It's the stuff they write movies about. The stuff our forefathers fought and died for. It is the glue that holds America and its people together; the one thing that we all have in common.
But when is the last time we exercised our freedom? Certainly we had the opportunity to do so during the last election, and I hope you did. I know I voted, and I felt great about it. But that's beside the point.
When is the last time you really exercised your freedom? Have you ever sent a letter or email to your congress man or woman? Did you ever get a reply? I'm willing to bet that you haven't. And that's ok. We're busy people; we don't always have time for the monotonies of writing to our officials.
I've written several emails; mostly about how I supported them on this or that issue or encouraged them to vote this way or that way on legislation. I got the habit from my dad; to this day, he still sends plenty of letters to his congresswoman telling her how he feels on particular issues. In total, I'd say we've written over 50 letters to different congresspeople. Not once have we received a reply.
Maybe I'm an extremist. Maybe I'm oldfashioned or I require too much out of my senator or representative. Maybe the views my dad and I present in these letters and emails don't reflect what the majority of people think, and they're ignored. Or maybe the issues are so hot-button that the congresspeople just don't want to deal with their voters. Or maybe, as I suspect, our congress men and women don't care what we, the American people, have to say.
I'm going to try something. It's simple, really. But I'll need some participation. Go to this website: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress and click on the state you live in. Then email one or both of your senators (the 2 people at the top of the list). The email shouldn't be anything bad or negative. It could be your opinion on an issue you feel strongly about, or it could just be a friendly, "hello."
If you don't like the idea of emailing your senators, why not try President-Elect Barack Obama or President Bush?
Contact Barack Obama: http://change.gov/page/content/contact
Contact President Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Why would I ask you to do this? Because I have faith that there are Americans out there like my dad and me; people who just want those they elect to listen. And what I want, more than anything, is to know that somewhere out there is a government official who is willing to listen to us. Willing, at the very least, to listen to you.
I dare you, the reader of this blog, to contact the elected official of your choice and comment on this blog that you have done so. My challenge is this: find a member of the government who will listen to what you wrote and genuinely reply to it. Auto-replies don't count; an email or letter from them back to you stating their opinions on the issue is key in determining whether or not they are truly listening. I sincerely hope that you accept this challenge, and that your official replies to your needs, your wants, or your casual greeting.
Thanks.
Posts
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou say you exercised your freedom by voting, and felt great about it.
When both major candidates in the presidential election (I assume this is the election you were referring to) advocate platforms based almost entirely on violent intervention at home and abroad, and interference with peaceful commerce and voluntary exchange, I wonder both how you felt you were exercising your freedom (voting for candidates who support policies which restrict your freedom) and why you felt good about it, knowing you were supporting people who would limit other people's freedoms beside yourself.
I voted for Ron Paul.
ReplyDeleteHi Jason,
ReplyDeleteAh, I see. Well, that complicates things a bit (from your perspective as far as how I respond to that) but you are still voting to support an individual who is a member of the organization the interferes in other people's lives, who has lived for the past several decades off the public teat as a person whose entire compensation is financed through tax collection, and whose campaign platform involved decidedly un-laissez faire policies such as rewarding veterans of the Iraq war (an unjust war of aggression) with job programs and increased benefits.
I believe RP also supports some form of immigration restriction and policing (despite being more libertarian on this issue than most other politicians).
Government must necessarily interfere in people's lives in order to protect us from each other and from outside threats. We must pay our government officials in order to guarantee the best people in those positions. In the same vein, we must pay our troops in order to guarantee qualified people in the military. Whether or not the Iraq war was unjust has nothing to do with Ron Paul's campaign or our troops' pay rate, and it shouldn't. His stance is to end the war and bring our troops back home, which is the right thing to do right now. Finally, immigration must be restricted to some degree to promote the safety of the people.
ReplyDeleteHi Jason,
ReplyDeleteA few questions:
1.) could you please precisely define the extent to which, in your mind, the government may legitimately interfere in people's lives in order to "protect us from each other and outside threats"?
2.) could you please explain how you determine what reasonable pay for government officials should be? Obviously every government official does a different job, so let's use the examples of the president, a congressman and a supreme court justice-- how do you determine the correct price on an annual basis for the services these individuals provide?
3.) on a related note, you say that government officials must be paid well so that the government has the "best" people running it. Can you please explain what set of criteria you use to judge a person's suitability/superiority to hold office or to be appointed to a government office?
