Why I’m Agnostic On the Power of Government

Whether it’s the Nicene Creed or the Apostles’ Creed, what became clear to me at an early age is that I am not Christian material. To be a Christian requires three things: a belief that Jesus is the Son of God; that he was born of the Virgin Mary; and that after his death he was resurrected.

Clearly, if one doesn’t believe in these things one cannot be called Christian. What has always been disturbing to me is the reaction of my Christian and atheist friends who make certain assumptions about my central core of belief based upon this exposition.

It is as if I’m anti-religious simply because I am not a Christian. Or, should be so.

Because I am skeptical about the fundamental beliefs about what a Christian must believe in order to be a Christian, that this should make me anti-Christian. I don’t see how that conclusion follows at all.

Except for some extreme forms of Christianity, my experience has been that the teachings of Christianity are in the main, beneficial. What man has been harmed by being reminded that being thoughtful of a neighbor is a good thing?

Growing up I was exposed to different religious encounters. As a youngster I spent a week or two each summer at a church summer camp. It was at one of these camps that I found myself being counseled strenuously about my lack of faith. The only response I had at that time, and the only response that I have today is, how is it that if I cannot find the belief within myself, that I must accept these beliefs simply because you choose to impose them?

The pressure of the community is intense. When your name is mentioned during prayer, the effect is galvanizing.

It could be observed that I have spent my life since searching for the differences between belief and knowledge. Against this backdrop of the organized attempt at religious indoctrination were my sister’s less confrontational attempts at sharing her Christian faith. She’s smart. Rather than telling me a thing and expecting me to believe it, she introduced me to the writings of C.S. Lewis. If you’re not familiar with Lewis, the short story is that he arrived at basically the same place I found myself by age 15, but some years later arrived back with an acceptance of Christianity.

Credit to my sister for not giving up on my eternal soul. She is one of the few “real” Christians I have ever known. Not simply for her acceptance of the creed of faith, but attempting to follow in the steps of Christ.

What is it about our political beliefs that require us to give up our skepticism for acceptance? Well, in my opinion, there’s nothing about any political belief that requires us to give up our skepticism. Skepticism is in and of itself a good thing. I have always had an affinity with Missouri, the “Show Me” state. In several of my previous posts—when commenting on the Vision™ of our Unigovernor or other visionaries—I have asked the question “how would this reduce the price of a can of peas in my local grocery store?” Why would I accept a political belief that does nothing to make my life, the life of my children, or, my neighbors, better off? Why should I forego my skepticism?

The acceptance of a religious belief does not offput the acceptance of a political belief. Nor does it engender one.

While I have one sister who exemplifies the paradigm of Christian, I have another who exemplifies the New Age Belief of Change! ™ and Hope! ™ She is fully and completely dedicated to the end of the status quo as it represents the repression of the Feminine. When she became of victim of the Masculine she pretty much lost her sense of humour.

My insistence on supporting and defending the status quo makes me an ideological enemy of my sister. The status quo is patriarchal, according to this sister. The mere fact that I disagree with so much of what she has learned in order to become what she is today, with an M.A. in Counseling, is extremely threatening to her. It has become an existential question, because all of her faith and belief is centered upon her promulgation of accepted social and political theories within the class with which she self-identifies. She dares not exhibit skepticism. Any tear in the fabric of the web of her beliefs would result in an apostasy as great as mine was when I was a young boy.

Where my path has been to break down the walls of what is knowable and what relies upon belief, the paths that my sisters have chosen have been based upon systems of belief that require acts of faith based upon those beliefs. The amusing difference is that one accepts and forgives; the other rejects and condemns. (You can guess which sister I spend more time with.)

This is, I suppose, me being Masculine. Her being Christian. Her being Feminine. It’s all rather amusing, but only two of us laugh at it.

Much of what you are being expected to accept as political faith in this era of Change! ™ and Hope! ™ comes from what is known generally as Post-Modernist theory. It arrived without much fanfare, but motivates generally every New Age theorist, from the environmentally conscious, to the elementary school teacher, to the local community planner. If you ever wondered what happened to Fabian Socialism, well, here you are.

The analytical tools of the New Left are markedly different than the analytical tools of the status quo. During the time that I TA’d Statistics, we would joke that the only thing a social scientist was looking for was correlation. Under the rules of the status quo statistical inference was viewed as a tool to disprove a theory. Under the rules of the New Left, statistical inference is used as a tool to prove a theory. Reading the papers of Masters Candidates in psychology is to read Beatrix Potter. Full of fuzzy bunnies, cute but meaningless. “But look!” they say. “Sixty percent of the time this happens!”

Facts are not like elections, although the New Left prefers that not to be the case. You can win an election with fifty-one percent of the electorate. You cannot “win” a fact with a fifty-one percent sampling result. Not even sixty percent. The most you can say is perhaps you failed to disprove a thing. The opposite case is not to be inferred. Unless you choose to do so.

To do less as a New Leftist, to fail to choose adopting an unwarranted inference, would be to admit to a certain form of social apostasy. To have your name brought up during the next prayer session.

The Left is, in essence, the victim of a hoax being perpetrated by itself.* Any movement that excoriates skepticism is prone to certain problems in its development. As a practical matter, central planning fails because it is inept, not because it isn’t well-intentioned. The Shakers were well-intentioned. The Bolsheviks were well-intentioned. Sociologists are well-intentioned. But as a practical matter, it can be argued that V.I. Lenin was well-intentioned, as is, perhaps in the view of Robert Mugabe, Robert Mugabe. Can the German living in the 1930’s be faulted for viewing Mr. Hitler as well-intentioned?

