" because he shouldn't leave the family? Is the child pressured to pursue a career, not of his choosing, but of his father's so as to "follow in his footsteps"? Is the child expected to conform to his family's traditions and customs rather than develop his own independent thought and course? Is a child to be shunned or disowned for independent actions that "dishonor" the family? In short, is the "family" a ball-and-chain around the developing character of the child, strangling his sense of self-esteem and self-worth in its crib and thus handicapping his ability to become a productive and happy adult?
If the family were considered the basic societal unit of value (which means that its individual members are subordinate to it), then the proper answer to the above questions (and others like it) would have to be yes. If one accepts the belief in the individual as the supreme unit of value, then the answers would be a resounding no. Instead, a different family environment emerges.
The child is taught to think for himself. He is encouraged to develop and use his innate mental tools of logic. For him, the words "why", "how", and "what for" are ingrained into his mental character. Mutual respect between parent and child is encouraged, rather than blind obedience. The parent seeks to advise and steer his growing child in the right direction, to the best of his knowledge and experience, but never loses sight of the fundamental fact that he is an autonomous individual. Rules, discipline, and other parental prerogatives are ever cognizant of this. The child begins adulthood with confidence and restless anticipation for the independent course that he will pursue.
The first example is likely to produce an adult full of self-doubt, fearful of acting on his own judgement, more apt to subordinate his thinking and goals to others while simultaneously resenting and envying independent, self-confident people he may encounter. The second example is likely to result in an independent adult who regularly acts on his own judgement, who neither sees others as a threat nor uses others for his own ends...i.e. one who respects and treats others as individuals.
The value-of-the-individual principle is the guiding philosophy of my wife and I. The result is a close family (despite a distance of up to hundreds of miles between us). We have two grown independent daughters and son's-in-law, six grandchildren, and a family relationship based on mutual love and respect for each other as individuals.
There is no doubt that a complete family unit with both parents at home is an ideal situation. But that is no guarantee of good child rearing. The idea that the family is the standard of value and the base of society is a form of collectivism, which is a throwback to a primitive tribal view of man and a denial of each person's independent mind, and will produce an authoritarian family environment unconducive to proper child rearing.
It is a matter of cause and effect. A culture whose dominant ideas recognize the individual and his rights as the standard of value will produce the proper type of family environment, and consequently a just and civil society.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Commentary 9- NJ Apology
Slavery: Is it time for New Jersey to apologize?
Posted by Kelly Heyboer January 03, 2008 5:30PM
If an apology comes 161 years late, does it still count?
That's the question lawmakers will be asking in Trenton today as an Assembly committee begins debating a measure that would make New Jersey the fifth state in the nation to apologize for slavery.
Assemblyman William Payne (D-Essex) is sponsoring the bill to make New Jersey the first northern state to express official remorse for allowing residents to own slaves. The measure calls only for an apology and does not advocate paying reparations to the descendants of former slaves.
"All that is being requested of New Jersey is to say three simple words: We are sorry," Payne said.
My Commentary:
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 01/03/08 at 8:40PM
The bill before the New Jersey legislature to officially apologize, on behalf of the state, for slavery practiced in the 19th century is being billed as a step toward rectifying the lingering injustice of racism. Racism, it is said, is a remnant of the enslavement of blacks in the early years of America. It is said that by apologizing for whatever part early New Jersey residents played in regards to slavery, a step will have been taken toward ending this vestige of slavery. But this apology bill will do no such thing. In fact, it will only reinforce whatever racism exists in the minds of people.
This is because racism is not rooted in slavery. Slavery and racism, in fact, are two separate and distinct evils, although they share the same philosophical base... collectivism. While American slavery may have had racist overtones, it must be remembered that America, at its founding, inherited slavery, which had been practiced for thousands of years. One of the greatest contemporary historians, Thomas Sowell, said of slavery:
"Slavery existed all over this planet, among people of every color, religion and nationality....[A]nyone familiar with the history of slavery around the world knows that its origins go back thousands of years and that slaves and slaveowners were very often of the same race...Whites enslaved other whites in Europe for centuries before the first black slave was brought to the Western Hemisphere; moreover, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans, and the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere enslaved other native peoples of the Western Hemisphere...[and] Thousands of free blacks owned slaves in the antebellum South." (These quotes were taken from two articles written by Mr. Sowell and published in the New York Post some years ago, although regrettably I don't have the dates.)
Racism, on the other hand, is a mindset that views other people not as individuals but as subordinate members of a group. 20th century philosopher Ayn Rand, the greatest defender of individualism, defines racism as follows:
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage--the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.... [R]acism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty." (From her essay "Racism" in the book Return of the Primitive)
What racism and slavery have in common is that they are both rooted in collectivism. Collectivism is the philosophical doctrine, which holds that the individual has no value and that the standard of value in human affairs is the group to which he "belongs". The common traits that tie him to the collective (the tribe) may be nationality, religious belief, race, social or economic status, etc. When members of one group or collective take slaves from another, it is collectivism at work. The tribal warfare that goes on generation after generation in various parts of the world is collectivism in action...with the warring groups holding each other responsible for wrongs perpetrated centuries ago regardless of the fact that the individuals comprising these groups had nothing to do with the ancient events. The individual is held responsible simply by sharing certain characteristics of the group.
The logic behind the official apology being contemplated by the NJ legislature is derived from the same collectivist doctrine as racism and the institution of slavery. While it is being billed as an official act of the state, the implication is that the current residents are held to be guilty of the wrongs of their predecessors some 200 years ago, simply because of the color of their skin and their current residency. This implication is unavoidable since the NJ State officials who sanctioned the slave institution were elected by and acted in the name of the people of New Jersey.
If New Jersey adopts this bill, which is likely a precursor to the adoption of the even more evil "slave reparations", it would officially be adopting the same essential philosophical premises of slavery and racism. (Slave reparations would compel innocent people to make financial "restitution" to modern day profiteers on the injustice of past slavery, which would itself be a new type of slavery.)
The best thing any New Jersey resident, or any American, can do in protest against the evil of slavery is to do as I have done. Reject collectivism and adopt individualism as a moral and philosophical absolute. This means to pledge to treat every person you encounter as a sovereign individual and to judge him solely according to his own ideas, actions, and overall character, while never ascribing to anyone any sort of group identity. It further means to pledge to never accept any unearned guilt because of the actions of others.
If New Jersey "officially " apologizes for slavery; I hereby disavow any connection to this act. I will not accept any guilt or responsibility for the evil deeds perpetrated by those who came before me.
Posted by Kelly Heyboer January 03, 2008 5:30PM
If an apology comes 161 years late, does it still count?
That's the question lawmakers will be asking in Trenton today as an Assembly committee begins debating a measure that would make New Jersey the fifth state in the nation to apologize for slavery.
Assemblyman William Payne (D-Essex) is sponsoring the bill to make New Jersey the first northern state to express official remorse for allowing residents to own slaves. The measure calls only for an apology and does not advocate paying reparations to the descendants of former slaves.
"All that is being requested of New Jersey is to say three simple words: We are sorry," Payne said.
My Commentary:
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 01/03/08 at 8:40PM
The bill before the New Jersey legislature to officially apologize, on behalf of the state, for slavery practiced in the 19th century is being billed as a step toward rectifying the lingering injustice of racism. Racism, it is said, is a remnant of the enslavement of blacks in the early years of America. It is said that by apologizing for whatever part early New Jersey residents played in regards to slavery, a step will have been taken toward ending this vestige of slavery. But this apology bill will do no such thing. In fact, it will only reinforce whatever racism exists in the minds of people.
This is because racism is not rooted in slavery. Slavery and racism, in fact, are two separate and distinct evils, although they share the same philosophical base... collectivism. While American slavery may have had racist overtones, it must be remembered that America, at its founding, inherited slavery, which had been practiced for thousands of years. One of the greatest contemporary historians, Thomas Sowell, said of slavery:
"Slavery existed all over this planet, among people of every color, religion and nationality....[A]nyone familiar with the history of slavery around the world knows that its origins go back thousands of years and that slaves and slaveowners were very often of the same race...Whites enslaved other whites in Europe for centuries before the first black slave was brought to the Western Hemisphere; moreover, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans, and the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere enslaved other native peoples of the Western Hemisphere...[and] Thousands of free blacks owned slaves in the antebellum South." (These quotes were taken from two articles written by Mr. Sowell and published in the New York Post some years ago, although regrettably I don't have the dates.)
Racism, on the other hand, is a mindset that views other people not as individuals but as subordinate members of a group. 20th century philosopher Ayn Rand, the greatest defender of individualism, defines racism as follows:
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage--the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.... [R]acism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty." (From her essay "Racism" in the book Return of the Primitive)
What racism and slavery have in common is that they are both rooted in collectivism. Collectivism is the philosophical doctrine, which holds that the individual has no value and that the standard of value in human affairs is the group to which he "belongs". The common traits that tie him to the collective (the tribe) may be nationality, religious belief, race, social or economic status, etc. When members of one group or collective take slaves from another, it is collectivism at work. The tribal warfare that goes on generation after generation in various parts of the world is collectivism in action...with the warring groups holding each other responsible for wrongs perpetrated centuries ago regardless of the fact that the individuals comprising these groups had nothing to do with the ancient events. The individual is held responsible simply by sharing certain characteristics of the group.
The logic behind the official apology being contemplated by the NJ legislature is derived from the same collectivist doctrine as racism and the institution of slavery. While it is being billed as an official act of the state, the implication is that the current residents are held to be guilty of the wrongs of their predecessors some 200 years ago, simply because of the color of their skin and their current residency. This implication is unavoidable since the NJ State officials who sanctioned the slave institution were elected by and acted in the name of the people of New Jersey.
If New Jersey adopts this bill, which is likely a precursor to the adoption of the even more evil "slave reparations", it would officially be adopting the same essential philosophical premises of slavery and racism. (Slave reparations would compel innocent people to make financial "restitution" to modern day profiteers on the injustice of past slavery, which would itself be a new type of slavery.)
The best thing any New Jersey resident, or any American, can do in protest against the evil of slavery is to do as I have done. Reject collectivism and adopt individualism as a moral and philosophical absolute. This means to pledge to treat every person you encounter as a sovereign individual and to judge him solely according to his own ideas, actions, and overall character, while never ascribing to anyone any sort of group identity. It further means to pledge to never accept any unearned guilt because of the actions of others.
If New Jersey "officially " apologizes for slavery; I hereby disavow any connection to this act. I will not accept any guilt or responsibility for the evil deeds perpetrated by those who came before me.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Death Penalty vs. Abortion
From NJ Voices
Corzine and the Sanctity of Life
Posted by Murray Sabrin December 18, 2007 8:47AM
Yesterday, Governor Corzine proudly signed legislation abolishing the death penalty. I applaud the governor's commitment to end the death penalty in New Jersey, because I now oppose the death penalty after supporting it all my adult life.