4.) if you believe that the justness of the war that US soldiers fight is insignificant in concerns to what and how much they are paid, do you by extension believe that the performance of any other employed person in their job should be considered insignificant to their compensation? In other words, whether a bank CEO makes his company billions or loses his company billions, do you think he is entitled to the same compensation? The analogous situation with a soldier would be compensating a soldier the same whether he participated in a just war of defense of the US homeland, or an unjust war of foreign aggression, murder and destruction, or was even ordered to suppress his own national citizenry, two acts which clearly fall out of the "legitimate" role a member of a country's national defense establishment is supposed to play.
5.) you say that immigration must be restricted "to some degree" to promote the "safety of the people." Could you please elaborate on the topic of to which degree you think is legitimate (similar to question #1), and additionally, could you please explain what a person's nationality or citizenship status has to do with the potential safety threat they pose to other people?
Thank you Jason, I am looking forward to your responses
1. The government (a government) must regulate traffic on the road to ensure everyone drives on the same side of the street and stops at stop signs and traffic lights, which is a limit on our personal freedoms and therefore an interference in our lives. I'm sure I could provide a relatively small list, but I'm sure you catch my drift.
ReplyDelete2. That's a tough question. Typically, in a capitalist economy, motivation is provided by two means; the first is money and the second is social status/power. Of course, politicians have plenty of social power. The money they are paid should be determined by weighing how much we are willing to sacrifice vs how corrupt we want them to be. Theoretically, if politicians were paid more than anyone else in the population, they would have no incentive to accept bribes simply because a bribe must be of value to the bribee. And someone making several hundred million dollars a year cannot be bribed by what he/she sees as pocket change. To answer your question directly: I believe local voters should determine their congress man or woman's pay on an individual basis so that they can resolve this conflict on their own.
3. I believe that the best politicians are those that are able to get things done that benefit everyone. The more motivation is provided, the more people will apply to become politicians. The more competition, the better the choices. The better the choices, the better the outcomes.
4. Of course I believe that how well a person performs their job should be linked to their compensation. Your logic is flawed in that you make an assumption that a soldier is paid to fight only just wars. A soldier is paid to shoot things. He or she is not paid to make the call as to whether or not an entire war is just. If it was a soldier was paid to decide whether or not their actions were just, then a fleeting dissenting opinion or an honest miscalculation could throw an entire army into chaos through mutiny. It is up to the people to prevent the government's forces being turned against them or used unjustly; and if it were to happen, it is up to the people to provide an alternative or safe haven for the soldier, and up to the soldier to desert. One should not be paid to do what is right, and certainly not based on agreeing or disagreeing with the status quo. Off-topic, I am beginning to wonder how a privatized military would benefit or hurt a nation.
5. Immigration enforcement must be policed to ensure that people are not carrying bombs into the nation. While that's an extreme and highly unlikely situation, it is hypothetically valid nonetheless. Policing is also useful in distinguishing citizens from non-citizens; this divide must be made in order to ensure that non-citizens do not vote and citizens do not vote several times in different areas. I never made the claim that a person's nationality has anything to do with our safety. As for their citizenship status, I will say that the longer someone has lived here, the more they will lose by attacking (en masse) those around them, and the more likely it is that they develop a positive meaningful bond with the citizens. And the more credentials we collect before they cross the border, the easier it is to find out where we went wrong and who we need to check out if something were to happen.
What are your positions on these questions? No offense, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you're a libertarian or an anarchist.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your responses. I'll keep the numbering system in tact and reply below:
1.) Ideally, I was looking for a precise definition of the level of interference you deem to be acceptable that would be applicable consistently to all cases considered. Instead, you provided me with a special case example in an attempt to illustrate a principle which was not clearly defined. Furthermore, your example assumes that government ownership of roads is justified, and that therefore it is reasonable that governments regulate traffic on roads. Government ownership of roads is not justified, therefore it's hard to argue that the manner in which the government regulates the roads is justified.
2.) You say that politician pay should be determined through a democratic vote of the politician's constituents. I am curious now of three things:
-a.)mechanically, how would this work? Who would be responsible for suggesting the amount of pay to be put to a vote? Or would everyone who could vote be allowed to "write-in" their own amount, in any increment, and the amount with the simple majority of total votes would be the winning amount? Or some entirely different system for proposing and voting on an amount of pay?
