Gay Marriage and Individual Rights

[Note: An updated version of this essay is available on my other blog, Principled Perspectives. Thanks.]

In my Introduction to this blog, I wrote:

“[T]he only real guide to understanding human events, their relationships to one another, and where they may lead us, is to discover the fundamental philosophical and moral principles that drive them: hence, the title of my blog. Discovering them is not always an easy task, but with Objectivism as my frame of reference, that is what I aim to do as I analyze and opiniate on today's events.”

Ayn Rand wrote: “Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.” Since abstractions as such do not exist but are merely mental tools for understanding reality, they must be logically relative to concrete events and facts. Otherwise, they are merely “floating” … disconnected from reality and thus useless. Since my blog is based on the premise that abstract ideas drive human events, my task is to validate my principles with reference to today’s issues.

Put another way, my blog is about concretizing abstractions. The number one abstract principle that is my driving passion is the concept of individual rights. That abstract reference point is the focus of this post’s analysis of a very controversial subject. It is also a good demonstration of why we need to make full use of our uniquely human conceptual faculty (i.e., our powers of abstraction), and why without abstractions we are essentially “flying blind”.

On January 6, 2010, the Same-Sex Marriage bill went down to a resounding defeat in my rather liberal state of New Jersey. This result should not have happened, and is a case study on the wrong way to advocate for anyone’s rights. On 1/6/10, the New Jersey Star-Ledger foresaw the defeat, pinning the blame on “political missteps”.

For a change, I agree with the Star-Ledger. The Gay Marriage ban should have been lifted in New Jersey. I agree with the Editors’ stand, but not their murky logic … the source of the cause of the defeat.

The failure was not political, but philosophical. A look at the Editors’ logic exposes the cause of the inability of so many politicians to take a firm stand – the “soft supporters [who] may run for cover”. The Editors lament this spectacle and ask: “How did this bill become such a long-shot in a state where most polls show solid support, and where the Democratic governor and leaders of both houses supported it?” It was indeed a long shot. The bill was defeated by a heavily Democratic State senate by a decisive 20-14 margin (with three abstentions). Why? We need to take a look at the Star-Ledger’s own reasoning.

I am sometimes asked a question such as: “Do you support or oppose gay marriage?” This question misses the point. The question is, does anyone have the right to employ the government’s power of legalized physical force to prohibit two people of the same sex to forge a marriage contract? I firmly and unequivocally believe the answer is no. My personal opinions are irrelevant here. Upholding the right to same-sex marriage no more indicates my support for gay marriage than my defense of a woman’s right to her own body indicates support for abortion; or my defense of the First Amendment indicates support for pornography among consenting adults; or my opposition to Affirmative Action indicates support for racial discrimination.

The basic issue is individual rights, the inalienable sanction to take the actions necessary to achieve one’s long-term goals, well-being, and happiness – so long as those actions don’t involve the violation of the same rights of others. Since rights are held equally and at all times by all people, the state’s legal sanction of a marriage contract between any two consenting adults must necessarily include same-sex couples, if the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause means anything. Of course, a private institution like the Catholic Church has every right to refuse to sanction gay marriage. But it has no right to trample the rights of others who disagree.

My opinions aside, it’s hard to see how a marriage between two gay people violates or presents a threat to the rights of anyone else, as would be the case between, say, the parties in a Mafia hit “contract” or the perpetrators of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. Since the freedom of contract is derived from the right to life and liberty, the burden of proof is on the anti-gay marriage side to validate its stand. It hasn’t - and in fact cannot, do so.

Yet, it won the day in New Jersey.