In Governor Corzine's remarks at the state capitol he said, "I believe society first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To these questions, I answer yes." Truer words were never spoken. Yet, the governor has a blind spot, or more accurately a black hole, when it comes to another issue about the sanctity of life: abortion.
On a website, "Jon Corzine on the issues," several quotes appear from his public statements about abortion including one made during his 2000 campaign for the United States Senate: "I am passionately pro-choice, and I would be one of the U.S. Senate's most vocal and tenacious leaders in protecting a woman's right to choose. I oppose legislation banning so-called late-term abortions, because anti-choice extremists are using such legislation to chip away at Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that guarantees a woman's vital constitutional right to choose. I trust the women of America to make their own health decisions without the intrusion of government."
I too was a passionate defender of a woman's right to choose even though I disagreed with the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision as an unwarranted intrusion in the right of states to decide this or any issue that should be the prerogative of state legislatures. That is the hallmark of federalism, one of America's founding principles.
When I learned about partial abortion from a student of mine in the mid 1990s I was appalled that this procedure could be legal in America or for that matter in any civilized society. Even Democrats such as former New York City mayor Ed Koch and the late New York U. S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called partial birth abortion infanticide. Crushing a baby's head and then sucking out its brains is morally repugnant, and yet the pro-choice extremists do not have the courage to condemn this procedure.
After reading Rep. Ron Paul's defense of the pro-life position from a limited government perspective in his 100 page book, Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grip with the Abortion Issue, I too became an advocate of protecting the lives of the unborn.
Meanwhile, Governor Corzine can speak eloquently about the sanctity of life when he signs a law abolishing the death penalty, but he denies the unborn the right to their lives. Women carrying an unborn child never say they are having a fetus, they always say I am having a baby.
Abortion is the taking of a human life, a very special life that is being developed inside a woman's womb. After birth an infant develops outside the womb under the guidance of his or her parent(s). Does anyone believe a woman can choose to end the life of an infant because she has an unlimited "right to choose?"
Governor Corzine is intellectually inconsistent and philosophically obtuse, when it comes to the abortion issue. If the life of a killer can be spared by the state for committing a heinous crime, then surely the life of the unborn should be protected by the state. In short, if the "sanctity of life" has any meaning, it means that no life can be taken by the state or anyone else. After all, the role of the state is to prevent aggression against innocent human life, including life in the womb. Otherwise, we do we need a state?
My Commentary
Posted by Zemack on 12/18/07 at 2:21PM
In Governor Corzine's remarks at the state capitol he said, "I believe society first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To these questions, I answer yes." Truer words were never spoken.
I couldn't disagree more.
The death penalty issue is primarily a moral one, and it boils down to one question... does human life have value, or doesn't it? If it does, then that which destroys it is evil and thus has no value. The act of committing cold-blooded murder (the taking of another's life in the absence of extenuating circumstances) is the ultimate violation of one's most fundamental right...the right to life. By taking the life of another human being, the cold-blooded killer thus forfeits the right to his own life.
Remember that we are speaking here of the most heinous type of crime...the rape-murder of a child, the gunning down of a store clerk during a robbery, the assassination of a police officer. To speak of "the sanctity of life", or of "love" or "compassion" (as Sister Helen Prejean was quoted today as saying) for life's destroyers is to make a mockery of those terms and to devalue the lives of all of us.
One can not value man's life and the destroyer of man's life at the same time. To the extent that one assigns value to the destroyer of man's life, then to the same extent he is devalueing man's life. There is no way out of this lethal contradiction. Not if one's standard of value is man's life.
The death penalty is justified, morally justified, not because of hatred or revenge. Nor is it justified on the grounds of deterence. The ruling principle in favor of the death penalty is justice. The ultimate crime must be met by the ultimate punishment. Death to cold-blooded murderers, the destroyers of life, is the ultimate affirmation of "the sanctity (and value) of life."
Sadly, by abolishing the death penalty, our great state of New Jersey has chosen to devalue life.
Corzine and the Sanctity of Life
Posted by Murray Sabrin December 18, 2007 8:47AM
Yesterday, Governor Corzine proudly signed legislation abolishing the death penalty. I applaud the governor's commitment to end the death penalty in New Jersey, because I now oppose the death penalty after supporting it all my adult life.
In Governor Corzine's remarks at the state capitol he said, "I believe society first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To these questions, I answer yes." Truer words were never spoken. Yet, the governor has a blind spot, or more accurately a black hole, when it comes to another issue about the sanctity of life: abortion.
On a website, "Jon Corzine on the issues," several quotes appear from his public statements about abortion including one made during his 2000 campaign for the United States Senate: "I am passionately pro-choice, and I would be one of the U.S. Senate's most vocal and tenacious leaders in protecting a woman's right to choose. I oppose legislation banning so-called late-term abortions, because anti-choice extremists are using such legislation to chip away at Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that guarantees a woman's vital constitutional right to choose. I trust the women of America to make their own health decisions without the intrusion of government."
I too was a passionate defender of a woman's right to choose even though I disagreed with the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision as an unwarranted intrusion in the right of states to decide this or any issue that should be the prerogative of state legislatures. That is the hallmark of federalism, one of America's founding principles.
When I learned about partial abortion from a student of mine in the mid 1990s I was appalled that this procedure could be legal in America or for that matter in any civilized society. Even Democrats such as former New York City mayor Ed Koch and the late New York U. S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called partial birth abortion infanticide. Crushing a baby's head and then sucking out its brains is morally repugnant, and yet the pro-choice extremists do not have the courage to condemn this procedure.
After reading Rep. Ron Paul's defense of the pro-life position from a limited government perspective in his 100 page book, Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grip with the Abortion Issue, I too became an advocate of protecting the lives of the unborn.
Meanwhile, Governor Corzine can speak eloquently about the sanctity of life when he signs a law abolishing the death penalty, but he denies the unborn the right to their lives. Women carrying an unborn child never say they are having a fetus, they always say I am having a baby.
Abortion is the taking of a human life, a very special life that is being developed inside a woman's womb. After birth an infant develops outside the womb under the guidance of his or her parent(s). Does anyone believe a woman can choose to end the life of an infant because she has an unlimited "right to choose?"
Governor Corzine is intellectually inconsistent and philosophically obtuse, when it comes to the abortion issue. If the life of a killer can be spared by the state for committing a heinous crime, then surely the life of the unborn should be protected by the state. In short, if the "sanctity of life" has any meaning, it means that no life can be taken by the state or anyone else. After all, the role of the state is to prevent aggression against innocent human life, including life in the womb. Otherwise, we do we need a state?
My Commentary
Posted by Zemack on 12/18/07 at 2:21PM
In Governor Corzine's remarks at the state capitol he said, "I believe society first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To these questions, I answer yes." Truer words were never spoken.
I couldn't disagree more.
The death penalty issue is primarily a moral one, and it boils down to one question... does human life have value, or doesn't it? If it does, then that which destroys it is evil and thus has no value. The act of committing cold-blooded murder (the taking of another's life in the absence of extenuating circumstances) is the ultimate violation of one's most fundamental right...the right to life. By taking the life of another human being, the cold-blooded killer thus forfeits the right to his own life.
Remember that we are speaking here of the most heinous type of crime...the rape-murder of a child, the gunning down of a store clerk during a robbery, the assassination of a police officer. To speak of "the sanctity of life", or of "love" or "compassion" (as Sister Helen Prejean was quoted today as saying) for life's destroyers is to make a mockery of those terms and to devalue the lives of all of us.
One can not value man's life and the destroyer of man's life at the same time. To the extent that one assigns value to the destroyer of man's life, then to the same extent he is devalueing man's life. There is no way out of this lethal contradiction. Not if one's standard of value is man's life.
The death penalty is justified, morally justified, not because of hatred or revenge. Nor is it justified on the grounds of deterence. The ruling principle in favor of the death penalty is justice. The ultimate crime must be met by the ultimate punishment. Death to cold-blooded murderers, the destroyers of life, is the ultimate affirmation of "the sanctity (and value) of life."
Sadly, by abolishing the death penalty, our great state of New Jersey has chosen to devalue life.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Commentary 6- Pre-school and Vouchers
From NJ Voices
Vouchers are the Obvious Choice
Posted by Tom Moran December 13, 2007 9:00PM
Categories: Family & Kids, Hot Topics
To the Rev. Reginald Jackson, head of the Black Ministers' Council, the remarkable success of the state's private preschools holds an obvious lesson.
We need more school choice. We need to break the monopoly of the public school system. We need to build on this success by at least experimenting with vouchers in the K-12 system.
"These preschools, 70 percent of which are privately owned, are providing a good foundation for these children," he says. "The only way we're going to know if it would make a difference in the later grades is by giving it a chance."
That, of course, is not going to happen in New Jersey. Because here, even talk of vouchers causes the teachers unions and the education establishment to break out in hives.
A voucher system would allow parents to pick whatever school they want, public or private. And these guys don't want anybody to mess with their cozy monopoly, which works so well for all the adults involved.
Already, some educators in the suburbs are taking up battle stations. As the governor moves to expand preschool offerings to their districts, they are promising to keep the private preschools out of the loop.
"We would prefer to do it ourselves," says Somerville Superintendent Carol Leary. "They will start out here as 3-year-olds and hopefully go right through high school."
It's a pity, because the preschool program today is probably the most remarkable success story of the last decade in this beleaguered state.
It relies on a healthy mix of public and private preschools that all receive public money -- even those that are religiously inspired. About 45,000 children attend the schools, most of them in the poor urban districts known as Abbotts.
The results are in. The first wave of these kids have reached grammar school, and are showing markedly higher scores on their reading and math tests. Fewer of them are landing in expensive special education programs. And teachers say these students tend to be better behaved.
How did this happen in a state that has taken such a hard line on school vouchers, and has only grudgingly allowed charter schools?
It was an accident. The Supreme Court in 1999 ordered the state to establish preschools in the Abbott districts, and the public schools didn't have the space or the teachers to do the job. They made room for private schools because the court put a gun to their head. Even the teachers unions went along.
"Initially I was dead-set against it, too," says Tom Dunn, the former superintendent in Elizabeth who now lobbies for school administrators. "But I was proven wrong."
As a convert, Dunn knows how public educators can turn this into a turf war, how someone like Leary could insist on banning private schools when she concedes she has no room in her own schools to do the job.
"There's a feeling that I'm going to be responsible for this, so I want control, and I don't want to be blamed for something that goes wrong," he says. "I can understand that initial reaction. But this works. And I plan to work with the superintendents to embrace this."
Maybe some districts will bite. Maybe they'll realize that the important point is whether the preschool is teaching children effectively, not whether it is public or private.
In the Abbott preschools, the state was perfectly impartial. It insisted on small class sizes, qualified teachers, and a proven curriculum. And it sent in teaching coaches, and enough money to make it work. That supervision is far more aggressive than is typical in pure voucher systems, so this is really a kind of hybrid.
But the preschools in these districts are both public and private. And because parents make the final choice about where to enroll their kids, the schools must compete for business.