-b.) would ALL voters be allowed to vote, or only the taxpayers whose decision would affect the amount of taxes they'd pay to support the politician? if you say only the taxpayers, I wonder if you believe in disenfranchising voters over other issues (for example, restricting the franchise in a vote concerning property-owners to only those people who own the type of property to be affected by the vote)?
-c.) By proposing that pay be determined by a democratic vote, you seem to be implying that "majority knows best," that is, that the value of a politician, for instance, can be determined by the result of a vote. Would you apply this logic to the pricing of other goods and services? In other words, if people thought automobiles were priced incorrectly, would you allow the price of automobiles to be put to a vote and force upon automobile producers the price that one the vote, regardless of the implications on the productive process? If you do not, why are you willing to put the pay of politicians to a vote?
3.) As you well know, there is no such thing as a politician who can benefit everyone. Can you provide me with a set of criteria by which you judge politicians within the limitation of "no politician can benefit everybody at once"?
4.) you state that a soldier's job is to shoot things. You also state that bringing troops home is the right thing to do. From which perspective do you make this claim? If a soldier's job is to shoot things, wouldn't the appropriate use for all soldiers be to put them in situations in which they can shoot things all day long? In other words, wouldn't a battle zone like Iraq/Afghanistan be the ideal use for a soldier?
5.) You said: " Immigration enforcement must be policed to ensure that people are not carrying bombs into the nation"
You also said: " I never made the claim that a person's nationality has anything to do with our safety"
Immigration enforcement is the process by which the movement of non-nationals across national borders is regulated. In the first sentence you made the implication that, if this movement is not regulated, foreign nationals might carry bombs into the country. In the second sentence, you claimed that you do not think a person's nationality has anything to do with the threat they pose to other people. That being the case, why do you support immigration enforcement?
You said: "Policing is also useful in distinguishing citizens from non-citizens; this divide must be made in order to ensure that non-citizens do not vote and citizens do not vote several times in different areas"
Does this mean you are in favor of an internal passport system?
As for my positions:
1.) the government has no right to legitimately interfere in anyone's lives, to any extent. the government is an illegitimate entity to begin with.
2.) the reasonable pay for government officials is $0. re: my response to question #1. Government introduces disutility... politicians are capable of nothing but redistributing wealth, which destroys wealth, it does not enhance it. As such, they contribute less than 0 to the welfare of "society" and they shouldn't be paid anything for their "troubles." they shouldn't have jobsin the first place.
3.) re: answers to #2 and #3, the only good politician is a non-existent politician. A politician can be less worse than another based upon his relative level of support for statism/interventionism, but there is no criteria in my mind for determining which politician is "best" and my scale rates politicians as "less worse" not "least worst" as I don't believe in supporting evil, even if it is the "least worst" or "lesser evil."
4.) I think war is wrong and soldiers shouldn't be paid because like politicians they only add disutility by killing and destroying. There should be no military/national defense because there should be no government/"nation." The concept of a "nation" is not a fact of nature/reality but an arbitrary invention of man's mind. It's an idea thing, not a real thing.
5.) I think immigration restrictions are wrong. It's wrong to use force against peaceful people to prevent them from crossing imaginary lines.
To respond to your other curiosity, in my mind, libertarians and anarchists are the same thing. If they're mutually exclusive in your mind, and you call yourself a libertarian, then I suppose I would be an anarchist. My philosophy is "It is wrong to initiate the use of force," and this guides my understanding of social interactions. I think the best test for whether or not someone is a "libertarian" is to see how they feel about TRUE freedom (allowing people to do what they want so long as they don't initiate force against others): does this idea scare them, or excite them?
It excites me. If it scares you, maybe you are less of a libertarian than you think you are. Either way, labels aren't important so I tend not to focus on them if I can.
By the way, the government does not pass the non-initiation of force test.
My assumption that government regulation of roads is justified is not based on the idea that the government owns roads. It is based on the principle that some government regulation makes things safer for all parties involved, both owners and non-owners. Government regulation of roads is legitimate because the vast majority of people benefit from the regulations and are in support of such regulations. Government regulation of roads also promotes consistency in a situation where private ownership and individual regulations would not.
ReplyDeleteA politician who determines his or her own salary would simply give himself a raise if he thought he deserved it or it was what the voters want; if the voters were for it, he would be elected again, and if they were against it, he would not be, so long as there is considerable competition against him. Those voters who voted for him or her in the first place, that is, the local voters of his or her district, would vote. You present a false dilemma in 2c; in a free market, consumers vote by buying products. It is this reason that businesses are built around their customers. Therefore, yes; I am absolutely implying that the majority knows best when it comes to prices and quality of products. Whether or not a vote is on a ballot makes no difference.
