Nathan Key

It probably isn't surprising that I like limited, small government and I love free markets. But that doesn't mean that I want big, powerful businesses! Big business has a tendency to do the same things as big government- they become powerful enough that they need to focus on maintaining their own empire rather than doing good for the people. And when we have the Congress bailing out Wall Street and Wall Street whispering in the ear of the Congress- it's neither a free market, nor limited government.

Here's a short video about it:

Although I'm not part of the occupy wall street deal, I have to say that I am sympathetic to the problematic state we're in where a billionaire can snap his fingers and have a congressman in his office. Without that "1%" power, money, and influence the rest of us are left with much less effective interactions with our representatives; sending unread e-mails, letters, and phone calls up the chain that may or may not ever be heard by our representatives.

It's not fair.
I get it.

And if our roles were reversed- if I was the one with the money, power, and influence, I must admit that I'd probably be snapping my fingers and courting lawmakers, too. I might be asking for different things, sure, but I'd be using my power and influence to try to make the world a better place (as I see it).

Those with the money to buy their way into a congressional chamber aren't really the problem, however. There will always be people with a lot of money and they will always try to buy their way to an easy situation. That's just reality. I think the real problem/issue/question is this: are we electing candidates into political offices who are able to be bought by money, power, and influence? If we are electing someone who folds under the pressure of wealth, then we certainly need to extend some of the blame to ourselves.

When I was at church on Sunday, Dr. Joel Hunter reminded us that through Joseph's interpretations, Egypt undertook one of the largest social welfare endeavors: a great effort to put away food so that its own people and the people of the surrounding countries would not starve during the days of famine.

Dr. Hunter is rarely political, so it was a really interesting moment. And as he pointed out that when we assume that governments can never be right and never do good for their people- I realized that it would be a good idea not to get caught in a "never" or "always" mentality. And I probably also need to go back and re-read the latter part of Genesis with that lens in mind.

As a fairly libertarian-but-Christian individual, I have to say that it was one of the shortest defenses of government I've ever heard and probably the most provocative (in a good, thoughtful, and really "check your resolve against the scripture narrative" moments). I'm not going to jump ship from the limited government camp- but I'm going to think more about what governments can do to be "good."

As my co-worker Bill is fond of saying, "...corporate taxes don't exist."

Think about it.

Ultimately, businesses pay taxes from whatever profits they reap from us buying products, goods and services. Businesses rarely use a pricing model that reduces their profit margin and so the end result is that when you raise corporate taxes, companies just charge higher prices passing the taxes onto me and you; consumers.

I'm not saying that we should end the corporate taxes, but if we understand that we're the ones who eventually pay it- that it all ends up in our laps eventually when we buy goods and services- I think it will help us stop blaming "evil corporate America" and start thinking clearly about how to get out of the mess we've made of things.

As the national debt debate rages on with opinions on both sides as to how we should resolve matters, I’m wondering what ordinary citizens are doing about the debt crisis in their own homes? It’s easy to throw stones at politicians and posture what we'd be doing in their stead-- so let’s take a look at how we are actually handling our own borrowing, spending, and income!

1. What’s the difference between good debt and bad debt? Does good debt even exist?
2. Do you know how much money you are able to spend each week/month without overspending?
3. Are there ways to increase your own income?
4. Are there ways that you can reduce your personal expenses? What are you willing to give up in order to control your own debt?
5. Why do you think so many of us overspend in the first place?
   

Leave your thoughts in the comments or post a reply on twitter: #howihandledebt

1. We're ruthless to people we don't like

I'm literally shocked at some of the comments I've heard from people on Facebook and Twitter. These are decent people who are speaking as if they work for the mob:"I hope she gets hit in the head by a brick." / "Don't worry, someone will right this wrong...”  It's made me realize that we're just as close to murder as we think Casey is.

2. We're willing to break the law if we don't like the way the law works

Areas of the law that were meant to protect the innocent (proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for example) are easily traded in when we don't like the verdict. I've heard plenty of discussions this week about changing the requirements for the death penalty and convictions. I am glad that it takes a while to pass legislation, because I'd hate for a decision like that to be made in a moment of passion and regretted later.