So here we are. We have a success story, and the question is whether we have the wisdom to repeat it.
Meanwhile, Jackson says he will keep tilting at his windmill, pushing for a voucher system in the upper grades. He knows he won't get it anytime soon. But for him, this is at its core a human rights issue.
It is simply wrong, he says, to force poor children into public school monopolies when everyone knows many of these schools are failing, and even dangerous. He often asks a simple and telling question of those who disagree: "If you were in one of these urban districts, would you send your children there?"
Jackson is not quitting on the public schools. He sits on the board in Orange. And he is chairman of the board at Essex County Community College, where he says more than 80 percent of those graduating from the public schools need remedial classes.
"I've been in Jersey for 30 years and ever since I've been here they've talked about reforming the public schools, and they haven't," he says. "That is my major frustration."
And it will remain so, in all likelihood. Because New Jersey's political establishment is not about to yield on this one -- no matter what magic is being brewed in those Abbott preschools.
Commentary Begins
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by philsgold on 12/14/07 at 12:02PM
The great defender of individual rights and capitalism, Ayn Rand, wrote that the best way to overcome the public school problem would be to institute a voucher system. In her essay she writes that very few people would want to buy a pair of shoes manufactured by the government; why then, would anyone buy something so crucially important as their children's education from the government!
How wonderfully ironic it was to read Tom Moran's advocacy of school vouchers. When an advocate of all things socialist, liberal, and statist has to admit the complete failure of his own creation, it is indeed a fun day for all us "enemies of the State". Now, all we need is for Tom and his liberal friends to admit that the government is a complete failure at everything except police protection, courts, and the military. So, instead of giving back our money through a voucher system, why not let us keep it in the first place. Oh my God, could we ever be trusted to dispose of the fruits of our own labor and thought?? Of course not!! We need the guidance of our great socialist leaders, like Hilary, Nancy, and the swimmer.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by hglindquist on 12/14/07 at 5:14PM
Well, philsgold ... maybe we the people would buy Ayn Rand's arguments if we had not experienced the guidance of great monopolist leaders up close and personal from time to time.
What is there about a banana republic that appeals to you? And do you use "Heckuva job, Brownie" government to prove your point?
Some stuff on Ayn Rand from wikipedia.com:
According to Rand, "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man." (1968)
and:
In a Playboy magazine interview, Rand stated that women are not psychologically suited to be President ...
There's more, but why bother ... most of us know what she thought.
The fact that she was right on vouchers doesn't prove that everything else she uttered was also correct. Or that because she was wrong on so much, that vouchers are then also wrong.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 12/14/07 at 8:03PM
I heartily applaud your defense of the pre-school system against what can only be called a hostile takeover attempt by the state. Pre-school is the last bastion of what can be called true educational freedom in America, where parents are free to exercise their rights in deciding the course of their children's education by choosing from a free market array of competing schools.
I also applaud your identifying the true nature of the "public" (read government-run) school system as a monopoly. I would add coercive to that label. And, like all coercive (i.e., government-enforced) monopolies, our school system is beset by exploding costs and deteriorating quality.
I also emphatically endorse Mr. Jackson's idea of extending educational freedom to all grade levels, with two important changes;
1. I would replace vouchers with a direct tax credit to the parents for their education expenses. These credits would be applied both to local property taxes and income taxes. I would also encourage the creation of private scholarship funds by applying the same tax credits to voluntary contributions for scholarship purposes. The scholarships could be granted to parents whose educational expense may exceed any tax credits they may qualify for. The problem with vouchers is they violate the church-state separation, a crucial doctrine for preserving religious freedom in America.
2. Vouchers also leave too much control of the schools in the hands of the state (i.e., the education establishment), which leads me to my second important change. Government money always comes with strings attached, and the worst of the voucher strings is the mandate that schools must use a "proven" curriculum. This inevitably stifles new, entrepreneurial thinking. And we desperately need original, innovative, even radical new ideas in educational curriculum, methods, and philosophy.
Ultimately, I prefer that all schools be privately owned and run, i.e. a completely free market in education. But the dramatic reforms advocated by Mr. Jackson and yourself are a huge step toward better schooling in America.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 12/14/07 at 9:15PM
To Philsgold:
I, too, am an admirer of Ayn Rand for her moral defense of individualism and capitalism, among other things. But in the 40 years since I first discovered her writings, I don't ever remember her advocating vouchers. I do know that she advocated tax credits, with which I concur (see her essay on page 247 of the book "The Voice of Reason").
To Hglindquist:
If you really understood Ayn Rand and her philosophy, which requires a great deal of study, you may not agree with her but you wouldn't make the kind of ad hominem attacks you made in the first two comments in your post. Also, cherry-picking and presenting those two quotes out of context is rather unfair and very misleading of her character. Rarely has history produced a stronger or more courageous and independant woman.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by hglindquist on 12/15/07 at 8:47AM
My dear Zemack,
Most of us who disagree with Ayn Rand can actually use numbers to refer to her ideas, they are so well known. (Probably even those who agree with her can.) Plus that is why I referenced my source. People can read the whole wikipedia entry if they care to. It would be redundant for me to repeat here, wouldn't you say?
And I am glad you single me out for using "ad hominem" attacks ... which is a common retort of the uptight when they are being poked fun at. Jeez-lou-eeze, Zemack, this is the bloggosphere.
See, what most of learned in kindergarten is that if you don't have rules on the playground, bullies rule.
And what we are currently witnessing in the mortgage markets AND in the major league illegal use of drugs ... are clear examples of the so-called "free" market that does not pay for the damage it does out of the profits it earned ... to the point that even ye ol' Milton Friedman admitted before he passed on that there was no "free" market ... due to these very externalities, as these brilliant idiots call them. (Would you like the reference? Is "brilliant idiot" too "ad hominem" for you or does it actually catch the irony of intelligent individuals serving greed cloaked in principle?)
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by hglindquist on 12/15/07 at 9:19AM
But returning to vouchers ... and being a member of the working class ... with bono fides extending from my parents and their parents to my children and their children ...
Most of us in the small towns and communities that spawned the public education system were part of mostly homogeneous communities ... at least I was in most of my years in public education. My family's values were the values taught in public school ... yes, religious, ethical, and social values were pretty much common ones ... at least publicly ... including prejudices (all one has to do is read the text books).
And I think the majority of folks still believe their particular public school is teaching the values they want taught. (Which is why they are against vouchers. They think they will be net resource losers for their schools.)
But it is appears to be equally obvious that a (growing?) number of families -- particularly the working poor in large urban centers -- are discovering that their children come back from public school in worse condition than when first enrolled ... with the strong arm of the state forcing them to keep sending their children to these schools even though the parents know it is harming their children's value system. They would like vouchers ... but they are a minority.
Am I right in thinking this way, or not?
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 12/15/07 at 3:45PM
To Hglindquist;
Your schoolyard bully comment is, I guess, a reference to free markets. But what you actually, and unwittingly, describe is the exact system we have today in America...a mixed economy. A mixed economy is one in which the government acquires enormous powers over private economic activity which serves as a means or tool of anyone with political power or pull to impose its agenda on others by force. In other words, it empowers the bully.
True Capitalism, which doesn't exist anywhere today including in the United States, actually banishes force from human relationships by restricting the power of the state to the vital task of protecting individual rights (i.e., enforcing the "rules" as objectively defined by reference to those rights). This means, to protect the individual from the initiation of physical force, including governmental force. Thus no one, not even the rich, can impose his will on others by the acquisition of political influence and power because the tool of governmental coercion is removed. Capitalism, properly understood, means the separation of state and economics. All economic associations between people are voluntary, with each person acting in his own self-interest with the corresponding legal and moral obligation to respect the rights of all others to do the same. Free markets disarm the bully.
This relates to the school issue in this way. If a group of people, no matter how large their majority, want to pool their money to form a community school, it is their right to do so. But they have no right to use the taxing power of the state (or the municipality) to force everyone else in the community to pay for it ...i.e., to initiate the use of force against others for the purpose of forming a "public" school. Government under Capitalism protects the rights of the minority to chart its own course, including the smallest of all minorities, the individual. This is why Tom Moran's article was so exciting to read. However imperfectly and inconsistantly, he is taking a strong stand in favor of individual parents against the community's schoolyard bully, the entrenched educational establishment.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by hglindquist on 12/15/07 at 8:11PM
Zemack, one hardly knows where to begin because it is such a broad sweeping set of statements ... let's see if we can put some meat on the bones to chew on, shall we?
You write ...
Capitalism, properly understood, means the separation of state and economics. All economic associations between people are voluntary, with each person acting in his own self-interest with the corresponding legal and moral obligation to respect the rights of all others to do the same. Free markets disarm the bully.>/i>
What is your definition of a free market? And do you have an example, even in theory ... of one that claims to work? Like if it is free of regulation, then how does it disarm the bully? Put I don't yet know what you mean by a free market.
Then I would ask, what are these rights of all others that each of us is supposed to protect? Is this something like the old joke of the "right" of both the rich and the poor to be arrested for sleeping under the bridge?
Until we define individual rights that the state will have the vital task to enforce, we are sort of at a loss ... aren't we?
And if a person responds by saying our Constitution defines our rights then we run into a couple of major philosophical impediments to laissez faire ... like the last statement of Article I, Section 8: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Seems as if we have a representative form of government whose legislative branch is empowered to create all kinds of mischief regarding laissez faire ... like isn't it then the right of we the people to impose those regulations on ourselves that we deem suitable and are in accord with our Constitution? (Which always is a problem for the Libertarian when defending the Constitution ... or maybe you don't think it is?)
Another of those couple of major impediments to the honorable observance of rights that I mentioned above is how we have handled treaty rights with the indigenous populations ...
Then we have issues of ownership ... that stem in part from the treaty rights that I just mentioned ...
And that is a small scratching of the surface ...
I always get the feeling that when anyone calls for protecting the rights of the individual to chart his/her own course ... it is always from the current situation forward with a newly defined set of rights, never from a rational attempt to define what the situation should/would be if it had been fairly arrived at ... according to the rights we had in force before we decided to come up with a new set of rights. Maybe that's not that clear to you? Let me know. I can have another go at the wording.
Anyway ... to my way of thinking ... we should start by defining the individual rights that we are discussing ... and setting forth the historical record of their claim to current preeminence. Don't you think? I mean if we want to be clear and not simply mouth meaningless platitudes?
And from your opening statement regarding the separation of state and economics ... I would then ask whether you consider "economics" to be the primary concern of the state? And if all other functions of the state should be subordinate to its role vis-à-vis economics? And then do our shared values stem from the relationship of the state to economics? Is that Marxian? (You know that links up with some history behind the neocons ... or am I wrong in thinking that? I could look it up, if you think I am off base.)
Like I said, there is a lot to chew on in what you wrote ...
But wait ... one more thing ... you write ...
True Capitalism, which doesn't exist anywhere today including in the United States, actually banishes force from human relationships by restricting the power of the state to the vital task of protecting individual rights (i.e., enforcing the "rules" as objectively defined by reference to those rights).