When the issue is defined properly, there are no “soft supporters”. Broad abstract principles leave out personal judgements on how one feels about the concrete issue involved. When one declares his allegiance or opposition to an abstract principle, he offers a yardstick by which others can judge his stand on a virtually unlimited number of concrete issues. The principle of individual rights, properly understood, leaves no room for “flirting with both sides”, “winks and nods”, or “hiding”. The Editors demand to “learn where each senator stands on gay marriage”. The proper question is: “Where do you stand on the principle of individual rights?” Each legislator’s answer to that question leads logically to a specific vote on the gay marriage bill, since it is essentially a vote on individual rights. But modern politicians on both sides of the ideological divide recoil against principled stands on any issue.

The idea of individual rights is much broader than any single concrete issue, and it is sometimes not readily apparent how to apply it to some particular concrete issue. Disagreements concerning practical application can and do arise among people who hold, and understand, a given principle. But first, the principle must be clearly identified. By evading it, the debate was focussed narrowly on homosexual marriage. This forced the politicians to declare whether they are for or against “gay marriage” and by implication homosexuality as such. But as I stated above, that is not the issue. It should never have come down to that. The senators should have been obliged to take a firm, either/or stand on the paramount question – Do you support or oppose the number one Founding principle of America, unalienable individual rights?

The debate wasn’t properly framed, so it went down to resounding defeat. The supporters such as the “gay rights” group Garden State Equality are partly to blame here. By basing their argument on the premise that they are fighting for “gay rights” rather than the broader principle of individual rights, they undercut their own case by in effect fighting for what one correspondent called “SPECIAL rights”. Fromexperience wrote:

“Marriage is not a right -- civil or otherwise.
In five state and DC, homosexuals have been legislatively "awarded" SPECIAL rights through SSM. Those civil unions and domestic partnerships available ONLY to ss couples are ALSO special rights.”

Marriage is a right, but it’s true that marriage is not a fundamental right. It is a derivative of the foundation of all rights – the right to life. As long as the issue is gay rights, the supporters are vulnerable to this line of attack. Fromexperience is correct that rights are not “special” or “legislatively awarded” or applicable only to gays. But he evades the fact that they are unalienable … i.e., based upon the provable metaphysical facts of reality and thus inseparable from man qua man, and possessed equally by each and every individual. That includes the right of free association, which includes contractual freedom, including marriage contracts. The government’s role is to enforce those contracts, equally. Defending the SSM bill on this proper basis explodes fromexperience’s argument, because to deny an unalienable right to anyone is to deny the same right to everyone … including the contractual right to heterosexual marriage.

It’s obvious why not only liberals but also conservatives ignore, evade, and refuse to explicitly endorse the principle of unalienable individual rights. The implications for both would expose each side to a withering critique of their entire agenda. Adherence to principle cuts through the fog of pragmatism, and obliterates any chance of having one’s cake and eating it too.

For the liberal, it becomes necessary to explain why gays should have the right to freely contract with each other in marriage but not with their health insurance company. If abortion is a medical procedure that should be decided solely between a woman and her doctor, the basic logic behind Roe v. Wade, then why shouldn’t that same line of reasoning (non-interference by government) apply to all issues regarding healthcare? If the government has no right to force a woman to bear a child or deny gays the right to marry, then why should that woman or that gay person be forced into any government-run “insurance” scheme like Medicare, or forced to buy a policy full of state-mandated coverages or submit to an “individual mandate”, or be denied the right to refuse to pay for emergency room visits by uninsured people?

Likewise, for conservatives, it becomes necessary to explain why international free trade is good with regard to material goods, but not to people (immigration). Why is it wrong to force people to fund the latest liberal welfare scheme, but OK to force them to fund Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives? And why is it wrong to restrict freedom of speech, except to demand that the FCC crack down on “obscene” material in the media?