Skepticism was short-lived in post-Revolutionary Russia. As Emma Goldman was to observe first hand. Emma was always well-intentioned. Skepticism is a form of apostasy to the true believer. Under the status quo, tolerance is accepted. Under New Leftism, tolerance is a form of apostasy.

The current view of the New Left is that only by increasing regulation of markets, limits to compensation, increases in taxes and massive escalation of public expenditures will we be able to create the well-intentioned world envisioned by the New Left. Which begs the question of why I’m agnostic about government power.

If intention were good enough we’d already be living in a Utopia. It would have occurred when we passed the last law that sought to improve the safety of our community. Take a look at the sheer volume of law that has been passed in the last year…last ten years. What was the intention of these laws?

All filled with good intention. Every additional law passed promises to fix some heretofore unattended wrong. And still we are so far from the Promised Land. Ah!

(How else do you explain a college curriculum that announces Sylvia Plath and Margaret Atwood, but excludes Walt Whitman?)

Does the New Left have a creed, as clear and distinct as the creed of the Christian? Can I say, or can you say, what this creed is?

The best reduction of what might be proffered for a Democrat creed I can come up with is this: government is the best tool for fixing our problems. A web search for “democratic party creed” turned up the following a couple of times, although most Democrat sites tend to avoid a clear statement of creed:

· We will be faithful stewards of our children's education and we will promote quality job training for all citizens seeking the skills to thrive in a technologically and intellectually challenging world;
· We will be faithful stewards of our economy by supporting sound fiscal and energy policies that will create opportunities for all citizens now and in the future;
· We will be faithful stewards of our natural resources by pursuing sustainable environmental policies and by leaving this planet in a better condition than we found it so future generations may enjoy its beauty;
· We will be faithful stewards of our health and well being by promoting policies that will create access to affordable health care, and by supporting research to improve health conditions and fight diseases;
· We will be faithful stewards of our communities by supporting efforts to control crime and promoting policies that will encourage better planning to ensure a rich quality of life;
· We will be faithful stewards of our democracy, by honoring those who have sacrificed to safeguard it, and by defending it against all who would threaten it;
· And we will be faithful stewards of our freedoms of equality, religion and expressions so that men and women of all races and faiths can live, follow their beliefs and express their views without fear of discrimination or reprisal.

The emphasis here is couched in what is clearly a religious reference to stewardship. For those of us (me) who had to take a path the led us away from organized religion, it’s not surprising to find the New Left embarking upon a path that more closely associates itself as a politically religious sect. The New Left is attempting to supplant the American political tradition with a new one that requires a new type of religious stewardship—oversight—over actions that may be chosen by us as individuals. Let’s counterpoise the Democrat creed with the Republican creed:

I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon.

If I can seek opportunity, not security, I want to take the calculated risk to dream and to build; to fail and to succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for dole.I prefer the challenges of life to guaranteed security, the thrill of fulfillment to the state of calm Utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence, nor my dignity for a handout.

I will never cower before any master, save my God.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid: to think and act for myself: enjoy the benefit of my creations: to face the whole world boldly and say,

“I AM A FREE AMERICAN!”

This creed, too, was found on several self-identifying Republican sites with the search term “republican creed.”

I do not think it accidental that the emphasis for Republicans is on “I.”

If it is to be treated as religion, what are the differences between the religious sect known as Democrat, and the religious sect known as Republican? Can we predict, based upon creed, which sect prefers greater intervention and control by government, and which sect prefers less?

How is it that there is such a stark delineation between creed of the Democrat and the creed of the Republican?

One of the better papers ever written(pdf) about human behaviour was written by Gary Becker.

The essence of the paper is that people behave in order to minimize risk and maximize reward. It also allows for the humourous imputation that organized politics is more closely modeled by criminal organization than by religious organization.

If I am more important than the government, there are certain consequences to this fact. And it is my assertion that my political identity is superiour to the political authority of my government. As a fact.

How can this be? The answer is held within the founding documents of our nation. My departure from organized religion was not—and probably is not—widely lauded by my family. It forms a sticking point for those who may be sympathetic to the conclusions derived of my convictions, but who believe I suffer from a lack of appropriate religious conviction. (But, from the first time my name was brought up before the group in prayer, I’ve accepted the good intentions of my fellow parishioners, even as I crept away.)

It is with certain conviction that I hold the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Certain unalienable rights.

It is these rights—this right—that I assert to remove myself from organized religion. Getting back to my apostasy; I never argued with Christ’s existence, that He was born of Mary. More importantly, there is a great deal of what Christ brings to the table that is important and worthy of consideration. It was His pronouncement in Mark 12:17 that divided the world between the political and the religious. We no longer had to make the religious political, nor the political religious. These are separate areas of endeavour. That my views on the self-evidence of man’s freedoms are syntonic with those holding strongly held religious belief is a feature, not a bug. While my views rely upon the irreducibility of desCartes cogito, ergo sum, there remains no argument about the essential rights and responsibilities of man, even for those who have held to a more Berkleyian tradition.

The things that are knowably true are true without regard to how you got there. Even if these truths are only held beliefs. Even Corrigan got to where he was going.

So, how does government attempt to impose its religious convictions upon its parishioners? Not very well, it seems.

