Hate the Sin, Tax the Sinner

According to what I've read, now that we have largely squelched the threat that tobacco posed to our society, a move is afoot to take on the growing "crisis" of obesity. It has been discovered that an alarming number of Americans are technically "obese." We are told that this is not simply an ascetic problem, but a public health problem. And, since it is a public health problem, it affects our economy. Studies have been done showing how obesity leads to higher rates of illness and injury. When people are sick or injured, not only do they cost society money in terms of using up valuable health care "resources", but, as importantly, they cost us money because the ill and overweight are more inclined miss work; therefore costing the economy.

There has been a tendency over the years to evaluate everything in terms of how it affects the economy. Ignorance is no longer a liability borne by the ignorant, it is also borne by the economy. Likewise, poor health is no longer simply a burden to the person who is ill, it is a burden to the economy because the ill often cost more to maintain than they produce. Where once we were told that smoking or being obese were bad because they harmed your health, we are now told they are bad because they harm the economy. This is simply part of a trend whereby nearly everything is evaluated in terms of its affect on the economy. Ignorance is bad not simply for the ignorant, but the society that must suffer their ignorance. At least the original casuists had the salvation of the soul as their objective.

Today's casuists are only concerned with the economy. What's more, it is not simply the obese, ill, and ignorant that are in jeopardy of losing their soul and being punished for their economic impiety, those that lead them into sin shall be judged as well. Companies that entice the wayward into sin, such as fast food restaurants and tobacco merchants shall also be singled out for economic judgement and condemnation. The penalty for economic impiety is taxation. Those whose sins have hurt the economy shall be charged for their errant ways. As they say, hate the sin, but tax the sinner.

If they are serious about addressing obesity, perhaps they should tax people by the pound. For that matter, they should give a tax break for every grade completed.

Drop Outs and Ethical Failings

There were two articles in this mornings paper that caught my attention. The first was a proposal put forward by the education chief here in Texas that businesses not hire school age dropouts. According to the official, this would "force teenagers to stay in school or continue their education elsewhere." I thought this might serve to underline my argument against intrusive and overbearing government. As if the disadadvantages of dropping out of high school were not already enough, it is proposed that drop outs be condemned to unemployment as well as ignorance. This should be a relief to immigrants, retired people, and those unemployed already desperate enough to consider taking the jobs traditionally filled by high school dropouts. The enlightened goal of ensuring, at least a high school education (for what that's worth), as stated by the official, a would be effected by force-albeit, economic force. One would think that any policy or goal that had to be forced on the public was one that should be reconsidered.

The second article was about some Texas Tech faculty members objecting to former Attorney General Gonzales being hired by the University. Their objection is that Gonzales "demonstrated significant ethical failings." Presumably, those faculty members objecting to the hiring of Gonzales would oppose any Bush administration official hired by the university since the Bush administration, as a whole, demonstrated significant "ethical failings". I am curious whether those facultly members consider the support of any objectional or controversial policy as an ethical failing, or just those policies they disapprove of.

Imperial Presidency

I would like to take the opportunity to mention an apparently little known, if not forgotten piece of Constitutional trivia: the presidential oath of office. The oath is a brief one. In it, the President declares that he will will do his best to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". The oath states nothing about ending injustice and poverty, managing the economy, providing health care, or any one of the numerous missions and tasks presidents have taken upon themselves over the last century. It is my belief that President Bush should have been impeached. So far from defending the Constitution was the Bush administration, it actively worked to undermine it.

Granted, the presidency has evolved. It has also mutated to become the center of U.S. government. Many of the Founders were wary of the presidency becoming "monarchical" and went to considerable lengths to limit its powers and duties. The presidency poses the single greatest threat to liberty of any of the three branches of government. It is the one branch that does not require consensus to act but responds to the will of one man. To increase the power of the presidency is to increase the power of the man who occupies that office. History has shown that to increase the power in the hands of one man is a dangerous venture for any republic.

I suppose we should be grateful that the Constitution lasted as long as it has. Perhaps many of us will not live long enough to see it gutted entirely. I hope I am one.

Spy on Your Neighbor

There was another article in this morning's paper concerning Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security. In the article, Napolitano stated that "counter terrorism efforts should include the public" and that the "challenge is not just using federal power to protect the country" but to enlist a "much broader societal response to the threat that terrorism poses." This is just a fancy way of asking Americans to spy on their neighbors. So, not only is Uncle Sam watching you, your neighbor is watching you as well.