The inconsistencies are manifest on both sides, if the principle of individual rights is the yardstick to measure the validity of one’s stand on concrete issues. But the Star-Ledger wants to have it both ways. Thus, the Editors defend the gay marriage bill with vague references to “civil” rights or “gay rights”, as if rights are privileges bestowed by society or possessions specific to some group. By evading the exact nature of rights, the advocates of this bill can uphold Gay rights but not medical rights. I offer into evidence the Star-Ledger’s support for the totalitarian "Affordable Health Care for America Act", or HR3962 (and the Senate’s incarnation of ObamaCare), a massive rights-violating monstrosity that makes a mockery of its support for NJ’s SSM bill. If the Editors were to base their call for passage of the Gay Marriage Act on the proper grounds, they would logically have to oppose those healthcare “reform” bills. Both issues are tethered to the principle of individual rights. But since the Editors don’t really support the actual rights of gays (just “gay rights”) there is no need to reconcile those contradictory positions.

“Unprincipled inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”, to paraphrase Emerson, who got it exactly backwards. Of course, one must be consistent based on the right principles … i.e., ideas consistent with objective, concrete reality. And it’s not always easy and sometimes hard. Loyalty to principles often means defending or advocating that which runs contrary to one’s personal convictions. Think of Voltaire, who once said in defense of free speech: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” The preservation of freedom demands nothing less than that kind of conviction. That’s what’s been in play in my mind, as I grappled with this issue in recent years. I have always thought of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That hasn’t really changed. But, over the years, I’ve had to rethink my stand on certain political issues in order to bring them into line with my passionate belief in the rights of the individual. Gay marriage is one. I was against its legalization, but eventually came to support NJ’s 2002 domestic partnership law and 2006 civil union legalization.

But as fromexperience notes, those laws represent “special rights” and are thus untenable. This has led me to full support of the legalization of same-sex marriage. It is the only stand consistent with the principle of individual rights and of our constitution.

Regardless of what one personally believes about it, the overriding principle relating to gay marriage points unequivocally to only one conclusion – same-sex couples have the same unalienable rights to contractual freedom as heterosexual couples. The law should recognize that fact.

It’s not always easy acting on principle. It often puts one’s political opinions at odds with one’s personal values and morals. Announcing one’s fundamental beliefs … wearing one’s moral principles on one’s sleeves, so to speak, as I do on this blog … exposes one to the judgement of others by one’s own standards. This is as it should be. One way to avoid that personal responsibility as well as the inevitable (and proper) judgements of others is to simply run from abstract principles, and declare that anything goes on the whim of any moment or issue. That’s the tactic employed by both sides in this debate, including the Star-Ledger Editors. This “pragmatic” approach enables political factions and pressure groups to battle in a domestic civil war, each vowing to grab some political or economic advantage at the expense of others based upon some newly minted group “right”.

But it should be remembered that we owe the very existence of our America to a revolutionary group of men who pledged “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” on a radical set of political principles to forge history’s greatest and most moral country ever. Principles are crucial. That is why the principle of individual rights must be placed at the political center stage. It is the means of stemming the aggression of rights violators who seek to impose their own moral judgements on others. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. Put another way, the abstraction “individual rights” is the means of stopping anyone from taking the concrete actions of physically preventing a survivor from inheriting the pension benefits of his same-sex deceased partner or another from visiting his same-sex partner in a hospital … i.e., from signing a concrete marriage contract.

The concrete gay marriage bill failed for lack of a proper defense – the abstract moral concept of individual rights.

Sanchez on Class and Other Subjects

Commentary: It's time for America to think straight about class

By Mary Sanchez | The Kansas City Star
So now, with people's 401(k) retirement accounts vanishing along with their puffed-up middle class pride, perhaps there is space for a little truth telling.

The average American never leaves the class level he or she is born into. Yes, it's true, despite all those Horatio Alger kitchen table talks about "you can be anything you want dear, this is America!" I don't want to let greedy financiers off the hook for current market turmoil, nor do I wish to deflate the ambitions of next great entrepreneur, Google founder or Warren Buffet in the making. But Americans just don't understand class and how it works within the version of capitalism that is the U.S. of A.

Just consider the heedless and lemming-like way most Americans stumbled into this recession.

