This is going to be a difficult post/topic to write about without offending everyone.

So, I'm going to ask a question up front so that you'll participate in this thought experiment with me rather than have this post sound like a crazed attack on entitlements and programs that seem geared toward progress and empathy:

Since we can't continue to run a budget deficit indefinitely, what are some areas of government that we could/should cut back on or say farewell to (either permanently or temporarily until the economy improves)?

This question goes out to all political affiliations, not just Libertarians who are in favor of cutting just about every federal program there is...

Here are my top two, I'd love to hear yours as well.

1. War
At a trillion dollar price tag, so far, our efforts in Iraq (in particular) have become some of the most costly in the history of the world. So whether you believe our presence in Iraq is justified or not, we can't afford it any longer and we need to pull much of our resources out of that area before we find ourselves in Vietnam, the sequel.

2. The Space Program
If you recall from my previous post, I really do like the space program. I like Cable TV and Internet access, too- but they are obviously expenses that I could do without in my own home when finances get tight. Although there are a lot of scientific advancements and excitement surrounding the Space Program, it's not imperitive to our success as a country. So, I'd cut back (at the very least).

I pulled this quote from a yahoo article that my friend Matt posted yesterday:

"President Barack Obama is counting on his $787 billion stimulus of tax cuts and increased government spending on big public works projects to help bolster economic activity later this year."

* * *

One of my major complaints about the Bush Administration was that it held an economically unsustainable model of CUTTING TAXES and INCREASING SPENDING. Anyone who's ever done basic arithmetic should realize that continually cutting income while expenses continue to grow is the sort of thing that inevitably leads to debt.

And considering that our own national debt is in the trillions (and climbing), I firmly believe we've passed that threshold long ago and are now dabbling in financial risk that surpasses anything the world has ever seen.

I'm sure you'll recall that I'm no democrat, but I have argued somewhat favorably toward them in the past on the mere basis that they seem to know how to do basic math. They seemed to understand that when you increase spending you must increase taxes, too. Well, imagine my disappointment when I find out that this is apparently not President Obama's plan any longer. He has instead decided to follow the same lousy Bushinomic Principles by spending more and collecting less.

Man, I really hope someone reminds him that he's going to ruin us if he continues.

Now don't get me wrong- I wasn't looking forward to paying more taxes! I abhor the thought. I'd prefer the Libertarian model that cuts taxes AND government spending. But I still had this small bit of faith (and hope) that a change in the administration would bring about some sort of sensible financial policy that would balance our federal budget and begin reducing the national debt- even if it meant more taxes in the short term.

Well, I guess we can cross that dream out and throw it in the reality check file. And with this in mind, I'm going to continue to encourage my countrymen to look to a third parties in the future. Cause the "big two" just don't get it.

My good friend Tom and I don’t agree politically very often- so I’m really glad to be in his corner on the issue of the evils of the bailout money and the tragedy that our government is spending our tax dollars to salvage really awful, shortsighted, and greedy decisions within the financial district. I’m glad that we can also agree that the government has no right to keep a failing US Car industry afloat by stealing money from its citizens after they chose to support non-US brands instead.

While it’s shocking to me that we can throw out $700 billion at the financial district, I don’t really think that most people truly understand numbers this big. Billions of dollars are simply so much money that we can’t wrap our minds around it. We simply can’t garner the mental capacity to understand how much that really is.

And because we don’t really have the ability to wrap our mind around numbers that big, the media takes advantage of the situation and pulls data that makes us even more angry about the situation. Take, for example, the recent bonuses that AIG gave their upper tier executives. When we heard that they gave their executives Millions of Dollars in bonuses (paid out of the billions of bailout funds), it turned into hysteria.

Now, they’re reporting that $22 Million have been spent lobbying the government to relax some of the very restrictions that have been put in place to keep these sort of things from happening. We can’t help but freak out at this point. They’re seriously using MILLIONS that WE gave them to LOBBY for GREEDY ENDS?

-- HANG ON: I need to interject a side comment here for a moment to remind readers that I’m very much against restrictions and government intervention in the market, I think that Federal government should keep its head OUT of the private sector. But I also believe that corporations and big businesses have no right to buy off congress, either. When the government sticks its head into the market it’s almost always results in the kind of socialism that results in stagnation and poverty. When businesses (or religions) stick their head into government it almost always results in fascism and corporatism that results in stagnation and poverty. So, both are terrible. I wish they’d leave each other alone. :END of RANT --

OK, before we get too carried away, let’s stop our anger for a moment and put these monies into perspective.  $22 Million is a lot, right? Here’s what it looks like numerically:

$22,000,000.00

It’s a big number. More than any of us will probably see in our lifetime.
But let’s see how it stacks up against $700 Billion? Here's the two amounts next to each other.