Could you explain exactly how this thing called "True Capitalism" goes about banishing "force from human relationships by restricting the power of the state"?
Seems I remember something about the state (in the form of the NYPD) interfering with the car window washers at intersections in NYC as playing a role in cleaning up that city? Was that or wasn't it a good thing? How does that enter into this free market stuff, like for the boots on the ground? Or how do you keep kids from becoming garbage scavengers? Or do you? I mean, how does this theory apply to the real world? (Scrap aluminum and copper bring a good price ... at least according to The Wire.)
Then again ... maybe we can't have this True Capitalism, so we have to learn how to live with what we can have. What about that idea?
In that case, maybe this concept we have of balancing power to limit the abuse of power makes sense. What about THAT idea?
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 12/16/07 at 6:41PM
To hglindquist
"Zemack, one hardly knows where to begin because it is such a broad sweeping set of statements"
Yes, I know. I was trying to define a broad set of principles in a brief statement and then relate them to the voucher issue. That usually raises more questions than it answers. You raise some good ones, and I will try to briefly answer a couple of them.
But first, I need to state that I am NOT a Libertarian. They are anti-government, I am not. They believe one has the right to "do as one pleases", on any whim or emotion, regardless of consequences to oneself or others, I do not. Neither am I a neo-con. I ascribe to Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism.
"Until we define individual rights that the state will have the vital task to enforce, we are sort of at a loss ... aren't we?"
Yes, we are. Individual rights, properly understood, is a moral concept that defines a person's proper conduct in relation to others. A right is possessed by all individuals equally, but imposes no unchosen obligation on others. My reference to the school issue in my last post is one example. Similarly, a "squeegee man" has a right to offer his services to clean your windshield, but he has no right to do it against your will,while blocking traffic, then demand payment for an unwanted service and, when you refuse, to vandalize your property (which I witnessed happen to a friend). Individual rights are not an arbitrary creation of any state, legislature, king, society, democratic majority, or collective. They are natural requirements of man's, every individual man's, life and survival. This is implicit in the words "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
"Could you explain exactly how this thing called 'True Capitalism" goes about banishing "force from human relationships by restricting the power of the state'?"
Essentially, a person's rights can only be violated by force, the threat of force, or fraud (the indirect use of force). Specifically, laissez-fare capitalism (which is what I mean by "true" capitalism) banishes the INITIATION of force. A person who assaults or robs another is initiating force, which is illegal in any society. Government, though, has a legal monopoly on the use of force. Under capitalism, the state is restricted from initiating force in the same way. Income "redistribution", which is legalized theft, would not exist under capitalism. Neither would the special-interest, pressure group warfare of our mixture of freedom and governmental coercion and controls (a mixed economy). One can gain the product of another person's labor only by trading his own work product in return through a voluntary exchange called trade. But when the government accrues the legal power to dispense economic favors and advantages on one group at the forced expense of another, it has aquired the authority to INITIATE force. Thus, whoever happens to gain control of the mechanism of government has acquired the legal authority to initiate the use of force, i.e,, to violate the rights of others. It is in this way that the "bully" (in this case, the educational establishment, including the teachers union through its political connections), can impose its economic agenda (universal taxpayer-funded preschool) on those who don't agree.
"Seems as if we have a representative form of government whose legislative branch is empowered to create all kinds of mischief regarding laissez faire ... like isn't it then the right of we the people to impose those regulations on ourselves that we deem suitable and are in accord with our Constitution?"
Our constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, but it has flaws and loopholes (such as the commerce clause) that ultimately set us on a course toward statism, which is accelerating today. Our founding principles of individual self-determination and limited representative government were never intended, I believe, to endorse the collectivist premise implied in your reference to "the people". There is no such entity as the "people" except as a figure of speech. The "people" ( or society or the public, etc.) cannot be separated from the individual human beings who make it up. The "people" is not some entity separate from and superior to its individual members. When you speak of " the right of we the people to impose those regulations on ourselves", you are distorting the meaning of our founding principles by declaring that some people have the right to violate the rights of other people by imposing special restrictions (regulations) on their freedom of economic association and activity through the initiation of governmental force. Invoking the "will" of the people, the public, society, or any other kind of collective by politicians is a cover for their intent to violate someones rights.
"What is your definition of a free market? And do you have an example, even in theory ... of one that claims to work"
Again, the collectivist premise. A "free market" is not an entity and cannot claim anything. It is a social system based on the freedom of every individual to pursue his/her own welfare and happiness by his own effort through voluntary production and trade. While laissez-faire capitalism has never existed, the empirical evidence that it "works" is overwhelming. Countries that are predominately free economically have always had the highest standard of living. Look at the Western countries after the enlightenment, the difference between East and West Germany (before the fall of the Soviet Union), North and South Korea, Taiwan and (until recently) China. Look at the resource-poor Japan and Hong Kong, compared to the widespread poverty of the oil-rich Middle East. Look at the emerging middle classes of Asia and Eastern Europe after they adopted even limited free market reforms. Liberate the "common man" under even limited capitalism and the result will be rising general prosperity. In the same vein, liberate education in this country and you will see rising quality and falling costs.
"In that case, maybe this concept we have of balancing power to limit the abuse of power makes sense. What about THAT idea?"
It is my understanding that that principle relates to the sphere of government only...the balancing of the three branches of the federal government and of the power between the state and federal governments. But if you mean using political power to balance economic power, then this is obviously wrong. Political power is legalized force. Economic power is simply the power to produce wealth. No amount of economic power gives a person the authority to violate another's rights. It is only by the purchase of political influence and pull that any private group (economic or otherwise) can gain that sort of power (i.e., through the connection between state and economics).
Ayn Rand called Capitalism an "unknown ideal". And so it is. If you're interested in learning more about this "unknown ideal", hglindquist, you can go over to the capitalism.org website. I hope you don't think me too presumpuous in suggesting this.
Vouchers are the Obvious Choice
Posted by Tom Moran December 13, 2007 9:00PM
Categories: Family & Kids, Hot Topics
To the Rev. Reginald Jackson, head of the Black Ministers' Council, the remarkable success of the state's private preschools holds an obvious lesson.
We need more school choice. We need to break the monopoly of the public school system. We need to build on this success by at least experimenting with vouchers in the K-12 system.
"These preschools, 70 percent of which are privately owned, are providing a good foundation for these children," he says. "The only way we're going to know if it would make a difference in the later grades is by giving it a chance."
That, of course, is not going to happen in New Jersey. Because here, even talk of vouchers causes the teachers unions and the education establishment to break out in hives.
A voucher system would allow parents to pick whatever school they want, public or private. And these guys don't want anybody to mess with their cozy monopoly, which works so well for all the adults involved.
Already, some educators in the suburbs are taking up battle stations. As the governor moves to expand preschool offerings to their districts, they are promising to keep the private preschools out of the loop.
"We would prefer to do it ourselves," says Somerville Superintendent Carol Leary. "They will start out here as 3-year-olds and hopefully go right through high school."
It's a pity, because the preschool program today is probably the most remarkable success story of the last decade in this beleaguered state.
It relies on a healthy mix of public and private preschools that all receive public money -- even those that are religiously inspired. About 45,000 children attend the schools, most of them in the poor urban districts known as Abbotts.
The results are in. The first wave of these kids have reached grammar school, and are showing markedly higher scores on their reading and math tests. Fewer of them are landing in expensive special education programs. And teachers say these students tend to be better behaved.
How did this happen in a state that has taken such a hard line on school vouchers, and has only grudgingly allowed charter schools?
It was an accident. The Supreme Court in 1999 ordered the state to establish preschools in the Abbott districts, and the public schools didn't have the space or the teachers to do the job. They made room for private schools because the court put a gun to their head. Even the teachers unions went along.
"Initially I was dead-set against it, too," says Tom Dunn, the former superintendent in Elizabeth who now lobbies for school administrators. "But I was proven wrong."
As a convert, Dunn knows how public educators can turn this into a turf war, how someone like Leary could insist on banning private schools when she concedes she has no room in her own schools to do the job.
"There's a feeling that I'm going to be responsible for this, so I want control, and I don't want to be blamed for something that goes wrong," he says. "I can understand that initial reaction. But this works. And I plan to work with the superintendents to embrace this."
Maybe some districts will bite. Maybe they'll realize that the important point is whether the preschool is teaching children effectively, not whether it is public or private.
In the Abbott preschools, the state was perfectly impartial. It insisted on small class sizes, qualified teachers, and a proven curriculum. And it sent in teaching coaches, and enough money to make it work. That supervision is far more aggressive than is typical in pure voucher systems, so this is really a kind of hybrid.
But the preschools in these districts are both public and private. And because parents make the final choice about where to enroll their kids, the schools must compete for business.
So here we are. We have a success story, and the question is whether we have the wisdom to repeat it.
Meanwhile, Jackson says he will keep tilting at his windmill, pushing for a voucher system in the upper grades. He knows he won't get it anytime soon. But for him, this is at its core a human rights issue.
It is simply wrong, he says, to force poor children into public school monopolies when everyone knows many of these schools are failing, and even dangerous. He often asks a simple and telling question of those who disagree: "If you were in one of these urban districts, would you send your children there?"
Jackson is not quitting on the public schools. He sits on the board in Orange. And he is chairman of the board at Essex County Community College, where he says more than 80 percent of those graduating from the public schools need remedial classes.
"I've been in Jersey for 30 years and ever since I've been here they've talked about reforming the public schools, and they haven't," he says. "That is my major frustration."
And it will remain so, in all likelihood. Because New Jersey's political establishment is not about to yield on this one -- no matter what magic is being brewed in those Abbott preschools.
Commentary Begins
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by philsgold on 12/14/07 at 12:02PM
The great defender of individual rights and capitalism, Ayn Rand, wrote that the best way to overcome the public school problem would be to institute a voucher system. In her essay she writes that very few people would want to buy a pair of shoes manufactured by the government; why then, would anyone buy something so crucially important as their children's education from the government!
How wonderfully ironic it was to read Tom Moran's advocacy of school vouchers. When an advocate of all things socialist, liberal, and statist has to admit the complete failure of his own creation, it is indeed a fun day for all us "enemies of the State". Now, all we need is for Tom and his liberal friends to admit that the government is a complete failure at everything except police protection, courts, and the military. So, instead of giving back our money through a voucher system, why not let us keep it in the first place. Oh my God, could we ever be trusted to dispose of the fruits of our own labor and thought?? Of course not!! We need the guidance of our great socialist leaders, like Hilary, Nancy, and the swimmer.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by hglindquist on 12/14/07 at 5:14PM
Well, philsgold ... maybe we the people would buy Ayn Rand's arguments if we had not experienced the guidance of great monopolist leaders up close and personal from time to time.
What is there about a banana republic that appeals to you? And do you use "Heckuva job, Brownie" government to prove your point?