3. We think we know more than anyone who doesn't agree with us

If you weren't actually on the jury, don't assume that you could have made a better decision than they did. We got to see the sound byte version of this trial with commentators and professional analysts giving us their assessments. The jury only had the evidence that was presented to them in court. If we had been sequestered as they were, we might be making the same decision they did.

4. Juries are very unpredictable

You just never know, do you? Sometimes juries make a decision that's expected and sometimes they don't. That's the beauty of humanity; you never can predict with certainty exactly how each decision will turn out.

5. CSI and Bones are not good examples of how the justice system works

There aren't really teams of people out there who can dig up a body that's been buried for months (or years) and be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what happened, when it happened, and who did it- all in the span of 44 minutes (or 22 minutes for shorter shows). Real science isn't always exact and can be interpreted different ways.

It's been too long since the President's State of the Union Address for this to be considered very relevant (it's certainly not timely), but I wanted to briefly admit that I actually agree with the President on some areas he feels the country needs to improve upon in order for us to remain competitive in the global community.

Innovation: I agree. I think we've always been a country that has enabled those who want to dream BIG do so. We've enjoyed a few hundred years of some of the most innovative ideas known to mankind and I think that our national, state, and local policies should be structured so that they encourage, rather than discourage, ideas and innovation.

Where we disagree is how to encourage and invigorate innovation. I don't think that nationally funded government research projects are the answer. President Obama seems to think that the private sector doesn't see R&D as important. I disagree. I think they'd spend a lot more time on R&D if we'd keep them out of the wings of Congress (aka, get rid of the Lobbyists) and force them to be productive and competitive again. Instead, they lay about in the halls of Congress steering policy instead of productivity.

I'm anti-business. NO! I'm very keen on the free market. I just don't think you can call it a free market if Big Business has the ability to hold our country hostage to the idea that they are "Too Big to Fail...". I disagree with big businesses being allowed to gain the ear of Congress and manipulate them into laws that make innovation and competitiveness more difficult for everyone (except big business). The repeal of a lot of regulation and restriction would encourage smaller businesses- local businesses- to become more innovative. The repeal of some regulations would actually devastate some of these "too big to fail" businesses and remove the stranglehold that they've created over our National Policy.

Education: I agree with the President here, as well. I think we've got a terrible situation on our hands in the United States. We need to improve our education system. This is one reason why my wife and I aren't interested in sending our children to public school.

But, I'm not certain the the Federal government needs to be in the education business. I think the businesses of America (and the world) should have more to say about what they need and how they think we can get it. I think we need to look into encouraging businesses to invest in the workforce (not taxed into it). When the baby-boomers are gone from the workforce in a few years, I think businesses across the country are going to be struggling to find the talent they need and very quickly there will be an incentive in creating a more talented pool to choose from.

Infrastructure: Oddly enough, most people think that Libertarians are anti-roads and law enforcement? I'm not. I agree that the infrasturcture of our country needs to be improved. Our airports are awful. Our roads stink. So do our rails.

But I also don't think that we need to push the country further into debt in order to fill in potholes. Again, I think there are more creative ways where businesses and other private investors help pick up the tab (of their own will) rather than creating national spending projects.

So, all in all- I actually enjoyed the vision that the President cast. I think these three areas of innovation, education, and infrastucture are very profitable and beneficial paths that we should pursue. I'm just not on board with the implemenation methods that he's suggesting to accomplish these tasks.

I saw an article this morning about Judy Clarke, a modest, humble (and high profile) public defender who has represented some of the most notorious, reviled killers of recent history. She will apparently be representing Jared Lee Loughner when he goes to trial and she had this to say about her philosophy:

"None of us, including those accused of a crime, wants to be defined by the worst moment, or the worst day of our lives." - Judy Clarke

The rest of the article details Clarke's humble dedication to defending anyone who needs her help in court- even the worst offenders.

What are your thoughts?
Are there any actions that are "LIFE DEFINING" or should our actions be judged independently?
Do vile criminals deserve to be defended?
Should public funds be used to provide lawyers in open and shut cases such as these?