$22,000,000.00
$700,000,000,000.00

OK, so $700 billion is obviously a lot bigger, right?

But these numbers are still so much bigger than the sort of money we're used to exchanging that it's still a bit hard to put these into perspective. So, let’s go back to 7th grade math for a moment and kill some of those extra zeros. This will result in a proportional set of numbers that are a little smaller- a little closer to what we might expect to interact with in our lifetimes.

$22
$700,000

These two sets of numbers are a little more manageable. I’ve spent $22 dollars within the past week.

But what about that $700,000?

I still feel like that sum is a little too big. It’s the cost of a really nice house rather than the sort of money that I’d be able to exchange on a frequent basis. So let’s make this number $700 instead. That’s more like the amount of money I might get in a paycheck (or paychecks depending on job).

$.02
$700.00

When we make these numbers comparable to what normal Americans interact with on a daily basis- it turns out to be about the same as a guy who takes his $700 paycheck (or to make the analogy even more pertinent takes a month’s worth of unemployment claims) and tries to put in his “2 cents” worth to a senator or representative.

Of course, the principle remains the same- “why would any of these businesses spend money that wasn’t theirs to begin with on things that are just going to make the public enraged?”

But when we put it in perspective these sums should actually beg a different question- Why does anyone need $700 BILLION dollars? What on earth did they do to get that far into debt that $22 million dollars of lobbying is comparably 2 cents- a sum so small that it doesn’t even seem to matter?

But another story here is that we need to be careful lest our heads and hearts and opinion be swayed by manipulated data from the media. Given the right perspective, it’s easy to believe things about certain individuals or governments or situations that aren’t actually the reality.

Take for example the “Swine Flu” thing that’s going around. Sure, we need to be careful because it’s a potentially lethal disease. But so is the regular flu. In fact, the regular flu kills off thousands of humans each year in the United States alone. So far there haven’t been ANY substantiated fatalities in the US from Swine Flu.

Which one is more dangerous? Which one should we truly be scared of?

Apparently, that doesn’t matter. The media needs to find a story that will make us tune into their broadcast. They need to create emotions and so they feed us swine flu hysteria and bring on their experts to remind us that the evil financial district is spending huge sums of money with the bailout we gave them.

Don’t get sucked in; do the math and check the facts.

And don’t freak out.

Taken from a letter written by Studdard Kennedy to his family during WW2 :

"The first prayer I want my son to learn to say for me is not, 'God, keep my Daddy safe', but 'God, make Daddy brave, and if he has hard things to do, make him strong to do them'.

Son, life and death don't matter, but right and wrong do.

Daddy dead is Daddy still. But Daddy dishonored before God is something to awful for words.

I suppose you'd like to put in something about safety too and Mother would like it too. Well, put it in afterwards, always afterwards. For it really doesn't matter as much as doing what is right."

* * *

Studdard Kennedy was a chaplain during the war. An unarmed para-military person, working on the front lines with the men who served our country during the Second World War.

Now, I've heard about the sort of firefights that went on during WW2 thanks to my grandfather's stories (as well as an endless supply of cinematic displays from Spielberg and others who are passionate about war movies) so I'm fairly certain that being a medic or a chaplain must be some of the most nerve-wracking roles in the military. You faced the same dangers as the rest of them- without being able to defend yourself against attack.

That's guts.

And I'd honor those guys even without letters like the one above. But when I see the contents of Kennedy's letter- I'm shaken. Oh to be like the men who place honor, goodness, bravery, and strength before safety. They want to be safe, sure- but never at the cost of the aforementioned attributes.

* * *

I don't know that I'm ever going to be in a war situation, but that doesn't lessen the impact of these words on my life.
I truly hope that my son will want me to be brave and strong rather than safe.
And even more than these- I pray that he'll want me to be good.

And I pray that I will be.

I’m sure that every community in the world is full of paradoxes and contradictions.

When we lived in Seattle, one that blew my mind was that the same folks who liked to attend Labor Union Rallies with slogans like “Cut a Tree, Save a Job” were also adamantly against cutting down trees because of the impact that harvesting lumber has on the environment.

What paradoxes and contradictions do you see in your own community?

So, I finally watched the film Slumdog Millionaire over the weekend. I suppose that I enjoyed it in the same way I enjoyed ‘Pursuit of Happyness'- with a delighted melancholy regarding the single-minded focus of the hero’s pursuit of his desire and the tragedies that continue to keep him from the woman he loves.

Within the framework of the story, however, were elements of Indian culture that aren’t often considered by Westerners. And I’d like to take a moment to explain my own political and religious response to Slumdog Millionaire.

Today, I'll begin with my Political Response...