Some stuff on Ayn Rand from wikipedia.com:
According to Rand, "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man." (1968)
and:
In a Playboy magazine interview, Rand stated that women are not psychologically suited to be President ...
There's more, but why bother ... most of us know what she thought.
The fact that she was right on vouchers doesn't prove that everything else she uttered was also correct. Or that because she was wrong on so much, that vouchers are then also wrong.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 12/14/07 at 8:03PM
I heartily applaud your defense of the pre-school system against what can only be called a hostile takeover attempt by the state. Pre-school is the last bastion of what can be called true educational freedom in America, where parents are free to exercise their rights in deciding the course of their children's education by choosing from a free market array of competing schools.
I also applaud your identifying the true nature of the "public" (read government-run) school system as a monopoly. I would add coercive to that label. And, like all coercive (i.e., government-enforced) monopolies, our school system is beset by exploding costs and deteriorating quality.
I also emphatically endorse Mr. Jackson's idea of extending educational freedom to all grade levels, with two important changes;
1. I would replace vouchers with a direct tax credit to the parents for their education expenses. These credits would be applied both to local property taxes and income taxes. I would also encourage the creation of private scholarship funds by applying the same tax credits to voluntary contributions for scholarship purposes. The scholarships could be granted to parents whose educational expense may exceed any tax credits they may qualify for. The problem with vouchers is they violate the church-state separation, a crucial doctrine for preserving religious freedom in America.
2. Vouchers also leave too much control of the schools in the hands of the state (i.e., the education establishment), which leads me to my second important change. Government money always comes with strings attached, and the worst of the voucher strings is the mandate that schools must use a "proven" curriculum. This inevitably stifles new, entrepreneurial thinking. And we desperately need original, innovative, even radical new ideas in educational curriculum, methods, and philosophy.
Ultimately, I prefer that all schools be privately owned and run, i.e. a completely free market in education. But the dramatic reforms advocated by Mr. Jackson and yourself are a huge step toward better schooling in America.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 12/14/07 at 9:15PM
To Philsgold:
I, too, am an admirer of Ayn Rand for her moral defense of individualism and capitalism, among other things. But in the 40 years since I first discovered her writings, I don't ever remember her advocating vouchers. I do know that she advocated tax credits, with which I concur (see her essay on page 247 of the book "The Voice of Reason").
To Hglindquist:
If you really understood Ayn Rand and her philosophy, which requires a great deal of study, you may not agree with her but you wouldn't make the kind of ad hominem attacks you made in the first two comments in your post. Also, cherry-picking and presenting those two quotes out of context is rather unfair and very misleading of her character. Rarely has history produced a stronger or more courageous and independant woman.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by hglindquist on 12/15/07 at 8:47AM
My dear Zemack,
Most of us who disagree with Ayn Rand can actually use numbers to refer to her ideas, they are so well known. (Probably even those who agree with her can.) Plus that is why I referenced my source. People can read the whole wikipedia entry if they care to. It would be redundant for me to repeat here, wouldn't you say?
And I am glad you single me out for using "ad hominem" attacks ... which is a common retort of the uptight when they are being poked fun at. Jeez-lou-eeze, Zemack, this is the bloggosphere.
See, what most of learned in kindergarten is that if you don't have rules on the playground, bullies rule.
And what we are currently witnessing in the mortgage markets AND in the major league illegal use of drugs ... are clear examples of the so-called "free" market that does not pay for the damage it does out of the profits it earned ... to the point that even ye ol' Milton Friedman admitted before he passed on that there was no "free" market ... due to these very externalities, as these brilliant idiots call them. (Would you like the reference? Is "brilliant idiot" too "ad hominem" for you or does it actually catch the irony of intelligent individuals serving greed cloaked in principle?)
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by hglindquist on 12/15/07 at 9:19AM
But returning to vouchers ... and being a member of the working class ... with bono fides extending from my parents and their parents to my children and their children ...
Most of us in the small towns and communities that spawned the public education system were part of mostly homogeneous communities ... at least I was in most of my years in public education. My family's values were the values taught in public school ... yes, religious, ethical, and social values were pretty much common ones ... at least publicly ... including prejudices (all one has to do is read the text books).
And I think the majority of folks still believe their particular public school is teaching the values they want taught. (Which is why they are against vouchers. They think they will be net resource losers for their schools.)
But it is appears to be equally obvious that a (growing?) number of families -- particularly the working poor in large urban centers -- are discovering that their children come back from public school in worse condition than when first enrolled ... with the strong arm of the state forcing them to keep sending their children to these schools even though the parents know it is harming their children's value system. They would like vouchers ... but they are a minority.
Am I right in thinking this way, or not?
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 12/15/07 at 3:45PM
To Hglindquist;
Your schoolyard bully comment is, I guess, a reference to free markets. But what you actually, and unwittingly, describe is the exact system we have today in America...a mixed economy. A mixed economy is one in which the government acquires enormous powers over private economic activity which serves as a means or tool of anyone with political power or pull to impose its agenda on others by force. In other words, it empowers the bully.
True Capitalism, which doesn't exist anywhere today including in the United States, actually banishes force from human relationships by restricting the power of the state to the vital task of protecting individual rights (i.e., enforcing the "rules" as objectively defined by reference to those rights). This means, to protect the individual from the initiation of physical force, including governmental force. Thus no one, not even the rich, can impose his will on others by the acquisition of political influence and power because the tool of governmental coercion is removed. Capitalism, properly understood, means the separation of state and economics. All economic associations between people are voluntary, with each person acting in his own self-interest with the corresponding legal and moral obligation to respect the rights of all others to do the same. Free markets disarm the bully.
This relates to the school issue in this way. If a group of people, no matter how large their majority, want to pool their money to form a community school, it is their right to do so. But they have no right to use the taxing power of the state (or the municipality) to force everyone else in the community to pay for it ...i.e., to initiate the use of force against others for the purpose of forming a "public" school. Government under Capitalism protects the rights of the minority to chart its own course, including the smallest of all minorities, the individual. This is why Tom Moran's article was so exciting to read. However imperfectly and inconsistantly, he is taking a strong stand in favor of individual parents against the community's schoolyard bully, the entrenched educational establishment.
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by hglindquist on 12/15/07 at 8:11PM
Zemack, one hardly knows where to begin because it is such a broad sweeping set of statements ... let's see if we can put some meat on the bones to chew on, shall we?
You write ...
Capitalism, properly understood, means the separation of state and economics. All economic associations between people are voluntary, with each person acting in his own self-interest with the corresponding legal and moral obligation to respect the rights of all others to do the same. Free markets disarm the bully.>/i>
What is your definition of a free market? And do you have an example, even in theory ... of one that claims to work? Like if it is free of regulation, then how does it disarm the bully? Put I don't yet know what you mean by a free market.
Then I would ask, what are these rights of all others that each of us is supposed to protect? Is this something like the old joke of the "right" of both the rich and the poor to be arrested for sleeping under the bridge?
Until we define individual rights that the state will have the vital task to enforce, we are sort of at a loss ... aren't we?
And if a person responds by saying our Constitution defines our rights then we run into a couple of major philosophical impediments to laissez faire ... like the last statement of Article I, Section 8: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Seems as if we have a representative form of government whose legislative branch is empowered to create all kinds of mischief regarding laissez faire ... like isn't it then the right of we the people to impose those regulations on ourselves that we deem suitable and are in accord with our Constitution? (Which always is a problem for the Libertarian when defending the Constitution ... or maybe you don't think it is?)
Another of those couple of major impediments to the honorable observance of rights that I mentioned above is how we have handled treaty rights with the indigenous populations ...
Then we have issues of ownership ... that stem in part from the treaty rights that I just mentioned ...
And that is a small scratching of the surface ...
I always get the feeling that when anyone calls for protecting the rights of the individual to chart his/her own course ... it is always from the current situation forward with a newly defined set of rights, never from a rational attempt to define what the situation should/would be if it had been fairly arrived at ... according to the rights we had in force before we decided to come up with a new set of rights. Maybe that's not that clear to you? Let me know. I can have another go at the wording.
Anyway ... to my way of thinking ... we should start by defining the individual rights that we are discussing ... and setting forth the historical record of their claim to current preeminence. Don't you think? I mean if we want to be clear and not simply mouth meaningless platitudes?
And from your opening statement regarding the separation of state and economics ... I would then ask whether you consider "economics" to be the primary concern of the state? And if all other functions of the state should be subordinate to its role vis-à-vis economics? And then do our shared values stem from the relationship of the state to economics? Is that Marxian? (You know that links up with some history behind the neocons ... or am I wrong in thinking that? I could look it up, if you think I am off base.)
Like I said, there is a lot to chew on in what you wrote ...
But wait ... one more thing ... you write ...
True Capitalism, which doesn't exist anywhere today including in the United States, actually banishes force from human relationships by restricting the power of the state to the vital task of protecting individual rights (i.e., enforcing the "rules" as objectively defined by reference to those rights).
Could you explain exactly how this thing called "True Capitalism" goes about banishing "force from human relationships by restricting the power of the state"?
Seems I remember something about the state (in the form of the NYPD) interfering with the car window washers at intersections in NYC as playing a role in cleaning up that city? Was that or wasn't it a good thing? How does that enter into this free market stuff, like for the boots on the ground? Or how do you keep kids from becoming garbage scavengers? Or do you? I mean, how does this theory apply to the real world? (Scrap aluminum and copper bring a good price ... at least according to The Wire.)
Then again ... maybe we can't have this True Capitalism, so we have to learn how to live with what we can have. What about that idea?
In that case, maybe this concept we have of balancing power to limit the abuse of power makes sense. What about THAT idea?
Inappropriate? Alert us. Post a commentPosted by Zemack on 12/16/07 at 6:41PM
To hglindquist
"Zemack, one hardly knows where to begin because it is such a broad sweeping set of statements"
Yes, I know. I was trying to define a broad set of principles in a brief statement and then relate them to the voucher issue. That usually raises more questions than it answers. You raise some good ones, and I will try to briefly answer a couple of them.
But first, I need to state that I am NOT a Libertarian. They are anti-government, I am not. They believe one has the right to "do as one pleases", on any whim or emotion, regardless of consequences to oneself or others, I do not. Neither am I a neo-con. I ascribe to Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism.
"Until we define individual rights that the state will have the vital task to enforce, we are sort of at a loss ... aren't we?"
Yes, we are. Individual rights, properly understood, is a moral concept that defines a person's proper conduct in relation to others. A right is possessed by all individuals equally, but imposes no unchosen obligation on others. My reference to the school issue in my last post is one example. Similarly, a "squeegee man" has a right to offer his services to clean your windshield, but he has no right to do it against your will,while blocking traffic, then demand payment for an unwanted service and, when you refuse, to vandalize your property (which I witnessed happen to a friend). Individual rights are not an arbitrary creation of any state, legislature, king, society, democratic majority, or collective. They are natural requirements of man's, every individual man's, life and survival. This is implicit in the words "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
"Could you explain exactly how this thing called 'True Capitalism" goes about banishing "force from human relationships by restricting the power of the state'?"