The creed of the Left is reliant upon stewardship. The creed of the Right is reliant upon the individual. To the risk-averse, it seems consistent to me that the Left will attempt to reduce the amount of risk its adherents find, in the actions of those who rely on their individual effort to succeed, as a form of that stewardship. And while the Left talks to the intellectual freedom of the individual, they have attempted and are attempting to separate our intellectual freedom from our economic freedom. That is, we can think whatever we like…but before we do anything, it must be approved, in advance, by the committee of stewards. Because the Left is risk-averse. They accept a priori lower returns on economic activity as the price one must pay to reduce risk.

Perhaps this is why so many on the Left find themselves in careers without risk. If you’re currently living on the dole, you could say that the downward risks associated with your current position are zero. If you are a government employee, it could be said that the current risks associated with your employment are only slightly higher than zero. The enemy of risk reduction is in shrinking government budgets.

If you are risk-averse, chances are that you naturally view the entrepreneurial as the enemy. As Becker points out, the possibility of failure can only be overcome by the possibility of reward. As the Left increases the threshold of risk-aversion, the opportunities for reward are diminished. I believe Becker attempts to relate this to our lives by introducing you to the idea of cognitive dissonance. It is this cognitive dissonance that rewards risk-takers.

And the seminal point of what the Left refers to as its Reality Based Community. In terms of Becker, if the value of risk (R) is high, why would a rational, reality based, economic player want to assume that high R value? Under the role of stewardship, it is the government’s job to limit risk, in order to reduce risk. And in many ways the Left works preemptively to limit or reduce risk. And it can be demonstrated that the Left seeks to reduce risk to zero.

This is why I’m agnostic about the power of government, or more generally, governments.

It doesn’t take a great deal of effort to come up with examples where the Left is dedicated to the removal of risk from our lives. The Oregon State Legislature outlaws novelty lighters, but doesn’t outlaw lighters. Or, matches. How small an increment of risk must a piece of legislation reduce risk in order to be enrolled in our state’s statutes? Obviously it’s a pretty small amount. Now that novelty lighters are abolished, how long must it be before non-novelty lighters are abolished? Or, matches?

In the last session the Oregon Legislature mandated self-extinguishing cigarettes. But in the past couple of years the only house we’ve lost to fire in my neighborhood—resulting in the loss of human life—was a fire started during a power-outage, by a couple who were using candles. How long before the Oregon Legislature mandates self-extinguishing candles?

Children are required to wear helmets when riding their bicycles. How long before we require children to wear helmets while playing on their backyard swingset?

And this is the product of the Reality Based Community.

But this explanation of the New Left, the Reality Based Community and the need to provide stewardship helps us to understand the product of our elected class. What risk does the government employee face in an economic downturn? It’s close to zero.

What risk does a private businessman face in an economic downturn? It can approach one.

Why would a government employee give up the chance to earn millions a year? For a reduction in risk. There is an old saying in education circles. “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.”

So when Barney Frank says that he has on his staff some extremely bright people who only make $125,000 a year, I’m sure he’s quite correct. But would you, if you were in private business, want to hire extremely bright people who were risk averse? If you were used to receiving a commission of 5-10-20 percent, would you be willing to give up those commissions in order to keep your job at a losing private business? In the forty years that I’ve worked I’ve met a lot of “smart” people who weren’t worth a damn. For the entrepreneur, simply settling for smart would be a recipe for disaster. I’ve let plenty of smart employees go. I’ve seen a lot of smart people unable to work in an environment of risk.

For as much as the New Left, the Reality Based Community, the stewards, wish to reduce risk, this risk reduction always accompanies an increasing risk in something else. You want to reduce the risk of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, okay. But you risk increasing the cost of energy to a point where economic activity stalls. Both outcomes serve the interest of the risk-averse in terms of CO² production, but both outcomes also reduce our general wealth, employment and productivity. How am I better off if a can of peas doubles in price? Is this a risk that I can afford to take?

The fault I exhibit in this exposition is easy to spot from the Left. I am—as much a victim as protagonist—guilty of Masculine thought. I am too Ego-centric in my views. I am a defender or apologist for the status quo. That I am writing in reaction to the Left’s threat to my white, male-dominated culture; that this is the very thing that they were talking about!

There is a reason why the New Left, Reality Based Community/Stewards resort to ad hominem attacks on ideas that they can’t argue well against. My favourite is a commenter who frequents here and posts something like “why do you waste your time on such plonk?” The fault lies in my inability to “get” the new reality. The new reality relies not so much on disambiguation as it does upon the propagation of ambiguity. Or, the how can we know what the meaning of “is” is question.

I would suggest that there is among us a great many who have never heard of C.G. Jung. I would assert that all of us have heard of Freud. And have some nascence of the Id, the Ego and the Super Ego. For those of you thus schooled, the key to “getting it” (what “is” is) is hidden in the perplexity and undue obscurity of Jungian psychology.

From Siggy to CG (pronounced Ciggy, the German pronunciation of the letters “C” and “G”) is a huge shift in how we describe the meaning of things. Freud’s approach is a rational approach that attempts to describe the meaning of things as perceived by the mind; CG attempts to describe the meaning of things as evoked from the mind. The Freudian rational, objective understanding of things as they are; versus the Jungian approach that whatever comes to mind is what is. And “whatever comes to mind” is a product that is referred to as either archetypical or symbolic.

