As I increase my list of examples to explain the benefits of capitalism vs. control societies, I just discovered a new miniseries produced by the BBC. Its a modern day rendition of Robin Hood. Its chock full of classic British dry wit humor and cheesy lines. The action is gripping, the stories are captivating, and you can tell the actors are having fun. If you are a fan of miniseries, I'd recommend picking up a copy from your local movie store or online.

When all is said and done, however, the story of Robin Hood provides perhaps the best insight into the principles of socialism vs. capitalism that is widely known by the average schmoe. This means that it is a good example to bring up whenengaged in an exchange of ideas, or a practical springboard for discussions. The new series is a veritable conservative lesson masquerading as entertainment... provided, of course, you have someone who can interpret the themes behind the story.

The plot of Robin Hood, for those who haven't seen Disney in a while: kind King Edward goes off to fight the Crusades, leaving wicked Prince John to rule England. He appoints a new Sheriff in Nottinghamshire, who rules with an iron hand. Robin Hood opposes him by stealing from the Sheriff's lords and distributing the gold to the poor. As an outlaw, he has to hide in Sherwood Forest to avoid capture, so that he and his men, who are merry, whatever that means, can continue to rob the rich to give to the poor. And he usually does some cool stuff with a bow and arrow.

On the surface, Robin Hood seems the socialist's dream story: appealing to even young children, while extolling the virtues of robbing from the rich to give to the poor. What can be more noble than that? Nobody actually wants anyone else to be poor, and if those who have the means don't charitably give their money to the poor, then it is nothing short of heroics to force them to do it. Theft is justified for the benefit of the hopeless.

Is Robin hood good? My initial impression, (after overcoming my preliminary initial impression of: "of course he is good. He's the good guy, isn't he?") was that Robin Hood was nothing short of a socialist thought experimenter's dream come true. Everyone knows the story, and a single question can spark the most interesting discussions, namely, is it moral to rob from the rich and give to the poor?

There are indeed instances where it is indeed moral. For those living in a feudal society, such as the setting of Robin Hood, to rob from the rich and give to the poor is absolutely moral. Because in that society, the man gets rich off of the essential slave labor of the peasant. If an individual does not have the right to own private property, he cannot become rich. Those who can are lords, those who have property rights, and they cannot become rich except at the expense of another. Thus, a peasant in a feudal society cannot enjoy the fruits of his own labors. To not be able to enjoy fruits of your laber is to be a slave. The labor motive in such a society is avoiding punishment, not any economic advancement. Is it moral to rob from a slave owner to give to his slaves? It is nothing less than giving the proper fruits of their labor.

Verdict: To steal from the rich is justified, only when certain conditions are met. Liberal socialists today tend to ignore the fact that those conditions do not exist in our society, and instead appeal to the emotion that arises in all decent people who see those less blessed.

The conditions that we live in today, however, are different. In a free market, where, except for those who get rich through crime (such as mobsters), everyone gains his money by voluntary exchange between two parties for mutual benefit. Consider: without commiting crimes, how do you recieve or spend money in our society? Only voluntarily. If you think your employer does not pay you what you are worth, you will leave to find someone who does. Of course, your own estimation may be far less than what you are actually worth, and you such lessons are a secondary benefit of the free market. If your employer thinks you are not worth what he is paying you, he will terminate the employment. Nobody works in America who doesn't do so voluntarily. A worker considers his time less valuable than the money he gets in exchange for it, and thus his employer serves him by wages. He likewise serves his employer by working, which the employer values more than the money he must pay.

Likewise, to purchase a service or a product is simply the voluntary exchange of wealth (or stored labor that you earned in employment) for said product or service. If you purchase a new car, you consider the car worth more than the money in your bank account. If you purchase a burger at the drive-through, you value the food more than the money in the bank. Likewise for housing, clothing, iPods, etc... anything you buy is a voluntary exchange that you value more than the money. Conversely, the person selling the product or service considers it worth less than the money, and is thus willing part with it.

All voluntary, all done as a service to others. In other words, to steal from a rich man in today's society to give to the poor, you are punishing a man for helping his neighbor, and giving it to someone who helps his neighbor less.

Verdict: to rob from the rich to give to the poor in a society with property rights and freedom is immoral.

You cannot find an example of a legal transaction in America that does not qualify as a voluntary exchange between two parties for mutual benefit.

Except, of course, taxation. It is not voluntary, because if you don't volunteer, you are forcefully removed from your possesions or imprisoned.

Which brings me back to the new BBC series. For the first time in watching a Robin Hood rendition, I realized that the "rich" that Robin was stealing from were not mere feudal lords oppressing the lowly peasant, but it was the Government. The taxation by the Sheriff is what caused the poverty, it is what made him the "bad guy." Robin stole from the Government that had denied the freedom to its citizens, and gave it to the poor so that they could pay for food, clothing, shelter, and of course, the taxes.

Makes one wonder... was Robin Hood a hero to be adored, or a criminal to be shunned?

Why are members of political parties so willing to ignore the faults of their own, and so willing to ascribe faults to their opponents?

It is a rather interesting phenomenon that those who pride themselves on morality, honesty, or reason are so willing to ignore those qualities if it doesn’t fit with their pre-conceived notion of who the good guys are.