For decades, people truly believed they were far better off financially than they actually were, even though the average American worker saw a 16 percent drop in his earnings (adjusted for inflation) between the 1970s and 2004, according to economist Benjamin Friedman of Harvard. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of the income scale skyrocketed ahead? Yet somehow, every American proudly proclaims membership in "the middle class." Amazing what E-Z credit and the ability to buy a latte every morning can do to a worker bee's perspective.

It is time for the voting masses – and I'd include myself here – to understand economic facts better and begin pushing for real change. We need to shed our mythical beliefs about class and build a stable economic foundation that all Americans can depend on. I suspect more people will be open to this line of learning now that unemployment has hit 8 percent. For decades, people missed the fact that a white collar job, a college degree and a cubicle did not necessarily offer them a level of job or financial security above the blue-collar, manual labor workers they thought they'd moved ahead of.

Consider the findings of the 2009 MetLife Study of the American Dream, released in March: Half of all respondents admitted they were one or two paychecks from ruin. If they lost their jobs, within a month, 50 percent of the people polled admitted they would not be able to pay their bills.

Another 28 percent said losing their job would find them unable to pay their bills within two weeks. More than a quarter of people earning $100,000 said they'd be insolvent after a month of unemployment. That's not middle class stability as most people would define it. No doubt this situation owes much to the recent crash in home prices and the cratering of the stock markets. But that's another way of saying that many Americans were simply never as upwardly mobile as they had assumed, or deluded themselves into thinking they were.

You may own a sprawling home with the three-car garage, take an annual trip to Cancun, and be able to discuss basic investment strategies, but somehow at least a quarter of you are living one month away from financial oblivion. The trappings of middle class life are not the same as security.

Another sign of our cluelessness is that half of us are railing (a few decades late) at the excesses of the executive class, while the other half of us are railing at deadbeat subprime borrowers. What we should be doing is pouncing upon our elected officials, demanding that Congress lay a foundation for true prosperity and security, as previous generations did in the 1930s and 1950s. In this session, Congress will likely decide on major legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize workplaces; that would reform the American health care system; and possibly that would overhaul the way we regulate banks and other financial institutions. In each of these areas we need bold change from recent policy.

I hear the cry of "socialism" coming from the back of the room.

This isn't about class conflict; this is about building a stable foundation for the future, so hard work really will get people ahead.

My Commentary:

America does not have a “version of capitalism”, but a mixed economy of steadily eroding capitalistic freedom and ever expanding government control. There is nothing new or bold about Obama’s policies, which continue America on the century-long path toward total statism.

Ms. Sanchez points to the 1930s and 1950s as models we should follow to “lay a foundation for true prosperity and security”. Far from any such thing, the foundation for the current crisis in finance and healthcare were laid in the early to mid 20th century in a quest for the free lunch of government-guaranteed “security”. Instead of turning toward a free market, she calls boldly for government to be rewarded for its failures with still more power.

The two areas of concern mentioned by Ms. Sanchez, the financial crisis and the mess that is our healthcare system, are perfect examples of a mixed economy, not capitalism. The third-party-payer system, the thousands of insurance mandates, barriers to interstate competition for health insurance, and rights-violating programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and EMTALA have virtually destroyed all but a few remnants of capitalism and free markets in healthcare. The current financial crisis is proof of the failure of government regulation and market interference, not capitalism. This crisis occurred within the context of a heavily regulated banking system under the control of a coercive government central bank money monopoly. On top of that is a whole network of market distorting government housing policies accumulated over a period of decades spawned by the intention to "encourage" homeownership. We are witnessing the climax of the failure of those policies and regulations today.

