Politics have been heating up recently, with Iowa's caucuses over and New Hampshire's primary today. I'd like to weigh in on each of the candidates.
The Democrats
Obama
Fresh off his win in Iowa, he'll probably take New Hampshire as well. I haven't really been a fan of Obama because his health plan doesn't cover all Americans, and his attacks of other's plans has been from the right. Not only is this a bit against the interests of the Democratic Party (Dems get criticized enough by the Republicans, no use adding to it), but it also opens Obama up to attack should he ever win the nomination. "If forcing people to purchase health insurance is bad, Barack, why do you support Socialized Medicine?"
Edwards
He lost in Iowa when he really needed to win it. He's been a little slick in attributing support for Obama as support for "change" and hence a support for himself. I think he wants to be vice president really badly. His worst moment was at the NH debate when he was asked what was the best thing he had accomplished in the Senate. He said the Patient's Bill of Rights. Which passed the Senate, got stuck in the House, and wasn't signed into law.
Hillary Clinton
I've begun to warm to Hillary Clinton. I find her rhetoric convincing regarding change. Obama says he represents a new take on Washington, that he is Change and Hope incarnate. I've heard that before from a man who wanted to "change the culture of Washington" and be a "uniter, not a divider." Bill Clinton ran on the same message, everyone runs on that message. Perhaps the only person ever to run as a Washington Outsider that actually WAS one was Jimmy Carter, a President I have enormous respect for, but also one widely considered a weak and ineffectual leader because he alienated the Washington establishment and couldn't get stuff through.
This is not to say that an Outsider would be weak now. The standoff between congressional Democrats and Carter has been resolved by changes in the party and nation: the Dems have mostly eliminated the Dixiecrats from within their ranks. However, the other things hurting Carter, OPEC and stagflation, could just be getting in gear.
Clinton makes the argument that she can work within the system, using those patented Clintonian smarts, to at least get SOMETHING through. To get his agenda past congress, Obama plans to use his ability as a uniter. Unless Republicans get significantly less pig-headed, that won't work.
***
The Republicans
Mike Huckabee
He plays the guitar and has a hamburger named after him. Surely those are good qualifications to be President, right? Maybe. He's made an effort to portray himself as a compassionate conservative, and I find him more convincing than Bush in that respect. It always seemed a convenient way to get votes for Bush, but surely Huckabee means what he says.
As for his policies, I'm sure to disagree with most of them as I'm more liberal than he is. I like his stance on immigration, but his tax reform is really really scary. The Fair Tax is not fair at all. Any way you want to slice it, people making more than $200,000 a year will pay less in taxes. That means to be revenue-neutral, that money has to be made up somewhere. That means the middle class.
Mitt Romney
Why he would run away from his Moderate Republican past that got pretty good results, I don't know. "A man with executive experience and business experience who looks beyond ideology to get results" works for me, but it doesn't work for Republican primary voters, I guess. If he wins the nomination, he'll tack back to the center, and eventually we'll have an overeager candidate who states, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
Rudy
Thank goodness this guy has fallen off! You can't ride September 11 forever. If you thought Bush was autocratic, caustic, unwilling to compromise, secretive, and in love with military force, you'll love Rudy.
Ron Paul
I was initially attracted to Ron Paul. He had the guts to criticize Republicans over the war in Iraq, and talked so fiercely about balancing the budget that I thought he just might do it.
Of course, those traits have become cartoonishly distorted, now. Not only does he want us out of Iraq (good!), he wants us out of Saudi Arabia, Germany, South Korea, and everywhere (ummmm). Not only does he want to balance the budget (yes!), he wants to do it by slashing military spending (cool!) and basically all spending everywhere (not cool).
Add in his absolutely goofy statements about race, civil war revisionism, property rights, and private discrimination, you have a frightening man.
McCain
I've always been suspicious of McCain, because he has this habit of being known as a Maverick, but when he votes, it's really conservative. That said, I think he'd be a little less bad a President than Romney or Rudy. He's staged a bit of a comeback, which is cool. His stance on immigration is practical. He still supports the war, though, and that's too bad. But I haven't heard anything about the war for a while, which makes me think it's going better. Still, there is nothing to change my fears that Iraq is not worth what we put into it.
Fred Thompson is a joke. Richardson has been bad in debates. Did I miss anyone?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
Random Mutterings on Liberty
Elsewhere, I've discussed my problems with J.S. Mill's views regarding the interaction between the state and personal liberty. I'd like to use this first post to crystallize these thoughts and to articulate a positive vision.
As I have a habit both in written and oral debate of being tangential and nonspecific, I'd like to limit this treatment only to my problems with J.S. Mill's "harm principle."
Let's get to some definitions. Mill's harm principle is stated thus:
"...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
I feel that this principle is based on a faulty premise: that adults who have the ability and the will to act in their own self-interest will do so.
Take note that I do not at this time seek to squabble over the definition of self-interest. I argue that individuals will knowingly take actions against their own self-interest.
These actions can be taken for good or bad ends. We call the good ones, 'altruism'. We call the bad ones, 'self-destruction'. Some quick examples of altruism: the impulse of a soldier to fall on a grenade to save the lives of her comrades, or the donation of time and money to a charity that feeds children a continent away.
Some people would argue that altruism doesn't exist, that what you give (your life, time, or money) is equaled by what you gain (the knowledge and pleasure that you've done something noble or meaningful). Those people are poopheads.
What about actions taken against ones' own self-interest that do not benefit society either? One example would be hard drug use. People know that it is not in their self-interest to do drugs- they are very destructive to one's health and wellbeing- yet they do them anyway. Despair, depression, alcoholism, self-abuse are other examples.