For the Jungian, we cannot have rational thought. All we can attempt to do is rationalize non-rational thought. (They will quickly point out that non-rational thought is distinctly different from irrational thought. For many Jungians, the attempt to rationalize thought is irrational. Rational thought is a reflection of non-rational thought.) We can have symbols, but not signs. Signs are rational expression, but not reflective of the soul’s essence. Reason is supplanted by awareness. And since this awareness is genetically wired, we are not responsible for our thoughts…merely flotsam buoyed by the tides encountered by our brains, of our relationship to external stimulus. We cannot control the way we perceive things (Bishop Berkeley is spinning in his grave). In this way we are all victims. We are victims of our inability to know anything more than that which is evoked, and nothing more. When confronted by risk we become timid rabbits. Or, sly foxes. Or, rapacious eagles. (Or, the Jester, or the Mother, etc.) And since sly foxes victimize timid rabbits, we need laws in place to protect the timid rabbits from the sly foxes. And since the rabbit and the fox both fall prey to the rapacious eagle, we need laws in place to protect the rabbit and the fox from the eagle. We need laws that deal with us as who we are archetypically, rather than as men.

I recommend to you that you keep this in mind when you hear the Left talk about “fairness.” The Left is not talking about a set of rules that even the playing field. The Left is talking about removing any type, sort or kind of risk that could impact or limit anyone from achieving the kind or type of life that they are able to envision; to evoke. And when they talk about change, they are talking about only the first steps that such a vision of the future holds for them. There are, to them, good reasons to regulate and mandate every part of your life. We’re no longer talking about the kind of socialism that was reflected by the politics of the former Soviet Union and Five-year Plans. This is much dreamier and much visionier. And it does much to explain the purportedly radical view of animal rights activists. If we reduce human perception to the level of animal perception, who can disagree that animals are due rights?

There is agnosticism in Jesus’ view towards governments that I share. Whose image is on the coin that you use? What is the role of my religious belief when it comes to public policy? And how important is it that my government reflects my religious views or beliefs? How should, or did, man treat man in the absence of a public highway system? How should, or did, man treat man in the absence of publicly-funded light-rail systems?

It’s amazing that as the New Left, Reality Based stewardship approaches the level of a religion, that Man has survived to this point in history. That we survived disease; that we survived cars without seatbelts. That we survived the Dark Ages.

And we’re being told that without this, the beneficence of the Left, we risk…untold calamity. And the risks are all around us. Build a new plant? Bugs, birds and worms are put at risk. (As would be the delicate balance of an ecosystem.) Industrial accidents reminiscent of Bhopal are lurking around the corner. We will poison our air and water. Because, as frivolous as was the banning of novelty lighters, and perhaps DDT, so too is the frivolousness of prohibiting any increase in haze, any new particulate into the atmosphere; paving a single acre outside the urban growth boundary. Even the exhalation of our own breath is now a threat to the future of the world. It matters not the benefits of such activity. There is no cost/benefit analysis. We must reduce the risk. Even imperceptible risk.

Otherwise, how can they call themselves your stewards? Enjoy your cruise.

You may bring my name up in the next prayer circle.

*There has been one prominent social hoax on the Left. It was committed by a self-avowed member of the Left. If you’re a Leftist and have never heard of this hoax before, well…sorry I tipped you off. I don’t have a problem with Socialists. What I have a problem with is Leftists who proclaim themselves as traditional Americans, with a belief in freedom, liberty and capitalism. At least a Socialist is being honest. The dishonesty of the Left has always been offputting to me.

So, What Did You Vote For, Exactly? Change?

Did She Say Psychopath?

One of the guys I go to almost daily is DanielIsRight. He isn't always right. But he has deeply held beliefs, which in this day and age, is a refreshing change. There are times when I think he misses the mark. Yet, since I make positive comments from time to time, I don't think he views my criticisms the way he views most.

Living in the valley, he gets a lot more hate mail than I do. (Which I don't miss.)

He gives you a look at the folks who are planning a new bridge on I-5. A bridge we will all use. And pay for.

Somehow, these folks think that riding a bicycle from Vancouver, WA to Portland, OR is something we all plan on doing soon. Not just a "one-off", but as a daily thing.

Imagine the Columbia Bridge being rebuilt under the "political" pressures that the new I-5 bridge is being built under. We'd probably still be riding on ferries. The sad thing is, Portland is taking the saddle on this one, even though we, as Oregon residents, will be paying for it.

So, watch the video. (At the link, above.) And ask yourself, is this the future we want? 'Cause we're paying for it. (If you appreciate a sense of irony, you can also watch this.)

The Incremental Destruction of Property

How many of you know an employee of a governmental agency or institution? If you live in Clatsop county, you can’t swing a cat in a crowded room without hitting several of these people.

When you add in those who are associated with certain non-profit agencies, which really, to be fair, should be viewed as public, rather than private, agencies, the number goes up even more.

Those of us who clearly belong to the private sector are seeing increasing declines in the number of those for whom we provide employment. (This increasing decline is what is referred to as Unemployment. We are increasing the number of people who are no longer able to find work. The decline occurs in the number of persons gainfully employed.) This while the number of those who are working for governmental agencies—and by this I mean those clearly “governmental”, such as city, county and state jobs, as well as those employed by the ESD and our public schools—and public non-profits whose funding comes primarily from federal, state and local grants, is increasing. And greater increase in public employment is being planned and provided for, both through the recently passed Stimulus Bill and by what is being passed off as “investment” strategies in Salem.

It is no wonder, to me at least, that when the issue of increased taxes and fees is discussed, that so many of us are told that we should increase taxes and fees. That there is a benefit to all of us by raising these taxes and fees. That, by raising taxes and fees, we are becoming increasingly fair.