I am speaking here of confirmation bias, the idea that we tend to ignore facts or ideas that don’t support what we already believe, and instead only notice those facts that reinforce them. For example, the same people who say that George Bush deserves impeachment for “misleading” about the war seem blind to the exact same statements by Democratic politicians such as John Kerry or Hitlery Clinton drawing the same conclusions. Wouldn’t consistency dictate that people should be held to the same standard? And before it is assumed that only liberals suffer from this, remember that it applies equally to both sides. It takes no more than a few cursory readings of threads on TownHall to recognize it, and recognizing the phenomenon is the first step towards treating the problem.

In January 2006, a team from Emory University announced the results of a study showing the brain activity for confirmation bias. Their results suggest the unconscious and emotion driven nature of this form of bias.

The study was carried out during the pre-electoral period of the 2004 presidential election on 30 men, half who described themselves as strong Republicans and half as strong  Democrats. During a MRI scan, the subjects were asked to assess contradictory statements by both George Bush and John Kerry. The scans showed that the part of the brain associated with reasoning, was not involved when assessing the statements. Conversely, the most active regions of the brain were those involved in processing emotions, conflict resolution, and making judgment about moral accountability.

Dr. Westen, a researcher involved in the work explained the results: “None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged. Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.... Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts.”

I have long believed that one cannot support correct principles with bad arguments. If one tries, the very people you are trying to convince may disregard the conclusions drawn simply because the perceived structure supporting them is faulty. Those who vie for truth do their cause no favors when using bad arguments. Those who fall victim to confirmation bias have their own foundations built on perilous foundations. They will quickly latch on to any talking point (“you can’t support the troops and not the war”), any buzzword (“diversity”), or any idea promoted by the party they believe in, simultaneously criticizing anything from their opposition, and in doing so let their reason and critical thinking skills atrophy and languish in disuse.

I believe this is one reason the founding fathers may have been against what they called the “spirit of party.”

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth...

…Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts…

…I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

            -- George Washington’s Farewell Address.

             Full text available HERE. See Also Federalist #10.

The animosity between political parties that Washington foresaw are evident in today’s climate.

 No, this is not a plea for “unity” or “bipartisanship” or “reaching across the aisle in a spirit of consensus and compromise.” To compromise one’s principles, for whatever reason, is to abandon them. This is precisely what problem is when people are willing to forego standing on correct principles to support their party. Only by recognizing such, and be willing to criticize any, from either party, who stand against correct principles are we able to keep our arguments at a level that will cause lasting conviction.

From the Human Rights Watch website:

Usually I eschew websites that serve as liberal bastions of thought such as this, (you'll notice in their list that they say nothing about the "nationalization" of private property in Venezuela, a long standing first step towards communism), but they do have something here. Perhaps you've heard in recent days about the NEWS from Venezuela. Chavez has repeatedly implemented policies that restrict inherent freedoms, such as freedom of speech. The latest example is only his latest step. He long ago made it a crime to speak out against the president, and now he has essentially stifled the last independent news organization in the country. This doesn't bode well for a country with rampant ignorance.

Here is a list from the HRW website of happenings that Chavez has done to Venezuela. Remember, if his rhetoric on his weekly (sometimes daily) television shows that lasts for hours a day is accurate, he isn't even halfway done. Americans send billions to Venezuela in oil money. Imagine the repression of a society like Cuba, with the crime and corruption of Columbia, and the hatred of the US like Saudi Arabia, and the proximity of South America. The war in Iraq and the immigration fiasco are our top foreign policy issues right now, but another is quickly rising to the south. We discount him at our own risk.

Ask yourself what would happen if the same thing happened here in the United States.

Venezuela

After repeatedly winning elections and referendums, and surviving a coup d'etat in 2002, President Chavez and his supporters have sought to consolidate power by undermining the independence of the judiciary and the press, institutions that are essential for promoting the protection of human rights.

Independence of the Judiciary  
The Venezuelan National Assembly dealt a severe blow to judicial independence in December 2004 by packing the country's Supreme Court with twelve new justices. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Chavez's party, named the justices to fill new seats created by a law passed earlier that year that expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. At that time, 80 percent of lower–court judges had provisional appointments and could be summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court's Judicial Commission.  
 
During 2005 and 2006 the court granted tenure to hundreds of the provisional judges. By October 2006 only about 20 percent of the country's judges had provisional appointments, according to a Supreme Court spokesman. However, the judges who gained tenure during this period were not required to win public competitions as prescribed in the Constitution.  
 
The judges on the First and Second Administrative Courts, which have jurisdiction over challenges to administrative actions by the government, continue to be provisional appointees. In September 2005 the judicial commission fired all six judges of both courts and their six substitutes, and once more replaced them with temporary appointees. The official reason given was that they failed to pass performance tests. The lack of guarantees to ensure that these key judges may make decisions free of government pressure remains a problem.  
 