Essentially, a person's rights can only be violated by force, the threat of force, or fraud (the indirect use of force). Specifically, laissez-fare capitalism (which is what I mean by "true" capitalism) banishes the INITIATION of force. A person who assaults or robs another is initiating force, which is illegal in any society. Government, though, has a legal monopoly on the use of force. Under capitalism, the state is restricted from initiating force in the same way. Income "redistribution", which is legalized theft, would not exist under capitalism. Neither would the special-interest, pressure group warfare of our mixture of freedom and governmental coercion and controls (a mixed economy). One can gain the product of another person's labor only by trading his own work product in return through a voluntary exchange called trade. But when the government accrues the legal power to dispense economic favors and advantages on one group at the forced expense of another, it has aquired the authority to INITIATE force. Thus, whoever happens to gain control of the mechanism of government has acquired the legal authority to initiate the use of force, i.e,, to violate the rights of others. It is in this way that the "bully" (in this case, the educational establishment, including the teachers union through its political connections), can impose its economic agenda (universal taxpayer-funded preschool) on those who don't agree.
"Seems as if we have a representative form of government whose legislative branch is empowered to create all kinds of mischief regarding laissez faire ... like isn't it then the right of we the people to impose those regulations on ourselves that we deem suitable and are in accord with our Constitution?"
Our constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, but it has flaws and loopholes (such as the commerce clause) that ultimately set us on a course toward statism, which is accelerating today. Our founding principles of individual self-determination and limited representative government were never intended, I believe, to endorse the collectivist premise implied in your reference to "the people". There is no such entity as the "people" except as a figure of speech. The "people" ( or society or the public, etc.) cannot be separated from the individual human beings who make it up. The "people" is not some entity separate from and superior to its individual members. When you speak of " the right of we the people to impose those regulations on ourselves", you are distorting the meaning of our founding principles by declaring that some people have the right to violate the rights of other people by imposing special restrictions (regulations) on their freedom of economic association and activity through the initiation of governmental force. Invoking the "will" of the people, the public, society, or any other kind of collective by politicians is a cover for their intent to violate someones rights.
"What is your definition of a free market? And do you have an example, even in theory ... of one that claims to work"
Again, the collectivist premise. A "free market" is not an entity and cannot claim anything. It is a social system based on the freedom of every individual to pursue his/her own welfare and happiness by his own effort through voluntary production and trade. While laissez-faire capitalism has never existed, the empirical evidence that it "works" is overwhelming. Countries that are predominately free economically have always had the highest standard of living. Look at the Western countries after the enlightenment, the difference between East and West Germany (before the fall of the Soviet Union), North and South Korea, Taiwan and (until recently) China. Look at the resource-poor Japan and Hong Kong, compared to the widespread poverty of the oil-rich Middle East. Look at the emerging middle classes of Asia and Eastern Europe after they adopted even limited free market reforms. Liberate the "common man" under even limited capitalism and the result will be rising general prosperity. In the same vein, liberate education in this country and you will see rising quality and falling costs.
"In that case, maybe this concept we have of balancing power to limit the abuse of power makes sense. What about THAT idea?"
It is my understanding that that principle relates to the sphere of government only...the balancing of the three branches of the federal government and of the power between the state and federal governments. But if you mean using political power to balance economic power, then this is obviously wrong. Political power is legalized force. Economic power is simply the power to produce wealth. No amount of economic power gives a person the authority to violate another's rights. It is only by the purchase of political influence and pull that any private group (economic or otherwise) can gain that sort of power (i.e., through the connection between state and economics).
Ayn Rand called Capitalism an "unknown ideal". And so it is. If you're interested in learning more about this "unknown ideal", hglindquist, you can go over to the capitalism.org website. I hope you don't think me too presumpuous in suggesting this.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Commentary 5
Pass the family leave insurance bill
Posted by Carla Katz December 12, 2007 11:32AM
Categories: Family & Kids, Hot Topics, Policy Watch, Politics, The Working Life
It's been a decade of drama--heated discussion, arguing, yelling and ultimately screaming from all sides of the family leave debate. Do we give working people in New Jersey some resources, and therefore the possibility, to allow them to take some time off to care for seriously ill family members or for a new child in their life? The answer, we hope, before this lame duck session ends, will soon be YES.
This last week has seen the worker-paid Family Leave Insurance bill ( A-3812/S-2249) morph, yet again, to reflect the competing arguments of the business lobby and the strong coalition of labor, seniors, community activist and parents. The original 10 weeks of leave bill has been effectively changed to 6 weeks to match California's family leave legislation and legislators have proposed amendments insuring against abuses and granting special rights to small business.
While compromise is expected in the bill-making process, the bill's sponsors, including Senator Steve Sweeney, and Governor Corzine, have drawn the line at excluding workers who are employed by smaller businesses. They are absolutely right. Small businesses are the least likely and often least able to provide paid time off of any kind and their employees suffer most when they need to be out to care for family members. They also represent nearly half the workforce. It would be the lowest paid, women and Latino workers who are the most likely to be hurt by such an exclusion and it's unfair.
On Thursday, the Assembly caucus is slated to discuss the bill and decide whether to move the bill forward for a vote. The debate has lasted a decade. The compromises have been made. It's time has come. Post the bill--and pass Family Leave Insurance.
EDITORIALS
Move on paid family leave act
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The viability of a very worthwhile paid family leave bill is being threatened by a relentless Chicken Little attack from the state's business community, which argues that passage would cause the sky to fall on scores of small companies and mom-and-pop operations across the state.
Whether the proposal continues to live could well be settled today when the Assembly's Democratic caucus takes up the issue and decides whether it should move forward.
For us, there is no question that it should.
It's hard to understand how those who espouse family values and profess to have compassion for working families could scuttle the measure. What's wrong with allowing a worker to take time off to care for a newborn, a newly adopted child or an ill relative?
Oddly enough, there are objections even though the program would not cost the state or businesses a dime and would impose no new requirements on companies employing fewer than 50 workers.
The program would be funded through a payroll de duction -- probably $1 or less a week. The money would be enough to allow a worker to receive two-thirds of his salary up to a maximum of $502 a week. Small businesses would have to allow for the paid leave program only if they already offer voluntary unpaid leave. Small firms would not be required to hold positions open. And workers planning to take a leave would have to give 30 days' no tice, providing employers plenty of time to find a replacement if necessary.
Another major objection centered on the length of the paid leave. Initially, workers were to get 12 weeks. That was reduced to 10 weeks, and now Gov. Jon Corzine and others are willing to whittle that down even further -- to six weeks.
Over the years, each at tempt to improve conditions for workers was met with dire predictions similar to those being voiced now by the business community. The 40-hour workweek and the minimum wage, it was said, would ruin the nation's economy. That forecast turned out to be as wrong as Chicken Little's.
Lawmakers need to recognize that today's workplace is considerably different from that of just a few decades ago. Workplace rules need to reflect that reality. A paid family leave program does just that.
MY RESPONSE
Posted by Zemack on 12/13/07 at 4:09PM
The "worker" who hopes to grab an unearned "paid family leave" at someone elses expense; the busy-body advocates who would use the coercive power of the state to impose their "insurance" scheme on everyone else; the disinterested citizen who doesn't much care because it will "only" cost one dollar per week [!?!] are all contributing to the growth of government power and the erosion of our freedom.
Taken in isolation, this bill won't cause the sky to fall. But the advance of statism in America is being fueled by the commulative weight of one government-imposed plan after another, each serving as the model and justification for the next, as the Star-Ledger itself points out in today's editorial reference to the 40 hour workweek and the minimum wage.
Every worker has the right to set aside his own money in a "rainy day fund" to cover unexpected leave time. Paid family leave do-gooders are free to set up private charitable funds based on voluntary contributions to assist others but have no right to compel participation through the taxing power of the state. The mawkish concern by the family leave advocates for the plight of "workers" is an emotional smokescreen that hides the real issue... the violation of each individual's right to manage his/her own financial affairs.
The Paid Family Leave Act is a further assault on individual rights and should be defeated. It's time to draw the line against statism.
Posted by Carla Katz December 12, 2007 11:32AM
Categories: Family & Kids, Hot Topics, Policy Watch, Politics, The Working Life
It's been a decade of drama--heated discussion, arguing, yelling and ultimately screaming from all sides of the family leave debate. Do we give working people in New Jersey some resources, and therefore the possibility, to allow them to take some time off to care for seriously ill family members or for a new child in their life? The answer, we hope, before this lame duck session ends, will soon be YES.
This last week has seen the worker-paid Family Leave Insurance bill ( A-3812/S-2249) morph, yet again, to reflect the competing arguments of the business lobby and the strong coalition of labor, seniors, community activist and parents. The original 10 weeks of leave bill has been effectively changed to 6 weeks to match California's family leave legislation and legislators have proposed amendments insuring against abuses and granting special rights to small business.
While compromise is expected in the bill-making process, the bill's sponsors, including Senator Steve Sweeney, and Governor Corzine, have drawn the line at excluding workers who are employed by smaller businesses. They are absolutely right. Small businesses are the least likely and often least able to provide paid time off of any kind and their employees suffer most when they need to be out to care for family members. They also represent nearly half the workforce. It would be the lowest paid, women and Latino workers who are the most likely to be hurt by such an exclusion and it's unfair.
On Thursday, the Assembly caucus is slated to discuss the bill and decide whether to move the bill forward for a vote. The debate has lasted a decade. The compromises have been made. It's time has come. Post the bill--and pass Family Leave Insurance.
EDITORIALS
Move on paid family leave act
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The viability of a very worthwhile paid family leave bill is being threatened by a relentless Chicken Little attack from the state's business community, which argues that passage would cause the sky to fall on scores of small companies and mom-and-pop operations across the state.
Whether the proposal continues to live could well be settled today when the Assembly's Democratic caucus takes up the issue and decides whether it should move forward.
For us, there is no question that it should.
It's hard to understand how those who espouse family values and profess to have compassion for working families could scuttle the measure. What's wrong with allowing a worker to take time off to care for a newborn, a newly adopted child or an ill relative?
Oddly enough, there are objections even though the program would not cost the state or businesses a dime and would impose no new requirements on companies employing fewer than 50 workers.
The program would be funded through a payroll de duction -- probably $1 or less a week. The money would be enough to allow a worker to receive two-thirds of his salary up to a maximum of $502 a week. Small businesses would have to allow for the paid leave program only if they already offer voluntary unpaid leave. Small firms would not be required to hold positions open. And workers planning to take a leave would have to give 30 days' no tice, providing employers plenty of time to find a replacement if necessary.
Another major objection centered on the length of the paid leave. Initially, workers were to get 12 weeks. That was reduced to 10 weeks, and now Gov. Jon Corzine and others are willing to whittle that down even further -- to six weeks.