Which is true, I suppose. I suppose it is true, because those who feed from the public trough rely upon those taxes and fees to pay their wages, and they feel this is fair. Any increase in taxes and fees actually benefits those who rely upon public funds for their private income. They are better off because more funds are available to them. They get better paychecks, better facilities, better desks, better computers. And any increase in taxes and fees today will be negotiated into the next contract, to adjust their wages to compensate for the increases in costs they face through higher taxes and fees.

I point this out for a couple of reasons. For the math or science minded, I bring it up in order to talk about one of the more fascinating ideas we encountered in our early childhood: the perpetual motion machine.

Young boys find this idea extremely interesting. How to design a machine that powers itself. Hours were spent as youths as I and my friends compared ideas on how to create the perfect perpetual motion machine. Screw gears, pendulum weights, all attempting to break through one undeniable fact of physics. There is a difference between potential and kinetic energy. And that energy is exhaustible.

Through its use, energy is consumed. It can be used wisely. It can be wasted. But, once gone, it is gone forever. I leave it to the obsessive to contemplate entropy. The bottom line is, you lose it whether you use it, or not.

The childlike naiveté with which we addressed the problem of perpetual motion is one of the endearing traits and qualities of childhood. Give a kid a puzzle, paper and a pencil and ideas will sprout. And the more a kid can “play” with a problem, the more he is able to learn. Playing is a very special form of learning, and just as a child can learn about the limits of the physical world, so too the meek can learn how to overcome a bully, or the weak to hit a baseball. In play there is a lot of trial and error. And, as a parent, as a coach, as a mentor, we need to have the patience to let the least of us play and play and play. To achieve their own “personal best.”

This same naiveté, however, is not so prized among the adult class. To be sure, it is encouraged and rewarded. Unions continually tell workers that they can’t advance, can’t get their “fair share”, without holding their employer hostage to the union. Politicians continually tell their constituent classes that they can’t advance, can’t get their “fair share”, without holding the rest of the state, county or city hostage to their political claims and demands.

And as a political class, or constituency, public employees, whether governmental or non-governmental agencies, are increasingly being told that without increases in government taxing and spending, they can’t advance, can’t get their “fair share”.

So, what stands between the public class and their advancement, their fair share?

Kids, it’s us. Those of us who don’t eat off a government plate. Those of us who joke about “didja get your stimulus check, yet?”

‘Cause you and I know a dirty little secret that not a single public employee will tell you about. Somebody has to pay for this love fest. And it won’t be a public employee. Not a single teacher, not a single state employee, not a single county maintenance worker will pay a dime. (‘Cause every dime spent today will be given back in the next Cost-of-Living wage increase.) Imagine a company where an employee could choose to either send his money to the State, or that same money to his employer. If the company made the same promises to its employees that the public employer give its employees, would you rather give it to the State? Or, to your boss?

The money, the real money that pays for all of the political class’ largesse comes from those of us in the private sector. Wealth is not created by taking money from me and giving it to someone who takes a public check. That employee is better off, sure. But he hasn’t created wealth. He has taken wealth. And the trillions of dollars in debt that the governments of the United States are creating today are debts that will need to be paid off by those of us in the private sector. And we represent all the bogey men of the Left. We are corporations, businesses; we demand cheap energy and low-wages. We seek to benefit ourselves, our stockholders, our families and our friends. And we work. We create. We build. We employ our talents and skills and hire those who have talents and skills that will make us more money, more wealth and a higher standard of living. We do this selfishly. We do it because we value our independence more highly than we do receiving our share of the dole. Our housing allotment. Our living allotment.

The naiveté of the Left is creating a burden on those of us who create wealth. We don’t talk about being Creative. We are creative. We don’t talk about the need for Innovation. We innovate. We don’t talk about Fairness, we simply work harder.

The basic political talking point of the Left is, today, the issue of Sustainability. You hear it at every opportunity. We need sustainable transportation. Sustainable energy. Sustainable housing. And what I hear is we need a housing allotment. An income allotment. An environmentally conscious car which will be allotted. The State will determine what is sustainable for you. Not you. And thereby create “Sustainability.”

Because “we”, the private sector, are uncontrollable. We don’t have 90 smart men and women in Salem determining our investment strategy. We don’t have 90 smart men and women in Salem determining our employment strategy. And that worries the smart men and women at work in Salem at our state legislature. And their thousands of employees, who have been hired to make sure that we make the right investment, employment and production decisions as determined by their masters.

They are spending and borrowing and taxing us to meet their goals. Because, after all, they are better off.

You and I need to remember this. When it is our jobs, our businesses, our families and our friends, we are being selfish. When it is their paycheck, it’s about being smarter than us. Wiser than us. Helping us.

Oh, and it’s about their paycheck.

Housing Stimulus

Watching politics is akin, in my mind, to watching one of those teen horror shows, spoofed by movies like "Scary Movie."

One by one, kids are getting killed. As a member of the audience, we can see the killer skillfully gliding through the background, chainsaw or machete in hand, hacking and hewing his way through a cast of good kids who just made a bad choice. With a dollop of gratuitous nudity from time to time.

This is the best analogy I can come up with for the current political season. In the foreground you have a lot of people with good intentions, and in the background you have folks with the ability to kill jobs and industry skillfully gliding through the background, killing and killing again. Which brings me to the topic of housing stimulus.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem--given the recent housing bubble "pop"--your politicians are talking about introducing programs to create more demand for housing. The guy with the mask and the chainsaw did so well for us earlier, they want to extend his contract.