The 2004 court–packing law also gave the majority party in the National Assembly the power to remove judges from the Supreme Court without the two-thirds majority vote required under the constitution. In May 2006 Justice Luis Velazquez Alvaray, who had been a leading proponent of the law as a congressman in 2004, was himself suspended from the Supreme Court for allegedly mismanaging the construction of a court complex. After his appointment to the Court, Velazquez had chaired the Judicial Commission charged with appointing and dismissing lower court judges. He claimed that he had been targeted for impeachment because he resisted the efforts of the Chavez administration to control the selection of judges. In June the National Assembly impeached Velazquez with a two–thirds majority vote after he failed to appear at a hearing on the charges.  
 
Freedom of Expression  
Laws passed since late 2004 have created onerous restrictions on the media that pose a serious threat to freedom of expression. The Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television establishes detailed regulations for the content of television and radio programs. For example, stations deemed to  condone or incite  public disturbances or publish messages  contrary to the security of the nation  are subject to heavy fines, and can be ordered to suspend broadcasting for seventy two hours. Upon a second offense, they may be stripped of their broadcasting licenses for up to five years. Key terms in the law, such as those quoted above, are left ill-defined, inviting politically motivated application. The National Commission of Telecommunications (CONATEL) may issue  precautionary measures prohibiting the transmission of outlawed content.  
 
The radio and television law has not led to a clampdown on the audiovisual media. At moments of political tension, however, CONATEL officials warn media directors about punishments they face for coverage that infringes the law. For instance, in April 2006 the president of Globovision, Venezuela's 24 hour cable news channel, received a letter from the director of CONATEL warning him that the station could be suspended for seventy two hours if it resorted to  sensationalist techniques (tecnicas amarillistas) in reporting on street protests about rising levels of criminal violence.  
 
In one instance, a court banned reporting about a controversial criminal investigation. In January 2006 the attorney general obtained an injunction to prevent the media from discussing the credibility of a key prosecution witness who had testified about the car bomb assassination of Danilo Anderson, the prosecutor who had been leading the probe into the aborted 2002 coup against President Chavez. The witness's testimony implicated two opposition figures in the crime. The newspaper El Nacional had published evidence that the witness, who claimed to be a psychiatrist, was an impostor. The ban on any further stories about the witness remained in force until August, during which time CONATEL closely monitored media coverage of the case.  
 
In March 2005 amendments to the Criminal Code came into force which extended the scope of Venezuela's desacato (disrespect) laws, and increased penalties for desacato, criminal defamation, and libel. In February 2006 television journalist and well-known Chavez critic, Jose Ovidio Rodriguez Cuesta (known in Venezuela as Napoleon Bravo), was prosecuted under the desacato provision of the criminal code for insulting the Supreme Court. Bravo had publicly criticized the alleged inefficiency of the court and suggested that it should be replaced by a brothel. A judge rejected the charges, but a Caracas appeals court overruled the judge and the case remained open at this writing.  
 
Police Killings  
Thousands of extrajudicial executions by police officers have been reported over the past several years, although the problem long predates the current administration. In August 2006, 24 soldiers and policemen were sentenced to up to 30 years in prison for the murder of three university students in June 2005. The agents had opened fire on the student's car and then summarily executed two of the occupants when the car stopped. Such rapid prosecutions for police and army abuses are exceptional, however. In April 2006 Attorney General Isaias Rodriguez reported that 6,110 officials were implicated in alleged killings between 2000 and 2005, yet only 760 had been charged, and only 113 convicted.  
 
Political Violence in Rural Areas  
Land reform measures introduced by the Chavez administration have brought a wave of violence against peasant leaders and beneficiaries of the reform. According to a report by the national human rights ombudsman in May 2006, 54 peasants were killed and 21 were wounded between 1999 and 2006 because of their activities in defense of land claims, particularly after the Land and Agricultural Development Act entered into force in 2001. According to the ombudsman, contract killers hired by landowners appear to have been responsible for most of the killings. The nongovernmental human rights organization PROVEA (Program of Education and Action on Human Rights) reached similar conclusions, although it found that military and police units were also responsible for some abuses against peasants.  
 
Kidnappings and contract killings are common in the states of Zulia, Tachira, and Apure, where there are frequent cross border incursions by Colombian guerrillas and paramilitaries. Impunity for these crimes has been the rule. According to the ombudsman's report, 72 percent of the investigations conducted by prosecutors have not progressed beyond the preliminary stage. However, in October 2006 the attorney general announced that 56 individuals had been charged for killing peasants.  
 
Prison Conditions  
Conditions in Venezuela's prisons are notoriously abusive. Overcrowding is chronic and armed gangs maintain effective control within the prison walls. Prison riots and inmate violence claim hundreds of lives every year. Venezuelan Prison Watch (Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones), a Caracas based group, reported that 194 prisoners were killed and 407 were wounded in violent incidents over the first six months of 2006.  
 
Human Rights Defenders  
In June 2006 the National Assembly began considering legislation on a  Law of International Cooperation,  which seeks to regulate the activities of both national and international NGOs in Venezuela. If enacted, the law would require all such organizations to register in order to be able to receive funds from abroad. The bill allows the president to determine by decree the requirements for registration, raising concern that if the restrictions are onerous they could seriously obstruct non-governmental activities in the country. As of October 2006, the bill remained under review with a legislative committee.  
 