Over the years, each at tempt to improve conditions for workers was met with dire predictions similar to those being voiced now by the business community. The 40-hour workweek and the minimum wage, it was said, would ruin the nation's economy. That forecast turned out to be as wrong as Chicken Little's.
Lawmakers need to recognize that today's workplace is considerably different from that of just a few decades ago. Workplace rules need to reflect that reality. A paid family leave program does just that.
MY RESPONSE
Posted by Zemack on 12/13/07 at 4:09PM
The "worker" who hopes to grab an unearned "paid family leave" at someone elses expense; the busy-body advocates who would use the coercive power of the state to impose their "insurance" scheme on everyone else; the disinterested citizen who doesn't much care because it will "only" cost one dollar per week [!?!] are all contributing to the growth of government power and the erosion of our freedom.
Taken in isolation, this bill won't cause the sky to fall. But the advance of statism in America is being fueled by the commulative weight of one government-imposed plan after another, each serving as the model and justification for the next, as the Star-Ledger itself points out in today's editorial reference to the 40 hour workweek and the minimum wage.
Every worker has the right to set aside his own money in a "rainy day fund" to cover unexpected leave time. Paid family leave do-gooders are free to set up private charitable funds based on voluntary contributions to assist others but have no right to compel participation through the taxing power of the state. The mawkish concern by the family leave advocates for the plight of "workers" is an emotional smokescreen that hides the real issue... the violation of each individual's right to manage his/her own financial affairs.
The Paid Family Leave Act is a further assault on individual rights and should be defeated. It's time to draw the line against statism.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Commentary 4
Thanksgiving: A Most Selfish Holiday
By Debi Ghate
Ah, Thanksgiving. To most of us, the word conjures up images of turkey dinner, pumpkin pie and watching football with family and friends. It kicks off the holiday season and is the biggest shopping weekend of the year. We're taught that Thanksgiving came about when pilgrims gave thanks to God for a bountiful harvest. We vaguely mumble thanks for the food on our table, the roof over our head and the loved ones around us. We casually think about how lucky we are and how much better our lives are than, say, those in Bangladesh. But surely there is something more to celebrate, something more sacred about this holiday.
What should we really be celebrating on Thanksgiving?
Ayn Rand described Thanksgiving as "a typically American holiday . . . its essential, secular meaning is a celebration of successful production. It is a producers' holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production." She was right. This country was mostly uninhabited and wild when our forefathers began to develop the land and build spectacular cities, shaping what is now the wealthiest nation in the world. It's the American spirit to overcome challenges, create great achievements, and enjoy prosperity. We uniquely recognize that production leads to wealth and that we must dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. It's no accident that Americans have a holiday called Thanksgiving--a yearly tradition when we pause to appreciate the "bountiful harvest" we've reaped.
What is today's version of the "bountiful harvest"? It's the affluence and success we've gained. It's the cars, houses and vacations we enjoy. It's the life-saving medicines we rely on, the stock portfolios we build, the beautiful clothes we buy and the safe, clean streets we live on. It's the good life.
How did we get this "bountiful harvest"? Ask any hard-working American; it sure wasn't by the "grace of God." It didn't grow on a fabled "money tree." We created it by working hard, by desiring the best money can buy and by wanting excellence for ourselves and our loved ones. What we don't create ourselves, we trade value for value with those who have the goods and services we need, such as our stockbrokers, hairdressers and doctors. We alone are responsible for our wealth. We are the producers and Thanksgiving is our holiday.
So, on Thanksgiving, why don't we thank ourselves and those producers who make the good life possible?
From a young age, we are bombarded with messages designed to undermine our confident pursuit of values: "Be humble," "You can't know what's good for yourself," "It's better to give than receive," and above all "Don't be selfish!" We are scolded not to take more than "our share"--whether it is of corporate profits, electricity or pie. We are taught that altruism--selfless concern for others--is the moral ideal. We are taught to sacrifice for strangers, who have no claim to our hard-earned wealth. We are taught to kneel rather than reach for the sky.
But, morally, one should reach for the sky. One should recognize that the corporate profits, electricity or pie was earned through one's production--and savor its consumption. Every decision one makes, from what career to pursue to whom to call a friend, should be guided by what will best advance one's rational goals, interests and, ultimately, one's life. One should take pride in being rationally selfish--one's life and happiness depend on it.
Thanksgiving is the perfect time to recognize what we are truly grateful for, to appreciate and celebrate the fruits of our labor: our wealth, health, relationships and material things--all the values we most selfishly cherish. We should thank researchers who have made certain cancers beatable, gourmet chefs at our favorite restaurants, authors whose books made us rethink our lives, financiers who developed revolutionary investment strategies and entrepreneurs who created fabulous online stores. We should thank ourselves and those individuals who make our lives more comfortable and enjoyable--those who help us live the much-coveted American dream.
As you sit down to your sumptuous Thanksgiving dinner served on your best china, think of all the talented individuals whose innovation and inventiveness made possible the products you are enjoying. As you look around at who you've chosen to spend your day with--those you've chosen to love--thank yourself for everything you have done to make this moment possible. It's a time to selfishly and proudly say: "I earned this."
#### #### ####
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Institute are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.
If you would like to help support ARI's efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrand.org/support.
This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication.
ARI's media releases are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from individual subscription requests. You are subscribed as mal.atlas@patmedia.net. If you prefer not to receive future releases, visit our Web site to change your email preferences.
The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606
Mrs. Ghate is Vice President of Academic Programs at the Ayn Rand Institute where she also serves as a corporate officer. Mrs. Ghate has a BSc in Psychology and Biology from the University of Toronto, and a LLB in Law from the University of Calgary. She is also general manager and corporate secretary for ARI Canada, a Canadian charitable organization. Prior to joining ARI, she practiced law with a focus on insurance defense litigation at a major Canadian insurance company and in private practice. Her Op-Eds and letters to the editor were published in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, the Providence Journal, Education Update and The U.K. Daily Express.
Response from Christine:
I take issue with this article.
What about the people who, through no fault of their own, were born into horrible circumstances? Not everyone was given a "plate" full of love, education, and knowledge of the ability to create a better life for themselves. Do we just say, "To hell with them!"? It's much easier to say that strangers who have no "claim to our hard-earned wealth" should fend for themselves, but without the work ethic and love that you received from your family of origin, you could very well be in their position with no hope to rise above it. I'm sure the American Dream, seemingly so attainable to those enjoying our way of life, seems completely out of reach to many. This article makes me cringe inside for its celebration of selfishness and pure disregard for the plights of those around us. Have you ever thought why it is you were born into this country, into this family? Why do we have the life we do and others struggle in darkness from the moment they are born? Sure we have worked somewhat to get where we are, but we had an easy start- in families that, while not without flaws, valued hard work, determination and perseverance and had the love for each other as the foundation. Those values were passed down, and while some may be able to find or create those things for themselves without receiving as positive a legacy as we have, others are caught in cycles of hopelessness and feel they can't escape.
Those people who look to God with gratitude this time of year- those that are spoken of so disdainfully in this article- are the ones who primarily help those that remain hungry out of their own bounty and blessings. It is a shame that compassion isn't valued in this article.
In answer to Christine:
I guess that ode to thanksgiving really got your intellectual juices flowing. Your response though has a number of fallacies and misunderstandings that I would like to attempt to correct. Ethics is a complex subject that requires enormous thought and analysis which it would obviously be impossible to cover in an e-mail. But I will try to clarify as briefly as possible some points.
Selfishness, the rational kind, does NOT equate to a disregard for others. It merely means that one’s own life and well-being is properly the central focus of one’s concerns. This does not mean it is wrong to help others. What it does mean is that charity is not one’s primary concern or obligation, but is instead relegated to the status of a minor virtue to be engaged in out of good will and generosity, not duty , guilt, or compulsion, and only when one believes in the worthiness of the recipient and can afford it (broadly speaking). This is not an arbitrary assertion, but is backed up by the facts of reality. Charity is made possible by the production that comes first. Production comes before charity or any kind of need. The requirements of man’s life and survival (products and services such as food, shelter, transportation, music and entertainment, computers, nails, etc., etc., etc.) are not found ready-made in nature, but must be produced by him in a process of thought and productive work. Productive work requires the selfish virtues of hard work, inventiveness, the pursuit of education and knowledge, the setting of long-term goals, acting on one’s own independent thought and judgement, the development of ones abilities (whether natural [God-given, if you prefer] or acquired), integrity, honesty, and self-esteem. Why are these selfish attributes? Because they are generated by the self; your self. You can be encouraged by loving parents. But you must be self-motivated…by choice. You must be dedicated to excellence…by choice. You must acquire the knowledge you need by a process of mental effort…by choice. Etc. If charity is a virtue, then the selfishness that makes it possible is the greater and higher virtue. To reverse the two is to reverse cause and effect. To place charity and need above productiveness is the road to universal destitution. Then what would "the needy" do. The ethics of rational, enlightened self-interest (or egoism) corrects the moral inversion which is altruism (the ethics of self-sacrifice).
It is no accident that America, the richest and most prosperous country in the history of the world, is also the most generous. Americans give more per-capita than any other nation, by far. This is borne out by numerous surveys (although I don’t have them at my fingertips). But again, don’t reverse cause and effect. The moral premise implicit in the words "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and in the concept of the inalienable rights of the individual (every individual) is that each person owns his own life and can set his own course according to his own self-interest. This is the source of this country’s greatness. The morality of altruism and its correllary collectivism is undercutting our founding principles and is slowly leading us to statism and socialism.
Some people are indeed "born into horrible circumstances". But so long as an individual is of sound mind and body, he can not be given a pass. In America, being free and possessing free will, he can choose to take the necessary steps to overcome his disadvantage. And people in these circumstances do this all of the time, sometimes with a helping hand, sometimes not, but always by their own effort. A person’s life is not determined by the circumstances of his birth. If it were, then we do not possess volition, there is no need for morality, and perpetual poverty is man’s fate, as it was for most of history prior to the industrial revolution. But a person’s need does not give him a license to steal or to mooch. He can depend on the voluntary generosity of others if he is worthy in their judgement, but his need does not give him a moral claim on the lives of others. (In the case of those who are incapable of fending for themselves [a small minority], they can and should be able to depend on ample private charity. A society based on the value of each individual life would not allow the indigent or orphaned children to die in the streets.)