Ms. Sanchez doesn’t like hearing the term “socialism”. But words have meanings, and ignoring the nature of where America is heading will not wish it away. The fact is that socialism is coming to America via the back door of welfare state fascism, a system whereby most property remains in private hands, but is totally controlled by the state. It is just this mixed economy trending toward total fascism that tends to freeze people into economic “classes”. The graduated income tax, massive government business regulation, dependency-fostering welfare-state programs, and tax and monetary policy are among the reasons upward mobility is shackled in America. Capitalism, the system of individual rights, eliminates all of those barriers under a system not of classes or tribes or special interest groups but of individuals associating with each other through voluntary trade and contract to mutual advantage.

“Hard work” is not the primary ingredient to “get ahead”. People worked a lot harder in pre-capitalist times just to stay ahead of the next famine. Slaves can be made to “work hard”. The irreplaceable virtue that lies at the foundation of economic prosperity and progress is the individual human mind. But reason and thinking require both political and economic freedom…i.e., to be free from interference by force from one’s neighbors and the government. Only one social system establishes the proper social conditions man’s rational faculty (and thus wealth production) requires…capitalism.

The fundamental battle today is between capitalism and socialism, or individual rights and the total collectivist state. Mostly what we hear today in varying degrees from both major parties is more of the second. The truly bold change would be to discover and embrace individual rights and capitalism as the foundation for a truly free and prosperous laissez-faire society.

Other's Commentary:

borisjimski wrote on March 17, 0:29 AM:
"Local projects should be paid out of local funds, not by federal moneys taken from people who are nowhere near . . . in a quest for the free lunch of government-guaranteed “security.”" Right you are! So all those southern states that live off the largess the Yankee states give them each year as the excess over what they pay into the federal system, time to cough it up. As to healthcare being a market-based business, do you really believe people price out how much it will cost them at each hospital with each doctor when they have a heart attack or discover a lump? "This crisis occurred within the context of a heavily regulated banking system under the control of a coercive government central bank money monopoly," notwithstanding the fact all those regulations were ignored the last eight years. Geez Mike, sounds like you're getting your talking points directly from the AEI. Capitalism isn't a social system, it's an economic system. And socialism isnt the total collectivist state.

MikeZemack wrote on March 17, 9:06 PM:
Capitalism in the philosophical sense is a social system based upon the recognition of individual rights to life, liberty and property, and a government limited to protecting those rights. A free market is an economic system, which is integral to capitalism. But capitalism encompasses both political and economic freedom, Political freedom is only possible under economic freedom. Freedom of speech, religion, association, etc. are not practicable when government controls one’s property and livelihood. Only capitalism provides both freedoms.

Government economic regulation is the means by which politics corrupts the private economy. Political pressure on the banks applied through the conduit of the regulators and the GSEs, compounded by the Fed’s easy money, low interest rate policies, led to this crisis. The quick-buck artists on Wall Street, while not to be excused, were merely riders on a political train. At no time did the government relinquish any of its regulatory powers.

Other's Commentary:

mongrel wrote on March 17, 3:10 PM:
Mike Zemack said it all:

"The fact is that socialism is coming to America via the back door of welfare state fascism, a system whereby most property remains in private hands, but is totally controlled by the state."

This is not new, it has happened elsewhere in the past. "Limousine liberals" and misguided leftist do-gooders were instrumental in making "welfare state fascism" become reality.

What "our" limousine liberals forget that all those previous limousine liberals also thought they will be allowed to keep their limousines while the misguided "masses" will be ruled by the socialist government. Instead of limousines, they were labelled "enemies of all classes" & ended up in prison, in concentration camps, and execution chambers. The "masses" lost freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property, and became poorer, hungrier, completely oppressed by government.

MikeZemack wrote on March 17, 9:22 PM:
Mongrel, you are scarily right.

The growing dependency on government, the breakdown of society into a civil war of special interest pressure groups at the expense of the individual and his rights, government controls breeding more government controls, calls for more and more sacrifice to the state (or the nation or the race or society), exploding government debt, a flood of printing press money…it’s all happened before.

The closest historical parallel to the America of recent decades is pre-Hitler Germany…from Bismarck’s 1880s welfare state to the 1930s.

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.

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.