Key International Actors  
Venezuela abstained in the United Nations General Assembly vote on the creation of the Human Rights Council (HRC) in March 2006. At the time of the vote, the Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations offered reservations on 10 of the 14 operative paragraphs of the resolution setting up the council. The ambassador asserted that Venezuela would not be bound by resolution language establishing the Council's most basic functions, such as  promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all  and  address[ing] situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and mak[ing] recommendations thereon.  Venezuela subsequently sought a seat on the Human Rights Council but failed to obtain the necessary votes.  
 
Venezuela has stalled in setting a date for a mission by the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, which has not visited the country since 2002. In 2006, the Inter American Court of Human Rights issued provisional measures to protect the lives and physical integrity of prisoners held at Yare and La Pica prisons, where scores of prisoners have died as a result of violence in recent years. 

The great economist Walter Williams has laid forth the following challenge:

"I challenge anyone to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state and local governments. And, I challenge anyone to show me people dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance."

It is easy to see problems in America, and assume that since power exists (Government,) we should use that power to rectify the problem. Rarely are the reasons the problem exists in the first place even examined, let alone even brought up as pertinent. Any solution which doesn't rely on the Government is seen as being against the great purpose, rather than any justified proposal to the solution.

Indeed, Walter Williams has thrown down the gauntlet. Are Governments the best form of regulating medical standards? I will assume we are discussing American Government, and the American Healthcare system.

Who sets standards on quality of practice? Government licenses physicians, nurses, practically every therapist, etc... But do bureaucrats determine the standards of practice? No, the standards of practice are determined by the professionals themselves, through peer-reviewed research and professional organizations. Medical schools set the standard of education based on the standards of practice. Government requirements on all fronts stand in the way.

Who determines if a medication is safe? Not the FDA, because if a drug is approved overseas and your doctor thinks it is safe FOR YOU, the government says he can't give it. If a drug is approved by the FDA and your doctor doesn't want to prescribe it for you, you won't get it. Doctors and patients ultimately make the decision on prescriptions, and many helpful medications are approved in other countries and illegal in the United States. Some drugs are realized as dangerous (Vioxx) and pulled from the market, regardless of whether the doctor and patient consider the increased risk worth the potential benefit.

I could keep going, but the implications should be clear, Government does not solve problems, it creates them.

Imagine for a minute there were no Government influence in healthcare:

How would you choose an insurance plan? By offering your money in the form of monthly premiums in front of companies that no longer have their products regulated by Uncle Sam and can offer you what you want. You only want catastrophic coverage? A company will offer it. Don't want to pay for maternity benefits because you are 1) a man, 2) past menopause, 3) single? Find a company that doesn't make you buy it.

How would you choose a doctor? Surely you wouldn't go to whoever posts a cardboard sign on their garage offering "Appendectomies: 1/2 off on Tuesdays!" You would select someone who was educated at a qualified medical school, and has experience in your field.

How would you choose a hospital? You would see which one offers the best stay for the price. Maybe for you, that means best nursing staff, most experienced doctors, or best food. The point is you would be able to choose.

To rephrase Walter William's challenge "Government influence can only eliminate choices in our healthcare industry by making choices for us as to what is or is not allowed."  

Al Gore doesn't want you to read this. Nobody who understands this could believe in global warming. I hereby recommend your weekly blog reading at my site to go HERE for a wonderful speech by Michael Crichton.  This is perhaps the best exposition on the subject I have ever read. Next time you're discussing the calamaties at hand from too much breathing out CO2,  you can remember words of Richard Feynman from the speech, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about."

Enjoy!

I recently heard a bunch of Doctors and Nurses where I work complaining about "obscene profits" of the oil industry.  Before long, the topic turned to something they all knew (a little) more about: pharmaceuticals.

It was repeatedly assumed that these big evil companies were taking advantage of the poor by not selling their life saving products at cheaper rates. They professed that the companies should act more altruistically and be more compassionate.

And here I thought Docs were supposed to be smart...

To ask if medical technology companies perform their research and development for profit or medical science is a leading question. It presumes that medical companies should forego the prospect of a profit and altruistically spend billions of dollars to make the world a better place.

Of course it is for a profit, because otherwise they have no positive income stream to continue developing and creating new technologies. If they were merely performing research for medical science's sake, then before long they would be bankrupt from misplaced dollars and lack of investment capital. The question is really a leading question that implicates medical technology companies as "evil corporations," the common bad guy these days.

Will drug companies spend millions of dollars to research new drugs if they can't sell them afterwards? Will technological companies develop more accurate scanning and medical technology if no one will pay to use it? Would pharmaceutical companies spend billions on research if there were no prospect of profit?

No.

Its called the profit motive. And before discounting it, remember that if you have a job, you understand and follow the profit motive every time you work, and every time you spend a dollar.

But to seek to make a profit doesn't make the company evil. In fact, one could say that it is the most service they can render. The only way to turn a profit is to provide a service or technology that people value enough to pay for. If they can provide this service, they have not only made a profit, but they have helped others at the same time.