When Governments Get Big, They Protect Themselves First

A few scenes in this film made it quite clear that the police and government agents (of this film) were not really around to “serve and protect” all citizens-only the interests of the powerful, wealthy, and elite. As agents of the government, they sat idly while women and children were slaughtered by religious zealots and later arrested the main character merely because a television host assumed he was cheating.

This film was, of course, a work of fiction but it rings true with reality. In most cases, a government’s primary concern is protecting those with the most power. And often, this means protecting themselves rather than the people they represent. Here in the United States, our founding fathers tried to combat this by creating a system of government that respects the rights of the individual rather over the rights of the conglomerate. In our system, every individual is (supposedly) treated according to the Universal Rights that were bestowed upon us because we are human (rather than our station in life or the family we were born into).

But our government hasn’t been content with that and we see that more and more they are gaining power and status. In the name of “protecting” our people, they can now arrest just about anyone at the airport (or on the street) who they deem to be a threat, rather than assuming innocence until proven guilty.

I firmly believe that big governments spell trouble for our republic. And the ones who stand to lose the most are those who are the poorest and weakest. Those with power and influence are even overlooked and mistreated here in a country that’s supposed to treat people fairly- so how on earth are they going to fair when we give the government more rights and control over those they govern?

Stay tuned tomorrow, for a religious response to Slumdog Millionaire!

* * *

Also, please be forewarned...

I couldn’t watch Slumdog Millionaire with my wife due to the violence against children within the film. None of the violence is condoned, but it’s pretty intense. Her maternal instincts set in and she had me turn it off.

Please take this into consideration before viewing the film, even though I'd recommend it.

"Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck...."
-Ron Paul

* * *

Each and every year on April 15th, everyone I know becomes a libertarian for the day. All the government programs and federally funded programs don’t mean jack when it comes time to cut a check and pay for it out of their own salaries.

All year long, my friends on the left rail on and on about the wonders of government programs and how incredibly horrific our country would be without them- but they don’t want to pay for them anymore than the next guy. If they did, they’d be putting a little extra money into the coffers of the IRS rather than looking for the loopholes.

Here’s my challenge to my Democrat, Socialist, and Lefty friends out there:

If you truly believe that the government is the best entity to provide for the needs of this country, go ahead and pay extra taxes this year.

But if you don’t- if you’re looking for ways to minimize your own tax obligation, please join me in reconsidering the role of government. Because from where I stand, if you can’t give them more than they ask of you, then it's pretty clear that you don’t really believe, in the depths of your heart, that government is the answer to the world’s problems.

Who Owns Property? This is a fundamental questions that must be answered before we can determining what the role of government is and how it will interact with the people it governs.

Is this shovel mine? Is it ours? Is it the government's?
Is this land mine? Is it ours? Is it the government's?
Is this education mine? Is it ours? Is it the government's?
Is this life mine? Is it ours? Is it the government's?

This Shovel is Mine:
If you find yourself saying that these things belong to an individual you're probably into individualism and you may even be leaning libertarian or toward classical republicanism. These folks believe that only the person who owns said property is entitled to said property.

Lately, I've heard a few of my colleagues bemoan the rights of the individual, passing blanket statements that make individualism come off as just plain greed in disguise. Just to be clear, while it’s tempting to depict those who believe in individual ownership as inherently greedy, this is a misnomer. For greed comes when one cannot be satisfied with what he already has. It means that he want more and more and no matter how much enters into his possession, he will never be able to say “That’s enough.”

An individual who is content with what he has IS NOT greedy. An individual who does everything in his power to amass more and more without ever finding satisfaction in his property IS greedy.

This Shovel is Ours:
But perhaps you find yourself siding with the second group of ownership descriptors. You might believe that everything on this earth belongs to everyone. This is generally how collectivist groups and socialists think. Modern Democrats may not view resources and property exactly this way, but it's pretty close. The idea of public land, public art, public funds, and the like are all within the realm of "ours."

For these folks, the idea of redistributing wealth is ideal because, after all, it belongs to everyone whether it's redistributed or not.

This Shovel is the Government's:
Lastly are those who believe that governments, organizations, monarchs, overseers, or other meta-entities are the ones who own everything. Those who agree with this mindset tend to be Fascists, or Corporate Fascists. Some of them even find landing points in some of the doctrine of the Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberal movements.

These folks truly believe that governments, establishments, and principalities are the best equipped to make decisions about what's right for the people they "serve."

Step One
Hand out taxpayer money to businesses who have mismanaged their capital interests, rewarding failure and maximizing the impending crash that comes when these companies fail anyway.