Is there any wonder that financial markets are in disarray?

Our financial system is a lot like the human body. Damage a part, and the body begins the process of repair. Some damage might be life threatening. Some may threaten the viability of a limb, finger, ear. The body doesn't care. It sets about attempting to fix the damage. New capillaries are formed. New veins are formed. The body attempts to set right what damage has been done.

Of course, there are times when you are best served by seeking help. But there is a huge difference between the code of ethics of medicine than that of politics. I think we are brought up on the Hippocratic Oath, to never knowingly do harm.

Politicians aren't so limited.

Rather than taking responsibility for creating the recent financial havok, they are now in the mood to create more mischief. Whether it's at your state level, or at the federal level, politicians are attempting to help by increasing artificial demand for housing. So, whether it's returning to sound financial practices, or simple energy policies that increase supply and reduce prices, we see politicians with Vision increasing the harm.

So, let's look at the latest fiasco afoot, "Independence Station."

Out of the box this Housing Solution is going to lose money. Happily, it will be a "fortunate few." This is just another example of the elite planning that goes into losing money. Go to their website. They don't even understand the irony of their sales pitch. "An hour's drive..."

Sheesh.

I usually end up rooting for the guy with the mask and chainsaw. It's just a movie, after all.

A Commentor's Note:Electoral College

I really want to thank Uncle Walt for his comment posted here.

He wrote to his State Senator, the man who is currently serving in "Sid Snyder's Seat" in Olympia.

Here is the response by Senator Brian Hatfield:

"The electoral college has already been change(sic) by Maine and Nebraska, which proportion by Congressional district. Because those states are small, few people are aware of the 'unlevel playing field' that is being created.

"If California proportioned by Congressional district, we'd NEVER elect another Democrat President. If Texas did it, the same could be said for Republicans. It's not about "taking away Washington's voice." It's about uniformity.

"If I could vote to force Maine and Nebraska to go back to the old way, or force ALL 50 STATES to proportion by Congressional district, I would. Unfortunately, we can't do that so the National Popular Vote compact is the only way we can get to uniformity and a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. "Frankly, I can't understand why others can't understand this argument. >> -BH"

Here is Uncle Walt's response to the e-mail he received from Senator Brian Hatfield:

"Perhaps I can explain why others "fail to understand" the arguments you put forth.

"The Electoral College is NOT about a 'level playing field' or 'uniformity'. It never was. Nor was it ever about the popular vote. I refer you to the Federalist Papers on the subject. In them, you will discover it was about putting a 'check and balance' on the popular vote. Basically, it was intended to prevent an unqualified, but charismatic, candidate from attaining office.

"Unfortunately, the Founders left the method of setting up the Electoral College to each state. Which, btw, is further proof that it was never intended to be about a 'level playing field' nor 'uniformity'.

"If the Founders had intended it to be about 'uniformity', they would have set the Electoral College up as a federal standard ... rather than leaving it up to each individual state how to run it."

"If they had intended it to be about a 'level playing field', they wouldn't have created it in the first place ... and left elections up to the popular vote."

I get the feeling that Senator Hatfield is trying to play this both ways. You've read the above, do you read a shift in meaning? "...it was never intended to be about a 'level playing field' nor 'uniformity'."

Then, "...we can't do that so the National Popular Vote compact is the only way we can get to uniformity and a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD."

So, what is it Senator? Maintain the advantage that remains with the States in their role in our Electoral College? Or, adoption of the National Popular Vote Compact?

It seems the Senator is advocating for a "level playing field."

So, thanks to Uncle Walt. But...what is really being said? (Or, hidden?)

(Corrected post, thanks for the clarification, UW.)

It Takes A Village

Watch this with your kids. The critical question comes at minute :34. The answer comes at minute :41.

There is a reason why your public schools can't teach our kids about American exceptionalism, but instead teach "Students will be citizens of the earth, embracing responsibility for self, family, community, and democracy."

They are Leftists. And, they won.

I just imagine schools where ideas are examined, not taught.

Thanks to a Simple Tootsie.

Oregon’s House Democrats Outlaw Presidential Elections

I received a press release from Speaker of the Oregon House Dave Hunt.

In it, he expresses glee at ending the election’s process in Oregon for the next presidential contest.

“There was a time perhaps when an electoral college made sense. But in today’s world, we should be looking at ways to break down barriers between people and their government, not just blindly follow traditions that really don’t make sense in today’s world.”

Since I began blogging a coupla years ago, it has been with an eye and an ear toward making sure that those of us who disagree with the Elite have a voice. I don’t know of any state with a greater disconnect between its urban and rural citizens than Oregon. Oregon is held in thrall of its Leftist metropolitan denizens as it seeks to free up/unfreeze resource use and development. There have been several acts by our state government that have exacerbated that division. The big one, passed some 36 years ago, was SB 100 that established central land use planning for all governments in Oregon.

Fear and distrust of rural citizens in this state have continued apace. This bill, House Bill 2588 is the greatest slap in the face of individual liberty, dignity and trust that has ever existed. Period. Democrats have reduced presidential campaigning into a moot point. It won’t matter that your candidate deserves our electoral votes. Regardless of the outcome of the vote in this state.

The corrupt Democrats of Oregon have spoken. Oh, and there are some Republicans that need to have their heads cracked.

Republicans are supposed to believe that the individual has rights. We can accept the collectivist approach preferred by Democrats when advanced by Democrats. But a diminution of individual rights through collective action as endorsed by a Republican is beyond the ken. The sanctity of the individual has been breached by the following House Republicans:

State Representative Tim Freeman.