Consider some of the more modern scanning technologies. A recent product has been developed to allow direct visualization of veins beneath the skin. It makes for more successful IV insertions in small infants. It costs about $25,000. Is the company being evil to charge that much? What if it was your child's life the IV would save? Wouldn't it be worth it then? There are those who say that the company is exploiting others to charge such a high rate, but if there were no profit motive, the product wouldn't have been developed in the first place. No investors would have given the millions required to produce it, and no lives would have been saved.

The same can be said of Xray machines, CT scanners, MRI, PET scans, etc. Anytime a company can find something that may be profitable, they will do their best to develop it to perfection. And unless it can actually help save lives, the health care industry won't pay for it. Profit is a direct consequence of useful technology.

The way service in the free market works can be used by analogy. Imagine a market with no money, but where everyone gets what they need based on their service to others. If you serve your neighbor, you are entitled to food, clothing, entertainment, etc... Naturally, you would want to serve as many of your fellowmen as possible. Consider dollar bills as "service notes." If you go to the store, you will ask the grocer for some food. The grocer will ask if you have served anyone. You say yes. He asks for proof. You show him the service notes you got after helping your neighbor cut his lawn. The grocer then gives you the food and takes your service notes for providing you with food. He will then give them to another person, say, the plumber who provides service by coming to his house and fixing his running toilet. The plumber now has the notes and so on and so on...

That is how the free market operates. Each person acting in his own interest will be compelled to help others along the way by providing a product or service that the other person considers more important than the money they hold.

As with individuals, so with large companies. They develop technology for profit, yes. But in doing so they inevitably help their fellow man and promote the advance of science.

Think about that next time you take a prescription or have a procedure done. It just may save your life...

Every election, the news reports that a pitiful turnout has taken place. Usually, less than 50% of the people turned out to vote. Since a majority of the vote wins, that means usually less than 25% of the populace is choosing who will lead. This is often viewed as a problem that needs to be corrected, but such a perspective misses the bigger picture.

A prime example of a "solution" to voter apathy helps demonstrate this. A new idea floating about on various states' ballot initiatives is to enact a "voter lottery." Everyone who votes will be entered into a lottery, and a winner will be chosen to win a million bucks. Thus, those who otherwise wouldn't vote may be willing to take the 5 minutes necessary to go out of their way and punch a card.

What's so bad about this idea? If citizens don't care to follow the issues or be involved in the political process, why would we want them to? Why would they make informed, wise decisions?

In fact, they probably wouldn't. As I have posted numerous times, every citizen does not have an equal voice. This can be explained by summing up how Socrates considered the matter:

-In a democracy each citizen has equal voice.
-If each citizen has equal voice, each citizen has equally valuable political views.
-If each citizen has equally valuable political views, no citizen is better equipped to lead. -If all citizens are equally equipped to lead, there is no need to elect a leader for one can be randomly appointed merely to rubber stamp the will of the populace.

But we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic, which the founders believed was the best form of government. They were NOT in favor of democracy. The founders were well aware of the notion that democracies are the most desirable form of government, and they opposed it. They tried to establish means to avoid the US becoming one.

Republics take a lesson from Plato. In his Utopian republic, the class of rulers was not those who were the strongest, nor those who garnered the most public support. The rulers were the philosophers. They would be people who would make decisions after carefully examining alternatives, and using their wisdom to come to the best result. The principle he espoused in making such a choice was that those who would rule the wisest would rule. See the difference?

Thus, if people are too apathetic to get involved, then truly it is for the best. The best way to combat voter apathy is simply to let it continue. I would much rather trust my tax dollars and the future of our nation to those who follow politics year round and have informed opinions, than the guy who walks off the street and punches a few random names simply to enter a lottery.

Every American voted for the same candidate last election: nobody. The way our Constitution is set up, the President of the United States not chosen by the populace, but by winning a majority of votes in the electoral college.

Perhaps nothing about the Constitution is as misunderstood as the Electoral College. Why was it established? How does it work? Should it be abolished? There is a common cry nowadays to abolish the Electoral College to make way for a “fairer” system. Those who advocate such either do not understand the purpose of the Electoral College, or are willing to disregard the intent of the founding fathers of our nation in order to support an ideology. It is a fundamental distinction between the understanding of those who view our nation as a democracy or who recognize it as a republic.

The Constitution specifies that every electoral cycle, a group of representatives was to be chosen, by the states, to vote on who would be the President. These representatives, called electors, were to meet and from amongst the candidates presented, decide on a President.

You may notice a few things about this system. First of all, the electors were to be chosen by the states. There is no mention of how the states were to select the electors. Secondly, the electors were to decide for themselves who would be President, not merely reflecting the will of the voting populace. Thus, the electors have the power to select a President that may not be wanted by the majority of the populace. Why would the founders implement such a strange and unfair system?
 
              It was to ensure republicanism, which the founders believed was the best form of government. They were NOT in favor of democracy. The founders were well aware of the notion that democracies are the most desirable form of government, and they opposed it. They tried to establish means to avoid the US becoming one. This can be explained by summing up how Socrates considered the matter:

-In a democracy each citizen has equal voice.
-If each citizen has equal voice, each citizen has equally valuable political views.
-If each citizen has equally valuable political views, no citizen is better equipped to lead. -If all citizens are equally equipped to lead, there is no need to elect a leader for one can be randomly appointed merely to rubber stamp the will of the populace.