Step Two
Place pay restrictions on corporate executives, thereby crippling the potential of businesses who are on the brink of failure to attract top talent that might come up with some great ideas on how to turn things around. If they weren’t about to fail to begin with, this is a great way to speed up the process.

Step Three
Force out business executives who aren’t leading their companies the way you want them to. After all, who better to decide who gets to lead failing companies than a government that has managed to rack up the biggest national debt in the history of the world.

* * *

Now that we know these 3 easy steps, let's all take a moment to give thanks to the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration for getting us through them all in less than a year. The only thing left to do is sit back and wait for Stagflation and Poverty to rid the entire country of the “evils of capitalism.”

I’ve been getting a lot of hits on my site lately from people searching in Google for the difference between Ethics & Morality. They’re probably getting here to this site because of this post I wrote a few weeks ago. Because of this, I thought that I'd flush out my own opinion on the subject a little bit more today:

Ethics is a term that most people unfortunately use interchangeably for morals. What I mean is that when they say that they want or expect another person to “act ethically” what they’re saying is that somewhere deep inside of them, they believe there is a behavior code that other people are expected follow. This code is based on a number of things- religious beliefs, normative social behaviors, public policy, and cultural beliefs.

But that’s not Ethics.

Ethics is historically the pursuit of ‘the good life.’ It’s an ideal. It’s a theoretical. It’s a utopia of sorts that we hope to move toward as we make our world a better place. Thanks to Mills (although we can see the roots of this ideal as far back as Socrates), ethics is normally used on a macro level rather than an individual one. Basically, his theory of utility says that the highest good is when the greatest amount of peoples enjoy a happy life. Different ethical theories hardly ever counteract this matrix although there are plenty of disagreements regarding the semantics of what good, happiness, and the greatest amount mean.

A little current events application:

When we ask a business to act ethically (if we really mean ethically) we’re saying: “Do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people and make the most people happy as you can.”

Most people assume that this means that no one lies or disregards other people’s money- but in theory, if a business can prove that lying and cheating a bit leads to greater returns for the majority of the people, they might have grounds to claim that they are acting ethically (for the good of all) when they deceive us.

Let’s counteract this understanding of Ethics with a better understanding of Morality (or Morals).

I’ve come to believe that people often use word ethics rather than morals because morality has a religious overtone. Morality obviously elicits images of Morality Plays and other Catholic traditions. And since not all people agree on religious issues, it’s assumed that when we’re discussing the public sector (i.e. business or government) we need to use a more secular term. Now, it’s true the religion does play a big part in informing our morals. Since religious and cultural upbringing play a big part in what values we inherit, it follows that morals (loosely defined as an inherited understanding of right and wrong) tend to be at least tutored by religion if not overtly religious in nature (yes, even for the atheist).

But consider the phrase: “The moral of the story is…”

Take for instance, the old Aesop Fable of ‘The Tortoise and the Hare.’ The hare is expected to win because of his speed, but as the story progresses the determined tortoise overtakes him as he vainly takes a little nap. Victory goes to the tortoise and the “moral” (or lesson learned) is that those who work steadily rather than quickly and haphazardly are the ones who accomplish their goals.

 It’s within this example that I believe we find a much richer definition of morals/morality. Morals are the behaviors and expectations that we place on ourselves as a story or narrative progresses around us. Sure, this is partly religious because we learn from the stories of those who are in a religious community with us- but it’s also very secular.

Today, I drove passed a major wreck on the highway. Afterward, I began noticing all the little “Drive Safely” markers on the side of the road that are placed there after a fatal car accident. Believe me, my behavior and expectation was shaped in that moment. My “Morals” were adjusted and I slowed down a bit. The story/narrative of this road is that recklessness=death.

Let’s go back to the Business Example Again:

Suppose we asked Businesses to act morally in addition to ethically? Suppose we expected that as the story/narrative of history unfolds they should adjust their behavior to match?

From a young age, we’ve all learned that lies are (almost) always found out and the aftermath is generally more terrible than telling the truth in the first place. And if it wasn’t learned at a young age, within the past ten years we’ve seen plenty of businesses that were caught in lies and destroyed by them.

Asking a business to act morally, is to ask them to keep their eyes on those road markers and adjust their behavior accordingly. It’s expecting them to realize that there are certain behaviors (lying, cheating, stealing, killing) that simply don’t end well for anyone. Doing those things might make them a quick buck, but it’s rather short sighted if it ends up destroying their entire infrastructure over the course of time. It makes them like the Hare in Aesop’s Fable.

We need to be more like the Tortoise.

Summary:

Ethics is a theoretical pursuit of the good life (for as many people as possible) and morals are lessons learned and behaviors changed based on the story we find ourselves in. Asking someone (or a business or a government) to act ethically might not yield the results we want if we actually want them to act morally.