I can't say that I've ever seen a good politician. But so long as there is proper competition and an informed populace, the quality of politicians will improve. Admittedly, this is one of my weak points. But I'd like to move on as I'm running out of time.
While I did make the assertion that a soldier's job is to shoot things, I did not say that that is all he or she is hired to do. It is certainly their most important task, and if the government was run in the way that I think it ought to, the only thing a soldier would do is either shoot things or train to shoot things; in fact, a standing military may not even be necessary. Whether or not they ought to be in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, doesn't have much to do with their job (shooting things). Example: a bank hires a security guard. Is he just as valuable to the bank while sitting in a chair next to the door as he is while stopping a would-be thief? The answer is: it doesn't really matter. Because, to the bank, the added expense of paying him to sit in a chair is worth the expense of the robber getting away with their money. One should look at the government's relationship to the army in the same way.
Ok, our definitions of immigration enforcement were different. Let me clarify as simply as I can: our borders should be secure enough to ensure that no bombs or other weapons capable of large amounts of death at one time are brought into the country. Digressing, an internal passport system is not necessary with regards to ensuring that people don't vote twice or vote for people they shouldn't be voting for, like local officials. Which means that an internal passport system is an unnecessary hindrance on peoples' freedoms; therefore, I am against a passport system.
On to the meat of the argument: you claim that libertarians and anarchists are the same thing. Far from it. For an example of anarchy in practice, see Africa; Darfur is a great example. If people were trustworthy and fundamentally good, I would wholeheartedly agree with you in asserting that the government is illegitimate. But, as has been demonstrated in African politics (or lack thereof) over the past hundreds, if not thousands, of years, is that anarchy just doesn't work. In fact, not only does it not work, but it is an enemy of true freedom, because true freedom is freedom from oppression, be it governmental or non-governmental. Without government, power is controlled by the people with the biggest guns.
You say that we should allow people to do whatever they want so long as they don't initiate force against others. What happens if they do? How are they punished? Before you answer, consider that any community rule regarding the punishment of such individuals is necessarily governance and therefore a government has been set up, resulting in non-anarchy.
You also say that the government does not pass the non-initiation of force test. I'm assuming that you're talking about the American government, and will treat it as a valid example anyway. When did it fail this test? Before or after the Revolutionary War? I'm assuming that your definition of "initiation of force" would imply that the Revolutionary War was justified because it was merely retaliation against force.
Looking forward to your response.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThis claim "any community rule regarding the punishment of such individuals is necessarily governance and therefore a government has been set up, resulting in non-anarchy." is plain wrong. If I agree to chase bandits from my neighbor's house and he agrees to chase bandits from mine, no initiation of force has taken place. If a bandit comes by and I tell him to leave, no initiation of force has taken place. If he refuses to leave and I punch him in the nose, I've not initiated force.
You can call my agreement with my neighbor a government, but in that case the relevant distinction isn't anarchy vs. non-anarchy, it's initiating force vs. not initiating force.
Full disclosure: I'm not opposed to the initiation of force in every imaginable scenario. If I came home from work and saw my 17 year old child about to suicide, that would be one case where I'd initiate force without a second thought. My libertarianism is consistency based. I just don't think that there is any case where some act would be immoral if done by private parties and yet moral if done by a group of people referring to themselves as a government.
This includes, for example, making people purchase defense services that they claim not to want. As a thought experiment, if someone told you that you had to pay for their protective services would you have to know if that person was making that demand on behalf of a government in order to decide if that person was acting morally?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteIf you would like, I'd be happy to respond to each and every one of the points that you presented in your most recent response. Just say "Yes" and I'll take the time to break it down for you as I see it.
However, as I read your responses, I see that a common theme throughout your reasoning is that "majority rules" and that if a majority has decided something be so, or if a majority is benefited in some way by a policy, the policy is justified.
That being the case, I think the best way to address what you've written is to focus on your belief that democracy is just and efficient. I think this is what James is working at, as well.
So, the one, simple question I have for you at this point is:
Does a democratic vote always result in a just and efficient outcome?
Your current arguments seem to rely on the answer to that question being "no," but I'm almost certain you can think of several examples of unjust/inefficient outcomes that have come out of a democratic vote. For example, dictators are elected into office all the time.