After all, if a candidate should merely represent their constituents, then what is the point of having differences in leaders? Does their viewpoint on “the issues” even matter? This is the fundamental ideal and flaw of democracy. It is interesting to point out here that almost 100% of politicians these days don’t claim to be governing well, they claim to represent their constituents.

In other words, if majority rules, then what is to stop the majority from making bad decisions? Hypothetically, the entire United States may want to take Bill Gates' wealth for "compassionate" purposes, but does that mean we have the right to do it? The founders established a republic so that wise men would be chosen to lead. The Electoral College was meant precisely to prevent the "One Man, One Vote" as it applies to presidential elections.

Simply put, democracies are majority rule. Even with checks and balances built into the system, and a Bill of Rights that is supposed to limit the government despite the will of the majority, there is no guarantee of good government with a simple majority rule.

Republics, on the other hand take a lesson from Plato. In his utopian republic, the class of rulers was not those who were the strongest, nor those who garnered the most public support. The rulers were the philosophers. They would be people who would make decisions after carefully examining alternatives, and using their wisdom to come to the best result. The principle he espoused in making such a choice was that those who would rule the wisest would rule. See the difference?

The Electoral College was established so that the wisest, most respected individuals from the community could gather and consider in depth the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. Because of their experience and wisdom, their selection of President would be more informed, and therefore better, than the average citizen. It was a safeguard of the Republic.

But there is another reason for the Electoral College. You will notice that the states were to choose the electors, usually appointed by the legislatures. Even the electors were not to be chosen directly by the populace. We are all familiar with the concept of separation of powers of the constitution. We can probably also recite the checks each branch of Government. The President has to have his court nominations approved by the Congress, Congress passes the laws but the President can veto them, etc… But there is a fourth, lesser known way the federal government was intended to be checked by the separation of powers. It was the separation of State vs. Federal power. As men in positions would be reluctant to give up their power to another branch of government in the proscribed branches, so would states be reluctant to give up their power to the federal government. The Electoral College was established because the states ACTING AS states were supposed to choose the President; just the same way they were intended to choose their own senators. But the tendency of the electors to merely reflect the votes of their states has not only eliminated the principle of republicanism in the electoral college, but they no longer represent the view of the states as represented by their own Constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government. Every schoolchild can explain that the house of representatives was supposed to represent the people, and the Senate the states, but since senators are now elected by popular vote, that check is no longer in place either.

Why is this important? This is based on the principle that the more local the government, the more receptive to the will of the people. As Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture to President Eisenhower explained:

“It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the individual, free citizens functioning in their respective groups of family, church, voluntary service organizations, etc. If they cannot solve the problem, next to be considered should be the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possible do the job, only then should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom.

Thomas Jefferson understood this principle very well and explained it this way:

“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.”

It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states."

The communities were to select the wisest from among them to represent them in a republican fashion at the state level. Those who had been entrusted with this responsibility at the state level would be in a better position to select the state’s electors, who would then be in position to wisely choose the President. It was to be a purely pragmatic, intellectual, and thoughtful selection. There were to be no political panderings involved. How far we have strayed…

One final thought on the value of the Electoral College as it was established, not as currently practiced. There are those who believe that the two party system is beneficial. If there are only two parties to pick from, naturally one will have a majority. When multiple parties are involved, one can gain undue influence without a majority of the vote. Such was the way Hitler gained power with only 33% of the vote in the Weimar Republic. On a more theoretical basis, a two party system allows for the maintenance of the “progressive/reactionary” dynamic, which is considered the essence of representative government, much more so than the “left/right” distinction. Isn’t a two party system desirable?

 The founders were likewise opposed to what they termed "the spirit of party." Not only does loyalty to a party put the interests of good government at risk, the consensus required to make sure a good candidate was elected was already provided for in the constitution. First, as already explained, the electors would be wise men who would choose the best candidate, not just the ones with the most donations or latest headline to sway an uninformed and easily swayed populace (just watch the polls before an election. Even days beforehand, people still declare themselves “undecided”). Secondly, if there was not a candidate that did not get a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives, acting as states, was to choose from the top 5 already chosen by the electors. This presupposes one important idea: that there would be more than two parties to pick from.

If this were followed today, rather than merely deciding between the lesser of two evils, as many people view our election system to be, we could truly vote for those we would like to hold the office. Rather than “one person, one vote,” we could, for example, rank 10 candidates by whom we would most like to win to who we would not like. Then the candidate with the most support from the most people could be chosen. This is the same process we use in primaries, why could it not be applied to the general election by electors?

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, it is reported that Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government had been achieved. His reply “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Those who would abolish the Electoral College are well on their way to losing it.

This video was created by a British political group, hence the funny accents. But it is certainly something that needs to be spread around.

Hi. I don't know if anyone comes around my blog anymore, but if you have a second, stop by the blogroll and go to "A Proud Liberal." I've been spending some time over there ripping his arguments apart, and he is starting to lose it. I figure if you want any practice debating liberals, you could have a go at it... its always fun!