State Representative Vicki Berger.

State Representative Scott Bruun. (More on Bruun later. He hopes to be our next Governor. Sorry Scott. Won’t happen. And this won’t help you, either.)

State Representative Bill Garrard.

State Representative Greg Smith.

State Representative Jim Thompson.

These “Republicans” are those who co-sponsored this legislation and voted to pass this legislation.

If the job of the electors of the state of Oregon is to elect limp-weasels like this then our job is harder. Our elected representatives’ job is to protect the rights of those they represent. And not just the “stakeholders” of their district. Some rights exist outside the parochial boundaries of your legislative district. As a citizen of Oregon I am a “stakeholder” in all and anything I choose to be a “stakeholder” in. At times, a vote by a state representative is greater than his district. He is voting for the entire state.

It only becomes an issue when limp-weasel Republicans forget that all Oregonians have a right to have their vote recorded as indicated by the results of their election. Not an election in any other state. The results of this state.

The sad truth is, is that these “Republicans” fail to represent rural Oregon. And worse, they fail to represent all of Oregon.

Rather than defending the value of your vote—of your citizenship—they are willing to let large, metropolitan states determine who your next President will be. They will be the stakeholders. You will no longer have a stake in the election process.

Bastards.

I cannot begin to tell you the level of disappointment I have in these “Republicans.” If there is any caucus discipline left, I hope that Representative Hanna whips some of these “too clever by half” morons.

He still has two-thirds of the caucus. You reward the two-thirds that breathe, walk and chew gum.

You whip the retards.

Anybody Else Tired of teh Teleprompter President?

The head cock always bothered me. Now we find out that our President can't have a press conference without his teleprompter.

The idea of having scripted press conferences seems to me to be somewhat counter-intuitive. Watching the President as he shifts his eyes from the teleprompter on the right to the teleprompter on the left is a constant reminder that this guy can't think on his feet.

This is disturbing to me.

I had problems with politicians that exhibited "head cock", before.

This picture, I hope, captures the kind and type of arrogance that all reasonable men and women find disturbing. Worse, things didn't turn out so well for this guy.

Is it reasonable for me to want to watch my President stand before the Fourth Estate and share in the give and take of a press conference?

Or, as a nation, are we better off staving off the realization that we elected a man who has no essence that he wishes to share with us? That there is no core of belief that he can exhibit spontaneously? Or, are his core beliefs that different, that he has to have this firewall between us and him? I don't trust a man who can't look into the eyes of those he is speaking with.

Do you?

Hooray! The Dow Is Fixed!

Or, at least, after a 300 point gain yesterday, that is the spin that our Dear Leaders will be putting on yesterday's NYSE activity.

I will admit that the news from Citi was reassuring. But the assets that have created the toxic environment for financials remains mostly unchanged. Worse, the legislative environment--the United States Congress and Mssrs. Frank, Dodd, Reid and Pelosi--remains comitted to reviving Fannie and Freddie to strike again some day.

Further, the legislative agenda at both the national and state level contain economic bombs that require a certain degree of intelligence and analysis that remains demonstrably absent in the debate over that agenda. It's not "just" the debate over Cap and Trade, but chillingly damning is the talk about Buy American in the Stimulus Package. Both these debates merit the same criticism: we can create an artificial demand for some goods and services, and meet those demands with domestic investment. But as soon as the artifice of mandate and subsidy is eliminated, those investments will, naturally, evaporate. This is referred to in financial circles as "pissing money down a rathole."

And, in the meantime, the welfare and wealth of the nation will be reduced.

I recognize that this is counter-intuitive to the Keynesian. But, most of what Keynesians believe can usually be summed up as being merely intuitive. The hard data fail to support the Unicornic belief of the Elite. If you haven't taken the time yet, please refer to my posting on "Understanding Choice" and click on the article by Steven Suranovic of GWU.

The Western Climate Initiative is an economic bomb subscribed to by our own Unigovernor, Ted Kulonczynki. Ted can't understand that his continued efforts to give up the advantages of a modern industrial society will further harm Oregon. But, it isn't enough just to say it. Clicking on the link above will take you to a discussion about David Ricardo and his work on bad investment policies. The cost for us is not so much what we gain, either under the Western Climate Initiative and Cap & Trade, but what we give up.

What we give up is a business environment that encourages investment, growth and jobs. As Democrats proceed to assemble this economic Chimera, it becomes harder to ascribe to each bad policy decision the incremental damage that is being done to our state's fundamental business environment. Everything, from energy policy, to transportation policy, to health policy, all of these are doing more and greater harm to our state's economy, but taken together, the work necessary to de-aggregate the combined effects becomes increasingly difficult. Which, politically, is what they are after, since each of these individual bad decisions comes with a constituency willing to loudly proclaim the intelligence of their own dead horse.

So, we slowly increase the temperature of the water our economic frog is basking in.

Requiring investments in Green Technology is not an investment strategy. Just as domestic content legislation is not an investment strategy. Strategies that reduce the welfare and wealth of a country isn't a strategy, is it? It is, instead, just stupid.

But as you've learned over the course of the Dow Chart above, legislatures are rarely motivated to do smart. They are motivated to do good. And continually fail to recognize that their power, compared to the power of markets, is only of consequence in terms of the barriers governments can create to the efficient allocation of capital.

And the market continues, onward.