I think if we address this issue, we'll address all the others in the process, but if you disagree and/or would like to see me respond point-by-point to your previous remarks let me know.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI hope I don't risk complicating the simplicity of James and my previous remarks, but I did want to offer, as a thought experiment, the following scenario:
A county votes, by majority, to allow gay marriage. The state as a whole votes, by majority, to ban gay marriage. Which majority rules?
Consider a similar situation... the United States Congress votes, by majority, to enact a trade embargo against Iran. The United Nations votes, by majority, to continue trade as normal with Iran (a directive that is supposed to be binding on all members). Which majority rules?
Good to see you again, James!
ReplyDeleteIf you'll read below, I have done my best to address your points.
Taylor,
We don't need to drag the argument further on if we are operating under different assumptions, so a rebuttal of my arguments so far isn't necessary. Thanks for the offer.
I see where you're going with your line of reasoning; boiling voting down to an individual level. My assumption that majority rules is restricted to those things which I believe a government ought to do in order to benefit everyone, and nothing more. Let's solve this debate in another way.
My definition of a legitimate government is any organization that is set up by a people in order to accomplish a certain task that is clearly defined and supports their common good. At its beginning, a government is unanimously elected by people who give up a necessary amount of their own sovereignty and/or wealth in order to guarantee the organization's accomplishment of such a task.
At its roots, this organization that we call a government is necessarily a good thing because it benefits each person more than it takes away from each person; because of this every person, not just a majority, desired it. Those that would not have lost more than they would have gained were not included in the benefits this organization offers, nor will they pay the price that the organization demands.
Can all of us agree that this is a valid scenario?
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteIn a word, "no."
The theoretical government you describe in your reply is not represented in reality by any government currently or previously existing. I think you're confusing a "government" with a "business" or another voluntary association, perhaps a charitable organization. If a government could be freely and voluntarily entered into and withdrawn from... why would people bother starting up a government? If the people involved are going to get out more than they put in, and they can garner this result through voluntary cooperation, what need have they of a government, with it's monopoly on force?
Say there is a 100x100-mile territory somewhere, which I live in the middle of, and all the people within that territory surrounding me come together and vote to create some government that is tasked with accomplishing some common goal they have. Am I free to ignore this government? Say I join up with the other people in this government, but later myself as well as several other individuals have second thoughts and decide the government solution is not for us. Are we free to withdraw our monetary, moral and intellectual support at any time?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteSo far as I can tell, what you call a government is a multiparty contract freely entered into by all parties acting within the bounds of commonsense morality. If the parties to such a contract want to decide how to allocat their own resources by voting, that's their business. But it's misleading to call such an arrangement a government, as it describes a corporation, a cooperative, a hippy commune, a Baptist church, etc. And yet the organizations that actually call themselves governments don't come close to what you'vedescribed.
By the way, you missed my question earlier: As a thought experiment, if someone told you that you had to (whether you want to or not) pay for their protective services would you have to know if that person was making that demand on behalf of a government in order to decide if that person was acting morally?
Taylor and James,
ReplyDeleteYou are both confusing the word government, a theoretical entity, with actual governments that you have perceived throughout your lifetime. Government does not need a monopoly on force to be legitimate; it needs the support of the people. In fact, this is where government gets its power. If there was no police force, but people agreed in an overwhelming majority that contracts ought to be reliable or murder should not be allowed, then the people themselves would enforce such rules. We have simply set up an entity and called it a government, whose job it is to pay other people to do this for us.
James,
The answer to your question is no, I would not. It is my philosophy that one may bow out of the government at any time, leaving its expenses and benefits behind. It is up to the government to be as attractive to each person as possible in order to not lose its members. Which means that it is not in a government's best interest to not force people into anything. I believe this answers Taylor's question perfectly.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. You're correct that a monopoly on force does not legitimate a government. Ultimately, it is consent of the governed to be governed, that individually legitimizes the government per the beliefs of each person consenting to be governed. This means that you might consider the government to be legitimate and applicable to your life, but that says nothing about whether I consent to the government and consider it to be legitimate as well.
Legitimacy doesn't imply force, and use of force doesn't imply legitimacy.
I'll let James respond to the second part however he pleases, though I am confused what you mean when you speak of "the government's interest." Legitimate government is supposed to be representative of the "will of the people" it governs, correct? There is no separate "best interest" of the government in that sense then, correct?
One further question: are you aware of any ACTUAL government, at any point in history, that performed along the theoretical lines you keep insisting are a possibility?