I was arguing with a liberal the other day about legalizing homosexual marriage. I’ll give you a quick run down of our argument.

True to liberal fashion, he dispensed with any principled arguments and aimed straight for the emotive. He proposed that we should legalize homosexual unions so that gays can inherit property, own property in joint, and visit their ailing partner in the hospital. I educated the liberal that any two people anywhere can own property in joint, or inherit property. All it takes is a single piece of paper and a quick note to a lawyer. Furthermore, working in a hospital, there will never be restrictions on visitors based on a legal definition of marriage. Patients can see who they want, the “hospital argument” was merely created to produce emotional responses and sympathy in those who are too ignorant to recognize that they are being manipulated. 

He didn’t have any arguments for those. So instead, he switched and began trying to argue about rights. “Why should homosexuals be denied rights that heterosexuals have?” he asked. I simply proposed he tell me what one of those rights was.

            “Why, the very right to get married that we have been discussing!” he shouted derisively.

“Oh?” I replied. “I thought nobody could marry anyone of the same gender. How is that discriminatory against gays?”

“No…” he stammered. “I mean that gays can’t marry.”

“Oh?” I replied. “I thought any man and woman could marry. Sexual orientation isn’t a factor. How is that discriminatory?”

He didn’t have an answer to that, either. So he began to accuse me of being a bigoted, narrow minded, religious right winger, and many other fine adjectives. That’s when I surprised him with the suggestion that we shouldn’t have heterosexual marriage, either.

I still remember the day I had to apply for my marriage license. I was going to be married according to my religious tradition, all was set up. But I had to pay $50 in a marriage tax to have permission from the Government to be wed. It is the most insulting check I have ever written.

Marriage is a religious concept. What vested interest does the Government have to regulate a religious institution?

Marriage should be performed according to religious standards, and the Government shouldn’t be involved. There is no reason for the Government to approve of marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Until we implement a flat tax, the only reason Government needs to know whether people are married is for taxation purposes, which can be easily remedied by the concept of reporting taxes according to household.

This then, is my solution: The Government doesn’t recognize homosexual marriage, nor does it recognize heterosexual marriage. All the public debate can be relegated to religious ceremonies. There are surely progressive churches that would perform such ceremonies. People could still elect to have a religiously based marriage, or they could merely shack up and live together.

Either way, its not for the Government to be involved.

I'll admit it, I agree with Al Gore on something. I use fluorescent bulbs in my home. If there was someone I knew who could install solar panels on my roof, I'd use those, too.

Now that's about as far as I'd go agreeing with Al Gore. Why he promotes their use as if it would somehow change the earth's climate, I do so for purely selfish reasons.

First of all, the bulbs are 3 times more expensive, but last 10 times longer. So I buy less of them. Buying fluorescent bulbs is an investment.

Secondly, they burn 1/3 less energy. After replacing all of them in my house, my electric bill dropped by about $10 per month. Not alot, but worth it for a penny pincher like me. Buying fluorescent bulbs is an investment.

About the solar panels... If I had a way to get free energy instead of sending the power company a check every month, I would pay for it in a heartbeat. Also, if it is installed correctly, excess energy is produced and fed back into the power grid and the power company has to send me a check. Yup, solar panels are an investment as well.

If only my house weren't covered by shade trees...

Class, today we are going to examine the solution to our collapsing public school system. The solution is the concept of vouchers. Vouchers are simply taking money that the state already spends per pupil, and allowing parents to choose which school will receive that funding by enrolling their child at the school. Instead of a bureaucracy running the education system, schools would send vouchers to the government for monetary re-imbursement of education expenses. Schools would get the vouchers from parents when the child enrolls in that school. Parents would choose which schools get to teach their children. Parents get the vouchers from the government. The Government makes the vouchers from the per pupil money that they are already spending.

Here is your homework. First, check THIS link out. Find the amount your state spends per pupil. Next, we will do some math.

If you didn't attend a public school and are therefore capable of calculating, do the math to see what privatization could really do for your state. It adds great power to arguments to have facts on your side. For example, in Michigan where I reside, the per pupil spending is $9,072. That means if a teacher could have a private class of just 15 students and collect revenue directly instead of through the bureaucracy, they'd be able to make over $136,000 per year. And that is assuming that they only have 15 kids per class. Isn't that better than the average salary of $20,000 per year and 40 kid classrooms?

Then, leave it to the teachers to determine how they will diversify the education they offer. Say, they band together with music, science, math teachers etc and each pays 10% of their salary to have a building in common. Another 10% could go to learning materials. Congrats! A school with excellent teacher, 15 kids per class and teachers making over $100,000 per year. That's one example, but there are others. Perhaps they would focus solely on math, science, and technology. Perhaps they would focus more intensively on the arts. Perhaps grade school teachers would simply teach alone to keep a small, well known group of children. High School teachers with special skills may open a trade school to teach real life job skills. Others may prefer to focus on pre-college courses.