Understanding Choice

Understanding choice is rarely taught. It is deliberately avoided by our public school educators. Rather than understanding choice, your kids are being told what "choices" are acceptable. For a choice to be acceptable, it has to benefit "... the earth, embracing responsibility for self, family, community, and democracy."

The dilemma of choice is antithetical to central authority. Once given the tools to critically examine the outcomes of choice, those who wish to exert--or impose--central authority becomes victim of the death of a thousand cuts. It is this death of a thousand cuts that drives Central Authority to warn of world-wide death, destruction and devastation, to stave off the impending, inevitable and absolute death sentence of totalitarianism. For the central authoritarians of the early part of the last century, we have seen the threat to central authority being described as Capitalism, then the Jews, and then the return of Capitalism to the present "clear and present danger" of the Climate. And the need for us to do something now.

You can lead a cow, but you've got to drive a herd.

Always, under central authority, we are driven to take the paths chosen by those in authority to avoid some disastrous outcome. But as we continue to live with imminent disaster, certain brain cells begin to click in: what exactly is it that we have avoided through hysterical reaction to proclaimed imminent disaster? For the Communist it was Capitalism. For the Nazis it was the Jews. For the modern day Democrat is is meaningful self-reliance. For the Environmentalist, it is human existence itself.

I was able to find this remarkable article, written by Steve Suranovic of George Washington University. From the first paragraph of his article comes this quote:

"There is a popular story told amongst economists that once when an economics skeptic asked Paul Samuelson (a Nobel laureate in economics) to provide a meaningful and non-trivial result from the economics discipline, Samuelson quickly responded with, 'comparative advantage.'"

I recognize that for those of you who choose to follow the article link, that you may have problems understanding how this idea of comparative advantage applies to the decisions you make. More importantly, however, is that you may be supporting decisions made by central authority without realizing that there are decisions being made by that central authority that will make you worse off, without your realizing it.

Take, simply and briefly, the idea of Man Made Global Warming.

We were told, a coupla years ago, that unless we moved quickly to end Man Made Global Warming, arctic ice would disappear within five years. Well, two years have gone by. I say we wait another three years. If you're going to destroy an economy, I don't think waiting three years is too much to ask. Before creating a tax system based upon a by-product of human existence, maybe we should just wait three years. This is consonant with the Emergency Stimulus plan passed by Congress, that was passed in a hurry, but doesn't kick in for a coupla years. And we don't even need to pass an Emergency Cap & Trade bill. We just put it off for three more years.

When water from rising oceans begin lapping over our toes in Seaside and Astoria, I think the sales job needed will be immensely easier. Then we can uproot entire communities and move them to safety. Or, we could build a system of dikes, known as the Dutch Experiment. But neither of these potential outcomes would require us to end market capitalism for implementation. It would mean less central authority from our Central Authority. Since this, as in most things in life, are better dealt with locally rather than through Central Authority.

What Central Authority proposes is, that mandates and regulation have no costs associated with them. This would be especially true if we are facing death, destruction and devastation. If you see a child playing in the street with an out of control truck bearing down on that child, would you risk your life, running into the street, to scoop that child out of danger's path? You would be a hero, until it is pointed out that the truck you see is actually moving in the other direction.

David Ricardo wrote most famously on the issues surrounding international trade. But the dicta that he proposes actually serve us well on issues of state and local importance. Every choice we make proposes; but also disposes of what could be a limitless range of alternative outcomes. The biggest enemy of Central Authority is the democracy of individual choice. Without the threat of death, destruction and devastation what would be a motivating force behind regulating the by-product of human breath? The essential ingredient of plants producing oxygen? It would be just as silly as running into the street to save a child from a truck that's rolling in the other direction. The impulse to save may be as strongly held and as such, just as heroic. But in the case of the truck rolling away from the child, such heroicism is simply silly.

But much of what passes for heroicism in Salem is simply silly. Yes, they all view themselves as the necessary heroes. The dicta of Comparative Advantage can arm you to determine such silliness. It's why it isn't taught to our children in our public schools. It opens a can of worms. And from such simple creatures begins the death of a thousand cuts. It creates robust thinking. And having robust ideas is just another form of bullying.

Notes From Dorchester

Wish you were here!

It's interesting to spend a day with "people you agree with." The day seems to have pointed out, repeatedly, that some people aren't good at reading instructions. One of today's debate topics was on federal legislation that related to the drinking age. Most of the debate was over the drinking age was 18 or 21...or some other age. What the issue was, was should the federal government pass legislation dealing with the drinking age. By the time the issue was sorted out, we, as a group, felt that states really should be left to determine the drinking age in each particular state. Which was kind of refreshing, since I couldn't find where in the Constitution the federal government had the authority for this type of thing.

Oh, well. Overreaching by the federal government seems to be a habit built over the long passage of time. The instructive lesson was, read what you're voting on. Which will bring us to the Stimulus Package.

The delegates have voted to debate a resolution involving the bail-out of our automakers tomorrow. Simply passing the "delegate's choice" resolution would tend to indicate on which side the majority will end up supporting. And there's an important lesson there. Those of us with business experience know that if you're looking for insurance, chances are, your first phone call won't be to AIG.

As soon as Congress figures this out, the financial mess will start clearing. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should give money to a losing industry. It has worked so well in the past.

Nemaste.

Investment That Made Sense

Sure you've got your money parked...but as commercial banks melt down, and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair warns that FDIC funds will run out next year, your animal impulse to just "screw them all" makes some economic sense.

From Quid Nimis.