We are indeed fortunate to have been born in the USA. But America was no accident. The Enlightenment and it’s shining offspring, America, liberated people from the primitive ideas of the past and enabled the tremendous advances in quality of life after centuries of stagnation and poverty, all based on the Enlightenment idea of every individual’s ability to run his own life. In nations where dark age conditions still exist today, it is because of the primitive beliefs that permeate their cultures, such as mysticism and tribalism. To the extent that they throw off their irrational ideas and embrace "Western" values (which are really universal values) they can prosper. Many countries have done that, as witness the newly emerging middle classes of former third world countries in Asia and of Eastern Europe. Americans should neither apologize nor feel guilty for their prosperity because of the misery in other nations. The same path to a better life is open to all of them if they so choose. (Americans can help by vigorously promoting it’s founding ideals and through expansion of free global trade,)
Finally, I think compassion is prevalent throughout this Thanksgiving message, in the form of being thankful for all of the people who enrich our lives by producing the things that we want and need but do not and could not produce for ourselves. What they give us is the chance to trade our single work product for that of countless others, enriching their lives as they enrich ours and our loved ones. Isn’t the food (or anything else) that one may donate to someone in need of assistance made possible by the food producers who work mainly for their own profit? Don’t they, without whom we would all go hungry, deserve the most thanks? The true benefactors of mankind are every person who engages in productive work. The "celebration of selfishness" that makes you cringe is the source of the good life we all enjoy in America, if you understand the meaning of "selfishness" as I do.
Zemack
By Debi Ghate
Ah, Thanksgiving. To most of us, the word conjures up images of turkey dinner, pumpkin pie and watching football with family and friends. It kicks off the holiday season and is the biggest shopping weekend of the year. We're taught that Thanksgiving came about when pilgrims gave thanks to God for a bountiful harvest. We vaguely mumble thanks for the food on our table, the roof over our head and the loved ones around us. We casually think about how lucky we are and how much better our lives are than, say, those in Bangladesh. But surely there is something more to celebrate, something more sacred about this holiday.
What should we really be celebrating on Thanksgiving?
Ayn Rand described Thanksgiving as "a typically American holiday . . . its essential, secular meaning is a celebration of successful production. It is a producers' holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production." She was right. This country was mostly uninhabited and wild when our forefathers began to develop the land and build spectacular cities, shaping what is now the wealthiest nation in the world. It's the American spirit to overcome challenges, create great achievements, and enjoy prosperity. We uniquely recognize that production leads to wealth and that we must dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. It's no accident that Americans have a holiday called Thanksgiving--a yearly tradition when we pause to appreciate the "bountiful harvest" we've reaped.
What is today's version of the "bountiful harvest"? It's the affluence and success we've gained. It's the cars, houses and vacations we enjoy. It's the life-saving medicines we rely on, the stock portfolios we build, the beautiful clothes we buy and the safe, clean streets we live on. It's the good life.
How did we get this "bountiful harvest"? Ask any hard-working American; it sure wasn't by the "grace of God." It didn't grow on a fabled "money tree." We created it by working hard, by desiring the best money can buy and by wanting excellence for ourselves and our loved ones. What we don't create ourselves, we trade value for value with those who have the goods and services we need, such as our stockbrokers, hairdressers and doctors. We alone are responsible for our wealth. We are the producers and Thanksgiving is our holiday.
So, on Thanksgiving, why don't we thank ourselves and those producers who make the good life possible?
From a young age, we are bombarded with messages designed to undermine our confident pursuit of values: "Be humble," "You can't know what's good for yourself," "It's better to give than receive," and above all "Don't be selfish!" We are scolded not to take more than "our share"--whether it is of corporate profits, electricity or pie. We are taught that altruism--selfless concern for others--is the moral ideal. We are taught to sacrifice for strangers, who have no claim to our hard-earned wealth. We are taught to kneel rather than reach for the sky.
But, morally, one should reach for the sky. One should recognize that the corporate profits, electricity or pie was earned through one's production--and savor its consumption. Every decision one makes, from what career to pursue to whom to call a friend, should be guided by what will best advance one's rational goals, interests and, ultimately, one's life. One should take pride in being rationally selfish--one's life and happiness depend on it.
Thanksgiving is the perfect time to recognize what we are truly grateful for, to appreciate and celebrate the fruits of our labor: our wealth, health, relationships and material things--all the values we most selfishly cherish. We should thank researchers who have made certain cancers beatable, gourmet chefs at our favorite restaurants, authors whose books made us rethink our lives, financiers who developed revolutionary investment strategies and entrepreneurs who created fabulous online stores. We should thank ourselves and those individuals who make our lives more comfortable and enjoyable--those who help us live the much-coveted American dream.
As you sit down to your sumptuous Thanksgiving dinner served on your best china, think of all the talented individuals whose innovation and inventiveness made possible the products you are enjoying. As you look around at who you've chosen to spend your day with--those you've chosen to love--thank yourself for everything you have done to make this moment possible. It's a time to selfishly and proudly say: "I earned this."
#### #### ####
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Institute are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.
If you would like to help support ARI's efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrand.org/support.
This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication.
ARI's media releases are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from individual subscription requests. You are subscribed as mal.atlas@patmedia.net. If you prefer not to receive future releases, visit our Web site to change your email preferences.
The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606
Mrs. Ghate is Vice President of Academic Programs at the Ayn Rand Institute where she also serves as a corporate officer. Mrs. Ghate has a BSc in Psychology and Biology from the University of Toronto, and a LLB in Law from the University of Calgary. She is also general manager and corporate secretary for ARI Canada, a Canadian charitable organization. Prior to joining ARI, she practiced law with a focus on insurance defense litigation at a major Canadian insurance company and in private practice. Her Op-Eds and letters to the editor were published in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, the Providence Journal, Education Update and The U.K. Daily Express.
Response from Christine:
I take issue with this article.
What about the people who, through no fault of their own, were born into horrible circumstances? Not everyone was given a "plate" full of love, education, and knowledge of the ability to create a better life for themselves. Do we just say, "To hell with them!"? It's much easier to say that strangers who have no "claim to our hard-earned wealth" should fend for themselves, but without the work ethic and love that you received from your family of origin, you could very well be in their position with no hope to rise above it. I'm sure the American Dream, seemingly so attainable to those enjoying our way of life, seems completely out of reach to many. This article makes me cringe inside for its celebration of selfishness and pure disregard for the plights of those around us. Have you ever thought why it is you were born into this country, into this family? Why do we have the life we do and others struggle in darkness from the moment they are born? Sure we have worked somewhat to get where we are, but we had an easy start- in families that, while not without flaws, valued hard work, determination and perseverance and had the love for each other as the foundation. Those values were passed down, and while some may be able to find or create those things for themselves without receiving as positive a legacy as we have, others are caught in cycles of hopelessness and feel they can't escape.
Those people who look to God with gratitude this time of year- those that are spoken of so disdainfully in this article- are the ones who primarily help those that remain hungry out of their own bounty and blessings. It is a shame that compassion isn't valued in this article.
In answer to Christine:
I guess that ode to thanksgiving really got your intellectual juices flowing. Your response though has a number of fallacies and misunderstandings that I would like to attempt to correct. Ethics is a complex subject that requires enormous thought and analysis which it would obviously be impossible to cover in an e-mail. But I will try to clarify as briefly as possible some points.
Selfishness, the rational kind, does NOT equate to a disregard for others. It merely means that one’s own life and well-being is properly the central focus of one’s concerns. This does not mean it is wrong to help others. What it does mean is that charity is not one’s primary concern or obligation, but is instead relegated to the status of a minor virtue to be engaged in out of good will and generosity, not duty , guilt, or compulsion, and only when one believes in the worthiness of the recipient and can afford it (broadly speaking). This is not an arbitrary assertion, but is backed up by the facts of reality. Charity is made possible by the production that comes first. Production comes before charity or any kind of need. The requirements of man’s life and survival (products and services such as food, shelter, transportation, music and entertainment, computers, nails, etc., etc., etc.) are not found ready-made in nature, but must be produced by him in a process of thought and productive work. Productive work requires the selfish virtues of hard work, inventiveness, the pursuit of education and knowledge, the setting of long-term goals, acting on one’s own independent thought and judgement, the development of ones abilities (whether natural [God-given, if you prefer] or acquired), integrity, honesty, and self-esteem. Why are these selfish attributes? Because they are generated by the self; your self. You can be encouraged by loving parents. But you must be self-motivated…by choice. You must be dedicated to excellence…by choice. You must acquire the knowledge you need by a process of mental effort…by choice. Etc. If charity is a virtue, then the selfishness that makes it possible is the greater and higher virtue. To reverse the two is to reverse cause and effect. To place charity and need above productiveness is the road to universal destitution. Then what would "the needy" do. The ethics of rational, enlightened self-interest (or egoism) corrects the moral inversion which is altruism (the ethics of self-sacrifice).
It is no accident that America, the richest and most prosperous country in the history of the world, is also the most generous. Americans give more per-capita than any other nation, by far. This is borne out by numerous surveys (although I don’t have them at my fingertips). But again, don’t reverse cause and effect. The moral premise implicit in the words "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and in the concept of the inalienable rights of the individual (every individual) is that each person owns his own life and can set his own course according to his own self-interest. This is the source of this country’s greatness. The morality of altruism and its correllary collectivism is undercutting our founding principles and is slowly leading us to statism and socialism.
Some people are indeed "born into horrible circumstances". But so long as an individual is of sound mind and body, he can not be given a pass. In America, being free and possessing free will, he can choose to take the necessary steps to overcome his disadvantage. And people in these circumstances do this all of the time, sometimes with a helping hand, sometimes not, but always by their own effort. A person’s life is not determined by the circumstances of his birth. If it were, then we do not possess volition, there is no need for morality, and perpetual poverty is man’s fate, as it was for most of history prior to the industrial revolution. But a person’s need does not give him a license to steal or to mooch. He can depend on the voluntary generosity of others if he is worthy in their judgement, but his need does not give him a moral claim on the lives of others. (In the case of those who are incapable of fending for themselves [a small minority], they can and should be able to depend on ample private charity. A society based on the value of each individual life would not allow the indigent or orphaned children to die in the streets.)
We are indeed fortunate to have been born in the USA. But America was no accident. The Enlightenment and it’s shining offspring, America, liberated people from the primitive ideas of the past and enabled the tremendous advances in quality of life after centuries of stagnation and poverty, all based on the Enlightenment idea of every individual’s ability to run his own life. In nations where dark age conditions still exist today, it is because of the primitive beliefs that permeate their cultures, such as mysticism and tribalism. To the extent that they throw off their irrational ideas and embrace "Western" values (which are really universal values) they can prosper. Many countries have done that, as witness the newly emerging middle classes of former third world countries in Asia and of Eastern Europe. Americans should neither apologize nor feel guilty for their prosperity because of the misery in other nations. The same path to a better life is open to all of them if they so choose. (Americans can help by vigorously promoting it’s founding ideals and through expansion of free global trade,)
Finally, I think compassion is prevalent throughout this Thanksgiving message, in the form of being thankful for all of the people who enrich our lives by producing the things that we want and need but do not and could not produce for ourselves. What they give us is the chance to trade our single work product for that of countless others, enriching their lives as they enrich ours and our loved ones. Isn’t the food (or anything else) that one may donate to someone in need of assistance made possible by the food producers who work mainly for their own profit? Don’t they, without whom we would all go hungry, deserve the most thanks? The true benefactors of mankind are every person who engages in productive work. The "celebration of selfishness" that makes you cringe is the source of the good life we all enjoy in America, if you understand the meaning of "selfishness" as I do.
Zemack
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)