But the implications of implementing such a system are even broader than that. Are you Catholic? Mormon? Baptist? Atheist? Jewish? Muslim? Why not be allowed to send your child to a school that reflects your values? Parents are already paying for it through taxes, after all. Why should you have to pay for a service you don't use? Furthermore, when the issues of prayer in school come up, or the Evolution/Creation debate, they also have the solution in school choice. Parents could send their children to schools where Evolution is taught, where Creation is taught, where both are taught.

The point is, teachers are professionals who should be allowed to use their full innovation to teach our children. Parents should have the right to choose how their children will be educated. It can be done with the money we are already spending.

Leftists: What's so bad about that?
Conservatives: Write your local congress person and ask them to give teachers a multi-thousand dollar raise, and explain to them how it would work.

Honestly, I don’t even think misapperception is a real word. But it sure hits the point. There is a misapperception of democracy out there, and there is no end to its usage. Often when someone is pushing for a particular policy or responding to a particular event, they will say something like “Are you forgetting that we live in a DEMOCRACY? Therefore, ________....” It is used quite a bit by liberal and conservative Townhall posters alike, political candidates, news media, etc. This is perception that must be refuted quickly and constantly. First, it demonstrates a core conservative principle, and enlightening others should always be a conservative goal. Secondly it makes those espousing such an argument sound ill informed, and it is always really fun to point out that your opponent has their facts wrong in an argument.

Anytime you hear the word “democracy” the red flags should start flying. It doesn’t matter if the word comes from the lips of the President or the pen of the pundit, it should cause alarm. Why is this? Why be uneasy when democracy is one of our cherished values? So much so, that we say that spreading democracy to the middle east will the most pivotal issue of our time? What is the problem if democracy is the panacea to life’s ills?

Simply: because we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Both have bases in representation by the people, but there is a subtle difference between the two systems that we forget at our own peril. The difference is what should be emphasized, and it the difference that has been disregarded in recent times, up to the point where many don’t know what the difference between the two systems of government is.

Do you know the difference? Could you explain it to someone else? Perhaps someone purporting the merits of democracy?

Simply put, democracies are majority rule. Even with checks and balances built into the system, and a Bill of Rights that is supposed to limit the government despite the will of the majority, there is no guarantee of good government with a simple majority rule.

Republics, on the other hand take a lesson from Plato. In his utopian republic, the class of rulers was not those who were the strongest, nor those who garnered the most public support. The rulers were the philosophers. They would be people who would make decisions after carefully examining alternatives, and using their wisdom to come to the best result. The principle he espoused in making such a choice was that those who would rule the wisest would rule. See the difference?

Because we live in a republic we elect men and women to run the government in our stead. We DON’T elect people to represent us. Rather than having those in power simply make decisions based on what a majority of their constituents want, we are to elect people who are wise and will do the best job at keeping the government to its original intended purpose of protection our freedoms. That is a fine distinction that most people do not understand. The purpose of a democracy is majority rule. The purpose of a republic is to seek the wisest leaders, at the approval of the populace.

Socrates argued something like what follows:
Democracy allows each citizen equal voice.
If each citizen has equal voice, each citizen has equally valuable political views.
If each citizen has equally valuable political views, no citizen is better equipped to lead.
If all citizens are equally equipped to lead, there is no need to elect a leader-one can be randomly appointed merely to rubber stamp the will of the populace.

Or, in the more succinct words of Terry Goodkind "Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action." If the will of the majority rules, there are no rules except to the vacillating will of the majority. There must be some more concrete principles in place.

The Founders of our country were well aware of the view that Democracies are the best form of government, and like Socrates, they did not agree with that view. This is because very often the choice of the electorate can be made by ill-informed people who make decisions based on the latest headlines they read, rather than making a decision after careful consideration of the issue at hand and weighing of the consequences. The electorate is generally not principled in their selection of candidates. Why else would we have continually changing opinion polls daily running up each election? It never ceases to astound me that mere days before a presidential election, polls are still revealing numbers of “likely voters” who are “undecided.” Either they are not making their decisions based on sound principles, or they do not follow the issue closely enough to have made up their mind. Both of which merely validates the viewpoint that the electorate as a whole is prone to rash, emotional decisions.

An elected candidate in a democracy would do that which the electorate desires, even if it is at the expense of sound government. This is what has given us such wonderful achievements such as Social Security, the US income tax code, the Department of Education, The Department of Agriculture, etc… In a republic, the candidate would do that which is constructive of good government in spite of what the electorate may think. That today’s politicians repeatedly claim to be representing their constituents rather than claiming to govern well is quite revealing.

Thus, there are two conditions that any candidate should meet before getting your vote. First, they must hold the same political beliefs. Secondly, you should trust them as honest men. If a man has your basic political beliefs but is a scoundrel, putting him in office will not keep good government. Scandals abound in Washington because this test is sacrificed simply to get candidates in line with the party platform into power. Does anyone trust politicians more than a used car salesman?

Yet, if a man is honest but the equivalent of your philosophical Lenin, electing him will not keep good government. Even though he would act honestly, he would undermine the principles you hold to be essential to maintaining your freedoms.

Honesty and Wisdom. The two tests of statesmanship. Are there any who could pass both? Do the voters ever put candidates to this test? Or, as Ben Franklin warned at the close of the constitutional convention, have we lost our republic?

This documentary was aired recently in England and was referenced