Federal Allowance

I read an article in this morning's paper that a bill is being proposed in Congress that would "force states to write laws to prohibit (text)messaging in vehicles or risk losing 25 percent of their annual federal highway money." There should have been another article printed along side it headlined "Jimmy forced to clean out garage or risk losing 25 percent of his allowance."

Rethinking Conservatism

Since Republicans tend to be slightly more inclined to conservatism than Democrats, I would like to offer them a suggestion. Republicans should be less inclined to pin their platform on issues than on process. This is not simply because the antithesis to "helping the poor" and "looking out for the elderly" is one unlikely to endear them to the public. The liberal argument that the federal government should do more to assist the struggling and the downtrodden should be met with the argument that by decentralizing government, people would gain more control over their own lives and communities, and less control over other peoples' lives and communities. They would have more liberty to address the concerns that they find most pressing in a manner that they see fit, rather than how Washington sees fit. Each community, or state would have the power set their own priorities and to determine which problems are the most pressing as well as how best to address those problems. A truly "empowering" platform would be to actually restore power (if only some. I am not delusional enough to think Washington would cede much of it's authority) to those who must live by the policies and laws passed in their name. It would seem difficult for liberals to criticize a platform that gave political power to the "people." No doubt, it would be opposed. But the opposition to decentralizing government would seem to imply distrust and condescension toward the electorate liberals claim to champion on the basis that people and communities would be unwilling or unable to address their needs and concerns in a fair or just manner. It difficult to see how this criticism and distrust of the public would would endear them to the electorate. Of course, it is quite likely that some communities would enact laws or pass ordinances that other communities would find unpleasant, even perhaps, offensive. But this too could be turned into a "teachable moment" on the virtues of toleration. Toleration is quite distinct from approval and/or acceptance. Indeed, toleration is worthless if one is not willing to tolerate what he disagrees with. An attempt to allow local and state governments greater sovereignty as to which issues to address and how best to address them would be an opportunity to test the toleration liberals claim so proudly to possess. Liberals may champion the little guy, but they don't trust him. As a conservative I say, Power to the People!

Creeping Ideology

Ideology, properly understood, is the interpretation of reality according to an idea; that is, when an idea is considered not a product of society or history, but the source. Capitalism is simply one system of economic organization. Representative government is simply one way of organizing the political life of a society. Capitalism, or "free markets" as it has come to be known, has become, at least as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, the only proper way of economic organization. Capitalism may be the best way of organizing the economic activity of society- if one's criterion is the creation of wealth- but it is only one way. The same can be said of representative government. Representative government, despite the claims of its adherents, is simply one way of organizing the political activity of a society. Even though capitalism and representative government have very peculiar origins and histories, they have become exemplars of political and economic organization. And, as exemplars, they are in jeopardy of becoming ideologies. U.S. foreign policy has steadily evolved from the advocacy of these principals, as not simply the best way of organizing society, but the proper way. Furthermore, the pragmatic and historical origins of these systems is in danger of being forgotten in the clamor for their worldwide adoption. It is in this sense that capitalism and democracy have become ideological, i.e. good for all societies at all times. In the case of capitalism and representative government, their particular origins can largely be attributed to the rise of protestantism and individual determination. Neither of which, incidentally, can be considered universal principals; at least by those who do not adhere to protestantism and individual determination. The same can be said of social class, race and gender. They too become ideological when the struggles of race, religion, or gender are understood not simply as products, but as sources of history and social organization.

The problem with ideology is all the complexities and peculiarities of society and history are collapsed into one idea. In the case of capitalism and representative government, history has become understood as the quest for wealth and the struggle for liberty. In the case of race and gender, history is understood as the struggle against oppression and for freedom and equality. The solution for every nation mired in poverty is free markets. The solution for every nation riven by social, religious, or ethnic turmoil is democracy. This is, to say the least, an oversimplification of the world and history.

Arrogance of the Left

A little noticed, or mentioned, fact is that the most brutal and savage regimes of the 20th century; Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, were both left wing regimes. Although Nazi Germany is often viewed as a right wing regime, this is an error. "Nazi" was an acronym for the National Socialist Worker's Party (the key words there being "socialist workers"). Both regimes believed that it was possible to remake society. Under both regimes, society was measured against an ideal. For the Soviets, it was a social ideal. For the Nazi's, it was a racial ideal. In both cases, when measured against the ideal, society was found wanting. The violence and brutality of those regimes was the result of them trying to remake society to match the ideal.