Let's resist another false argument similar to the altruism-denial above: that people feel that the initial benefit of their actions outweigh or equal the later incredibly harsh consequences. Self-mutilation can be a form of taking control when an individual feels they have none, but I've always felt Dostoevsky's notion of a "laceration" in The Brothers Karamazov was as accurate an explanation as any.
Acting against ones' own self-interest and to the detriment of society is, ultimately, a product of sin. People are not the rational actors Mill supposes them to be: they are morally flawed. In the words of St. Paul, "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."
At the risk of getting a little unfocused, I'd like to take issue with the following idea, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Hopefully, this will help me articulate a positive vision, rather than nitpick another's.
This isn't true, of course. Some scriptural evidence, again from Paul: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
So, argument one: Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is NOT sovereign, but rather subject to God.
Here comes argument two: The government is a legitimate tool of God's Will.
For the scriptural evidence of this, I again turn to Paul:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
If you think I'm overloading on St. Paul today, I can direct you to the old testament prophets Jonah and Daniel. The Babylonian captivity is another example of God working through states. Jesus also says that we should, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
I include this quote from Christ as a defense against what I imagine will be a popular criticism: this is the ultimate form of state oppression! How do we functionally decide which claims over our bodies the government can rightfully preside over, and which ones are our own choice? As this is the central question that "On Liberty" purports to answer, it would seem that we haven't made much progress at all.
Jesus' answer gives a good directive: the government cannot have authority over one's religious duty to God. Stated succinctly elsewhere:
"Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.'
Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'"
So there's that. If you follow some thinkers of the Enlightenment (our Founding Fathers among them), the government can morally be rebelled against when they have violated "inalienable rights" that their Creator has given them. These rights are an extension of those religious ones shown above. In most cases, they are legitimate extensions, though I'm stopping short of saying that God made our Constitution or that the LORD wants you to have an AK-47. According to our Declaration of Independence, "that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We've even gone so far as to codify these rights in our Bill of Rights. Note that none of them include the right to commit suicide, nor the right to self-destructive behavior.
In fact, a responsible government must prohibit these activities, if it is to "promote the general welfare". It's a matter of public health.
I have more to say later on Government and vaccinations, seatbelts, the environment, and other stuff, but I'll leave my criticism here. Pretty long for a first post.
As I have a habit both in written and oral debate of being tangential and nonspecific, I'd like to limit this treatment only to my problems with J.S. Mill's "harm principle."
Let's get to some definitions. Mill's harm principle is stated thus:
"...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
I feel that this principle is based on a faulty premise: that adults who have the ability and the will to act in their own self-interest will do so.
Take note that I do not at this time seek to squabble over the definition of self-interest. I argue that individuals will knowingly take actions against their own self-interest.
These actions can be taken for good or bad ends. We call the good ones, 'altruism'. We call the bad ones, 'self-destruction'. Some quick examples of altruism: the impulse of a soldier to fall on a grenade to save the lives of her comrades, or the donation of time and money to a charity that feeds children a continent away.
Some people would argue that altruism doesn't exist, that what you give (your life, time, or money) is equaled by what you gain (the knowledge and pleasure that you've done something noble or meaningful). Those people are poopheads.
What about actions taken against ones' own self-interest that do not benefit society either? One example would be hard drug use. People know that it is not in their self-interest to do drugs- they are very destructive to one's health and wellbeing- yet they do them anyway. Despair, depression, alcoholism, self-abuse are other examples.
Let's resist another false argument similar to the altruism-denial above: that people feel that the initial benefit of their actions outweigh or equal the later incredibly harsh consequences. Self-mutilation can be a form of taking control when an individual feels they have none, but I've always felt Dostoevsky's notion of a "laceration" in The Brothers Karamazov was as accurate an explanation as any.
Acting against ones' own self-interest and to the detriment of society is, ultimately, a product of sin. People are not the rational actors Mill supposes them to be: they are morally flawed. In the words of St. Paul, "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."
At the risk of getting a little unfocused, I'd like to take issue with the following idea, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Hopefully, this will help me articulate a positive vision, rather than nitpick another's.
This isn't true, of course. Some scriptural evidence, again from Paul: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
So, argument one: Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is NOT sovereign, but rather subject to God.
Here comes argument two: The government is a legitimate tool of God's Will.
For the scriptural evidence of this, I again turn to Paul:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
If you think I'm overloading on St. Paul today, I can direct you to the old testament prophets Jonah and Daniel. The Babylonian captivity is another example of God working through states. Jesus also says that we should, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
I include this quote from Christ as a defense against what I imagine will be a popular criticism: this is the ultimate form of state oppression! How do we functionally decide which claims over our bodies the government can rightfully preside over, and which ones are our own choice? As this is the central question that "On Liberty" purports to answer, it would seem that we haven't made much progress at all.
Jesus' answer gives a good directive: the government cannot have authority over one's religious duty to God. Stated succinctly elsewhere:
"Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.'
Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'"
So there's that. If you follow some thinkers of the Enlightenment (our Founding Fathers among them), the government can morally be rebelled against when they have violated "inalienable rights" that their Creator has given them. These rights are an extension of those religious ones shown above. In most cases, they are legitimate extensions, though I'm stopping short of saying that God made our Constitution or that the LORD wants you to have an AK-47. According to our Declaration of Independence, "that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We've even gone so far as to codify these rights in our Bill of Rights. Note that none of them include the right to commit suicide, nor the right to self-destructive behavior.
In fact, a responsible government must prohibit these activities, if it is to "promote the general welfare". It's a matter of public health.
I have more to say later on Government and vaccinations, seatbelts, the environment, and other stuff, but I'll leave my criticism here. Pretty long for a first post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)