It is a characteristic of the Left to latch hold of an ideal, be it economic, racial, social, sexual, etc, and measure society against that ideal. And when society is found wanting, as it inevitably will, the advocates of the ideal will take upon themselves to remake society in the image of that ideal. And when society proves resistant to the efforts to remake it, pressure will be used to bring it into line. This pressure need not be stormtroopers or secret police. It can also be applied more subtly through economics and law. This is the nature of the pressure brought by the left in it's unceasing efforts to create, if not the "perfect" society, at least a "better" society. It is the belief that society can, and should be remade and perfected according to their ideals that constitutes the arrogance of the left.

Health Care Fairy Tale

One solution to the health care "crisis" would be to make the market more friendly to private insurers. This option, however, would serve to prevent gov't encroachment upon a heretofore largely government free industry. Because private sector reforms would limit the gov.t's control over the industry, it has little appeal to Congress. Nothing the gov't does is free. Like a character from an old fairy tale, someone in distress is offered a benefit with an obligation attached. At first the obligation seems removed and even acceptible given the need. When the need passes, the burdensome nature of the obligation is finally realized-to the great regret of the person who accepted the offer. Like the victim in the fairy tale, in our distress we are tempted by an offer that seems to good to be true; free health care. And, in our distress, we are tempted to accept it without considering the true cost. Unlike a fairy tale however, there would seem to be little hope for a happy ending.

Liberal Compassion

A great source of irritation for me is when celebrities chastize conservatives for their perceived lack of compassion. Clearly, celebrities do not see the irony of attending charity galas or awards shows wearing gowns and suits, and sporting jewelry that could feed and support an untold number of poor for a year. How many celebrities are content to simply write checks or vote Democrat to alleviate their sense of guilt for having so much while many have so little? How many, after making an appearence at some soup kitchen or downtrodden neiborhood, are whisked away in their limos to their posh estates after publicly demonstrating their "compassion"? How many celebrities are content in thinking that, because they support liberal candidates and policies, they have demonstrated their compassion and met their obligation to the poor? Why would people let themselves be shamed by a celebrity? I will not.

Local v. Federal Gov't

One reason people should be wary of gov't is the power it posseses. An unruly neighbor, an offensive employer, an insensitive clerk; none of of these can deprive you of your liberty. While some private institutions such as a bank, can deprive you of your property, this is only possible through the law; and law is made by the gov't. No private enterprise that I am aware of can deprive you of your liberty. The government can. The gov't can take everything you own and put you in prison. Though the gov't can only do what the law allows it to do, this is of little solace since it makes the law. What it cannot do today, it could do tommorow. That was why the Constitution was written; to limit what the federal gov't can do rather than states or municipalities. The further decisions are made from the people affected by the law, the less control people have over it, and the less responsive gov't is. An oppresive local gov't is easier to remedy than an oppresive national gov't. Even taking the horrors of Jim Crow into account, we have less to fear from local gov't than federal gov't. If all else fails, it is easier to find a new town or state than a new country.

Celebrity Compassion

It is always curious to me whenever I see or hear a celebrity or public figure scold the public over it's perceived lack of compassion. Why are celebrities incapable of seeing the irony in their attending "charity" events or awards show wearing gowns and suits, and sporting jewelry that could feed and house several struggling families for a year while declaiming some injustice or another? How many of them are willing to help out at a soup kitchen or clean up a blighted neighborhood other than as a publicity event; after which they are whisked away by their drivers to their posh mansions? How many are willing to support a cause other than by simply writing a check? How many celebrities are content to pass by panhandlers and beggars without offering a dime, let alone getting out to see if they can be of assistance? Very many. I suspect that many celebrities vote Democrat to alleviate their guilt and conscience. How many of them realize that, like Scrooge, they are content to alleviate themselves from the need to help the struggling and the poor by supporting a government that claims to have the interests of the poor and downtrodden at heart? After all, are there no poorhouses, no orphanages, no job centers? Is there not welfare and Social Security? Those sensitive and compassionate celebrities ought to put their heart, and time where their money is and actually help the poor rather than chastising conservatives for their lack of "compassion."

Love Thy Neighbor

Since it is Sunday, I feel a religious observation is not out of order. I would like to comment on the comandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is a commonly cited but, I feel, frequently misunderstood commandment. We are not commanded to love mankind as ourselves, but our neighbors. "Mankind" is easy to love. It is an abstraction. "Mankind" does not leave it's trash in your yard or mow it's lawn on Sunday morning. Mankind does not steal your paper or play it's music too loud. Your neighbor is possibly the most difficult person in the world to love,(short of your spouse). That is why we are commanded to love him. Just as it's easy to feel compassion for the poor but resent the beggar on the corner, it is easy to love mankind but hate your neighbor.